Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of Arizona; Pinal County and Gila County; Pb, 25077-25084 [2014-10116]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules
proposed rule only applies to gasoline,
diesel, and renewable fuel producers,
importers, distributors and marketers
and merely proposes to revise the 2013
cellulosic biofuel standard to reflect
actual production in 2013 for the RFS
program.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism
implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132. This action
proposes to revise the 2013 annual
cellulosic biofuel standard for the RFS
program and only applies to gasoline,
diesel, and renewable fuel producers,
importers, distributors and marketers.
Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not
apply to this rule.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This action does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000). This proposed rule will be
implemented at the Federal level and
affects transportation fuel refiners,
blenders, marketers, distributors,
importers, exporters, and renewable fuel
producers and importers. Tribal
governments would be affected only to
the extent they purchase and use
regulated fuels. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this action.
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only
to those regulatory actions that concern
health or safety risks, such that the
analysis required under section 5–501 of
the EO has the potential to influence the
regulation. This action is not subject to
EO 13045 because it does not establish
an environmental standard intended to
mitigate health or safety risks and
because it implements specific
standards established by Congress in
statutes (section 211(o) of the Clean Air
Act).
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This action is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ as defined in Executive
Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:27 May 01, 2014
Jkt 232001
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66
FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. This action simply proposes
to revises the 2013 annual cellulosic
standard for renewable fuel under the
RFS program.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law
104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (e.g.,
materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted
by voluntary consensus standards
bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations
when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary
consensus standards.
This proposed rulemaking does not
involve technical standards. Therefore,
EPA is not considering the use of any
voluntary consensus standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR
7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal
executive policy on environmental
justice. Its main provision directs
federal agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this
proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on minority or low-income populations
because it does not affect the level of
protection provided to human health or
the environment. This action does not
relax the control measures on sources
regulated by the RFS regulations and
therefore will not cause emissions
increases from these sources.
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
25077
V. Statutory Authority
Statutory authority for this proposed
action comes from section 211 of the
Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7545.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80
Administrative practice and
procedure, Air pollution control, Diesel
fuel, Environmental protection, Fuel
additives, Gasoline, Imports, Oil
imports, Petroleum, Renewable fuel.
Dated: April 22, 2014.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2014–10134 Filed 5–1–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 81
[EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0266; FRL–9910–31–
Region–9]
Designation of Areas for Air Quality
Planning Purposes; State of Arizona;
Pinal County and Gila County; Pb
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
Pursuant to section 107(d)(3)
of the Clean Air Act, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
redesignate the Hayden area in Arizona,
which encompasses portions of
southern Gila and eastern Pinal
counties, from ‘‘unclassifiable’’ to
‘‘nonattainment’’ for the 2008 national
ambient air quality standards for lead
(Pb). EPA’s proposal to redesignate the
Hayden area is based on recorded
violations of the Pb standards at the
Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality’s (ADEQ’s) Globe Highway
monitoring site, located near the towns
of Hayden and Winkleman, Arizona,
and additional relevant air quality
information. The effect of this action
would be to redesignate the Hayden area
to nonattainment for the Pb standards
and thereby to impose certain planning
requirements on the State of Arizona to
reduce Pb concentrations within this
area, including, but not limited to, the
requirement to submit, within 18
months of redesignation, a revision to
the Arizona state implementation plan
that provides for attainment of the Pb
standards as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than five years
after the date of redesignation to
nonattainment.
SUMMARY:
Any comments must arrive by
June 2, 2014.
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\02MYP1.SGM
02MYP1
25078
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Submit comments,
identified by docket number EPA–R09–
OAR–2014–0266, by one of the
following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal:
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions.
2. Email: vagenas.ginger@epa.gov.
3. Mail or deliver: Ginger Vagenas
(Air-2), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, CA 94105–3901.
Instructions: All comments will be
included in the public docket without
change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Information that
you consider CBI or otherwise protected
should be clearly identified as such and
should not be submitted through
www.regulations.gov or email.
www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous
access’’ system, and EPA will not know
your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send email
directly to EPA, your email address will
be automatically captured and included
as part of the public comment. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Docket: The index to the docket for
this action is available electronically at
www.regulations.gov and in hard copy
at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, California. While
documents in the docket are listed in
the index, some information may be
publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material,
large format or voluminous documents),
and some may not be publicly available
in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect
the hard copy materials, please schedule
an appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ginger Vagenas, EPA Region IX, (415)
972–3964, vagenas.ginger@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
ADDRESSES:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. EPA’s Decision To Address Pb Violations
Monitored in the Hayden Area Through
Redesignation
III. State of Arizona’s Recommendation and
EPA’s Analysis
IV. Proposed Action and Request for Public
Comment
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:27 May 01, 2014
Jkt 232001
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
EPA revised the primary (healthbased) Pb national ambient air quality
standard (NAAQS) on October 15, 2008,
lowering it from the 1.5 micrograms per
cubic meter (mg/m3) level set in 1978 to
a level of 0.15 mg/m3. The secondary
(welfare-based) standard was revised to
be identical in all respects to the
primary standard. See 73 FR 66964,
November 12, 2008. An area violates the
revised standards if any arithmetic 3month mean (hereafter referred to as
‘‘average’’) concentration measured
within the preceding three years is
greater than 0.15 mg/m3. EPA also
expanded the Pb monitoring network by
requiring new monitors to be sited near
sources emitting one ton or more of Pb
per year by January 1, 2010 and in
certain non-source oriented locations by
January 1, 2011.
Section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA or ‘‘Act’’) establishes a process for
making initial area designations when a
NAAQS is revised. In general, states are
required to submit designation
recommendations to EPA within one
year of promulgation of a new or revised
standard and EPA is required to
complete initial designations within two
years of promulgation. However, if EPA
has insufficient information to
promulgate designations, it can extend
the period for initial designations for up
to one year. For the initial designations
for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, data from preexisting monitors provided sufficient
information to make some designations
within the two-year timeframe. Because
other areas would not have monitoring
data until after the newly required
monitors were in place, EPA decided to
promulgate initial designations for the
Pb NAAQS in two separate actions. The
first round of designations (promulgated
November 16, 2010 (75 FR 71033,
November 22, 2010)) included areas
with sufficient monitoring information
at the time to determine nonattainment;
the second round (promulgated
November 8, 2011 (76 FR 72097,
November 22, 2011)) included all other
areas.
On December 15, 2009, in accordance
with the process set out in CAA section
107(d)(1), Arizona submitted its
recommended designations for the
revised standard to EPA. At that time,
ambient air quality data collected by
EPA Region 9’s Superfund Division
from a monitor sited at the Hayden
Maintenance Building, located just west
of the ASARCO copper concentrate and
smelting facility, indicated that the
Hayden area was violating the new
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
standard.1 Arizona recommended that
EPA promulgate an unclassifiable/
attainment designation for most of the
State, but recommended that EPA delay
designating the Hayden area because the
Asarco Hayden copper smelter
(ASARCO), the source of Pb emissions
in the area, had committed to improve
its control of Pb emissions. Arizona
further recommended that if the Hayden
area continued to violate the Pb NAAQS
on or after March 2010, it should be
designated nonattainment.
Subsequently, ADEQ recommended that
if EPA were to determine that monitored
concentrations in the Hayden area were
exceeding the standard, the EPA should
follow the Governor’s recommendation
to promulgate a lead nonattainment area
with boundaries identical to the Hayden
sulfur dioxide nonattainment area
boundaries with respect to State lands.2
In 2010, in conjunction with the
initial designations for the 2008 Pb
NAAQS, EPA undertook a technical
analysis for the Hayden, Arizona area to
evaluate the available air quality data
and to determine whether the boundary
recommended by the State encompassed
the area that did not meet, or that
contributed to ambient air quality in the
area that did not meet, the 2008 Pb
standard, consistent with section
107(d)(1)(A). The analysis identified the
monitor that was violating the newly
revised standard and evaluated nearby
areas for contributions to ambient lead
concentrations in the area.3 EPA
evaluated the surrounding area based on
the weight of evidence of the following
factors recommended in previous EPA
guidance:
• Air quality in potentially included
versus excluded areas;
• Emissions and emissions-related
data in areas potentially included versus
excluded from the nonattainment area,
including population data, growth rates
and patterns and emissions controls;
• Meteorology (weather and transport
patterns);
• Topography (surface features such
as mountain ranges or other air basin
boundaries);
• Jurisdictional boundaries (e.g.,
counties, air districts, and reservations);
and
• Any other relevant information
submitted to or collected by EPA.
1 Values from July, August, and September 2008
resulted in a 3-month average design value of 0.17
mg/m3 at the Hayden Maintenance Building
monitor.
2 Letter (with enclosure) from Benjamin H.
Grumbles, Director, ADEQ, to Laura Yoshii, Acting
Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region 9, dated
December 17, 2009.
3 See the 2010 draft technical support document
entitled ‘‘ARIZONA, Area Designations for the 2008
Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards.’’
E:\FR\FM\02MYP1.SGM
02MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Based on our consideration of
available air quality data and the factors
listed above, EPA determined that a
designation of nonattainment was
appropriate and that the Hayden area
boundaries recommended by the State
in 2009 encompassed the entire area
that did not meet (or that contributed to
ambient air quality in a nearby area that
did not meet) the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
Accordingly, in a letter dated June 14,
2010, EPA notified Arizona that we
intended to designate the Hayden area
nonattainment for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.4
EPA subsequently published a notice
in the Federal Register providing an
opportunity for the public to comment
on our intended designations (75 FR
39254, July 8, 2010). Commenters
challenged our proposal to designate the
Hayden area nonattainment and
asserted that the monitoring data we
relied upon (i.e., the data collected at
the Superfund Divison’s Hayden
Maintenance Building site), was not
collected in accordance with applicable
quality assurance and quality control
(‘‘QA/QC’’) requirements. Based on our
evaluation of the monitoring data issues
raised in these comments, we
determined that we did not have
sufficient information to promulgate a
nonattainment designation for the
Hayden area at that time. Accordingly,
we delayed our designation for the
Hayden area until the final round of
designations, slated for the following
year.
On November 8, 2011, EPA completed
its initial designations for the revised Pb
standard.5 Most of Arizona was
designated unclassifiable/attainment for
the Pb NAAQS. We designated the
Hayden area, with the boundaries
Arizona recommended,6 as
unclassifiable rather than nonattainment
because there were available monitoring
data recorded at ADEQ’s new Globe
Highway monitoring site indicating a
significant likelihood that the area was
violating the 2008 Pb NAAQS, but the
available information was insufficient at
that time to make a nonattainment
designation.7 In our letter to Governor
Brewer notifying her of our action, EPA
4 Letter from Jared Blumenfeld, Regional
Administrator, U.S. EPA, Region 9, to Janice K.
Brewer, Governor of Arizona, dated June 14, 2010.
5 See 76 FR 72097, November 22, 2011.
6 See 40 CFR 81.303 for a legal description of the
boundary of the Hayden area.
7 Because of the form of the 2008 Pb NAAQS, one
3-month average ambient air concentration over
0.15 mg/m3 is enough to cause a violation of the Pb
NAAQS. ADEQ’s Globe Highway monitor registered
four violations in 2011; however, at the time of
designation the data had not been quality assured
and certified and therefore could not be relied upon
as the basis for a nonattainment designation.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:27 May 01, 2014
Jkt 232001
explained that, should we subsequently
determine that the lead standards were
being violated, we would initiate the
process to redesignate the Hayden area
to nonattainment.8
II. EPA’s Decision To Address Pb
Violations Monitored in the Hayden
Area Through Redesignation
The CAA grants EPA the authority to
change the designation of, or
‘‘redesignate,’’ areas in light of changes
in circumstances. More specifically EPA
has the authority under CAA section
107(d)(3) to redesignate areas (or
portions thereof) on the basis of air
quality data, planning and control
considerations, or any other air qualityrelated considerations.
Table 1, below, presents a summary of
the latest available quality-assured Pb
monitoring data from the State-operated
monitor (ADEQ’s Globe Highway
monitor). A map showing the location of
the monitor is included in our
Technical Support Document (EPA
TSD), which is contained in the docket
for this rulemaking.
25079
area stemmed from review of the quality
assured, certified monitoring data that
indicate that three-month rolling
average values violated the Pb standards
for February–April, March–May, and
April–June 2012. In light of the
violations of the Pb standard recorded
in 2012 at ADEQ’s Globe Highway
monitor, EPA concluded that the SIP
planning and control requirements that
are triggered by redesignation of an area
to nonattainment for the Pb NAAQS
would be the most appropriate means to
ensure that this air quality problem is
remedied.
Section III of this document describes
the State of Arizona’s 2013
recommendation with respect to this
proposed redesignation to
nonattainment and summarizes EPA’s
review of both the State’s
recommendation and additional
relevant information, and our
conclusions based on that review.
Section IV describes our proposed
action and the corresponding CAA
planning requirements that would
thereby be triggered.
TABLE 1—2012 PB DESIGN VALUES
III. State of Arizona’s Recommendation
(DVS, μG/M3), ADEQ’S GLOBE and EPA’s Analysis
HIGHWAY MONITOR (AQS ID 04–
Monitoring Data
007–1002)
3-month period
2012 DVs
Nov–Dec–Jan ...............................
Dec–Jan–Feb ...............................
Jan–Feb–Mar ................................
Feb–Mar–Apr ................................
Mar–Apr–May ...............................
Apr–May–Jun ................................
May–Jun–Jul .................................
Jun–Jul–Aug .................................
Jul–Aug–Sep ................................
Aug–Sep–Oct ...............................
Sept–Oct–Nov ..............................
Oct–Nov–Dec ...............................
0.07
0.14
0.15
0.20
0.16
0.20
0.15
0.14
0.12
0.11
0.09
0.06
* Data pulled from AQS on March 31, 2014.
As shown in Table 1, the ADEQ’s
Globe Highway monitor recorded three
violations in 2012. An area violates the
revised standards if any arithmetic 3month average concentration is greater
than 0.15 mg/m3. The NAAQS is met if
an area does not measure any
exceedances of the standard for three
consecutive calendar years.
On June 12, 2013, under CAA section
107(d)(3)(A), EPA notified the Governor
of Arizona that the designation for
Hayden should be revised. EPA’s June
2013 decision to initiate the
redesignation process for the Hayden
8 Letter from Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator, U.S.
EPA, to Janice K. Brewer, Governor of Arizona,
dated November 8, 2011.
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Pursuant to section 107(d)(3)(B) of the
Act, on September 25, 2013, the
Governor of Arizona responded to EPA’s
June 12, 2013 notification that the
Hayden area should be redesignated to
nonattainment for the Pb NAAQS.
Governor Brewer recommended that the
Hayden area not be redesignated to
nonattainment ‘‘because there have been
no lead [Pb] standard violations since
June 2012, when the ASARCO Hayden
Copper Smelter completed the addition
of controls to reduce lead emissions.’’ 9
The Governor acknowledged that if
additional violations of the 2008 Pb
NAAQS occur, a designation to
nonattainment for the Pb standard
would be appropriate and that in such
a case, the Pb nonattainment area
boundaries should be identical to the
Hayden sulfur dioxide (SO2)
nonattainment area boundaries, as
recommended in her December 15, 2009
letter.10 11
9 Letter from Janice K. Brewer, Governor of
Arizona, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional
Administrator, U.S. EPA Region 9, dated September
25, 2013.
10 The boundaries of the SO nonattainment area
2
and the Pb unclassifiable area are identical.
11 The Governor explicitly excludes Indian
country, which is appropriate given that the State
of Arizona is not authorized to administer programs
under the CAA in the affected Indian country.
E:\FR\FM\02MYP1.SGM
02MYP1
25080
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules
In support of the Governor’s
recommendation, ADEQ submitted to
EPA a technical support document
entitled, ‘‘Relationship Between
Ambient Sulfur Dioxide and Lead
Concentrations’’ 12 (ADEQ 2013 TSD).
The ADEQ 2013 TSD examines the
relationship between ambient
concentrations of SO2 and Pb over time.
ADEQ asserts that there is a very strong
relationship between the two pollutants,
but that the separation between the SO2
concentrations and Pb concentrations
increased after July 2012, which they
attribute to a decrease in Pb emissions
due to new controls. The document
states that ambient SO2 concentrations
were approximately 263 times that of Pb
during the period of January 15, 2011 to
June 30, 2012. From July 1, 2012 to June
30, 2013, the average SO2/Pb ratio
changed to approximately 719. ADEQ
points to this ‘‘abrupt change’’ in the
ratio of SO2 to Pb concentrations that
occurred around July 2012 as evidence
that the Pb emissions controls installed
at that time have reduced the ambient
concentrations of Pb. ADEQ concludes
that, ‘‘[w]hile it is believed that the
installed control devices were effective
in reducing the ambient Pb
concentrations in Hayden, AZ,
additional data would be needed to
verify that the Globe Highway Pb
monitor continues to attain the Pb
NAAQS.’’ 13
EPA has reviewed the Governor’s
recommendation and ADEQ’s 2013 TSD
and concurs with the statement that
ADEQ’s Globe Highway monitor has not
measured a violation since July of 2012.
However, given the form of the Pb
NAAQS, in order to be considered to be
attaining the standard an area must have
three years of valid air quality data
without any violations of the 2008 Pb
NAAQS.14 As shown in Table 1, the
most recent certified monitoring data
collected at ADEQ’s Globe Highway
monitor near the ASARCO facility show
three violations of the 2008 Pb NAAQS
in 2012. Accordingly, we also concur
with ADEQ’s conclusion that the data
gathered thus far by the ADEQ Globe
Highway monitor are not sufficient to
determine that the area has attained the
NAAQS.
Other Air Quality-Related
Considerations
In addition to certified data from 2012
collected at the ADEQ Globe Highway
Monitor, EPA has evaluated monitoring
data collected in calendar year 2013.
Because these data have not yet been
certified as being completely submitted
and accurate, we present data from 2013
as supplemental information for this
action.
As of March 31, 2014, data through
December 31, 2013 from ADEQ’s Globe
Highway monitor (04–007–1002) are
available in EPA’s Air Quality System
(AQS) database. According to the
preliminary data from the ADEQ Globe
Highway monitor, no three-month
rolling averages from 2013 have violated
the Pb NAAQS, although two monthly
averages from 2013 (March and June)
were above the 0.15 mg/m3 level of the
Pb NAAQS. See Table 2.
TABLE 2—PRELIMINARY 2013 DATA FROM ASARCO’S MONITORING NETWORK AND ADEQ’S GLOBE HIGHWAY MONITOR
[Pb Concentrations (μg/m 3)]
ASARCO monitors
January 2013 monthly average ...............
Nov 2012–Jan 2013 3 month average ....
February 2013 monthly average ..............
Dec 2012–Feb 2013 3 month average ....
March 2013 monthly average ..................
Jan–March 2013 3 month average ..........
April 2013 monthly average .....................
Feb–Apr 2013 3 month average ..............
May 2013 monthly average .....................
Mar–May 2013 3 month average ............
June 2013 monthly average ....................
Apr–Jun 2013 3 month average ..............
July 2013 monthly average ......................
May–Jul 2013 3 month average ..............
Aug 2013 monthly average ......................
Jun–Aug 2013 3 month average .............
Sept 2013 monthly average .....................
Jul-Sep 2013 3 month average ...............
Oct 2013 monthly average ......................
Aug–Oct 2013 3 month average .............
Nov 2013 monthly average ......................
Sep–Nov 2013 3 month average .............
Dec 2013 monthly average ......................
Oct–Dec 2013 3 month average .............
Parking
Lot
ST–23
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Hillcrest
Ave.
ST–14
ST–26
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
0.096
....................
0.185
....................
0.115
0.13
0.115
0.14
0.346
0.19
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
0.664
....................
0.289
....................
0.257
0.40
1.396
0.65
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
0.183
....................
0.096
....................
0.069
....................
0.124
0.10
....................
....................
12 Letter (with enclosure) from Eric C. Massey,
Director, Air Quality, ADEQ, to Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region 9, dated
October 4, 2013.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:27 May 01, 2014
Jkt 232001
Post
Office
13 ADEQ
Winkelman
HS
Globe
Highway
Globe Highway—ADEQ
ST–26
co-located
ST–02
ST–05
(04–007–
1002)
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
0.118
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
0.015
....................
0.016
....................
0.015
0.02
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
0.063
....................
0.078
....................
0.019
0.05
....................
....................
2013 TSD, page 4.
from calendar year 2013 have not yet been
certified as being complete and accurate, and are
14 Data
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4702
ADEQ
monitor
Sfmt 4702
0.063
0.04
0.049
0.04
0.170
0.09
0.112
0.11
0.062
0.11
0.183
0.12
0.081
0.11
0.069
0.11
0.045
0.06
0.055
0.06
0.021
0.04
0.01
0.03
therefore considered to be supplemental data for
this action. This certification is due by May 1, 2014
pursuant to 40 CFR 58.15.
E:\FR\FM\02MYP1.SGM
02MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
In July 2013, ASARCO installed and
began collecting monitoring data from a
new network of ambient monitors
surrounding the facility.15 Because the
ASARCO data are preliminary, EPA has
evaluated the use of this set of
secondary data by considering trends,
gradients, and the magnitude of
measured concentrations relative to the
standard.
The new monitoring network includes
a monitor (Globe Highway-ASARCO)
located 14 meters southwest of ADEQ’s
Globe Highway monitor. Preliminary,
uncertified data from both the ADEQ
Globe Highway monitor and the Globe
Highway-ASARCO monitor are
available for September–November
2013. The Globe Highway-ASARCO
monitor measured approximately 0.017
mg/m3 higher on average than ADEQ’s
Globe Highway monitor. While the two
monitors measured slightly different
values, they trend well with one
another. See Figure 9 of EPA’s TSD.
Given the complex terrain in the ravine
where these monitors are located, winds
may be affecting these monitors
differently. The different values
measured at the two monitors may also
be a result of minor differences in
approved analytical procedures that
result in lower values from the ADEQ
monitor.16
Of the five new ASARCO Pb
monitors, the three monitors sited to the
west and to the southwest of the facility
show higher averages than the Globe
Highway-ASARCO monitor during the
period of overlap. In September, the
monthly averages for the Post Office,
Hillcrest Avenue, and Parking Lot
monitors were 1.5 to 4.5 times higher
than the monthly average for the Globe
Highway-ASARCO monitor. The two
complete three-month averages reported
15 ASARCO’s monitors were sited in accordance
with 40 CFR 58. See Figure 8 of EPA’s TSD for a
map showing the locations of the ASARCOoperated monitors.
16 In reviewing the analytical procedures
employed by the laboratory performing analysis on
the ADEQ filters (Pima County Regional Wastewater
Reclamation Department Compliance & Regulatory
Affairs Office (CRAO) Laboratory) and the
laboratory performing analysis on the ASARCO
filters (Inter-Mountain Laboratories (IML)), EPA
found that the sample preparation step differed
between the two laboratories. While both
laboratories followed approved Federal Equivalent
Methods (FEMs), EPA recommended that CRAO
review its sample preparation method to determine
if additional best practices may be appropriate.
Initial analyses by CRAO indicate employing
additional best practices may yield results of
approximately 11% more lead per sample. The
laboratory analytical procedures were otherwise
found to be comparable. See Memorandum ‘‘Review
of Laboratory Procedures to Address Accuracy
Concerns for Inter-Laboratory Bias for the Asarco
Superfund Site,’’ from Joe Eidelberg and Mathew
Plate, to Gwen Yoshimura and John Hillenbrand,
U.S. EPA Region 9. March 31, 2014.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:27 May 01, 2014
Jkt 232001
to date at the Parking Lot monitor are
well over the standard, at 0.40 mg/m3 for
August–October 2013, and 0.65 mg/m3
(more than four times over the standard)
for September–November 2013. The
three-month average from September–
November 2013 at the Hillcrest Avenue
monitor was also over the standard, at
0.19 mg/m3. These elevated levels
indicate that while ADEQ’s Globe
Highway monitor appears to be
recording levels below the standard,
other locations around the smelter that
the public has access to are
experiencing higher concentrations. See
Table 2.
Given that lead is heavy and expected
to fall out of the air quickly, lead
concentrations would generally be
highest next to the facility and near
specific facility operations that produce
point or fugitive source emissions. An
exception to this would be if the main
emission point was through a tall stack
at high temperatures, resulting in the air
mass remaining buoyant for a time
before falling out to breathing-level
heights. The data collected by the
ASARCO monitors show concentrations
decreasing as one moves from the
monitors closest to the facility (i.e., the
Parking Lot, Hillcrest Avenue, and Post
Office monitors) to those farther away
(i.e., the Globe Highway and Winkelman
High School monitors), indicating that
fugitives or other non-stack emissions
might have more significant air quality
impacts on the neighborhood
surrounding the facility than stack
emissions.17 The Hillcrest Avenue and
Parking Lot monitors, both to the
southwest of the facility and close to
materials handling activities, also trend
well with one another (see Figure 10 of
the EPA TSD).
EPA and ADEQ have discussed the
challenge of siting a single, sourcespecific monitor that will capture the
maximum ambient concentration of Pb,
given the complex meteorology and
topography found in the Hayden area.
While the ADEQ Globe Highway site
was chosen to capture the maximum
concentration using the information
available at the time,18 this recent
information gathered by ASARCO’s
more extensive monitoring network
indicates that higher ambient
concentrations of Pb exist elsewhere in
the Hayden area. Given the strong
trends and gradient apparent from the
available preliminary data, and that
preliminary data collected after the
Table 7 of the TSD.
Assurance Program Plan for the Lead
(Pb) Ambient Air Monitoring Network, Attachment
A. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality,
October 2011.
25081
controls on anode furnaces were
installed indicate two of the ASARCO
monitors are measuring violations of the
Pb standard (the parking lot monitor is
over four times the standard), the
secondary data support our decision to
redesignate the area to nonattainment.
Boundary of the Hayden Area
In conjunction with the initial
designations for the 2008 Pb NAAQS,
states submitted recommendations to
EPA regarding the status (i.e.,
attainment, unclassifiable, or
nonattainment) and boundaries for areas
within each state. CAA section
107(d)(1)(A) generally defines a
nonattainment area as any area that does
not meet, or that contributes to ambient
air quality in a nearby area that does not
meet, the national primary or secondary
ambient air quality standard for the
relevant pollutant. For areas with a
violating monitor, the county boundary
was the default boundary of the
nonattainment area. States could,
however, recommend an alternative as
long as the proposed nonattainment area
boundaries encompassed the entire area
that did not meet, and any nearby area
that contributed to ambient air quality
in the area that did not meet, the 2008
Pb NAAQS. In general, factors such as
emissions, air quality, and meteorology
were particularly relevant in
determining appropriate boundaries.
States also were able to take into
account jurisdictional considerations
when establishing an area’s
boundaries.19
As noted in the Background section
above, in 2009 Arizona recommended
that EPA defer designation of the
Hayden area, and stated that if EPA
were to determine monitored
concentrations were exceeding the Pb
NAAQS, EPA should promulgate a Pb
nonattainment area with boundaries
identical to the Hayden SO2
nonattainment area.20 In 2010, we
undertook a technical analysis of the
State’s recommended boundary, and
determined it encompassed all areas
that appeared to be violating or
contributing to violations of the Pb
NAAQS in the Hayden area. In 2011, we
designated the Hayden area, with the
boundaries the Governor recommended,
as unclassifiable because data indicating
violations of the 2008 Pb NAAQS were
preliminary at the time final
designations were due under the CAA.
For this action, we have reviewed
and, where appropriate, updated our
17 See
18 Quality
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
19 See
76 FR 72097 at 72102.
basis for Arizona’s recommended
boundary is discussed in ADEQ’s 2009 boundary
recommendation technical support document.
20 The
E:\FR\FM\02MYP1.SGM
02MYP1
25082
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules
2010 analysis of relevant factors related
to establishing an appropriate
nonattainment area boundary. A brief
summary of the key factors in the
Hayden Area boundary analysis is
included below.
Air Quality Data
For this factor, we considered the Pb
design values for air quality monitors in
the Hayden area and the surrounding
area based on certified 2010–2012 data.
Of the five State-operated Pb monitors
located throughout Arizona that
collected data within this time period,
only the ADEQ Globe Highway monitor,
located near the ASARCO Hayden
copper smelter, measured violations of
the Pb NAAQS. The design values for
the remaining monitors, which are
located outside the Hayden area, are
well below the standard.
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Emissions and Emissions-Related Data
Sources of Pb emissions located in
areas surrounding the violating monitor
were evaluated to determine whether a
nearby area is contributing to monitored
violations. Because of the significant
distance, and in most cases, relatively
low levels of emissions, we do not
believe sources outside the Hayden area
boundary are causing or contributing to
Pb NAAQS violations in Hayden.
Topography
This factor takes into account the
physical features of the land that might
have an effect on the air shed, and
therefore on the distribution of Pb in the
Hayden area. The ASARCO Hayden
copper smelter is located in very
complex terrain, which forms natural
boundaries. Mountainsides limit the
extent of the area exceeding the Pb
standard to a relatively small area
around the smelter, which is the main
source of Pb emissions. For the same
reason, locations outside the area do not
contribute to NAAQS exceedances
within it.21 The topography of the area
supports retention of the existing area
boundary.
Based on our technical analysis and
currently available information, EPA
concurs with the State’s
recommendation that the area’s existing
boundary remain unchanged. For a
more detailed discussion, see the TSD
for this action, which is included in the
docket.
Conclusion
EPA has considered the information
provided by ADEQ and agrees that
preliminary data suggest that the
21 Because of the constraints imposed by the
terrain, meteorology does not play a significant role
in determining the boundary for this area.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:27 May 01, 2014
Jkt 232001
installation of pollution control
equipment on the anode furnaces at the
ASARCO facility might have resulted in
a reduction of ambient Pb
concentrations, as measured at ADEQ’s
Globe Highway monitor. However,
because three years without a violation
are required to attain the Pb standard,
the ADEQ Globe Highway monitor
continues to have a design value that
violates the standard and we concur
with ADEQ’s conclusion that ongoing
monitoring will be needed to determine
if the improvement in air quality as
measured at the Globe Highway monitor
will persist. Further, the more extensive
monitoring network now in place
provides preliminary data that show
ambient concentrations above the
standard are occurring even after
ASARCO installed controls in June of
2012. Therefore, based on our review of
ADEQ’s Globe Highway monitoring data
and our analysis of additional relevant,
available information, including data
collected by ASARCO’s ambient air
quality Pb monitors, EPA concludes it is
appropriate to redesignate the Hayden
area to nonattainment for the 2008 Pb
NAAQS. Consistent with Arizona’s
recommendation, we are not proposing
any changes to the area’s existing
boundaries.
Under CAA section 107(d)(3)(C), EPA
must notify the State whenever EPA
intends to modify State
recommendations concerning areas to
be redesignated, at least 60 days prior to
EPA promulgation of final
redesignations. While EPA and Arizona
are in agreement with respect to the
boundaries of the Hayden area, the
Governor recommended against
redesignating the area to nonattainment
unless additional violations of the Pb
NAAQS were to occur. As noted above,
based on our review of available air
quality data, we have determined that
redesignating the Hayden area to
nonattainment for the Pb NAAQS is
appropriate. EPA intends to notify the
State of Arizona of our proposed action
when this notice is signed.
IV. Proposed Action and Request for
Public Comment
Pursuant to section 107(d)(3) of the
Clean Air Act and based on our
evaluation of air quality data, our
review of the Governor’s
recommendation, and our consideration
of additional relevant information, EPA
is proposing to redesignate from
‘‘unclassifiable’’ to ‘‘nonattainment’’ the
Hayden area, located in southern Gila
County and eastern Pinal County,
Arizona, for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. EPA’s
proposal to redesignate the Hayden area
is based on recorded violations of the Pb
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
standard at ADEQ’s Globe Highway
monitor, and on additional air quality
considerations as set forth in this
document and in the TSD.
Areas redesignated to nonattainment,
as proposed herein, are subject to the
applicable requirements of part D, title
I of the Act (see section 191 of the Act).
Within 18 months of the redesignation,
the State is required to submit to EPA
an implementation plan for the area
containing, among other things: (1)
Provisions to assure that reasonably
available control measures (including
reasonably available control technology)
are implemented; (2) a demonstration,
including modeling, that the plan will
provide for attainment of the Pb NAAQS
as expeditiously as practicable, but no
later than five years after the area’s
designation as nonattainment; (3)
provisions that result in reasonable
further progress toward timely
attainment by adherence to an
ambitious compliance schedule; (4)
contingency measures that are to be
implemented if the area fails to achieve
and maintain reasonable further
progress or fails to attain the NAAQS by
the applicable attainment date; and (5)
a permit program meeting the
requirements of section 173 governing
the construction and operation of new
and modified major stationary sources
of Pb.22 Any Pb nonattainment area
would also be subject to EPA’s general
conformity regulations (40 CFR part 93,
subpart B) upon the effective date of
redesignation. See section 176(c) of the
Act.
We will accept comments from the
public on this proposal for thirty days
from the date of publication of this
notice, and will consider any relevant
comments in taking final action on
today’s proposal.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), EPA has
determined that the redesignation to
nonattainment proposed today, as well
as the establishment of SIP submittal
schedules, would result in none of the
effects identified in Executive Order
22 EPA has issued guidance on the statutory
requirements applicable to Pb nonattainment areas.
See 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992), 58 FR 67752
(December 22, 1993), 73 FR 66964 (November 12,
2008), and the memorandum signed by Scott
Mathias, Interim Director, Air Quality Policy
Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. EPA, entitled ‘‘2008 Lead (Pb)
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
Implementation Questions and Answers’’ dated July
8, 2011.
E:\FR\FM\02MYP1.SGM
02MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules
12866, section 3(f). Under section
107(d)(3) of the Act, redesignations to
nonattainment are based upon air
quality considerations. The proposed
redesignation, based upon air quality
data showing that the Hayden area is
not attaining the Pb standard and upon
other air-quality-related considerations,
does not, in and of itself, impose any
new requirements on any sectors of the
economy. Similarly, the establishment
of new SIP submittal schedules would
merely establish the dates by which
SIPs must be submitted, and would not
adversely affect entities.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose an
information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., a
redesignation to nonattainment under
section 107(d)(3), and the establishment
of a SIP submittal schedule for a
redesignated area, do not, in and of
themselves, directly impose any new
requirements on small entities. See MidTex Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. FERC,
773 F.2d 327 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (agency’s
certification need only consider the
rule’s impact on entities subject to the
requirements of the rule). Instead, this
rulemaking simply proposes to make a
factual determination and to establish a
schedule to require the State to submit
SIP revisions, and does not propose to
directly regulate any entities. Therefore,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), EPA
certifies that today’s proposed action
does not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities
within the meaning of those terms for
RFA purposes.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Under Title II of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA),
Public Law 104–4, EPA has concluded
that this proposed rule is not likely to
result in the promulgation of any
Federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local or tribal governments in
the aggregate, or for the private sector,
in any one year. It is questionable
whether a redesignation would
constitute a federal mandate in any case.
The obligation for the state to revise its
State Implementation Plan that arises
out of a redesignation is not legally
enforceable and at most is a condition
for continued receipt of federal highway
funds. Therefore, it does not appear that
such an action creates any enforceable
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:27 May 01, 2014
Jkt 232001
duty within the meaning of section
421(5)(a)(i) of UMRA (2 U.S.C.
658(5)(a)(i)), and if it does the duty
would appear to fall within the
exception for a condition of Federal
assistance under section 421(5)(a)(i)(I) of
UMRA (2 U.S.C. 658(5)(a)(i)(I).
Even if a redesignation were
considered a Federal mandate, the
anticipated costs resulting from the
mandate would not exceed $100 million
to either the private sector or state, local
and tribal governments. Redesignation
of an area to nonattainment does not, in
itself, impose any mandates or costs on
the private sector, and thus, there is no
private sector mandate within the
meaning of section 421(7) of UMRA
(2 U.S.C. 658(7)). The only cost resulting
from the redesignation itself is the cost
to the State of Arizona of developing,
adopting, and submitting any necessary
SIP revision. Because that cost will not
exceed $100 million, this proposal (if it
is a federal mandate at all) is not subject
to the requirements of sections 202 and
205 of UMRA (2 U.S.C. 1532 and 1535).
EPA has also determined that this
proposal would not result in regulatory
requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments
because only the State would take any
action as result of today’s rule, and thus
the requirements of section 203 (2
U.S.C. 1533) do not apply.
E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132 requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to
ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by
State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that
have federalism implications.’’ This rule
will not have substantial direct effects
on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132,
because it merely proposes to
redesignate an area for Clean Air Act
planning purposes and does not alter
the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities established
in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the
requirements of section 6 of the
Executive Order do not apply to this
rule.
F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination
With Indian Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled
‘‘Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to
ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by
tribal officials in the development of
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
25083
regulatory policies that have tribal
implications.’’ The area proposed for
redesignation does not include any
tribal lands, but is adjacent to the San
Carlos Apache Tribe’s reservation. EPA
has been communicating with and plans
to continue to consult with
representatives of the San Carlos
Apache Tribe, as provided in Executive
Order 13175. Accordingly, EPA has
addressed Executive Order 13175 to the
extent that it applies to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
This proposed rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 (‘‘Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks’’) (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),
because it is not an economically
significant regulatory action based on
health or safety risks.
H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This rule is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66
FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is
not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12 of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal
agencies to evaluate existing technical
standards when developing a new
regulation. The EPA believes that the
requirements of NTTAA are
inapplicable to this action because they
would be inconsistent with the Clean
Air Act.
J. Executive Order 12898, Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
Today’s action proposes to
redesignate an area to nonattainment for
an ambient air quality standard. It will
not have disproportionately high and
adverse effects on any communities in
the area, including minority and lowincome communities.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Lead.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
E:\FR\FM\02MYP1.SGM
02MYP1
25084
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Dated: April 21, 2014.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[FR Doc. 2014–10116 Filed 5–1–14; 8:45 am]
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. On
June 4, 2012, we published in the
Federal Register a 90-day finding,
which determined that the petition to
reclassify Lane Mountain milk-vetch
from endangered to threatened
contained substantial scientific or
commercial information and that the
petitioned action may be warranted.
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.) requires that, for any
petition to revise the Federal Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants, we make a finding within 12
months of the date of receipt of the
petition. We must publish these 12month findings in the Federal Register.
The basis for our action. Under the
Act, we can determine that a species is
an endangered species or threatened
species based on whether we find that
it is in danger of extinction throughout
all or a significant portion of its range
now (endangered) or likely to become
endangered in the foreseeable future
(threatened). As part of our analysis, we
consider whether it is endangered or
threatened because of the factors
outlined in section 4(a)(1) of the Act.
We consider the same factors in
delisting or downlisting a species.
Finding. This document constitutes
our 12-month finding that the petitioned
action to reclassify Lane Mountain milkvetch from endangered to threatened is
not warranted based on the review of
the best available scientific and
commercial information. It further
constitutes our review pursuant to
section 4(c)(2) of the Act.
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2014–0011;
4500030113]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a
Petition To Reclassify Astragalus
Jaegerianus as a Threatened Species
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition
finding.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
12-month finding on a petition to
reclassify Astragalus jaegerianus (Lane
Mountain milk-vetch) as a threatened
species under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After
review of the best available scientific
and commercial information, we find
that reclassification of Astragalus
jaegerianus is not warranted at this
time. However, we ask the public to
submit to us any new information that
becomes available concerning the
threats to the species or its habitat at
any time.
DATES: The finding announced in this
document was made on May 2, 2014.
ADDRESSES: This finding is available on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov at Docket Number
FWS–R8–ES–2014–0011. Supporting
documentation we used in preparing
this finding is included in the docket at
https://www.regulations.gov and
available for public inspection, by
appointment, during normal business
hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Ventura Fish and Wildlife
Office, 2493 Portola Road Suite B,
Ventura, CA 93003. Please submit any
new information, materials, comments,
or questions concerning this finding to
the above street address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stephen P. Henry, Acting Field
Supervisor, Ventura Fish and Wildlife
Office, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B,
Ventura, CA 93003; telephone 805–644–
1766; facsimile 805–644–3958. If you
use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD), please call the Federal
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:27 May 01, 2014
Jkt 232001
Previous Federal Actions
Lane Mountain milk-vetch was listed
as endangered in 1998, and a critical
habitat rulemaking was completed in
2005 (63 FR 53596; October 6, 1998 and
70 FR 18220; April 8, 2005). In 2011, we
revised the critical habitat rulemaking
by designating approximately 14,069
acres (ac) (5,693 hectares (ha)) of land in
2 units located in the Mojave Desert in
San Bernardino County, California (76
FR 29108; May 19, 2011). No recovery
plan has been completed for Lane
Mountain milk-vetch. A notice initiating
a 5-year review was published for the
species in 2006 (71 FR 14538; March 22,
2006), and a 5-year review was
completed in 2008 (Service 2008, pp. 1–
20; 74 FR 12878; March 25, 2009).
On December 21, 2011, we received a
petition dated December 19, 2011, from
the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF),
requesting that we reclassify the Lane
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Mountain milk-vetch from endangered
to threatened under the Act based on
the analysis and recommendations
contained in the 5-year review for Lane
Mountain milk-vetch (Service 2008, pp.
1–20; PLF 2011, pp. 1–11). On June 4,
2012, we published in the Federal
Register a 90-day finding on the petition
to reclassify Lane Mountain milk-vetch
as threatened or endangered, and
determined that the petition presented
substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted and
initiated a status review of the species
under sections 4(b)(3)(A) and 4(c)(2)(A)
of the Act (77 FR 32922). On April 24,
2013, the Pacific Legal Foundation filed
a complaint for failure to complete a 12month finding with the District Court of
the Eastern District of California
(California Cattlemen’s Association, et
al. v. Sally Jewell, et al., No. 2:13-cv00800–GEB–AC (E.D. Cal.)). This
challenge was resolved by an August 7,
2013, Stipulated Settlement Agreement,
in which the Service agreed to submit
a 12-month finding on Lane Mountain
milk-vetch to the Federal Register on or
before February 28, 2014. On November
27, 2013, the Court granted an extension
to April 30, 2014, due to the Federal
Government shutdown and furlough in
October of 2013, and to allow full
incorporation of new survey
information. This document constitutes
our 12-month finding on the petition to
reclassify the Lane Mountain milk-vetch
and our review pursuant to section
4(c)(2) of the Act.
Background
This finding is based on the Species
Report for Lane Mountain milk-vetch
(Species Report) (Service 2014, entire),
a scientific analysis of available
information prepared by a team of
Service biologists from the Service’s
Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, the
Pacific Southwest Regional Office
(Region 8), and the National
Headquarters Office (Arlington, VA).
The purpose of the Species Report is to
provide the best available scientific and
commercial information about the
species so that we can evaluate whether
or not the species warrants protection
under the Act and if so at what level of
protection.
In the Species Report, we compiled
the best scientific and commercial data
available concerning the status of Lane
Mountain milk-vetch, including the
past, present, and future threats to this
species. The Species Report evaluates
the biological status of the species and
the threats affecting its continued
existence. As such, the Species Report
provides the scientific basis that informs
E:\FR\FM\02MYP1.SGM
02MYP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 85 (Friday, May 2, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25077-25084]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-10116]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 81
[EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0266; FRL-9910-31-Region-9]
Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of
Arizona; Pinal County and Gila County; Pb
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 107(d)(3) of the Clean Air Act, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to redesignate the
Hayden area in Arizona, which encompasses portions of southern Gila and
eastern Pinal counties, from ``unclassifiable'' to ``nonattainment''
for the 2008 national ambient air quality standards for lead (Pb).
EPA's proposal to redesignate the Hayden area is based on recorded
violations of the Pb standards at the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality's (ADEQ's) Globe Highway monitoring site, located
near the towns of Hayden and Winkleman, Arizona, and additional
relevant air quality information. The effect of this action would be to
redesignate the Hayden area to nonattainment for the Pb standards and
thereby to impose certain planning requirements on the State of Arizona
to reduce Pb concentrations within this area, including, but not
limited to, the requirement to submit, within 18 months of
redesignation, a revision to the Arizona state implementation plan that
provides for attainment of the Pb standards as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than five years after the date of
redesignation to nonattainment.
DATES: Any comments must arrive by June 2, 2014.
[[Page 25078]]
ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2014-0266, by one of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
2. Email: vagenas.ginger@epa.gov.
3. Mail or deliver: Ginger Vagenas (Air-2), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as
such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email.
www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region
IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While documents in
the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material,
large format or voluminous documents), and some may not be publicly
available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy
materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours
with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ginger Vagenas, EPA Region IX, (415)
972-3964, vagenas.ginger@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. EPA's Decision To Address Pb Violations Monitored in the Hayden
Area Through Redesignation
III. State of Arizona's Recommendation and EPA's Analysis
IV. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
EPA revised the primary (health-based) Pb national ambient air
quality standard (NAAQS) on October 15, 2008, lowering it from the 1.5
micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) level set in 1978 to a level of
0.15 [mu]g/m\3\. The secondary (welfare-based) standard was revised to
be identical in all respects to the primary standard. See 73 FR 66964,
November 12, 2008. An area violates the revised standards if any
arithmetic 3-month mean (hereafter referred to as ``average'')
concentration measured within the preceding three years is greater than
0.15 [mu]g/m\3\. EPA also expanded the Pb monitoring network by
requiring new monitors to be sited near sources emitting one ton or
more of Pb per year by January 1, 2010 and in certain non-source
oriented locations by January 1, 2011.
Section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'') establishes a
process for making initial area designations when a NAAQS is revised.
In general, states are required to submit designation recommendations
to EPA within one year of promulgation of a new or revised standard and
EPA is required to complete initial designations within two years of
promulgation. However, if EPA has insufficient information to
promulgate designations, it can extend the period for initial
designations for up to one year. For the initial designations for the
2008 Pb NAAQS, data from pre-existing monitors provided sufficient
information to make some designations within the two-year timeframe.
Because other areas would not have monitoring data until after the
newly required monitors were in place, EPA decided to promulgate
initial designations for the Pb NAAQS in two separate actions. The
first round of designations (promulgated November 16, 2010 (75 FR
71033, November 22, 2010)) included areas with sufficient monitoring
information at the time to determine nonattainment; the second round
(promulgated November 8, 2011 (76 FR 72097, November 22, 2011))
included all other areas.
On December 15, 2009, in accordance with the process set out in CAA
section 107(d)(1), Arizona submitted its recommended designations for
the revised standard to EPA. At that time, ambient air quality data
collected by EPA Region 9's Superfund Division from a monitor sited at
the Hayden Maintenance Building, located just west of the ASARCO copper
concentrate and smelting facility, indicated that the Hayden area was
violating the new standard.\1\ Arizona recommended that EPA promulgate
an unclassifiable/attainment designation for most of the State, but
recommended that EPA delay designating the Hayden area because the
Asarco Hayden copper smelter (ASARCO), the source of Pb emissions in
the area, had committed to improve its control of Pb emissions. Arizona
further recommended that if the Hayden area continued to violate the Pb
NAAQS on or after March 2010, it should be designated nonattainment.
Subsequently, ADEQ recommended that if EPA were to determine that
monitored concentrations in the Hayden area were exceeding the
standard, the EPA should follow the Governor's recommendation to
promulgate a lead nonattainment area with boundaries identical to the
Hayden sulfur dioxide nonattainment area boundaries with respect to
State lands.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Values from July, August, and September 2008 resulted in a
3-month average design value of 0.17 [mu]g/m\3\ at the Hayden
Maintenance Building monitor.
\2\ Letter (with enclosure) from Benjamin H. Grumbles, Director,
ADEQ, to Laura Yoshii, Acting Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA
Region 9, dated December 17, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2010, in conjunction with the initial designations for the 2008
Pb NAAQS, EPA undertook a technical analysis for the Hayden, Arizona
area to evaluate the available air quality data and to determine
whether the boundary recommended by the State encompassed the area that
did not meet, or that contributed to ambient air quality in the area
that did not meet, the 2008 Pb standard, consistent with section
107(d)(1)(A). The analysis identified the monitor that was violating
the newly revised standard and evaluated nearby areas for contributions
to ambient lead concentrations in the area.\3\ EPA evaluated the
surrounding area based on the weight of evidence of the following
factors recommended in previous EPA guidance:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See the 2010 draft technical support document entitled
``ARIZONA, Area Designations for the 2008 Lead National Ambient Air
Quality Standards.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air quality in potentially included versus excluded areas;
Emissions and emissions-related data in areas potentially
included versus excluded from the nonattainment area, including
population data, growth rates and patterns and emissions controls;
Meteorology (weather and transport patterns);
Topography (surface features such as mountain ranges or
other air basin boundaries);
Jurisdictional boundaries (e.g., counties, air districts,
and reservations); and
Any other relevant information submitted to or collected
by EPA.
[[Page 25079]]
Based on our consideration of available air quality data and the
factors listed above, EPA determined that a designation of
nonattainment was appropriate and that the Hayden area boundaries
recommended by the State in 2009 encompassed the entire area that did
not meet (or that contributed to ambient air quality in a nearby area
that did not meet) the 2008 Pb NAAQS. Accordingly, in a letter dated
June 14, 2010, EPA notified Arizona that we intended to designate the
Hayden area nonattainment for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Letter from Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, U.S.
EPA, Region 9, to Janice K. Brewer, Governor of Arizona, dated June
14, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA subsequently published a notice in the Federal Register
providing an opportunity for the public to comment on our intended
designations (75 FR 39254, July 8, 2010). Commenters challenged our
proposal to designate the Hayden area nonattainment and asserted that
the monitoring data we relied upon (i.e., the data collected at the
Superfund Divison's Hayden Maintenance Building site), was not
collected in accordance with applicable quality assurance and quality
control (``QA/QC'') requirements. Based on our evaluation of the
monitoring data issues raised in these comments, we determined that we
did not have sufficient information to promulgate a nonattainment
designation for the Hayden area at that time. Accordingly, we delayed
our designation for the Hayden area until the final round of
designations, slated for the following year.
On November 8, 2011, EPA completed its initial designations for the
revised Pb standard.\5\ Most of Arizona was designated unclassifiable/
attainment for the Pb NAAQS. We designated the Hayden area, with the
boundaries Arizona recommended,\6\ as unclassifiable rather than
nonattainment because there were available monitoring data recorded at
ADEQ's new Globe Highway monitoring site indicating a significant
likelihood that the area was violating the 2008 Pb NAAQS, but the
available information was insufficient at that time to make a
nonattainment designation.\7\ In our letter to Governor Brewer
notifying her of our action, EPA explained that, should we subsequently
determine that the lead standards were being violated, we would
initiate the process to redesignate the Hayden area to
nonattainment.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See 76 FR 72097, November 22, 2011.
\6\ See 40 CFR 81.303 for a legal description of the boundary of
the Hayden area.
\7\ Because of the form of the 2008 Pb NAAQS, one 3-month
average ambient air concentration over 0.15 [mu]g/m\3\ is enough to
cause a violation of the Pb NAAQS. ADEQ's Globe Highway monitor
registered four violations in 2011; however, at the time of
designation the data had not been quality assured and certified and
therefore could not be relied upon as the basis for a nonattainment
designation.
\8\ Letter from Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator, U.S. EPA, to
Janice K. Brewer, Governor of Arizona, dated November 8, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. EPA's Decision To Address Pb Violations Monitored in the Hayden
Area Through Redesignation
The CAA grants EPA the authority to change the designation of, or
``redesignate,'' areas in light of changes in circumstances. More
specifically EPA has the authority under CAA section 107(d)(3) to
redesignate areas (or portions thereof) on the basis of air quality
data, planning and control considerations, or any other air quality-
related considerations.
Table 1, below, presents a summary of the latest available quality-
assured Pb monitoring data from the State-operated monitor (ADEQ's
Globe Highway monitor). A map showing the location of the monitor is
included in our Technical Support Document (EPA TSD), which is
contained in the docket for this rulemaking.
Table 1--2012 Pb Design Values (DVs, [mu]g/m\3\), ADEQ's Globe Highway
Monitor (AQS ID 04-007-1002)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3-month period 2012 DVs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov-Dec-Jan.................................................. 0.07
Dec-Jan-Feb.................................................. 0.14
Jan-Feb-Mar.................................................. 0.15
Feb-Mar-Apr.................................................. 0.20
Mar-Apr-May.................................................. 0.16
Apr-May-Jun.................................................. 0.20
May-Jun-Jul.................................................. 0.15
Jun-Jul-Aug.................................................. 0.14
Jul-Aug-Sep.................................................. 0.12
Aug-Sep-Oct.................................................. 0.11
Sept-Oct-Nov................................................. 0.09
Oct-Nov-Dec.................................................. 0.06
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Data pulled from AQS on March 31, 2014.
As shown in Table 1, the ADEQ's Globe Highway monitor recorded
three violations in 2012. An area violates the revised standards if any
arithmetic 3-month average concentration is greater than 0.15 [mu]g/
m\3\. The NAAQS is met if an area does not measure any exceedances of
the standard for three consecutive calendar years.
On June 12, 2013, under CAA section 107(d)(3)(A), EPA notified the
Governor of Arizona that the designation for Hayden should be revised.
EPA's June 2013 decision to initiate the redesignation process for the
Hayden area stemmed from review of the quality assured, certified
monitoring data that indicate that three-month rolling average values
violated the Pb standards for February-April, March-May, and April-June
2012. In light of the violations of the Pb standard recorded in 2012 at
ADEQ's Globe Highway monitor, EPA concluded that the SIP planning and
control requirements that are triggered by redesignation of an area to
nonattainment for the Pb NAAQS would be the most appropriate means to
ensure that this air quality problem is remedied.
Section III of this document describes the State of Arizona's 2013
recommendation with respect to this proposed redesignation to
nonattainment and summarizes EPA's review of both the State's
recommendation and additional relevant information, and our conclusions
based on that review. Section IV describes our proposed action and the
corresponding CAA planning requirements that would thereby be
triggered.
III. State of Arizona's Recommendation and EPA's Analysis
Monitoring Data
Pursuant to section 107(d)(3)(B) of the Act, on September 25, 2013,
the Governor of Arizona responded to EPA's June 12, 2013 notification
that the Hayden area should be redesignated to nonattainment for the Pb
NAAQS. Governor Brewer recommended that the Hayden area not be
redesignated to nonattainment ``because there have been no lead [Pb]
standard violations since June 2012, when the ASARCO Hayden Copper
Smelter completed the addition of controls to reduce lead emissions.''
\9\ The Governor acknowledged that if additional violations of the 2008
Pb NAAQS occur, a designation to nonattainment for the Pb standard
would be appropriate and that in such a case, the Pb nonattainment area
boundaries should be identical to the Hayden sulfur dioxide
(SO2) nonattainment area boundaries, as recommended in her
December 15, 2009 letter.10 11
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Letter from Janice K. Brewer, Governor of Arizona, to Jared
Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region 9, dated
September 25, 2013.
\10\ The boundaries of the SO2 nonattainment area and
the Pb unclassifiable area are identical.
\11\ The Governor explicitly excludes Indian country, which is
appropriate given that the State of Arizona is not authorized to
administer programs under the CAA in the affected Indian country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 25080]]
In support of the Governor's recommendation, ADEQ submitted to EPA
a technical support document entitled, ``Relationship Between Ambient
Sulfur Dioxide and Lead Concentrations'' \12\ (ADEQ 2013 TSD). The ADEQ
2013 TSD examines the relationship between ambient concentrations of
SO2 and Pb over time. ADEQ asserts that there is a very
strong relationship between the two pollutants, but that the separation
between the SO2 concentrations and Pb concentrations
increased after July 2012, which they attribute to a decrease in Pb
emissions due to new controls. The document states that ambient
SO2 concentrations were approximately 263 times that of Pb
during the period of January 15, 2011 to June 30, 2012. From July 1,
2012 to June 30, 2013, the average SO2/Pb ratio changed to
approximately 719. ADEQ points to this ``abrupt change'' in the ratio
of SO2 to Pb concentrations that occurred around July 2012
as evidence that the Pb emissions controls installed at that time have
reduced the ambient concentrations of Pb. ADEQ concludes that,
``[w]hile it is believed that the installed control devices were
effective in reducing the ambient Pb concentrations in Hayden, AZ,
additional data would be needed to verify that the Globe Highway Pb
monitor continues to attain the Pb NAAQS.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Letter (with enclosure) from Eric C. Massey, Director, Air
Quality, ADEQ, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA
Region 9, dated October 4, 2013.
\13\ ADEQ 2013 TSD, page 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has reviewed the Governor's recommendation and ADEQ's 2013 TSD
and concurs with the statement that ADEQ's Globe Highway monitor has
not measured a violation since July of 2012. However, given the form of
the Pb NAAQS, in order to be considered to be attaining the standard an
area must have three years of valid air quality data without any
violations of the 2008 Pb NAAQS.\14\ As shown in Table 1, the most
recent certified monitoring data collected at ADEQ's Globe Highway
monitor near the ASARCO facility show three violations of the 2008 Pb
NAAQS in 2012. Accordingly, we also concur with ADEQ's conclusion that
the data gathered thus far by the ADEQ Globe Highway monitor are not
sufficient to determine that the area has attained the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Data from calendar year 2013 have not yet been certified as
being complete and accurate, and are therefore considered to be
supplemental data for this action. This certification is due by May
1, 2014 pursuant to 40 CFR 58.15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Air Quality-Related Considerations
In addition to certified data from 2012 collected at the ADEQ Globe
Highway Monitor, EPA has evaluated monitoring data collected in
calendar year 2013. Because these data have not yet been certified as
being completely submitted and accurate, we present data from 2013 as
supplemental information for this action.
As of March 31, 2014, data through December 31, 2013 from ADEQ's
Globe Highway monitor (04-007-1002) are available in EPA's Air Quality
System (AQS) database. According to the preliminary data from the ADEQ
Globe Highway monitor, no three-month rolling averages from 2013 have
violated the Pb NAAQS, although two monthly averages from 2013 (March
and June) were above the 0.15 [micro]g/m\3\ level of the Pb NAAQS. See
Table 2.
Table 2--Preliminary 2013 Data From ASARCO's Monitoring Network and ADEQ's Globe Highway Monitor
[Pb Concentrations ([micro]g/m \3\)]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASARCO monitors ADEQ monitor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hillcrest Parking Lot Post Office Winkelman Globe Globe
Ave. --------------------------------------- HS Highway Highway--ADEQ
------------- ST-26 co- ----------------------------------------
ST-23 ST-14 ST-26 located ST-02 ST-05 (04-007-1002)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 2013 monthly average............................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 0.063
Nov 2012-Jan 2013 3 month average.......................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 0.04
February 2013 monthly average.............................. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 0.049
Dec 2012-Feb 2013 3 month average.......................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 0.04
March 2013 monthly average................................. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 0.170
Jan-March 2013 3 month average............................. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 0.09
April 2013 monthly average................................. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 0.112
Feb-Apr 2013 3 month average............................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 0.11
May 2013 monthly average................................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 0.062
Mar-May 2013 3 month average............................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 0.11
June 2013 monthly average.................................. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 0.183
Apr-Jun 2013 3 month average............................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 0.12
July 2013 monthly average.................................. 0.096 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 0.081
May-Jul 2013 3 month average............................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 0.11
Aug 2013 monthly average................................... 0.185 0.664 0.183 ........... ........... ........... 0.069
Jun-Aug 2013 3 month average............................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 0.11
Sept 2013 monthly average.................................. 0.115 0.289 0.096 ........... 0.015 0.063 0.045
Jul-Sep 2013 3 month average............................... 0.13 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 0.06
Oct 2013 monthly average................................... 0.115 0.257 0.069 ........... 0.016 0.078 0.055
Aug-Oct 2013 3 month average............................... 0.14 0.40 ........... ........... ........... ........... 0.06
Nov 2013 monthly average................................... 0.346 1.396 0.124 0.118 0.015 0.019 0.021
Sep-Nov 2013 3 month average............................... 0.19 0.65 0.10 ........... 0.02 0.05 0.04
Dec 2013 monthly average................................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 0.01
Oct-Dec 2013 3 month average............................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 0.03
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 25081]]
In July 2013, ASARCO installed and began collecting monitoring data
from a new network of ambient monitors surrounding the facility.\15\
Because the ASARCO data are preliminary, EPA has evaluated the use of
this set of secondary data by considering trends, gradients, and the
magnitude of measured concentrations relative to the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ ASARCO's monitors were sited in accordance with 40 CFR 58.
See Figure 8 of EPA's TSD for a map showing the locations of the
ASARCO-operated monitors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The new monitoring network includes a monitor (Globe Highway-
ASARCO) located 14 meters southwest of ADEQ's Globe Highway monitor.
Preliminary, uncertified data from both the ADEQ Globe Highway monitor
and the Globe Highway-ASARCO monitor are available for September-
November 2013. The Globe Highway-ASARCO monitor measured approximately
0.017 [micro]g/m\3\ higher on average than ADEQ's Globe Highway
monitor. While the two monitors measured slightly different values,
they trend well with one another. See Figure 9 of EPA's TSD. Given the
complex terrain in the ravine where these monitors are located, winds
may be affecting these monitors differently. The different values
measured at the two monitors may also be a result of minor differences
in approved analytical procedures that result in lower values from the
ADEQ monitor.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ In reviewing the analytical procedures employed by the
laboratory performing analysis on the ADEQ filters (Pima County
Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department Compliance & Regulatory
Affairs Office (CRAO) Laboratory) and the laboratory performing
analysis on the ASARCO filters (Inter-Mountain Laboratories (IML)),
EPA found that the sample preparation step differed between the two
laboratories. While both laboratories followed approved Federal
Equivalent Methods (FEMs), EPA recommended that CRAO review its
sample preparation method to determine if additional best practices
may be appropriate. Initial analyses by CRAO indicate employing
additional best practices may yield results of approximately 11%
more lead per sample. The laboratory analytical procedures were
otherwise found to be comparable. See Memorandum ``Review of
Laboratory Procedures to Address Accuracy Concerns for Inter-
Laboratory Bias for the Asarco Superfund Site,'' from Joe Eidelberg
and Mathew Plate, to Gwen Yoshimura and John Hillenbrand, U.S. EPA
Region 9. March 31, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the five new ASARCO Pb monitors, the three monitors sited to the
west and to the southwest of the facility show higher averages than the
Globe Highway-ASARCO monitor during the period of overlap. In
September, the monthly averages for the Post Office, Hillcrest Avenue,
and Parking Lot monitors were 1.5 to 4.5 times higher than the monthly
average for the Globe Highway-ASARCO monitor. The two complete three-
month averages reported to date at the Parking Lot monitor are well
over the standard, at 0.40 [micro]g/m\3\ for August-October 2013, and
0.65 [micro]g/m\3\ (more than four times over the standard) for
September-November 2013. The three-month average from September-
November 2013 at the Hillcrest Avenue monitor was also over the
standard, at 0.19 [micro]g/m\3\. These elevated levels indicate that
while ADEQ's Globe Highway monitor appears to be recording levels below
the standard, other locations around the smelter that the public has
access to are experiencing higher concentrations. See Table 2.
Given that lead is heavy and expected to fall out of the air
quickly, lead concentrations would generally be highest next to the
facility and near specific facility operations that produce point or
fugitive source emissions. An exception to this would be if the main
emission point was through a tall stack at high temperatures, resulting
in the air mass remaining buoyant for a time before falling out to
breathing-level heights. The data collected by the ASARCO monitors show
concentrations decreasing as one moves from the monitors closest to the
facility (i.e., the Parking Lot, Hillcrest Avenue, and Post Office
monitors) to those farther away (i.e., the Globe Highway and Winkelman
High School monitors), indicating that fugitives or other non-stack
emissions might have more significant air quality impacts on the
neighborhood surrounding the facility than stack emissions.\17\ The
Hillcrest Avenue and Parking Lot monitors, both to the southwest of the
facility and close to materials handling activities, also trend well
with one another (see Figure 10 of the EPA TSD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Table 7 of the TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA and ADEQ have discussed the challenge of siting a single,
source-specific monitor that will capture the maximum ambient
concentration of Pb, given the complex meteorology and topography found
in the Hayden area. While the ADEQ Globe Highway site was chosen to
capture the maximum concentration using the information available at
the time,\18\ this recent information gathered by ASARCO's more
extensive monitoring network indicates that higher ambient
concentrations of Pb exist elsewhere in the Hayden area. Given the
strong trends and gradient apparent from the available preliminary
data, and that preliminary data collected after the controls on anode
furnaces were installed indicate two of the ASARCO monitors are
measuring violations of the Pb standard (the parking lot monitor is
over four times the standard), the secondary data support our decision
to redesignate the area to nonattainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Quality Assurance Program Plan for the Lead (Pb) Ambient
Air Monitoring Network, Attachment A. Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality, October 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boundary of the Hayden Area
In conjunction with the initial designations for the 2008 Pb NAAQS,
states submitted recommendations to EPA regarding the status (i.e.,
attainment, unclassifiable, or nonattainment) and boundaries for areas
within each state. CAA section 107(d)(1)(A) generally defines a
nonattainment area as any area that does not meet, or that contributes
to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet, the
national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard for the
relevant pollutant. For areas with a violating monitor, the county
boundary was the default boundary of the nonattainment area. States
could, however, recommend an alternative as long as the proposed
nonattainment area boundaries encompassed the entire area that did not
meet, and any nearby area that contributed to ambient air quality in
the area that did not meet, the 2008 Pb NAAQS. In general, factors such
as emissions, air quality, and meteorology were particularly relevant
in determining appropriate boundaries. States also were able to take
into account jurisdictional considerations when establishing an area's
boundaries.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See 76 FR 72097 at 72102.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted in the Background section above, in 2009 Arizona
recommended that EPA defer designation of the Hayden area, and stated
that if EPA were to determine monitored concentrations were exceeding
the Pb NAAQS, EPA should promulgate a Pb nonattainment area with
boundaries identical to the Hayden SO2 nonattainment
area.\20\ In 2010, we undertook a technical analysis of the State's
recommended boundary, and determined it encompassed all areas that
appeared to be violating or contributing to violations of the Pb NAAQS
in the Hayden area. In 2011, we designated the Hayden area, with the
boundaries the Governor recommended, as unclassifiable because data
indicating violations of the 2008 Pb NAAQS were preliminary at the time
final designations were due under the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ The basis for Arizona's recommended boundary is discussed
in ADEQ's 2009 boundary recommendation technical support document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For this action, we have reviewed and, where appropriate, updated
our
[[Page 25082]]
2010 analysis of relevant factors related to establishing an
appropriate nonattainment area boundary. A brief summary of the key
factors in the Hayden Area boundary analysis is included below.
Air Quality Data
For this factor, we considered the Pb design values for air quality
monitors in the Hayden area and the surrounding area based on certified
2010-2012 data. Of the five State-operated Pb monitors located
throughout Arizona that collected data within this time period, only
the ADEQ Globe Highway monitor, located near the ASARCO Hayden copper
smelter, measured violations of the Pb NAAQS. The design values for the
remaining monitors, which are located outside the Hayden area, are well
below the standard.
Emissions and Emissions-Related Data
Sources of Pb emissions located in areas surrounding the violating
monitor were evaluated to determine whether a nearby area is
contributing to monitored violations. Because of the significant
distance, and in most cases, relatively low levels of emissions, we do
not believe sources outside the Hayden area boundary are causing or
contributing to Pb NAAQS violations in Hayden.
Topography
This factor takes into account the physical features of the land
that might have an effect on the air shed, and therefore on the
distribution of Pb in the Hayden area. The ASARCO Hayden copper smelter
is located in very complex terrain, which forms natural boundaries.
Mountainsides limit the extent of the area exceeding the Pb standard to
a relatively small area around the smelter, which is the main source of
Pb emissions. For the same reason, locations outside the area do not
contribute to NAAQS exceedances within it.\21\ The topography of the
area supports retention of the existing area boundary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Because of the constraints imposed by the terrain,
meteorology does not play a significant role in determining the
boundary for this area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on our technical analysis and currently available
information, EPA concurs with the State's recommendation that the
area's existing boundary remain unchanged. For a more detailed
discussion, see the TSD for this action, which is included in the
docket.
Conclusion
EPA has considered the information provided by ADEQ and agrees that
preliminary data suggest that the installation of pollution control
equipment on the anode furnaces at the ASARCO facility might have
resulted in a reduction of ambient Pb concentrations, as measured at
ADEQ's Globe Highway monitor. However, because three years without a
violation are required to attain the Pb standard, the ADEQ Globe
Highway monitor continues to have a design value that violates the
standard and we concur with ADEQ's conclusion that ongoing monitoring
will be needed to determine if the improvement in air quality as
measured at the Globe Highway monitor will persist. Further, the more
extensive monitoring network now in place provides preliminary data
that show ambient concentrations above the standard are occurring even
after ASARCO installed controls in June of 2012. Therefore, based on
our review of ADEQ's Globe Highway monitoring data and our analysis of
additional relevant, available information, including data collected by
ASARCO's ambient air quality Pb monitors, EPA concludes it is
appropriate to redesignate the Hayden area to nonattainment for the
2008 Pb NAAQS. Consistent with Arizona's recommendation, we are not
proposing any changes to the area's existing boundaries.
Under CAA section 107(d)(3)(C), EPA must notify the State whenever
EPA intends to modify State recommendations concerning areas to be
redesignated, at least 60 days prior to EPA promulgation of final
redesignations. While EPA and Arizona are in agreement with respect to
the boundaries of the Hayden area, the Governor recommended against
redesignating the area to nonattainment unless additional violations of
the Pb NAAQS were to occur. As noted above, based on our review of
available air quality data, we have determined that redesignating the
Hayden area to nonattainment for the Pb NAAQS is appropriate. EPA
intends to notify the State of Arizona of our proposed action when this
notice is signed.
IV. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment
Pursuant to section 107(d)(3) of the Clean Air Act and based on our
evaluation of air quality data, our review of the Governor's
recommendation, and our consideration of additional relevant
information, EPA is proposing to redesignate from ``unclassifiable'' to
``nonattainment'' the Hayden area, located in southern Gila County and
eastern Pinal County, Arizona, for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. EPA's proposal to
redesignate the Hayden area is based on recorded violations of the Pb
standard at ADEQ's Globe Highway monitor, and on additional air quality
considerations as set forth in this document and in the TSD.
Areas redesignated to nonattainment, as proposed herein, are
subject to the applicable requirements of part D, title I of the Act
(see section 191 of the Act). Within 18 months of the redesignation,
the State is required to submit to EPA an implementation plan for the
area containing, among other things: (1) Provisions to assure that
reasonably available control measures (including reasonably available
control technology) are implemented; (2) a demonstration, including
modeling, that the plan will provide for attainment of the Pb NAAQS as
expeditiously as practicable, but no later than five years after the
area's designation as nonattainment; (3) provisions that result in
reasonable further progress toward timely attainment by adherence to an
ambitious compliance schedule; (4) contingency measures that are to be
implemented if the area fails to achieve and maintain reasonable
further progress or fails to attain the NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date; and (5) a permit program meeting the requirements of
section 173 governing the construction and operation of new and
modified major stationary sources of Pb.\22\ Any Pb nonattainment area
would also be subject to EPA's general conformity regulations (40 CFR
part 93, subpart B) upon the effective date of redesignation. See
section 176(c) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ EPA has issued guidance on the statutory requirements
applicable to Pb nonattainment areas. See 57 FR 13498 (April 16,
1992), 58 FR 67752 (December 22, 1993), 73 FR 66964 (November 12,
2008), and the memorandum signed by Scott Mathias, Interim Director,
Air Quality Policy Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. EPA, entitled ``2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) Implementation Questions and Answers''
dated July 8, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We will accept comments from the public on this proposal for thirty
days from the date of publication of this notice, and will consider any
relevant comments in taking final action on today's proposal.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA has
determined that the redesignation to nonattainment proposed today, as
well as the establishment of SIP submittal schedules, would result in
none of the effects identified in Executive Order
[[Page 25083]]
12866, section 3(f). Under section 107(d)(3) of the Act, redesignations
to nonattainment are based upon air quality considerations. The
proposed redesignation, based upon air quality data showing that the
Hayden area is not attaining the Pb standard and upon other air-
quality-related considerations, does not, in and of itself, impose any
new requirements on any sectors of the economy. Similarly, the
establishment of new SIP submittal schedules would merely establish the
dates by which SIPs must be submitted, and would not adversely affect
entities.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., a
redesignation to nonattainment under section 107(d)(3), and the
establishment of a SIP submittal schedule for a redesignated area, do
not, in and of themselves, directly impose any new requirements on
small entities. See Mid-Tex Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. FERC, 773
F.2d 327 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (agency's certification need only consider
the rule's impact on entities subject to the requirements of the rule).
Instead, this rulemaking simply proposes to make a factual
determination and to establish a schedule to require the State to
submit SIP revisions, and does not propose to directly regulate any
entities. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), EPA certifies that
today's proposed action does not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities within the meaning of those terms
for RFA purposes.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA),
Public Law 104-4, EPA has concluded that this proposed rule is not
likely to result in the promulgation of any Federal mandate that may
result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local or
tribal governments in the aggregate, or for the private sector, in any
one year. It is questionable whether a redesignation would constitute a
federal mandate in any case. The obligation for the state to revise its
State Implementation Plan that arises out of a redesignation is not
legally enforceable and at most is a condition for continued receipt of
federal highway funds. Therefore, it does not appear that such an
action creates any enforceable duty within the meaning of section
421(5)(a)(i) of UMRA (2 U.S.C. 658(5)(a)(i)), and if it does the duty
would appear to fall within the exception for a condition of Federal
assistance under section 421(5)(a)(i)(I) of UMRA (2 U.S.C.
658(5)(a)(i)(I).
Even if a redesignation were considered a Federal mandate, the
anticipated costs resulting from the mandate would not exceed $100
million to either the private sector or state, local and tribal
governments. Redesignation of an area to nonattainment does not, in
itself, impose any mandates or costs on the private sector, and thus,
there is no private sector mandate within the meaning of section 421(7)
of UMRA (2 U.S.C. 658(7)). The only cost resulting from the
redesignation itself is the cost to the State of Arizona of developing,
adopting, and submitting any necessary SIP revision. Because that cost
will not exceed $100 million, this proposal (if it is a federal mandate
at all) is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of
UMRA (2 U.S.C. 1532 and 1535). EPA has also determined that this
proposal would not result in regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments because only the
State would take any action as result of today's rule, and thus the
requirements of section 203 (2 U.S.C. 1533) do not apply.
E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable
process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local
officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
federalism implications.'' This rule will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified
in Executive Order 13132, because it merely proposes to redesignate an
area for Clean Air Act planning purposes and does not alter the
relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities
established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 6
of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.
F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' The area proposed for
redesignation does not include any tribal lands, but is adjacent to the
San Carlos Apache Tribe's reservation. EPA has been communicating with
and plans to continue to consult with representatives of the San Carlos
Apache Tribe, as provided in Executive Order 13175. Accordingly, EPA
has addressed Executive Order 13175 to the extent that it applies to
this action.
G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045
(``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks'') (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or safety risks.
H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing a new regulation. The EPA believes
that the requirements of NTTAA are inapplicable to this action because
they would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.
J. Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Today's action proposes to redesignate an area to nonattainment for
an ambient air quality standard. It will not have disproportionately
high and adverse effects on any communities in the area, including
minority and low-income communities.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Lead.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
[[Page 25084]]
Dated: April 21, 2014.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2014-10116 Filed 5-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P