Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 52205 

1See 76 FR 72097, November 22, 2011. 

2See 40 CFR 81.303 for a legal description of the 

boundary of the Hayden area. 

3Because 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. 

4Letter from Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator, U.S. 

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

dated November 8, 2011. 

5The 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. 

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 

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 (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 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. 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

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 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
52206 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

7Letter from Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

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

Governor of Arizona, dated April 21, 2014. 

8Because 2013 data had not been certified as 

being completely submitted and accurate at the 

time of our proposal, we treated it as supplemental 

information. 

9The ASARCO monitors were established for 

multiple purposes, including comparison to the 

NAAQS. 

10ADEQ’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. 

11The 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. 

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

3-month period 

ADEQ’s globe hwy monitor ASARCO’s 

Hillcrest monitor 

(preliminary) 

ASARCO’s 

parking lot monitor 

(preliminary) 

2012 2013 2014 

(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 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 52207 

12Letter 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. 

13EPA 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. 

14See 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. 

15See 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. 

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. 

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 

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. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
52208 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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 http://www.epa.gov/airquality/lead/

health.html. 17EPA 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. 

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. 

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. 

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, 

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 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 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 

■ 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 

Designated area 

Designation for the 2008 NAAQSa

Date 1 Type 

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).

10–3–14 Nonattainment. 

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).

10–3–14 Nonattainment. 

* * * * * * * 

a Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified. 

1 December 31, 2011 unless otherwise noted. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
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 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: 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 http://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 http://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: 

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 

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 http://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: http:// 

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/ 

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 http://

www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. 

Additional instructions on 

commenting or visiting the docket, 

along with more information about 

dockets generally, is available at http:// 

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, http://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 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES