[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 155 (Monday, August 12, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39754-39756]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17124]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0744; FRL-9998-01-Region 9]


Air Plan Approval; Hawaii; Regional Haze Progress Report

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving 
Hawaii's Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report (``Progress Report'' or 
``Report''), submitted on October 20, 2017, as a revision to its state 
implementation plan (SIP). This SIP revision addresses requirements of 
the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'') and the EPA's rules that require 
states to submit periodic reports describing the progress toward 
reasonable progress goals (RPGs) established for regional haze and a 
determination of adequacy of the state's existing regional haze plan. 
The EPA is approving the Report on the basis that it addresses the 
progress report and adequacy determination requirements for the first 
implementation period for regional haze.

DATES: This rule is effective on September 11, 2019.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0744. All documents in the docket are 
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in 
the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as 
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov, or please 
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section for additional availability information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wienke Tax, Air Planning Office (AIR-
2), EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA, 94105; (415) 
947-4192; tax.wienke@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background Information
II. Public Comment
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    On April 11, 2019, the EPA published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to approve the Progress Report, submitted 
by the Hawaii Department of Health (DOH) on October 20, 2017.\1\ A 
detailed discussion of the Report and the EPA's rationale for approving 
the SIP revision is provided in the NPRM and will not be restated here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 84 FR 14634.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Public Comment

    The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period 
that ended on May 13, 2019. During this period, we received five 
anonymous comments, two of which were identical. The two identical 
comments and one additional comment expressed general support for our 
proposed approval of the Report but did not address the specifics of 
our proposal and are therefore not addressed below. All five comments 
are included in the docket for this rulemaking. We summarize the two 
more detailed comments below and provide our responses.
    Comment 1: The commenter states that Hawaii's Progress Report 
provides overwhelming evidence that Hawaii has successfully decreased 
human-generated emissions that contribute to the regional haze problem. 
The commenter points out that the Progress Report also states that 
point source emissions have increased 27 percent and that there have 
been significant increases in emissions from the ``Other Fire/
Prescribed Burning'' category. The commenter believes that the EPA 
should compare these statistics to existing economic data to examine 
whether these pollution increases are due to higher production rates or 
increased carelessness of businesses. The commenter goes on to say that 
if ``economic data claims that there has been a proportional increase, 
then Hawaii should implement incentives for companies that reduce 
emissions in future production.'' The commenter then asserts that ``if 
economic data states otherwise, Hawaii should adopt new business 
regulations that force companies to reduce emissions.'' The commenter 
believes these ``changes would further improve the results of the 
Hawaiian report--despite the already outstanding results.'' The 
commenter concludes that after this research has been conducted, the 
EPA should approve the Report due to many of the outlined benefits, but 
that the EPA should also help Hawaii adopt policies that reduce burning 
and point source pollution. Finally, the commenter asserts that global 
warming is a large issue in 2019 and taking small steps to correct the 
effects of this international issue would not be harmful.
    Response 1: We agree that Table 6.0-2, entitled ``Differences in 
Statewide Anthropogenic Nitrogen Oxide Emissions'' in the Hawaii 
Progress Report, which we reproduced in our proposed rulemaking as 
Table 5,\2\ indicates that there was a 27 percent increase in nitrogen 
oxide (NOX) emissions from point sources between 2005 and 
2011. However, we note that the same table indicates that total 
NOX emissions from all anthropogenic sources combined 
decreased by four percent over that time period. Similarly, while there 
were increases in emissions of NOX, sulfur dioxide 
(SO2) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) from the ``Other 
Fire/Prescribed Burning'' category between 2005 and 2011, there were 
overall decreases in anthropogenic NOX and SO2 
during the same period, and only a small (four percent) increase in 
anthropogenic VOC emissions.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 84 FR 14634, 14638.
    \3\ Id. at 14638, Tables 4-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, as both the Progress Report and our proposed 
rulemaking noted, the dominant visibility-impairing pollutant in 
Hawaii's Class I areas during the first planning period was 
SO2. Therefore, the EPA's reasonable progress analysis for 
Hawaii for the first planning period focused primarily on significant 
sources of SO2 and concluded that NOX emissions 
were a ``secondary concern'' during that period.\4\ Thus, even if 
NOX emissions were not declining in the first planning 
period, their effect on visibility was secondary compared to 
SO2 emissions during that period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 77 FR 31692, 31707.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the portion of the comment about global warming is not 
germane to the EPA's proposed action on Hawaii's Progress Report.
    Comment 2: The commenter asserts that the EPA should not approve

[[Page 39755]]

Hawaii's Progress Report and the negative declaration stating that 
further revision of the existing regional haze plan is not needed at 
this time. The commenter states that the dominant cause of visibility 
impairment in Hawaii's Class I areas is sulfate compounds, and that 
over 96 percent of the sulfate emissions are from Hawaii's volcano. The 
commenter asserts that the eruption of an active volcano is 
unpredictable, so the sulfate compounds in the air also vary year to 
year. The commenter states that the current plan may improve visibility 
in Class I this year, but it does not represent it will account for the 
following years. The commenter further states that the current method 
and control procedures are effective and reliable, but because the 
commenter considers Hawaii to be a ``high-risk'' area given the number 
of visitors, the commenter asserts that the EPA needs to be extremely 
careful with people's safety.
    Response 2: The commenter makes several distinct points. We agree 
with the commenter that volcanic eruptions are unpredictable and have 
year-to-year variability, resulting in variability in SO2 
emissions and sulfate-related visibility effects. However, Hawaii DOH 
does not have the ability to control or influence these emissions, and 
the goal of the regional haze program is to remedy visibility 
impairment resulting from man-made air pollution and does not require 
control of natural sources such as volcanoes. Therefore, we agree with 
Hawaii DOH's conclusion that ``the existing implementation plan 
requires no further substantive revision at this time in order to 
achieve established goals for visibility improvement and emissions 
reductions,'' and we find that Hawaii's conclusion is consistent with 
the Regional Haze Rule at 51.308(h)(1).
    Additionally, the commenter states that the current plan may 
improve visibility in Class I areas this year, but that the plan does 
not account for subsequent years. The Progress Report only addresses 
the first regional haze planning period which extends to 2018; a SIP 
revision covering the second regional haze implementation period ending 
in 2028 is due to the EPA by July 31, 2021.
    Finally, while we agree with the commenter regarding the importance 
of safety, it is important to note that the purpose of the regional 
haze program is to protect visibility. The CAA provides separate 
processes for addressing the health impacts of SO2, 
including the establishment of health-based national ambient air 
quality standards for SO2, the designation of areas as 
attainment or nonattainment based on ambient air quality data, and the 
development of SIPs to ensure attainment and maintenance of the 
SO2 standard.

III. Final Action

    For the reasons described in our responses to comments, the 
comments received do not alter our proposed determination that the 
Hawaii Progress Report addresses the progress report and adequacy 
determination requirements for the first implementation period for 
regional haze Therefore, the EPA is approving Hawaii's Regional Haze 
Progress Report, submitted by Hawaii DOH on October 20, 2017, as 
meeting the applicable requirements of the CAA and the federal Regional 
Haze Rule, as set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g), as a revision to the 
Hawaii SIP. The EPA is approving Hawaii's determination that the 
existing regional haze plan is adequate to meet the existing RPGs and 
requires no substantive revision as this time, as set forth in 40 CFR 
51.308(h).
    We have also determined that Hawaii fulfilled the requirements in 
40 CFR 51.308(i) regarding state coordination with federal land 
managers.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable 
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
    40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role 
is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of 
the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting 
federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond 
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review 
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because 
this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866;
     does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority 
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or 
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible 
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe 
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not 
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal 
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 
2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register.
    A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published 
in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined 
by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, 
petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the 
United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 
11, 2019. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of 
this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the 
purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a 
petition for judicial review may be filed,

[[Page 39756]]

and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This 
action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its 
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, 
Visibility, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: July 30, 2019.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX.
    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart M--Hawaii

0
2. Section 52.620, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an 
entry for ``State of Hawaii Air Pollution Control Implementation Plans 
for Regional Haze,'' after the entry for ``Section XIV--Resources'' to 
read as follows:


Sec.  52.620   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                            EPA-Approved Non-Regulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Applicable
                                       geographic or        State
      Name of SIP provision         nonattainment area    submittal     EPA approval date        Explanation
                                     or title/subject        date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  State of Hawaii Air Pollution Control Implementation Plans for Regional Haze
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hawaii State Department of Health  State-wide..........   10/20/2017  8/12/2019 [Insert
 5-Year Regional Haze Progress                                         Federal Register
 Report for Federal                                                    Citation].
 Implementation Plan, excluding
 Appendix H, I and J.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

0
3. Section 52.633 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  52.633   Visibility protection.

* * * * *
    (e) Approval. On October 20, 2017, the Hawaii Department of Health 
submitted the ``Hawaii State Department of Health 5-Year Regional Haze 
Progress Report for Federal Implementation Plan'' (``Progress 
Report''). The Progress Report meets the requirements of the Regional 
Haze Rule in 40 CFR 51.308.

[FR Doc. 2019-17124 Filed 8-9-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


