Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 25077 

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. 

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 

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. 

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 

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. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
25078 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

2Letter (with enclosure) from Benjamin H. 

Grumbles, Director, ADEQ, to Laura Yoshii, Acting 

Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region 9, dated 

December 17, 2009. 

3See the 2010 draft technical support document 

entitled ‘‘ARIZONA, Area Designations for the 2008 

Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards.’’ 

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 (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 3- 

month 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 

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. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 25079 

4Letter from Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, U.S. EPA, Region 9, to Janice K. 

Brewer, Governor of Arizona, dated June 14, 2010. 5See 76 FR 72097, November 22, 2011. 

6See 40 CFR 81.303 for a legal description of the 

boundary of the Hayden area. 7Because 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. 

8Letter from Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator, U.S. 

EPA, to Janice K. Brewer, Governor of Arizona, 

dated November 8, 2011. 

9Letter from Janice K. Brewer, Governor of 

Arizona, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, U.S. EPA Region 9, dated September 

25, 2013. 

10The boundaries of the SO2 nonattainment area 

and the Pb unclassifiable area are identical. 

11The 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. 

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 

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. 

TABLE 1—2012 PB DESIGN VALUES

(DVS, μG/M3), 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 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 

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


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
25080 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

12Letter (with enclosure) from Eric C. Massey, 

Director, Air Quality, ADEQ, to Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region 9, dated 

October 4, 2013. 

13ADEQ 2013 TSD, page 4. 

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. 

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 ADEQ 

monitor 

Hillcrest 

Ave. 

Parking 

Lot 

Post 

Office 

Winkelman 

HS 

Globe 

Highway 

Globe Highway—ADEQ 

ST–23 ST–14 ST–26 ST–26 

co-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 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 25081 

15ASARCO’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. 

17See Table 7 of the TSD. 

18Quality Assurance Program Plan for the Lead 

(Pb) Ambient Air Monitoring Network, Attachment 

A. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 

October 2011. 

19See 76 FR 72097 at 72102. 

20The basis for Arizona’s recommended 

boundary is discussed in ADEQ’s 2009 boundary 

recommendation technical support document. 

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 

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 

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 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
25082 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

21Because of the constraints imposed by the 

terrain, meteorology does not play a significant role 

in determining the boundary for this area. 

22EPA 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. 

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. 

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. 

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 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 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 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 

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 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. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
25084 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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 

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 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition 

finding. 

SUMMARY: 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 http://

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 

http://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 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 

800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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 12- 

month 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. 

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 

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 12- 

month 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 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS