Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of Arizona; Pinal County and Gila County; Pb, 52205-52210 [2014-20920]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
amendments to New Hampshire Code of
Administrative Rules Env-A 3300
Municipal Waste Combustion in
response to amended emission
guidelines for Large MWCs (40 CFR Part
60, Subpart Cb) published on May 10,
2006 and emission limits for Small
MWCs enacted by the New Hampshire
General Court in 2005 and codified at
New Hampshire Revised Statutes
Annotated 125–C:10–a.
(ii) [Reserved]
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2014–20803 Filed 9–2–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 81
[EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0266; FRL–9916–11–
Region 9]
Designation of Areas for Air Quality
Planning Purposes; State of Arizona;
Pinal County and Gila County; Pb
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Table of Contents
In accordance with section
107(d)of the Clean Air Act (CAA), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
is redesignating the Hayden area, which
encompasses portions of southern Gila
and eastern Pinal counties, Arizona,
from ‘‘unclassifiable’’ to
‘‘nonattainment’’ for the 2008 national
ambient air quality standards
(‘‘NAAQS’’ or ‘‘standards’’) for lead
(Pb). EPA’s redesignation of 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
will 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 the
Hayden area, including, but not limited
to, the requirement to submit, within 18
months of redesignation, a revision to
the Arizona state implementation plan
(SIP) that provides for attainment of the
Pb standards as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than five years
after the effective date of this
redesignation.
DATES: This rule is effective on October
3, 2014.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:42 Sep 02, 2014
Jkt 232001
No. EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0266.
Generally, documents in the docket for
this action are 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 at
www.regulations.gov, some information
may be publicly available only at the
hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material, large maps), 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, Air Planning Office
(AIR–2), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region IX, (415) 972–3964,
vagenas.ginger@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
I. Background and Summary of EPA’s
Proposed Action
II. Response to Comments on the Proposed
Rule
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background and Summary of EPA’s
Proposed Action
EPA revised the primary (healthbased) Pb 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. In a separate, later
action, we revised the Pb monitoring
regulations to require monitors to be
sited near non-airport sources emitting
0.5 tons or more of Pb per year. See 75
FR 81126, December 27, 2010.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
52205
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.
On November 8, 2011, EPA completed
its initial designations for the revised Pb
standards.1 Most of Arizona was
designated unclassifiable/attainment for
the Pb NAAQS. We designated the
Hayden area, with the boundaries
Arizona recommended,2 as
unclassifiable because there were
available monitoring data recorded at
ADEQ’s 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.3 In our
letter to Governor Brewer notifying her
of our action, EPA explained that,
should we subsequently determine that
the Pb standards were being violated,
we would initiate the process to
redesignate the Hayden area to
nonattainment.4
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. In June 2013 we
determined that quality assured,
certified monitoring data collected in
2012 at the ADEQ Globe Highway
monitor showed the area was violating
the Pb NAAQS.5 Accordingly, on June
12, 2013, we notified Arizona that
available Pb monitoring data indicated
that the air quality designation for the
Hayden area should be revised to
nonattainment.
Governor Brewer responded on
September 25, 2013, with a
1 See
76 FR 72097, November 22, 2011.
40 CFR 81.303 for a legal description of the
boundary of the Hayden area.
3 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 we did not rely on them
as the basis for a nonattainment designation.
4 Letter from Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator, U.S.
EPA, to Janice K. Brewer, Governor of Arizona,
dated November 8, 2011.
5 The ADEQ Globe Highway monitor recorded
three violations of the Pb NAAQS in 2012. Threemonth rolling average values violated the Pb
standards for February–April, March–May, and
April–June 2012.
2 See
E:\FR\FM\03SER1.SGM
03SER1
52206
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
recommendation that EPA not
redesignate the area to nonattainment.
Governor Brewer based her
recommendation on ADEQ’s belief that
recently installed pollution controls on
the anode furnaces at the ASARCO
copper smelter, which is the source of
Pb emissions in the Hayden area, had
reduced Pb emissions.6
Under section 107(d)(3) of the CAA,
EPA may modify states’
recommendations as it deems necessary.
After reviewing the Governor’s
September 25, 2013 recommendation,
the supporting information submitted
by the State, and additional relevant,
available information, EPA concluded
that it would be appropriate to
redesignate the Hayden area to
nonattainment for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
EPA notified the Governor of its
intention to modify her
recommendation in a letter dated April
21, 2014.7
On May 2, 2014, EPA issued our
proposal to redesignate the Hayden area
to nonattainment for the Pb NAAQS.
Our proposal was based on the
monitoring data from the ADEQ Globe
Highway monitor recorded between
January 2010 and December 2012. We
also evaluated preliminary monitoring
data collected in 2013 8 from the ADEQ
Globe Highway monitor and
preliminary data from the network of
monitors operated by ASARCO 9 that
were installed and began collecting data
in July and August of 2013. As shown
in Table 1, ADEQ’s Globe Highway
monitor recorded three violations of the
Pb NAAQS in 2012.10 Two of the
ASARCO monitors (the Parking Lot
monitor and the Hillcrest Avenue
monitor) measured values over the Pb
standards in 2013. EPA evaluated the
use of this set of secondary data by
considering trends, gradients, and the
magnitude of measured concentrations
relative to the Pb standards. EPA
concluded that strong trends and
gradients are apparent in the
preliminary data, and that preliminary
data collected by two of the ASARCO
monitors after the air pollution controls
were installed on the anode furnaces
suggest violations of the Pb standards
occurred in the Hayden area in 2013.
These data, along with newer data
(available to date), are presented
below.11
TABLE 1—2012, 2013, AND 2014 Pb DESIGN VALUES (DVs, μg/m3), ADEQ’S GLOBE HIGHWAY MONITOR (AQS ID
04–007–1002) AND PRELIMINARY DATA FROM ASARCO’S HILLCREST AND PARKING LOT MONITORS
ADEQ’s globe hwy monitor
3-month period
2012
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 .............
ASARCO’s
parking lot monitor
(preliminary)
2014
(preliminary)
2013
0.07
0.14
0.15
0.20
0.16
0.20
0.15
0.14
0.12
0.11
0.09
0.06
ASARCO’s
Hillcrest monitor
(preliminary)
0.04
0.04
0.09
0.11
0.11
0.12
0.11
0.11
0.06
0.06
0.04
0.03
2013
2014
2013
2014
0.02
0.04
0.07
**
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
0.12
0.13
0.19
0.23
0.29
0.22
0.19
0.13
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
0.39
0.65
1.04
1.18
0.79
0.40
0.25
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
* ADEQ data pulled from AQS on July 3, 2014. ADEQ’s 2013 data were certified by the State on May 30, 2014.
** Not available.
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
For our proposal, we also reviewed
and where appropriate updated our
2010 analysis of relevant factors related
to establishing an appropriate
nonattainment area boundary. We
concluded that the existing boundary
for the Hayden area should be retained.
In light of the violations of the Pb
standards recorded in 2012 at ADEQ’s
Globe Highway monitor, and in
consideration of other relevant air
quality data indicating that elevated
levels of Pb continue to occur within the
Hayden area, 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.
For more detailed background
information concerning the 2008 Pb
NAAQS and the initial designation
process for the 2008 Pb NAAQS in
general and the Hayden area in
particular, and for an in-depth
discussion of the rationale for our
proposal, please see our May 2, 2014
proposed rule and the accompanying
technical support document, which is
included in the docket for this action.
6 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.’’ See Letter from Janice
K. Brewer, Governor of Arizona, to Jared
Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA
Region 9, dated September 25, 2013.
7 Letter from Jared Blumenfeld, Regional
Administrator, U.S. EPA Region 9, to Janice Brewer,
Governor of Arizona, dated April 21, 2014.
8 Because 2013 data had not been certified as
being completely submitted and accurate at the
time of our proposal, we treated it as supplemental
information.
9 The ASARCO monitors were established for
multiple purposes, including comparison to the
NAAQS.
10 ADEQ’s Globe Highway monitor did not record
a violation of the Pb NAAQS in 2013, but in order
to be in attainment of the 2008 Pb NAAQS, an area
cannot measure any violations for three consecutive
calendar years.
11 The newer data show that values over the Pb
standards continue to be measured at the two
ASARCO monitors. However, EPA would still
redesignate the area to nonattainment even in the
absence of the 2014 data.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:42 Sep 02, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
II. Response to Comments on the
Proposed Rule
EPA’s May 2, 2014 proposed rule
provided a 30-day public comment
period. During this period, we received
one comment letter from ASARCO,
which opposes the redesignation. A
summary of ASARCO’s comments along
with EPA’s responses to the comments
are provided below.
Comment 1: ASARCO asserted that
the installation of new pollution control
E:\FR\FM\03SER1.SGM
03SER1
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
equipment (hoods that collect and route
the anode furnaces’ off-gas to a
baghouse for particulate capture), which
was completed in July of 2012, has
substantially reduced ambient lead
concentrations, noting that there have
not been any exceedances of the Pb
NAAQS at the Globe Highway monitor
since July 2012.
Response: EPA commends the
installation of pollution control
equipment on the anode furnaces at the
ASARCO facility and understands that
the equipment may have resulted in a
reduction of ambient Pb concentrations,
as measured at the Globe Highway
monitor. However, based on the form of
the Pb NAAQS (i.e., three consecutive
calendar years without a violation are
required before an area can be
considered to be attaining the standard),
the monitor continues to violate the Pb
NAAQS based on the monitoring data
recorded prior to July 2012. In addition,
the more extensive monitoring network
recently installed by ASARCO suggests
that the Globe Highway site is not
capturing maximum ambient
concentrations of Pb in the area, and
that the area may be experiencing
ongoing violations of the Pb NAAQS.
Comment 2: ASARCO pointed out
that it is in the process of engineering
a converter retrofit project and making
other process improvements that will
improve sulfur dioxide (SO2) and
particulate control in order to comply
with the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS attainment
deadline. ASARCO asserted that these
projects will reduce process fugitive
emissions and further reduce ambient
concentrations of Pb in the Hayden area.
Response: EPA cannot determine
based on the information before us
whether ASARCO’s converter retrofit
project, which is designed to address
violations of the SO2 NAAQS, will
reduce fugitive emissions of Pb and
result in an improvement in air quality
with respect to Pb. ASARCO did not
provide any support in its comment
letter for its conclusory assertion that
fugitive emissions of Pb would be
reduced or attempt to quantify potential
air quality benefits. Furthermore, in its
converter retrofit project permit
application,12 ASARCO estimated that
Pb emissions would increase by 0.49
tons per year, after taking into account
reductions realized by contemporaneous
12 Letter from Eric L. Hiser, Law Offices of Jorden
Bischoff & Hiser, P.L.C., Counsel for ASARCO, to
Balaji Vaidyanathan, Air Permit Section Manager,
ADEQ, Re: Proposed Converter Aisle Retrofit
Project; ASARCO LLC—Hayden Operations—
Operating Permit No. 1000042, dated September 26,
2012.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:42 Sep 02, 2014
Jkt 232001
projects.13 Additional analysis, such as
will be required under a Pb
nonattainment designation and
planning effort, will provide greater
certainty regarding the impact of the
current efforts on ambient
concentrations of Pb and will help
clarify what additional areas at the
facility are contributing to the ambient
concentration of Pb and whether any
additional controls are needed.
Comment 3: ASARCO expressed
concerns that the supplemental data
EPA considered might not be
appropriate for determining ambient air
quality because the monitors were
designed for other purposes or were not
located in ambient air. ASARCO further
noted that it had not evaluated the
conformance of the supplemental
monitoring data with 40 CFR 58.15.
Response: The ASARCO monitors
were established for multiple purposes,
including comparison to the NAAQS.14
Further, EPA defines ambient air as
‘‘that portion of the atmosphere,
external to buildings, to which the
general public has access.’’ 40 CFR
50.1(e). The public has access to the
areas where the ASARCO monitors are
located and those monitors are
appropriately considered to be located
in ambient air. While data used as the
basis for determining whether an area is
violating a NAAQS must meet specific
requirements contained within 40 CFR
Part 58, any available monitoring data
may be considered as supplementary
information, regardless of monitoring
intent or conformance with 40 CFR
58.15 (Annual air monitoring data
certification) in order to improve our
understanding of what is occurring. The
data from the ASARCO monitors are
provided as supplementary information
and are appropriate for this purpose.
Comment 4: ASARCO observed that
Arizona is required to submit a SIP by
13 EPA regulations allow sources to do a netting
analysis that takes into account emissions changes
at a facility within a contemporaneous period in
order to determine whether an emissions increase
resulting from a project is ‘‘significant’’ and
therefore triggers new source review permitting
requirements. 40 CFR 52.21(b)(3)(i) defines a ‘‘net
emissions increase’’ in part as ‘‘the increase in
emissions from a particular physical change . . .
[and] any other increases and decreases in actual
emissions at the major stationary source that are
contemporaneous with the particular change and
are otherwise creditable.’’ In this particular case,
ASARCO offset the increase in Pb emissions
resulting from the converter aisle retrofit project
(2.64 tons per year) with contemporaneous
decreases from the anode furnace project (1.7 tpy)
and the flash vent improvements (0.45 tons per
year) to arrive at a net emissions increase of 0.49
tons per year.
14 See the Final Phase II Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study (RI/FS) Work Plan, Part 1 of 2—
Air. ASARCO Hayden Plant Site. March 2012, pages
5–1 and 5–2.
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
52207
April 2015 that will show how the
Hayden area will attain the SO2
NAAQS, and questioned whether
triggering the Pb nonattainment
planning process by redesignating the
area to nonattainment for the Pb
NAAQS would result in any additional
emissions reductions or faster
reductions in ambient concentrations of
Pb. ASARCO urged EPA to consider
deferring the redesignation of the
Hayden area to nonattainment as long as
the Globe Highway monitor does not
measure any additional exceedances of
the Pb NAAQS and ASARCO and ADEQ
make ‘‘expeditious progress toward
installing controls in the SO2 NAAQS
planning process.’’ ASARCO observed
that EPA could exercise its right to
redesignate the area if progress toward
‘‘implementing the controls reducing
lead emissions’’ were to stop or be
delayed, and contended that such an
approach would ensure expeditious
attainment of the NAAQS while
‘‘significantly reducing the burden’’ on
ADEQ, the planning organizations, and
EPA.
Response: The Globe Highway
monitoring site was chosen to capture
the maximum ambient concentration of
Pb in the Hayden area, based on the
information available at the time.15 This
task was made particularly challenging
by the complex meteorology and
topography in the area. As previously
noted, recently deployed monitors
suggest the Globe Highway site may not
be experiencing the highest
concentrations of ambient Pb in the
Hayden area. As a result, EPA disagrees
with ASARCO’s suggestion that we
suspend the redesignation process based
on recent improvements in air quality
measured at the Globe Highway monitor
and only restart it if new violations are
recorded at the Globe Highway monitor.
Further, while the controls required
under the Hayden SO2 SIP could
possibly result in reductions in ambient
concentrations of Pb, an SO2 SIP is not
designed for that purpose and will not
ensure that the reductions are sufficient
to achieve attainment of the Pb NAAQS.
Accordingly, EPA does not agree that
relying on the SO2 NAAQS planning
process to resolve the Pb problem will
ensure expeditious attainment of the Pb
standard.
15 See Attachment A of ADEQ’s Quality
Assurance Program Plan for the Lead (Pb) Ambient
Air Monitoring Network, dated October 2011. Also
note that ADEQ is currently in the process of
evaluating monitoring locations in order to ensure
that it is monitoring at the location expected to
capture the maximum concentrations in ambient
air, taking into account logistics and the potential
for population exposure.
E:\FR\FM\03SER1.SGM
03SER1
52208
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Exposure to Pb is a serious health
concern. It causes a range of adverse
health effects, most notably in children.
Exposures to low levels of Pb early in
life have been linked to effects on IQ,
learning, memory, and behavior.16
Taking the ‘‘wait and see’’ approach
advocated by ASARCO could delay by
several years the implementation of
controls designed to ensure attainment
of the Pb NAAQS.
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
III. Final Action
For the reasons provided in the
proposed rule and TSD and in this final
rule, EPA is taking final action pursuant
to section 107(d)(3) of the Clean Air Act
to redesignate the Hayden area, 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). This
redesignation to nonattainment is based
on violations of the 2008 Pb NAAQS
recorded at the Globe Highway site and
on additional relevant information as
described above and in more detail in
our proposal.
As a result of this redesignation to
nonattainment, the Hayden area is
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.17 Lastly, the new Pb
16 Depending on the level of exposure, lead can
adversely affect the nervous system, kidney
function, immune system, reproductive and
developmental systems and the cardiovascular
system. For more information regarding the health
effects of Pb exposure, see 73 FR 66964, November
12, 2008, or https://www.epa.gov/airquality/lead/
health.html.
17 EPA has issued guidance on the statutory
requirements applicable to Pb nonattainment areas.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:42 Sep 02, 2014
Jkt 232001
nonattainment area will 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.
IV. 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 today’s redesignation to
nonattainment, as well as the
establishment of SIP submittal
schedules, will result in none of the
effects identified in Executive Order
12866, section 3(f). Under section
107(d)(3) of the Act, redesignations to
nonattainment are based upon air
quality considerations. This
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 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 makes a factual
determination and establishes a
schedule to require the State to submit
SIP revisions, and does not directly
regulate any entities. Therefore,
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, and its addendum, signed by Scott Mathias
on August 10, 2012.
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), EPA
certifies that today’s 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 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 action (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 action
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
E:\FR\FM\03SER1.SGM
03SER1
52209
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
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 redesignates 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 redesignated in
today’s action 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 communicate 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 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 redesignates 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.
Dated: August 20, 2014.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Part 81, chapter I, title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
PART 81—DESIGNATION OF AREAS
FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING
PURPOSES
1. The authority citation for part 81
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart C—Section 107 Attainment
Status Designations
2. In § 81.303, the table entitled
‘‘Arizona—2008 Lead NAAQS’’ is
amended by revising the entries for
‘‘Hayden, AZ’’ to read as follows:
■
§ 81.303
*
*
Arizona.
*
*
*
ARIZONA—2008 LEAD NAAQS
Designation for the 2008 NAAQS a
Designated area
Date 1
Hayden, AZ:
Gila County (part)
The portions of Gila County that are bounded by T4S, R15E; T4S, R16E (except those portions in
the San Carlos Indian Reservation); T5S, R15E; T5S, R16E (except those portions in the San
Carlos Indian Reservation).
Pinal County (part)
The portions of Pinal County that are bounded by: T4S, R14E; T4S, R16E (except those portions
in the San Carlos Indian Reservation); T5S, R14E; T5S, R15E; T6S, R16E (except those portions in the San Carlos Indian Reservation); T6S, R14E; T6S, R15E; T6S, R16E (except those
portions in the San Carlos Indian Reservation).
*
a Includes
*
*
*
10–3–14
Nonattainment.
10–3–14
Nonattainment.
*
*
Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified.
31, 2011 unless otherwise noted.
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
1 December
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:42 Sep 02, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\03SER1.SGM
Type
03SER1
*
52210
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
[FR Doc. 2014–20920 Filed 9–2–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2013–0504; FRL–9915–46]
Trifloxystrobin; Pesticide Tolerances
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This regulation establishes
tolerances for residues of trifloxystrobin
in or on pea, dry, seed; pea, field, hay;
and pea, field, vines. Bayer CropScience
requested these tolerances under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA).
DATES: This regulation is effective
September 3, 2014. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received
on or before November 3, 2014, and
must be filed in accordance with the
instructions provided in 40 CFR part
178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).
ADDRESSES: The docket for this action,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA–HQ–OPP–2013–0504, is
available at https://www.regulations.gov
or at the Office of Pesticide Programs
Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket)
in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William
Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460–0001. The Public Reading Room
is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744,
and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review
the visitor instructions and additional
information about the docket available
at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lois
Rossi, Registration Division (7505P),
Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001; main telephone
number: (703) 305–7090; email address:
RDFRNotices@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
You may be potentially affected by
this action if you are an agricultural
producer, food manufacturer, or
pesticide manufacturer. The following
list of North American Industrial
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:42 Sep 02, 2014
Jkt 232001
Classification System (NAICS) codes is
not intended to be exhaustive, but rather
provides a guide to help readers
determine whether this document
applies to them. Potentially affected
entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code
112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code
311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS
code 32532).
B. How can I get electronic access to
other related information?
You may access a frequently updated
electronic version of EPA’s tolerance
regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through
the Government Printing Office’s e-CFR
site at https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/
40tab_02.tpl.
C. How can I file an objection or hearing
request?
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21
U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation
and may also request a hearing on those
objections. You must file your objection
or request a hearing on this regulation
in accordance with the instructions
provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure
proper receipt by EPA, you must
identify docket ID number EPA–HQ–
OPP–2013–0504 in the subject line on
the first page of your submission. All
objections and requests for a hearing
must be in writing, and must be
received by the Hearing Clerk on or
before November 3, 2014. Addresses for
mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40
CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or
hearing request with the Hearing Clerk
as described in 40 CFR part 178, please
submit a copy of the filing (excluding
any Confidential Business Information
(CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket.
Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be
disclosed publicly by EPA without prior
notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your
objection or hearing request, identified
by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–
2013–0504, by one of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be CBI or
other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute.
• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental
Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001.
• Hand Delivery: To make special
arrangements for hand delivery or
delivery of boxed information, please
follow the instructions at https://
www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
Additional instructions on
commenting or visiting the docket,
along with more information about
dockets generally, is available at https://
www.epa.gov/dockets.
II. Summary of Petitioned-For
Tolerance
In the Federal Register of October 25,
2013 (78 FR 63938) (FRL–9901–96),
EPA issued a document pursuant to
FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C.
346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a
pesticide petition (PP 3F8180) by Bayer
CropScience, 2 T.W. Alexander Drive,
P.O. Box 12014, Research Triangle Park,
NC 27709. The petition requested that
40 CFR 180.555 be amended by
establishing tolerances for residues of
the fungicide trifloxystrobin,
benzeneacetic acid, (E,E)-a(methoxyimino)-2-[[[[1-[3(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]ethylidene]
amino]oxy]methyl]-, methyl ester, and
the free form of its acid metabolite
CGA–321113, (E,E)-methoxyimino-[2-[1(3-trifluoromethyl-phenyl)ethylideneaminooxymethyl]phenyl]acetic acid, calculated as the
stoichiometric equivalent of
trifloxystrobin, in or on pea, dry, seed
at 0.06 parts per million (ppm); pea,
field, hay at 15 ppm; pea, field, vines at
4.0 ppm; chickpea, seed at 0.06 ppm;
and lentil, seed at 0.06 ppm. That
document referenced a summary of the
petition prepared by Bayer CropScience,
the registrant, which is available in the
docket, https://www.regulations.gov.
There were no comments received in
response to the notice of filing.
Based upon review of the data
supporting the petition, EPA has
corrected proposed commodity
definitions and eliminated certain
proposed crop tolerances. The reasons
for these changes are explained in Unit
IV.C.
III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and
Determination of Safety
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA
allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the
legal limit for a pesticide chemical
residue in or on a food) only if EPA
determines that the tolerance is ‘‘safe.’’
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA
defines ‘‘safe’’ to mean that ‘‘there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will
result from aggregate exposure to the
pesticide chemical residue, including
all anticipated dietary exposures and all
E:\FR\FM\03SER1.SGM
03SER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 170 (Wednesday, September 3, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52205-52210]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20920]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 81
[EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0266; FRL-9916-11-Region 9]
Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of
Arizona; Pinal County and Gila County; Pb
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with section 107(d)of the Clean Air Act (CAA),
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is redesignating the Hayden
area, which encompasses portions of southern Gila and eastern Pinal
counties, Arizona, from ``unclassifiable'' to ``nonattainment'' for the
2008 national ambient air quality standards (``NAAQS'' or
``standards'') for lead (Pb). EPA's redesignation of 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
will 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 the Hayden area,
including, but not limited to, the requirement to submit, within 18
months of redesignation, a revision to the Arizona state implementation
plan (SIP) that provides for attainment of the Pb standards as
expeditiously as practicable, but no later than five years after the
effective date of this redesignation.
DATES: This rule is effective on October 3, 2014.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0266. Generally, documents in the docket for this
action are 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 at www.regulations.gov, some
information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location
(e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), 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, Air Planning Office
(AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 972-
3964, vagenas.ginger@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
Table of Contents
I. Background and Summary of EPA's Proposed Action
II. Response to Comments on the Proposed Rule
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background and Summary of EPA's Proposed Action
EPA revised the primary (health-based) Pb 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. In a separate, later action, we revised the Pb monitoring
regulations to require monitors to be sited near non-airport sources
emitting 0.5 tons or more of Pb per year. See 75 FR 81126, December 27,
2010.
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.
On November 8, 2011, EPA completed its initial designations for the
revised Pb standards.\1\ Most of Arizona was designated unclassifiable/
attainment for the Pb NAAQS. We designated the Hayden area, with the
boundaries Arizona recommended,\2\ as unclassifiable because there were
available monitoring data recorded at ADEQ's 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.\3\ In our letter to
Governor Brewer notifying her of our action, EPA explained that, should
we subsequently determine that the Pb standards were being violated, we
would initiate the process to redesignate the Hayden area to
nonattainment.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 76 FR 72097, November 22, 2011.
\2\ See 40 CFR 81.303 for a legal description of the boundary of
the Hayden area.
\3\ 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 we did not rely on them as the basis for a nonattainment
designation.
\4\ Letter from Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator, U.S. EPA, to
Janice K. Brewer, Governor of Arizona, dated November 8, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. In June 2013 we determined that quality
assured, certified monitoring data collected in 2012 at the ADEQ Globe
Highway monitor showed the area was violating the Pb NAAQS.\5\
Accordingly, on June 12, 2013, we notified Arizona that available Pb
monitoring data indicated that the air quality designation for the
Hayden area should be revised to nonattainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The ADEQ Globe Highway monitor recorded three violations of
the Pb NAAQS in 2012. Three-month rolling average values violated
the Pb standards for February-April, March-May, and April-June 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Governor Brewer responded on September 25, 2013, with a
[[Page 52206]]
recommendation that EPA not redesignate the area to nonattainment.
Governor Brewer based her recommendation on ADEQ's belief that recently
installed pollution controls on the anode furnaces at the ASARCO copper
smelter, which is the source of Pb emissions in the Hayden area, had
reduced Pb emissions.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 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.'' See Letter from Janice K. Brewer, Governor of Arizona,
to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region 9,
dated September 25, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under section 107(d)(3) of the CAA, EPA may modify states'
recommendations as it deems necessary. After reviewing the Governor's
September 25, 2013 recommendation, the supporting information submitted
by the State, and additional relevant, available information, EPA
concluded that it would be appropriate to redesignate the Hayden area
to nonattainment for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. EPA notified the Governor of
its intention to modify her recommendation in a letter dated April 21,
2014.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Letter from Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, U.S.
EPA Region 9, to Janice Brewer, Governor of Arizona, dated April 21,
2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 2, 2014, EPA issued our proposal to redesignate the Hayden
area to nonattainment for the Pb NAAQS. Our proposal was based on the
monitoring data from the ADEQ Globe Highway monitor recorded between
January 2010 and December 2012. We also evaluated preliminary
monitoring data collected in 2013 \8\ from the ADEQ Globe Highway
monitor and preliminary data from the network of monitors operated by
ASARCO \9\ that were installed and began collecting data in July and
August of 2013. As shown in Table 1, ADEQ's Globe Highway monitor
recorded three violations of the Pb NAAQS in 2012.\10\ Two of the
ASARCO monitors (the Parking Lot monitor and the Hillcrest Avenue
monitor) measured values over the Pb standards in 2013. EPA evaluated
the use of this set of secondary data by considering trends, gradients,
and the magnitude of measured concentrations relative to the Pb
standards. EPA concluded that strong trends and gradients are apparent
in the preliminary data, and that preliminary data collected by two of
the ASARCO monitors after the air pollution controls were installed on
the anode furnaces suggest violations of the Pb standards occurred in
the Hayden area in 2013. These data, along with newer data (available
to date), are presented below.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Because 2013 data had not been certified as being completely
submitted and accurate at the time of our proposal, we treated it as
supplemental information.
\9\ The ASARCO monitors were established for multiple purposes,
including comparison to the NAAQS.
\10\ ADEQ's Globe Highway monitor did not record a violation of
the Pb NAAQS in 2013, but in order to be in attainment of the 2008
Pb NAAQS, an area cannot measure any violations for three
consecutive calendar years.
\11\ The newer data show that values over the Pb standards
continue to be measured at the two ASARCO monitors. However, EPA
would still redesignate the area to nonattainment even in the
absence of the 2014 data.
Table 1--2012, 2013, and 2014 Pb Design Values (DVs, [mu]g/m\3\), ADEQ's Globe Highway Monitor (AQS ID
04-007-1002) and Preliminary Data From ASARCO's Hillcrest and Parking Lot Monitors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADEQ's globe hwy monitor ASARCO's Hillcrest monitor ASARCO's parking lot monitor
------------------------------------------------- (preliminary) (preliminary)
3-month period 2014 ---------------------------------------------------------------
2012 2013 (preliminary) 2013 2014 2013 2014
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov-Dec-Jan............................ 0.07 0.04 0.02 .............. 0.29 .............. 1.18
Dec-Jan-Feb............................ 0.14 0.04 0.04 .............. 0.22 .............. 0.79
Jan-Feb-Mar............................ 0.15 0.09 0.07 .............. 0.19 .............. 0.40
Feb-Mar-Apr............................ 0.20 0.11 ** .............. 0.13 .............. 0.25
Mar-Apr-May............................ 0.16 0.11 ............... .............. .............. .............. ..............
Apr-May-Jun............................ 0.20 0.12 ............... .............. .............. .............. ..............
May-Jun-Jul............................ 0.15 0.11 ............... .............. .............. .............. ..............
Jun-Jul-Aug............................ 0.14 0.11 ............... .............. .............. .............. ..............
Jul-Aug-Sep............................ 0.12 0.06 ............... 0.12 .............. .............. ..............
Aug-Sep-Oct............................ 0.11 0.06 ............... 0.13 .............. 0.39 ..............
Sept-Oct-Nov........................... 0.09 0.04 ............... 0.19 .............. 0.65 ..............
Oct-Nov-Dec............................ 0.06 0.03 ............... 0.23 .............. 1.04 ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* ADEQ data pulled from AQS on July 3, 2014. ADEQ's 2013 data were certified by the State on May 30, 2014.
** Not available.
For our proposal, we also reviewed and where appropriate updated
our 2010 analysis of relevant factors related to establishing an
appropriate nonattainment area boundary. We concluded that the existing
boundary for the Hayden area should be retained.
In light of the violations of the Pb standards recorded in 2012 at
ADEQ's Globe Highway monitor, and in consideration of other relevant
air quality data indicating that elevated levels of Pb continue to
occur within the Hayden area, 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.
For more detailed background information concerning the 2008 Pb
NAAQS and the initial designation process for the 2008 Pb NAAQS in
general and the Hayden area in particular, and for an in-depth
discussion of the rationale for our proposal, please see our May 2,
2014 proposed rule and the accompanying technical support document,
which is included in the docket for this action.
II. Response to Comments on the Proposed Rule
EPA's May 2, 2014 proposed rule provided a 30-day public comment
period. During this period, we received one comment letter from ASARCO,
which opposes the redesignation. A summary of ASARCO's comments along
with EPA's responses to the comments are provided below.
Comment 1: ASARCO asserted that the installation of new pollution
control
[[Page 52207]]
equipment (hoods that collect and route the anode furnaces' off-gas to
a baghouse for particulate capture), which was completed in July of
2012, has substantially reduced ambient lead concentrations, noting
that there have not been any exceedances of the Pb NAAQS at the Globe
Highway monitor since July 2012.
Response: EPA commends the installation of pollution control
equipment on the anode furnaces at the ASARCO facility and understands
that the equipment may have resulted in a reduction of ambient Pb
concentrations, as measured at the Globe Highway monitor. However,
based on the form of the Pb NAAQS (i.e., three consecutive calendar
years without a violation are required before an area can be considered
to be attaining the standard), the monitor continues to violate the Pb
NAAQS based on the monitoring data recorded prior to July 2012. In
addition, the more extensive monitoring network recently installed by
ASARCO suggests that the Globe Highway site is not capturing maximum
ambient concentrations of Pb in the area, and that the area may be
experiencing ongoing violations of the Pb NAAQS.
Comment 2: ASARCO pointed out that it is in the process of
engineering a converter retrofit project and making other process
improvements that will improve sulfur dioxide (SO2) and
particulate control in order to comply with the 1-hour SO2
NAAQS attainment deadline. ASARCO asserted that these projects will
reduce process fugitive emissions and further reduce ambient
concentrations of Pb in the Hayden area.
Response: EPA cannot determine based on the information before us
whether ASARCO's converter retrofit project, which is designed to
address violations of the SO2 NAAQS, will reduce fugitive
emissions of Pb and result in an improvement in air quality with
respect to Pb. ASARCO did not provide any support in its comment letter
for its conclusory assertion that fugitive emissions of Pb would be
reduced or attempt to quantify potential air quality benefits.
Furthermore, in its converter retrofit project permit application,\12\
ASARCO estimated that Pb emissions would increase by 0.49 tons per
year, after taking into account reductions realized by contemporaneous
projects.\13\ Additional analysis, such as will be required under a Pb
nonattainment designation and planning effort, will provide greater
certainty regarding the impact of the current efforts on ambient
concentrations of Pb and will help clarify what additional areas at the
facility are contributing to the ambient concentration of Pb and
whether any additional controls are needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Letter from Eric L. Hiser, Law Offices of Jorden Bischoff &
Hiser, P.L.C., Counsel for ASARCO, to Balaji Vaidyanathan, Air
Permit Section Manager, ADEQ, Re: Proposed Converter Aisle Retrofit
Project; ASARCO LLC--Hayden Operations--Operating Permit No.
1000042, dated September 26, 2012.
\13\ EPA regulations allow sources to do a netting analysis that
takes into account emissions changes at a facility within a
contemporaneous period in order to determine whether an emissions
increase resulting from a project is ``significant'' and therefore
triggers new source review permitting requirements. 40 CFR
52.21(b)(3)(i) defines a ``net emissions increase'' in part as ``the
increase in emissions from a particular physical change . . . [and]
any other increases and decreases in actual emissions at the major
stationary source that are contemporaneous with the particular
change and are otherwise creditable.'' In this particular case,
ASARCO offset the increase in Pb emissions resulting from the
converter aisle retrofit project (2.64 tons per year) with
contemporaneous decreases from the anode furnace project (1.7 tpy)
and the flash vent improvements (0.45 tons per year) to arrive at a
net emissions increase of 0.49 tons per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 3: ASARCO expressed concerns that the supplemental data EPA
considered might not be appropriate for determining ambient air quality
because the monitors were designed for other purposes or were not
located in ambient air. ASARCO further noted that it had not evaluated
the conformance of the supplemental monitoring data with 40 CFR 58.15.
Response: The ASARCO monitors were established for multiple
purposes, including comparison to the NAAQS.\14\ Further, EPA defines
ambient air as ``that portion of the atmosphere, external to buildings,
to which the general public has access.'' 40 CFR 50.1(e). The public
has access to the areas where the ASARCO monitors are located and those
monitors are appropriately considered to be located in ambient air.
While data used as the basis for determining whether an area is
violating a NAAQS must meet specific requirements contained within 40
CFR Part 58, any available monitoring data may be considered as
supplementary information, regardless of monitoring intent or
conformance with 40 CFR 58.15 (Annual air monitoring data
certification) in order to improve our understanding of what is
occurring. The data from the ASARCO monitors are provided as
supplementary information and are appropriate for this purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See the Final Phase II Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study (RI/FS) Work Plan, Part 1 of 2--Air. ASARCO Hayden Plant Site.
March 2012, pages 5-1 and 5-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 4: ASARCO observed that Arizona is required to submit a SIP
by April 2015 that will show how the Hayden area will attain the
SO2 NAAQS, and questioned whether triggering the Pb
nonattainment planning process by redesignating the area to
nonattainment for the Pb NAAQS would result in any additional emissions
reductions or faster reductions in ambient concentrations of Pb. ASARCO
urged EPA to consider deferring the redesignation of the Hayden area to
nonattainment as long as the Globe Highway monitor does not measure any
additional exceedances of the Pb NAAQS and ASARCO and ADEQ make
``expeditious progress toward installing controls in the SO2
NAAQS planning process.'' ASARCO observed that EPA could exercise its
right to redesignate the area if progress toward ``implementing the
controls reducing lead emissions'' were to stop or be delayed, and
contended that such an approach would ensure expeditious attainment of
the NAAQS while ``significantly reducing the burden'' on ADEQ, the
planning organizations, and EPA.
Response: The Globe Highway monitoring site was chosen to capture
the maximum ambient concentration of Pb in the Hayden area, based on
the information available at the time.\15\ This task was made
particularly challenging by the complex meteorology and topography in
the area. As previously noted, recently deployed monitors suggest the
Globe Highway site may not be experiencing the highest concentrations
of ambient Pb in the Hayden area. As a result, EPA disagrees with
ASARCO's suggestion that we suspend the redesignation process based on
recent improvements in air quality measured at the Globe Highway
monitor and only restart it if new violations are recorded at the Globe
Highway monitor. Further, while the controls required under the Hayden
SO2 SIP could possibly result in reductions in ambient
concentrations of Pb, an SO2 SIP is not designed for that
purpose and will not ensure that the reductions are sufficient to
achieve attainment of the Pb NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA does not agree
that relying on the SO2 NAAQS planning process to resolve
the Pb problem will ensure expeditious attainment of the Pb standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Attachment A of ADEQ's Quality Assurance Program Plan
for the Lead (Pb) Ambient Air Monitoring Network, dated October
2011. Also note that ADEQ is currently in the process of evaluating
monitoring locations in order to ensure that it is monitoring at the
location expected to capture the maximum concentrations in ambient
air, taking into account logistics and the potential for population
exposure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 52208]]
Exposure to Pb is a serious health concern. It causes a range of
adverse health effects, most notably in children. Exposures to low
levels of Pb early in life have been linked to effects on IQ, learning,
memory, and behavior.\16\ Taking the ``wait and see'' approach
advocated by ASARCO could delay by several years the implementation of
controls designed to ensure attainment of the Pb NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Depending on the level of exposure, lead can adversely
affect the nervous system, kidney function, immune system,
reproductive and developmental systems and the cardiovascular
system. For more information regarding the health effects of Pb
exposure, see 73 FR 66964, November 12, 2008, or https://www.epa.gov/airquality/lead/health.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Final Action
For the reasons provided in the proposed rule and TSD and in this
final rule, EPA is taking final action pursuant to section 107(d)(3) of
the Clean Air Act to redesignate the Hayden area, 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). This redesignation to
nonattainment is based on violations of the 2008 Pb NAAQS recorded at
the Globe Highway site and on additional relevant information as
described above and in more detail in our proposal.
As a result of this redesignation to nonattainment, the Hayden area
is 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.\17\ Lastly, the new Pb
nonattainment area will 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 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, and its addendum, signed by Scott Mathias on
August 10, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. 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 today's redesignation to nonattainment, as well as the
establishment of SIP submittal schedules, will result in none of the
effects identified in Executive Order 12866, section 3(f). Under
section 107(d)(3) of the Act, redesignations to nonattainment are based
upon air quality considerations. This 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 makes a factual determination and
establishes a schedule to require the State to submit SIP revisions,
and does not directly regulate any entities. Therefore, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 605(b), EPA certifies that today's 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 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 action (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 action
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
[[Page 52209]]
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
redesignates 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 redesignated in
today's action 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 communicate 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 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 redesignates 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.
Dated: August 20, 2014.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Part 81, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
PART 81--DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES
0
1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart C--Section 107 Attainment Status Designations
0
2. In Sec. 81.303, the table entitled ``Arizona--2008 Lead NAAQS'' is
amended by revising the entries for ``Hayden, AZ'' to read as follows:
Sec. 81.303 Arizona.
* * * * *
Arizona--2008 Lead NAAQS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation for the 2008 NAAQS \a\
Designated area -------------------------------------------
Date \1\ Type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hayden, AZ:
Gila County (part)
The portions of Gila 10-3-14 Nonattainment.
County that are bounded
by T4S, R15E; T4S, R16E
(except those portions
in the San Carlos
Indian Reservation);
T5S, R15E; T5S, R16E
(except those portions
in the San Carlos
Indian Reservation).
Pinal County (part)
The portions of Pinal 10-3-14 Nonattainment.
County that are bounded
by: T4S, R14E; T4S,
R16E (except those
portions in the San
Carlos Indian
Reservation); T5S,
R14E; T5S, R15E; T6S,
R16E (except those
portions in the San
Carlos Indian
Reservation); T6S,
R14E; T6S, R15E; T6S,
R16E (except those
portions in the San
Carlos Indian
Reservation).
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as
otherwise specified.
\1\ December 31, 2011 unless otherwise noted.
[[Page 52210]]
[FR Doc. 2014-20920 Filed 9-2-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
