Document ID: EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0266-0041
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes: State of Arizona; Pinal County and Gila County; Pb
Posted Date: 2014-09-03T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 170 (Wednesday, September 3, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52205-52210]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20920]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0266; FRL-9916-11-Region 9]

Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of 
Arizona; Pinal County and Gila County; Pb

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 107(d)of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is redesignating the Hayden 
area, which encompasses portions of southern Gila and eastern Pinal 
counties, Arizona, from ``unclassifiable'' to ``nonattainment'' for the 
2008 national ambient air quality standards (``NAAQS'' or 
``standards'') for lead (Pb). EPA's redesignation of the Hayden area is 
based on recorded violations of the Pb standards at the Arizona 
Department of Environmental Quality's (ADEQ's) Globe Highway monitoring 
site, located near the towns of Hayden and Winkleman, Arizona, and 
additional relevant air quality information. The effect of this action 
will be to redesignate the Hayden area to nonattainment for the Pb 
standards and thereby to impose certain planning requirements on the 
State of Arizona to reduce Pb concentrations within the Hayden area, 
including, but not limited to, the requirement to submit, within 18 
months of redesignation, a revision to the Arizona state implementation 
plan (SIP) that provides for attainment of the Pb standards as 
expeditiously as practicable, but no later than five years after the 
effective date of this redesignation.

DATES: This rule is effective on October 3, 2014.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0266. Generally, documents in the docket for this 
action are available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard 
copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. 
While documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov, some 
information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location 
(e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be publicly 
available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy 
materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours 
with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ginger Vagenas, Air Planning Office 
(AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 972-
3964, vagenas.ginger@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information 
section is arranged as follows:

Table of Contents

I. Background and Summary of EPA's Proposed Action
II. Response to Comments on the Proposed Rule
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Summary of EPA's Proposed Action

    EPA revised the primary (health-based) Pb NAAQS on October 15, 
2008, lowering it from the 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) 
level set in 1978 to a level of 0.15 [mu]g/m\3\. The secondary 
(welfare-based) standard was revised to be identical in all respects to 
the primary standard. See 73 FR 66964, November 12, 2008. An area 
violates the revised standards if any arithmetic 3-month mean 
(hereafter referred to as ``average'') concentration measured within 
the preceding three years is greater than 0.15 [mu]g/m\3\. EPA also 
expanded the Pb monitoring network by requiring new monitors to be 
sited near sources emitting one ton or more of Pb per year by January 
1, 2010 and in certain non-source oriented locations by January 1, 
2011. In a separate, later action, we revised the Pb monitoring 
regulations to require monitors to be sited near non-airport sources 
emitting 0.5 tons or more of Pb per year. See 75 FR 81126, December 27, 
2010.
    Section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'') establishes a 
process for making initial area designations when a NAAQS is revised. 
In general, states are required to submit designation recommendations 
to EPA within one year of promulgation of a new or revised standard and 
EPA is required to complete initial designations within two years of 
promulgation. However, if EPA has insufficient information to 
promulgate designations, it can extend the period for initial 
designations for up to one year.
    On November 8, 2011, EPA completed its initial designations for the 
revised Pb standards.\1\ Most of Arizona was designated unclassifiable/
attainment for the Pb NAAQS. We designated the Hayden area, with the 
boundaries Arizona recommended,\2\ as unclassifiable because there were 
available monitoring data recorded at ADEQ's Globe Highway monitoring 
site indicating a significant likelihood that the area was violating 
the 2008 Pb NAAQS, but the available information was insufficient at 
that time to make a nonattainment designation.\3\ In our letter to 
Governor Brewer notifying her of our action, EPA explained that, should 
we subsequently determine that the Pb standards were being violated, we 
would initiate the process to redesignate the Hayden area to 
nonattainment.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 76 FR 72097, November 22, 2011.
    \2\ See 40 CFR 81.303 for a legal description of the boundary of 
the Hayden area.
    \3\ Because of the form of the 2008 Pb NAAQS, one 3-month 
average ambient air concentration over 0.15 [mu]g/m\3\ is enough to 
cause a violation of the Pb NAAQS. ADEQ's Globe Highway monitor 
registered four violations in 2011; however, at the time of 
designation the data had not been quality assured and certified and 
therefore we did not rely on them as the basis for a nonattainment 
designation.
    \4\ Letter from Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator, U.S. EPA, to 
Janice K. Brewer, Governor of Arizona, dated November 8, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CAA grants EPA the authority to change the designation of, or 
``redesignate,'' areas in light of changes in circumstances. More 
specifically EPA has the authority under CAA section 107(d)(3) to 
redesignate areas (or portions thereof) on the basis of air quality 
data, planning and control considerations, or any other air quality-
related considerations. In June 2013 we determined that quality 
assured, certified monitoring data collected in 2012 at the ADEQ Globe 
Highway monitor showed the area was violating the Pb NAAQS.\5\ 
Accordingly, on June 12, 2013, we notified Arizona that available Pb 
monitoring data indicated that the air quality designation for the 
Hayden area should be revised to nonattainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The ADEQ Globe Highway monitor recorded three violations of 
the Pb NAAQS in 2012. Three-month rolling average values violated 
the Pb standards for February-April, March-May, and April-June 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Governor Brewer responded on September 25, 2013, with a

[[Page 52206]]

recommendation that EPA not redesignate the area to nonattainment. 
Governor Brewer based her recommendation on ADEQ's belief that recently 
installed pollution controls on the anode furnaces at the ASARCO copper 
smelter, which is the source of Pb emissions in the Hayden area, had 
reduced Pb emissions.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Governor Brewer recommended that the Hayden area not be 
redesignated to nonattainment ``because there have been no lead [Pb] 
standard violations since June 2012, when the ASARCO Hayden Copper 
Smelter completed the addition of controls to reduce lead 
emissions.'' See Letter from Janice K. Brewer, Governor of Arizona, 
to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region 9, 
dated September 25, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under section 107(d)(3) of the CAA, EPA may modify states' 
recommendations as it deems necessary. After reviewing the Governor's 
September 25, 2013 recommendation, the supporting information submitted 
by the State, and additional relevant, available information, EPA 
concluded that it would be appropriate to redesignate the Hayden area 
to nonattainment for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. EPA notified the Governor of 
its intention to modify her recommendation in a letter dated April 21, 
2014.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Letter from Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, U.S. 
EPA Region 9, to Janice Brewer, Governor of Arizona, dated April 21, 
2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 2, 2014, EPA issued our proposal to redesignate the Hayden 
area to nonattainment for the Pb NAAQS. Our proposal was based on the 
monitoring data from the ADEQ Globe Highway monitor recorded between 
January 2010 and December 2012. We also evaluated preliminary 
monitoring data collected in 2013 \8\ from the ADEQ Globe Highway 
monitor and preliminary data from the network of monitors operated by 
ASARCO \9\ that were installed and began collecting data in July and 
August of 2013. As shown in Table 1, ADEQ's Globe Highway monitor 
recorded three violations of the Pb NAAQS in 2012.\10\ Two of the 
ASARCO monitors (the Parking Lot monitor and the Hillcrest Avenue 
monitor) measured values over the Pb standards in 2013. EPA evaluated 
the use of this set of secondary data by considering trends, gradients, 
and the magnitude of measured concentrations relative to the Pb 
standards. EPA concluded that strong trends and gradients are apparent 
in the preliminary data, and that preliminary data collected by two of 
the ASARCO monitors after the air pollution controls were installed on 
the anode furnaces suggest violations of the Pb standards occurred in 
the Hayden area in 2013. These data, along with newer data (available 
to date), are presented below.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Because 2013 data had not been certified as being completely 
submitted and accurate at the time of our proposal, we treated it as 
supplemental information.
    \9\ The ASARCO monitors were established for multiple purposes, 
including comparison to the NAAQS.
    \10\ ADEQ's Globe Highway monitor did not record a violation of 
the Pb NAAQS in 2013, but in order to be in attainment of the 2008 
Pb NAAQS, an area cannot measure any violations for three 
consecutive calendar years.
    \11\ The newer data show that values over the Pb standards 
continue to be measured at the two ASARCO monitors. However, EPA 
would still redesignate the area to nonattainment even in the 
absence of the 2014 data.

                         Table 1--2012, 2013, and 2014 Pb Design Values (DVs, [mu]g/m\3\), ADEQ's Globe Highway Monitor (AQS ID
                                   04-007-1002) and Preliminary Data From ASARCO's Hillcrest and Parking Lot Monitors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     ADEQ's globe hwy monitor               ASARCO's Hillcrest monitor     ASARCO's parking lot monitor
                                        -------------------------------------------------          (preliminary)                   (preliminary)
             3-month period                                                    2014      ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                              2012            2013        (preliminary)        2013            2014            2013            2014
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov-Dec-Jan............................            0.07            0.04             0.02  ..............            0.29  ..............            1.18
Dec-Jan-Feb............................            0.14            0.04             0.04  ..............            0.22  ..............            0.79
Jan-Feb-Mar............................            0.15            0.09             0.07  ..............            0.19  ..............            0.40
Feb-Mar-Apr............................            0.20            0.11               **  ..............            0.13  ..............            0.25
Mar-Apr-May............................            0.16            0.11  ...............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
Apr-May-Jun............................            0.20            0.12  ...............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
May-Jun-Jul............................            0.15            0.11  ...............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
Jun-Jul-Aug............................            0.14            0.11  ...............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
Jul-Aug-Sep............................            0.12            0.06  ...............            0.12  ..............  ..............  ..............
Aug-Sep-Oct............................            0.11            0.06  ...............            0.13  ..............            0.39  ..............
Sept-Oct-Nov...........................            0.09            0.04  ...............            0.19  ..............            0.65  ..............
Oct-Nov-Dec............................            0.06            0.03  ...............            0.23  ..............            1.04  ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* ADEQ data pulled from AQS on July 3, 2014. ADEQ's 2013 data were certified by the State on May 30, 2014.
** Not available.

    For our proposal, we also reviewed and where appropriate updated 
our 2010 analysis of relevant factors related to establishing an 
appropriate nonattainment area boundary. We concluded that the existing 
boundary for the Hayden area should be retained.
    In light of the violations of the Pb standards recorded in 2012 at 
ADEQ's Globe Highway monitor, and in consideration of other relevant 
air quality data indicating that elevated levels of Pb continue to 
occur within the Hayden area, EPA concluded that the SIP planning and 
control requirements that are triggered by redesignation of an area to 
nonattainment for the Pb NAAQS would be the most appropriate means to 
ensure that this air quality problem is remedied.
    For more detailed background information concerning the 2008 Pb 
NAAQS and the initial designation process for the 2008 Pb NAAQS in 
general and the Hayden area in particular, and for an in-depth 
discussion of the rationale for our proposal, please see our May 2, 
2014 proposed rule and the accompanying technical support document, 
which is included in the docket for this action.

II. Response to Comments on the Proposed Rule

    EPA's May 2, 2014 proposed rule provided a 30-day public comment 
period. During this period, we received one comment letter from ASARCO, 
which opposes the redesignation. A summary of ASARCO's comments along 
with EPA's responses to the comments are provided below.
    Comment 1: ASARCO asserted that the installation of new pollution 
control

[[Page 52207]]

equipment (hoods that collect and route the anode furnaces' off-gas to 
a baghouse for particulate capture), which was completed in July of 
2012, has substantially reduced ambient lead concentrations, noting 
that there have not been any exceedances of the Pb NAAQS at the Globe 
Highway monitor since July 2012.
    Response: EPA commends the installation of pollution control 
equipment on the anode furnaces at the ASARCO facility and understands 
that the equipment may have resulted in a reduction of ambient Pb 
concentrations, as measured at the Globe Highway monitor. However, 
based on the form of the Pb NAAQS (i.e., three consecutive calendar 
years without a violation are required before an area can be considered 
to be attaining the standard), the monitor continues to violate the Pb 
NAAQS based on the monitoring data recorded prior to July 2012. In 
addition, the more extensive monitoring network recently installed by 
ASARCO suggests that the Globe Highway site is not capturing maximum 
ambient concentrations of Pb in the area, and that the area may be 
experiencing ongoing violations of the Pb NAAQS.
    Comment 2: ASARCO pointed out that it is in the process of 
engineering a converter retrofit project and making other process 
improvements that will improve sulfur dioxide (SO2) and 
particulate control in order to comply with the 1-hour SO2 
NAAQS attainment deadline. ASARCO asserted that these projects will 
reduce process fugitive emissions and further reduce ambient 
concentrations of Pb in the Hayden area.
    Response: EPA cannot determine based on the information before us 
whether ASARCO's converter retrofit project, which is designed to 
address violations of the SO2 NAAQS, will reduce fugitive 
emissions of Pb and result in an improvement in air quality with 
respect to Pb. ASARCO did not provide any support in its comment letter 
for its conclusory assertion that fugitive emissions of Pb would be 
reduced or attempt to quantify potential air quality benefits. 
Furthermore, in its converter retrofit project permit application,\12\ 
ASARCO estimated that Pb emissions would increase by 0.49 tons per 
year, after taking into account reductions realized by contemporaneous 
projects.\13\ Additional analysis, such as will be required under a Pb 
nonattainment designation and planning effort, will provide greater 
certainty regarding the impact of the current efforts on ambient 
concentrations of Pb and will help clarify what additional areas at the 
facility are contributing to the ambient concentration of Pb and 
whether any additional controls are needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Letter from Eric L. Hiser, Law Offices of Jorden Bischoff & 
Hiser, P.L.C., Counsel for ASARCO, to Balaji Vaidyanathan, Air 
Permit Section Manager, ADEQ, Re: Proposed Converter Aisle Retrofit 
Project; ASARCO LLC--Hayden Operations--Operating Permit No. 
1000042, dated September 26, 2012.
    \13\ EPA regulations allow sources to do a netting analysis that 
takes into account emissions changes at a facility within a 
contemporaneous period in order to determine whether an emissions 
increase resulting from a project is ``significant'' and therefore 
triggers new source review permitting requirements. 40 CFR 
52.21(b)(3)(i) defines a ``net emissions increase'' in part as ``the 
increase in emissions from a particular physical change . . . [and] 
any other increases and decreases in actual emissions at the major 
stationary source that are contemporaneous with the particular 
change and are otherwise creditable.'' In this particular case, 
ASARCO offset the increase in Pb emissions resulting from the 
converter aisle retrofit project (2.64 tons per year) with 
contemporaneous decreases from the anode furnace project (1.7 tpy) 
and the flash vent improvements (0.45 tons per year) to arrive at a 
net emissions increase of 0.49 tons per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 3: ASARCO expressed concerns that the supplemental data EPA 
considered might not be appropriate for determining ambient air quality 
because the monitors were designed for other purposes or were not 
located in ambient air. ASARCO further noted that it had not evaluated 
the conformance of the supplemental monitoring data with 40 CFR 58.15.
    Response: The ASARCO monitors were established for multiple 
purposes, including comparison to the NAAQS.\14\ Further, EPA defines 
ambient air as ``that portion of the atmosphere, external to buildings, 
to which the general public has access.'' 40 CFR 50.1(e). The public 
has access to the areas where the ASARCO monitors are located and those 
monitors are appropriately considered to be located in ambient air. 
While data used as the basis for determining whether an area is 
violating a NAAQS must meet specific requirements contained within 40 
CFR Part 58, any available monitoring data may be considered as 
supplementary information, regardless of monitoring intent or 
conformance with 40 CFR 58.15 (Annual air monitoring data 
certification) in order to improve our understanding of what is 
occurring. The data from the ASARCO monitors are provided as 
supplementary information and are appropriate for this purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See the Final Phase II Remedial Investigation/Feasibility 
Study (RI/FS) Work Plan, Part 1 of 2--Air. ASARCO Hayden Plant Site. 
March 2012, pages 5-1 and 5-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 4: ASARCO observed that Arizona is required to submit a SIP 
by April 2015 that will show how the Hayden area will attain the 
SO2 NAAQS, and questioned whether triggering the Pb 
nonattainment planning process by redesignating the area to 
nonattainment for the Pb NAAQS would result in any additional emissions 
reductions or faster reductions in ambient concentrations of Pb. ASARCO 
urged EPA to consider deferring the redesignation of the Hayden area to 
nonattainment as long as the Globe Highway monitor does not measure any 
additional exceedances of the Pb NAAQS and ASARCO and ADEQ make 
``expeditious progress toward installing controls in the SO2 
NAAQS planning process.'' ASARCO observed that EPA could exercise its 
right to redesignate the area if progress toward ``implementing the 
controls reducing lead emissions'' were to stop or be delayed, and 
contended that such an approach would ensure expeditious attainment of 
the NAAQS while ``significantly reducing the burden'' on ADEQ, the 
planning organizations, and EPA.
    Response: The Globe Highway monitoring site was chosen to capture 
the maximum ambient concentration of Pb in the Hayden area, based on 
the information available at the time.\15\ This task was made 
particularly challenging by the complex meteorology and topography in 
the area. As previously noted, recently deployed monitors suggest the 
Globe Highway site may not be experiencing the highest concentrations 
of ambient Pb in the Hayden area. As a result, EPA disagrees with 
ASARCO's suggestion that we suspend the redesignation process based on 
recent improvements in air quality measured at the Globe Highway 
monitor and only restart it if new violations are recorded at the Globe 
Highway monitor. Further, while the controls required under the Hayden 
SO2 SIP could possibly result in reductions in ambient 
concentrations of Pb, an SO2 SIP is not designed for that 
purpose and will not ensure that the reductions are sufficient to 
achieve attainment of the Pb NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA does not agree 
that relying on the SO2 NAAQS planning process to resolve 
the Pb problem will ensure expeditious attainment of the Pb standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Attachment A of ADEQ's Quality Assurance Program Plan 
for the Lead (Pb) Ambient Air Monitoring Network, dated October 
2011. Also note that ADEQ is currently in the process of evaluating 
monitoring locations in order to ensure that it is monitoring at the 
location expected to capture the maximum concentrations in ambient 
air, taking into account logistics and the potential for population 
exposure.

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

[[Page 52208]]

    Exposure to Pb is a serious health concern. It causes a range of 
adverse health effects, most notably in children. Exposures to low 
levels of Pb early in life have been linked to effects on IQ, learning, 
memory, and behavior.\16\ Taking the ``wait and see'' approach 
advocated by ASARCO could delay by several years the implementation of 
controls designed to ensure attainment of the Pb NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Depending on the level of exposure, lead can adversely 
affect the nervous system, kidney function, immune system, 
reproductive and developmental systems and the cardiovascular 
system. For more information regarding the health effects of Pb 
exposure, see 73 FR 66964, November 12, 2008, or http://www.epa.gov/airquality/lead/health.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Final Action

    For the reasons provided in the proposed rule and TSD and in this 
final rule, EPA is taking final action pursuant to section 107(d)(3) of 
the Clean Air Act to redesignate the Hayden area, which encompasses 
portions of southern Gila and eastern Pinal counties, from 
``unclassifiable'' to ``nonattainment'' for the 2008 national ambient 
air quality standards for lead (Pb). This redesignation to 
nonattainment is based on violations of the 2008 Pb NAAQS recorded at 
the Globe Highway site and on additional relevant information as 
described above and in more detail in our proposal.
    As a result of this redesignation to nonattainment, the Hayden area 
is subject to the applicable requirements of part D, title I of the Act 
(see section 191 of the Act). Within 18 months of the redesignation, 
the State is required to submit to EPA an implementation plan for the 
area containing, among other things: (1) Provisions to assure that 
reasonably available control measures (including reasonably available 
control technology) are implemented; (2) a demonstration, including 
modeling, that the plan will provide for attainment of the Pb NAAQS as 
expeditiously as practicable, but no later than five years after the 
area's designation as nonattainment; (3) provisions that result in 
reasonable further progress toward timely attainment by adherence to an 
ambitious compliance schedule; (4) contingency measures that are to be 
implemented if the area fails to achieve and maintain reasonable 
further progress or fails to attain the NAAQS by the applicable 
attainment date; and (5) a permit program meeting the requirements of 
section 173 governing the construction and operation of new and 
modified major stationary sources of Pb.\17\ Lastly, the new Pb 
nonattainment area will be subject to EPA's general conformity 
regulations (40 CFR part 93, subpart B) upon the effective date of 
redesignation. See section 176(c) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ EPA has issued guidance on the statutory requirements 
applicable to Pb nonattainment areas. See 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 
1992), 58 FR 67752 (December 22, 1993), 73 FR 66964 (November 12, 
2008), and the memorandum signed by Scott Mathias, Interim Director, 
Air Quality Policy Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, U.S. EPA, entitled ``2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards (NAAQS) Implementation Questions and Answers'' 
dated July 8, 2011, and its addendum, signed by Scott Mathias on 
August 10, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA has 
determined that today's redesignation to nonattainment, as well as the 
establishment of SIP submittal schedules, will result in none of the 
effects identified in Executive Order 12866, section 3(f). Under 
section 107(d)(3) of the Act, redesignations to nonattainment are based 
upon air quality considerations. This redesignation, based upon air 
quality data showing that the Hayden area is not attaining the Pb 
standard and upon other air-quality-related considerations, does not, 
in and of itself, impose any new requirements on any sectors of the 
economy. Similarly, the establishment of new SIP submittal schedules 
would merely establish the dates by which SIPs must be submitted, and 
would not adversely affect entities.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq., 
a redesignation to nonattainment under section 107(d)(3), and the 
establishment of a SIP submittal schedule for a redesignated area, do 
not, in and of themselves, directly impose any new requirements on 
small entities. See Mid-Tex Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. FERC, 773 
F.2d 327 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (agency's certification need only consider 
the rule's impact on entities subject to the requirements of the rule). 
Instead, this rulemaking simply makes a factual determination and 
establishes a schedule to require the State to submit SIP revisions, 
and does not directly regulate any entities. Therefore, pursuant to 5 
U.S.C. 605(b), EPA certifies that today's action does not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities within the 
meaning of those terms for RFA purposes.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 
Public Law 104-4, EPA has concluded that this rule is not likely to 
result in the promulgation of any Federal mandate that may result in 
expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local or tribal 
governments in the aggregate, or for the private sector, in any one 
year. It is questionable whether a redesignation would constitute a 
federal mandate in any case. The obligation for the state to revise its 
State Implementation Plan that arises out of a redesignation is not 
legally enforceable and at most is a condition for continued receipt of 
federal highway funds. Therefore, it does not appear that such an 
action creates any enforceable duty within the meaning of section 
421(5)(a)(i) of UMRA (2 U.S.C. 658(5)(a)(i)), and if it does the duty 
would appear to fall within the exception for a condition of Federal 
assistance under section 421(5)(a)(i)(I) of UMRA (2 U.S.C. 
658(5)(a)(i)(I)).
    Even if a redesignation were considered a Federal mandate, the 
anticipated costs resulting from the mandate would not exceed $100 
million to either the private sector or state, local and tribal 
governments. Redesignation of an area to nonattainment does not, in 
itself, impose any mandates or costs on the private sector, and thus, 
there is no private sector mandate within the meaning of section 421(7) 
of UMRA (2 U.S.C. 658(7)). The only cost resulting from the 
redesignation itself is the cost to the State of Arizona of developing, 
adopting, and submitting any necessary SIP revision. Because that cost 
will not exceed $100 million, this action (if it is a federal mandate 
at all) is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of 
UMRA (2 U.S.C. 1532 and 1535). EPA has also determined that this action 
would not result in regulatory requirements that might significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments because only the State would take any 
action as result of today's rule, and thus the requirements of section 
203 (2 U.S.C. 1533) do not apply.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable 
process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local 
officials in the development of regulatory policies that have 
federalism implications.'' This rule

[[Page 52209]]

will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely 
redesignates an area for Clean Air Act planning purposes and does not 
alter the relationship or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this 
rule.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' The area redesignated in 
today's action does not include any tribal lands, but is adjacent to 
the San Carlos Apache Tribe's reservation. EPA has been communicating 
with and plans to continue to communicate with representatives of the 
San Carlos Apache Tribe, as provided in Executive Order 13175. 
Accordingly, EPA has addressed Executive Order 13175 to the extent that 
it applies to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (``Protection of 
Children from Environmental Health Risks'') (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997), because it is not an economically significant regulatory action 
based on health or safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing 
technical standards when developing a new regulation. The EPA believes 
that the requirements of NTTAA are inapplicable to this action because 
they would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.

J. Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Today's action redesignates an area to nonattainment for an ambient 
air quality standard. It will not have disproportionately high and 
adverse effects on any communities in the area, including minority and 
low-income communities.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
relations, Lead.

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

     Dated: August 20, 2014.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
    Part 81, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:

PART 81--DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES

0
1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart C--Section 107 Attainment Status Designations

0
2. In Sec.  81.303, the table entitled ``Arizona--2008 Lead NAAQS'' is 
amended by revising the entries for ``Hayden, AZ'' to read as follows:

Sec.  81.303  Arizona.

* * * * *

                        Arizona--2008 Lead NAAQS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Designation for the 2008 NAAQS \a\
       Designated area       -------------------------------------------
                                 Date \1\                Type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hayden, AZ:
Gila County (part)
    The portions of Gila             10-3-14  Nonattainment.
     County that are bounded
     by T4S, R15E; T4S, R16E
     (except those portions
     in the San Carlos
     Indian Reservation);
     T5S, R15E; T5S, R16E
     (except those portions
     in the San Carlos
     Indian Reservation).
Pinal County (part)
    The portions of Pinal            10-3-14  Nonattainment.
     County that are bounded
     by: T4S, R14E; T4S,
     R16E (except those
     portions in the San
     Carlos Indian
     Reservation); T5S,
     R14E; T5S, R15E; T6S,
     R16E (except those
     portions in the San
     Carlos Indian
     Reservation); T6S,
     R14E; T6S, R15E; T6S,
     R16E (except those
     portions in the San
     Carlos Indian
     Reservation).
 
                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as
  otherwise specified.
\1\ December 31, 2011 unless otherwise noted.

[[Page 52210]]

[FR Doc. 2014-20920 Filed 9-2-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P