Rule2022-01595
Finding of Failure To Attain the 2008 Lead and 2010 Sulfur Dioxide Standards; Arizona; Hayden and Miami Nonattainment Areas
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
January 31, 2022
Effective
March 2, 2022
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is determining that the Hayden lead (Pb) nonattainment area (NAA) failed to attain the 2008 Pb primary and secondary national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or "standards") by the applicable attainment date of October 3, 2019. The EPA is also determining that the Hayden and Miami sulfur dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>) NAAs failed to attain the 2010 1-hour SO<INF>2</INF> primary NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of October 4, 2018. As a result of these determinations, the State of Arizona is required to submit by January 31, 2023, revisions to the Arizona State implementation plan (SIP) that, among other elements, provide for expeditious attainment of the Pb NAAQS in the Hayden Pb NAA and the SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS in the Hayden and Miami SO<INF>2</INF> NAAs by January 31, 2027.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 20 (Monday, January 31, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 20 (Monday, January 31, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4805-4812]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01595]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0078; FRL-8726-02-R9]
Finding of Failure To Attain the 2008 Lead and 2010 Sulfur
Dioxide Standards; Arizona; Hayden and Miami Nonattainment Areas
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is determining that
the Hayden lead (Pb) nonattainment area (NAA) failed to attain the 2008
Pb primary and secondary national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS
or ``standards'') by the applicable attainment date of October 3, 2019.
The EPA is also determining that the Hayden and Miami sulfur dioxide
(SO<INF>2</INF>) NAAs failed to attain the 2010 1-hour SO<INF>2</INF>
primary NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of October 4, 2018. As
a result of these determinations, the State of Arizona is required to
submit by January 31, 2023, revisions to the Arizona State
implementation plan (SIP) that, among other elements, provide for
expeditious attainment of the Pb NAAQS in the Hayden Pb NAA and the
SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS in the Hayden and Miami SO<INF>2</INF> NAAs by
January 31, 2027.
DATES: This rule is effective March 2, 2022.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0078. All documents in the docket are
listed on the <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available through <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, or please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section for additional availability information. If you need assistance
in a language other than English or if you are a person with
disabilities who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you,
please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben Leers, Air Planning Office (AIR-
2), EPA Region IX, (415) 947-4279, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cc80a9a9bebfe28ea9a28ca9bcade2aba3ba"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="014d646473722f43646f416471602f666e77">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Public Comments and Responses
III. Environmental Justice Considerations
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
On May 10, 2021, the EPA proposed to determine that the Hayden Pb
NAA failed to attain the 2008 Pb primary and secondary NAAQS \1\ by the
applicable
[[Page 4806]]
attainment date of October 3, 2019, based upon monitored air quality
data from November 2015 to December 2018.\2\ In the May 10, 2021
action, the EPA also proposed to determine that the Hayden and Miami
SO<INF>2</INF> NAAs failed to attain the 2010 1-hour SO<INF>2</INF>
primary NAAQS \3\ by the applicable attainment date of October 4, 2018,
based upon monitored air quality data from January 2015 to December
2017. The Hayden Pb and SO<INF>2</INF> NAAs include parts of Gila and
Pinal counties and exclude the parts of Indian country within the
areas. The Miami SO<INF>2</INF> NAA includes parts of Gila County and
excludes parts of Indian country within the area.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The EPA first established primary and secondary Pb standards
in 1978 at 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) as a
quarterly average. 43 FR 46246 (October 5, 1978). Based on updated
health and scientific data in 2008, the EPA revised the Federal Pb
standards to 0.15 [mu]g/m\3\ and revised the averaging time for the
standards. 73 FR 66964 (November 12, 2008). The EPA established
primary and secondary standards at the same level for the 2008 Pb
NAAQS. Primary standards provide public health protection, including
protecting the health of ``sensitive'' populations such as
asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Secondary standards provide
public welfare protection, including protection against decreased
visibility and damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings.
Because the primary and secondary Pb standards are the same, we
refer to them hereafter in this document using the singular ``Pb
standard'' or ``Pb NAAQS.''
\2\ 86 FR 24829.
\3\ The EPA first established primary SO<INF>2</INF> standards
in 1971 at 0.14 parts per million (ppm) over a 24-hour averaging
period and 0.3 ppm over an annual averaging period. 36 FR 8186
(April 30, 1971). In June 2010, the EPA revised the NAAQS for
SO<INF>2</INF> to provide increased protection of public health,
providing for revocation of the 1971 primary annual and 24-hour
SO<INF>2</INF> standards for most areas of the country following
area designations under the new NAAQS. 40 CFR 50.4(e). The 2010
NAAQS is 75 parts per billion (equivalent to 0.075 parts per
million) over a 1-hour averaging period. 75 FR 35520 (June 22,
2010).
\4\ For exact descriptions of the Hayden and Miami
SO<INF>2</INF> NAAs, refer to 40 CFR 81.303.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed rule provided background information on the effects of
exposure related to elevated levels of Pb and SO<INF>2</INF>, the
promulgation of the 2008 Pb and 2010 SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS, and the
designation of the Hayden and Miami areas under the Clean Air Act (CAA)
for the 2008 Pb and 2010 SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 86 FR 24829, 24829-24830.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the May 10, 2021 proposed rule, we also described the EPA's
obligation under CAA section 179(c)(1) to determine whether an area's
air quality meets the 2008 Pb and 2010 SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS, the EPA
regulations establishing the specific methods and procedures to
determine whether an area has attained the 2008 Pb and 2010
SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS, and the Pb and SO<INF>2</INF> monitoring networks
operated by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) in
the Hayden and Miami areas.\6\ We also documented our previous review
of Arizona's monitoring networks and annual network plans, Arizona's
annual certifications of ambient air monitoring data, our 2018
technical systems audit of ADEQ, and our evaluation of monitored Pb and
SO<INF>2</INF> data against relevant data completeness requirements to
determine validity for comparison against the 2008 Pb and 2010
SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS, respectively.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 86 FR 24830-24832.
\7\ 86 FR 24832-24833.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under EPA regulations in 40 CFR 50.16 and in accordance with 40 CFR
part 50, appendix R, the 2008 Pb NAAQS is met in an area when the
design value is less than or equal to 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter
([mu]g/m\3\) at each eligible monitoring site in the area. The Pb
design value at each eligible monitoring site is the maximum valid 3-
month arithmetic mean Pb concentration calculated over three years.
Under EPA regulations in 40 CFR 50.17 and in accordance with 40 CFR
part 50, appendix T, the 2010 1-hour annual SO<INF>2</INF> standard is
met when the design value is less than or equal to 75 parts per billion
(ppb). The SO<INF>2</INF> design value is calculated by computing the
three-year average of the annual 99th percentile daily maximum 1-hour
average concentrations.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ As defined in 40 CFR part 50, appendix T, section 1(c),
daily maximum 1-hour values refer to the maximum 1-hour
SO<INF>2</INF> concentration values measured from midnight to
midnight that are used in the NAAQS computations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the proposed rule, to evaluate whether the Hayden NAA attained
the 2008 Pb NAAQS by the October 3, 2019 attainment date, we determined
the 2016-2018 design value at each Pb monitoring site in the Hayden NAA
using monitored data from November 2015 to December 2018.\9\ We
determined that both Pb monitoring sites in the Hayden NAA produced
valid design values for the 2016-2018 data period. Based on these valid
design values, we found that both sites did not meet the 2008 Pb NAAQS
of 0.15 [mu]g/m\3\ by the October 3, 2019 attainment date. The Hayden
Pb 2018 annual design value site, i.e., the site with the highest
design value based on monitored data from November 2015 to December
2018, is the Hillcrest site with a 2018 Pb design value of 0.31 [mu]g/
m\3\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 86 FR 24829, 24833. In accordance with appendix R to 40 CFR
part 50, compliance with the Pb NAAQS is determined based on data
from 36 consecutive valid 3-month periods (i.e., 38 months, or a 3-
year calendar period and the preceding November and December).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To evaluate whether the Hayden and Miami NAAs attained the 2010
SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS by the October 4, 2018 attainment date, we
determined the 2015-2017 design value at each SO<INF>2</INF> monitoring
site in the Hayden and Miami NAAs using monitored data from January
2015 to December 2017.\10\ We determined that the one SO<INF>2</INF>
monitoring site in the Hayden NAA and two of the three SO<INF>2</INF>
monitoring sites in the Miami NAA produced valid design values for the
2015-2017 data period. Based on these valid design values, we found
that each SO<INF>2</INF> monitoring site producing a valid 2015-2017
design value in the Hayden and Miami NAAs did not meet the 2010
SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS of 75 ppb by the October 4, 2018 attainment date.
The Hayden SO<INF>2</INF> 2017 annual design value site, i.e., the site
with the highest design value based on monitored data from January 2015
to December 2017, is the Hayden Old Jail site with a 2017
SO<INF>2</INF> design value of 295 ppb. The Miami SO<INF>2</INF> 2017
design value site is the Miami Jones Ranch site with a 2017
SO<INF>2</INF> design value of 221 ppb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 86 FR 24834.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the Hayden Pb NAA to attain the 2008 Pb NAAQS by October 3,
2019, the 2018 Pb design value at each eligible monitoring site in the
Hayden NAA must be equal to or less than 0.15 [mu]g/m\3\. Because at
least one site had a 2018 Pb design value greater than 0.15 [mu]g/m\3\,
we proposed to determine that the Hayden Pb NAA failed to attain the
2008 Pb NAAQS by the October 3, 2019 attainment date. Similarly, for
the Hayden and Miami SO<INF>2</INF> NAAs to attain the 2010
SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS by October 4, 2018, the 2017 SO<INF>2</INF> design
value at each eligible monitoring site in the Hayden and Miami NAAs
must be equal to or less than 75 ppb. Because at least one site in both
the Hayden and Miami NAAs had a 2017 SO<INF>2</INF> design value
greater than 75 ppb, we proposed to determine that the Hayden and Miami
SO<INF>2</INF> NAAs failed to attain the 2010 SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS by
the October 4, 2018 attainment date. The May 10, 2021 proposed rule
described the CAA requirements that would apply if the EPA were to
finalize the proposed findings of failure to attain the 2008 Pb and
2010 SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, we also described in the proposed rule that the dominant
source of Pb and SO<INF>2</INF> emissions in the Hayden Pb and
SO<INF>2</INF> NAAs is the Asarco LLC (``Asarco'') Hayden Smelter, and
the dominant source of SO<INF>2</INF> emissions in the Miami
SO<INF>2</INF> NAA is the Freeport-McMoRan Miami Inc. (FMMI) Miami
Smelter. Due to the unique nature of these two facilities, which are
the only batch process primary copper smelters in the country, we
requested comment on what additional measures could be feasibly
implemented at these facilities under CAA section 179(d)(2) in light of
[[Page 4807]]
technological achievability, costs, and any non-air quality and other
air quality-related health and environmental impacts.
II. Public Comments and Responses
The May 10, 2021 proposed rule provided a 30-day public comment
period that closed on June 9, 2021. During this period, seven comment
letters were submitted to the EPA in response to the proposed rule. One
comment letter was submitted by an anonymous commenter. This comment
letter consisted of a pre-publication version of the May 10, 2021
proposed rulemaking and contained no commentary on the proposed action.
The six remaining comment letters were submitted by the Arizona Center
for Law in the Public Interest (ACLPI), ADEQ, Asarco, FMMI, an
additional representative of Asarco, and a private citizen. This
section summarizes five of the six substantive comment letters
submitted in response to the May 10, 2021 proposal and includes EPA's
response to each of these comment letters. The additional comment
letter submitted by Asarco's representative consists of more detailed
technical comments concerning data quality and validity. We respond to
these comments in a separate document available in the docket for this
rulemaking.
Comment 1: ACLPI supports the EPA's proposed findings of failure to
attain the 2008 Pb and 2010 SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS in the May 10, 2021
proposed rulemaking and urges the EPA to finalize them as soon as
possible so as not to delay implementation of additional control
measures necessary to reach attainment of health-based standards for
these areas. In response to the EPA's request for comment on additional
measures that could be feasibly implemented at the Asarco Hayden
Smelter under CAA section 179(d)(2), ACLPI recommends control measures
focusing on sources of lead-bearing particles, including the following:
(1) Sulfide minerals from crushed ore or concentrate, (2) flash furnace
dust, and (3) lead and zinc sulfates likely originating from converter
dust. In support of its recommendations, ACLPI cites and encloses with
its comment letter a report prepared by James Anderson, Professor
Emeritus at the School for Engineering of Matter, Transport and Energy
at Arizona State University, entitled Assessment of the origins of
lead-bearing airborne particulates at Hayden, Arizona by electron
micro-analysis.
Response 1: We appreciate the additional information supplied by
ACLPI concerning specific sources of lead-bearing particles at the
Asarco Hayden facility. We note that the submitted study was conducted
in 2017, prior to full implementation of controls for the Hayden Pb
NAA, which was required by 2018.\12\ For example, Asasrco was required
to implement new primary, secondary, and tertiary hooding systems for
the converter aisle and a new ventilation system for matte tapping and
slag skimming for the flash furnace by July 2018.\13\ Accordingly, the
data from the 2017 study may not accurately represent the contributions
of the facility, including the converter aisle and flash furnace
sources, following the implementation of these controls. Furthermore,
the study does not address the technological feasibility or cost of any
potential controls, which must also be considered in establishing
control requirements under 179(d)(2). Therefore, we do not believe this
study provides a sufficient basis for us to prescribe specific control
measures for the Hayden area SIP revisions under CAA section 179(d)(2)
at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See, e.g., 83 FR 31087, 31096 (July 3, 2018), ``Table 6-
Control Implementation Schedule and Emission Reductions,'' showing
implementation deadlines of July 2018 for multiple controls for the
Hayden Pb NAA.
\13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, we note that the EPA has proposed a residual risk and
technology review (RTR) for the national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants for primary copper smelting major sources,
codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQ.\14\ This proposed rule
includes reviews of health risks associated with hazardous air
pollutant (HAP) emissions from primary copper smelting major sources
and developments in practices, processes, and control technologies
under CAA sections 112(f)(2)(A) and 112(d)(6). Based on the findings of
these reviews, the EPA has proposed revised and new emissions standards
for primary copper smelting major sources. The only two primary copper
smelting major sources in the United States and, consequently, the only
two sources that are subject to the current major source emissions
standards in subpart QQQ and that would become subject to the revised
standards proposed in the primary copper smelting RTR, if finalized,
are the Asarco Hayden and FMMI Miami smelters. The revised and new
emissions standards in the proposed RTR address anode refining furnace
point source emissions of particulate matter (PM) (as a surrogate for
non-mercury HAP-metals), roofline emissions of PM from anode refining
furnaces and smelting furnaces, and point source emissions of mercury
from dryers, converters, anode refining furnaces, and smelting
furnaces. In the RTR, PM is regulated as a surrogate for non-mercury
metal HAP, including Pb. Given that the RTR rulemaking process for
these sources is ongoing, we believe it would not be appropriate to
require specific additional measures under 179(d)(2) at this time,
because such measures could potentially be inconsistent with measures
that may ultimately be required under the RTR rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 87 FR 1616 (January 11, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While we are not taking final action to prescribe additional
measures for the Hayden Pb and SO<INF>2</INF> SIP revisions required
under CAA section 179(d)(2) at this time, we encourage ADEQ to consider
ACLPI's recommendations and the findings of the Arizona State
University report enclosed in ACLPI's comment when determining
appropriate measures to be included in the SIP revisions required
pursuant to section 179(d)(1) as a result of this action.
Comment 2: ADEQ notes that the Asarco Hayden Smelter has not been
operational since October 2019. ADEQ also notes that the EPA's proposed
finding of failure to attain considers SO<INF>2</INF> monitoring data
gathered prior to the completion of upgrades to the Asarco Hayden
Smelter and FMMI Miami Smelter. ADEQ suggests that if the EPA finalizes
its proposed determination in the fall of 2021, a new attainment date
in late 2026 would be appropriate because it would be consistent with
the timeframe established in CAA sections 172(a)(2) and 179(d)(3) and
would allow ADEQ to collaborate with Asarco and FMMI to develop new
attainment plans fulfilling all applicable requirements.
Response 2: We recognize that the Asarco Hayden Smelter has been
inoperational since October 2019 and that the proposed findings of
failure to attain were based on monitoring data gathered prior to the
completion of upgrades to both smelters. However, CAA section 179(c)(1)
requires the EPA to determine whether a nonattainment area has attained
the NAAQS based on the area's air quality as of the attainment date. As
described in the proposed rule, in accordance with appendix R to 40 CFR
part 50, the Pb design value is determined based on monitoring data
from the most recent three calendar years and two previous months. The
Pb design value as of the October 3, 2019 attainment date is therefore
determined based on air quality monitoring data from November 1, 2015
to December 31, 2018. As also described in the proposed rule, in
accordance with appendix T to 40 CFR part 50, the SO<INF>2</INF> design
value is
[[Page 4808]]
based on monitoring data from the most recent three calendar years. The
SO<INF>2</INF> design value as of the October 4, 2018 attainment date
is therefore determined based on air quality monitoring data from
January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2017. The CAA does not provide the EPA
with discretion to consider air quality monitoring data collected after
the attainment date in making determinations of attainment or failure
to attain under section 179(c)(1).
Under CAA section 179(d)(3), the new maximum attainment date for
each nonattainment area is the date by which attainment can be achieved
as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than five years after the
EPA publishes a document in the Federal Register determining that the
nonattainment area failed to attain the relevant NAAQS (in this case,
five years from the date this final rule publishes in the Federal
Register). To be approved by the EPA, NAA SIP submittals need to ensure
that the affected NAAs reach attainment as expeditiously as
practicable.
Comment 3: Asarco notes that the Asarco Hayden Smelter has not been
operational since October 2019 and that the Pb and SO<INF>2</INF>
monitoring data relied upon in the EPA's proposed finding of failure to
attain almost entirely predate emissions capture and control
improvements installed at the Asarco Hayden Smelter between 2018 and
2020. Asarco details these improvements and states that the EPA should
defer action on the proposed finding of failure to attain to allow time
for the Asarco Hayden Smelter to resume steady state operation and for
monitored Pb and SO<INF>2</INF> data to demonstrate the efficacy of
these improvements. Asarco states that the 179(d) proceedings triggered
by the finding of failure to attain would create a legal possibility of
the imposition on Asarco of hundreds of millions of dollars in
additional emissions capture and control obligations and that the
financial uncertainty that this would cause could very well spell the
permanent end of the Hayden smelter. Asarco argues that the EPA's
request for comment on additional measures that could be feasibly
implemented at the Asarco Hayden Smelter under CAA section 179(d)(2) is
premature in advance of a final finding of failure to attain under CAA
section 179(c) and is irrelevant to a determination of whether a
finding of failure to attain is warranted. Asarco also argues that the
EPA is required to undertake notice and comment rulemaking in response
to a SIP revision submitted under CAA section 179(d)(1) before making a
final determination of whether additional emissions capture or control
requirements at the Hayden smelter are necessary.
Response 3: We acknowledge that the monitoring data relied upon in
the proposed action largely predate the emissions capture and control
improvements installed at the Asarco Hayden Smelter between 2018 and
2020 and that the smelter has not been operational since October 2019.
We note, however, that SIP-approved rules R18-2-B1302 (``Limits on
SO<INF>2</INF> Emissions from the Hayden Smelter'') and R18-2-B1301
(``Limits on Lead Emissions from the Hayden Smelter'') required
compliance no later than July 1, 2018, and other Pb controls at the
Hayden Smelter were required to be implemented by July 13, 2018.\15\
Therefore, it appears that the upgrades and optimization projects that
Asarco describes as being finalized in late 2018 through 2020 were in
addition to those upgrades that were required in the SIP for the
purpose of bringing the area into attainment of the SO<INF>2</INF> and
Pb NAAQS. This suggests that the current SIP-approved control measures
may not have been adequate to provide for attainment and that a SIP
revision is therefore needed to make the additional control upgrades
performed in late 2018 through 2020 (and any other measures needed to
provide for attainment) permanent and enforceable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 83 FR 31087, 31096 (July 3, 2018), ``Table 6-Control
Implementation Schedule and Emission Reductions.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, as discussed in our response to ADEQ's comment in this
document (response 2), the EPA is required to determine whether a
nonattainment area attained the NAAQS based on the area's air quality
as of the attainment date. The CAA does not provide the EPA with
discretion to consider air quality monitoring data collected after the
attainment date in making determinations of attainment or failure to
attain under section 179(c)(1). Therefore, even if we were to delay our
determinations of whether the Hayden Pb and SO<INF>2</INF> NAAs
attained the NAAQS by the respective attainment dates until the Asarco
Hayden Smelter resumes steady state operation, we would not be able to
consider monitoring data reflecting the improvements installed at the
Asarco Hayden Smelter after those attainment dates. Such data could,
however, be considered in future actions, such as a determination under
the EPA's clean data policy (discussed in response 4 in this document)
or a determination of whether the Hayden Pb and SO<INF>2</INF> NAAs
attained the respective NAAQS by the new attainment date triggered by
this finding. Furthermore, the new Pb and SO<INF>2</INF> plans that
will be due within one year after publication of this action in the
Federal Register must each include ``a comprehensive, accurate, current
inventory of actual emissions.'' \16\ These updated inventories must
necessarily reflect the controls installed at the Hayden smelter in
2018-2020 and will serve as the foundation for modeling and other
analyses in the new plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ CAA section 172(c)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We believe Asarco has mischaracterized the implications of the
proposed findings. Contrary to Asarco's suggestion, the development of
new attainment plans will not necessarily result in requirements for
new emissions controls. If the new plans demonstrate that all
applicable Pb and SO<INF>2</INF> attainment-related CAA requirements
are satisfied with existing controls (including those installed in
2018-2020), then further controls related to attainment of the Pb and
SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS would not be required. Furthermore, as noted in
the proposal, the EPA has already disapproved portions of the 2010
SO<INF>2</INF> attainment plan for the Hayden nonattainment area.\17\
Specifically, the EPA disapproved the attainment demonstration and
other elements tied to this demonstration.\18\ Accordingly, the State
would need to submit a revised attainment demonstration and related
elements for the Hayden SO<INF>2</INF> NAA, and the EPA would need to
propose to approve that future SIP, in order to avoid application of
mandatory sanctions under CAA sections 179(a) and 179(b) and 40 CFR
52.31. As also explained in the proposal, the EPA anticipates that
Arizona's submission of a new, approvable SO<INF>2</INF> attainment
plan in response to a final finding of failure to attain would also
satisfy these existing obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 85 FR 71547 (November 10, 2020).
\18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We disagree that our request for comment on additional measures
that could be feasibly implemented at the Asarco Hayden Smelter under
CAA section 179(d)(2) was premature in advance of a finding of failure
to attain under CAA section 179(c)(2). Because such a finding
automatically triggers a one-year deadline for submittal of a revised
SIP meeting the requirements of 179(d)(2), it would be reasonable for
the EPA to prescribe specific measures under 179(d)(2) in conjunction
with a final action under 179(c)(2) so that the State has adequate
notice of the need to include these measures while developing its SIP.
However, in this
[[Page 4809]]
particular case, we are not taking final action to prescribe additional
measures for the Hayden Pb and SO<INF>2</INF> SIP revisions under CAA
section 179(d)(2) at this time.
Comment 4: FMMI states that the monitoring data relied upon in the
EPA's proposed finding of failure to attain do not reflect extensive
upgrades to emission control and capture systems implemented at the
FMMI Miami Smelter in January 2018. FMMI states that the EPA's proposed
finding of failure to attain does not address air quality dispersion
modeling or a demonstration that the control strategy in the SIP has
been fully implemented. FMMI argues that a more appropriate context for
the EPA's request for comment on additional measures that could be
feasibly implemented at the FMMI Miami Smelter would be to recognize
the following: (1) The upgrades to emission control and capture systems
implemented at the FMMI Miami Smelter, (2) ADEQ's dispersion modeling
demonstrating attainment of the 2010 1-hour SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS, and
(3) subsequent monitoring data indicating that emission reductions are
providing for attainment of the 2010 1-hour SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS. FMMI
cites the EPA's ``Guidance for 1-Hour SO<INF>2</INF> Nonattainment Area
SIP Submissions'' (``SO<INF>2</INF> SIP Guidance''),\19\ which states:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Memorandum dated April 23, 2014, from Stephen D. Page,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA, to EPA
Regional Air Directors, Regions 1-10, Subject: ``Guidance for 1-Hour
SO<INF>2</INF> Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions,'' 11.
The EPA believes that, where a control strategy has recently
taken effect and the state can determine based on recent monitoring
data or other relevant information that the control strategy will
result in attainment once 3 years of data that reflect those
controls are available, the required plan revisions can be
accomplished in a very streamlined manner. The EPA expects that the
submittal to the EPA could simply provide a determination that: (1)
All monitors in the affected area have at least 1 calendar year of
clean air quality data, (2) the approved SIP has been fully
implemented for the area, and (3) emission sources have complied
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
with their SIP requirements.
FMMI notes that, despite implementation of the required capture and
control upgrades by January 2018, ``there were still several instances
of recorded daily maximum 1-hour SO<INF>2</INF> concentrations above
the standard in calendar year 2018.'' FMMI explains that, in response
to these exceedances, it ``implemented several measures to improve
capture and minimize fugitive SO<INF>2</INF> emissions.'' FMMI further
states that the two monitors in the Miami NAA recorded a total of three
exceedances of the 1-hour SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS in 2020, all of which
``were attributed to a specific event or issue at the Miami Smelter
that was subsequently resolved,'' and that since January 1, 2021, there
have been no exceedances of the 1-hour SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS recorded at
either of these monitors. On this basis, FMMI argues that, because (1)
the monitors in the Miami SO<INF>2</INF> NAA have at least one calendar
year of clean data, (2) the approved Miami SO<INF>2</INF> NAA SIP has
been fully implemented, and (3) the FMMI Miami Smelter is in compliance
with its source-specific SIP requirements, the SIP revision required
under CAA section 179(d)(1) following a finding of failure to attain
under section 179(c)(2) need only affirm the previously approved SIP
and establish a new attainment date that reflects three full years of
implementation. FMMI also states that certain SIP requirements,
including contingency measures, can be suspended if the monitors in the
Miami SO<INF>2</INF> NAA have at least one calendar year of data
indicating that the area is attaining the standard.
Response 4: As discussed in response 2 of this document, the EPA is
required to determine whether a nonattainment area attained the NAAQS
based on the area's air quality as of the attainment date, and the CAA
does not provide the EPA with discretion to consider air quality
monitoring data collected after the attainment date in making
determinations of attainment or failure to attain under section
179(c)(1). We acknowledge that the monitoring data relied upon in the
proposed action therefore do not fully reflect upgrades to emission
control and capture systems implemented at the FMMI Miami Smelter as of
January 2018 because some of those upgrades occurred after the area's
attainment date. However, we note that the construction schedule set
forth in the approved implementation plan indicated that FMMI planned
to complete many of the required upgrades in 2016-2017, so the
monitoring data in 2016-2017 would have reflected some of these
upgrades.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ ``Arizona State Implementation Plan Revision: Miami Sulfur
Dioxide Nonattainment Area for the 2010 SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS,'' 84
(March 8, 2017), Table 5-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While FMMI states that the EPA's proposed finding of failure to
attain does not address air quality dispersion modeling or a
demonstration that the control strategy in the SIP has been fully
implemented, FMMI also acknowledges that monitoring data from January
1, 2015 to December 31, 2017 do not demonstrate attainment of the
SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS in the Miami NAA by the attainment date. As
described in the EPA's SO<INF>2</INF> SIP Guidance, we are not able to
make a determination of attainment for an area if the monitors in the
area do not yield a design value that meets the NAAQS prior to the
applicable attainment date. In the proposed rule, we found that two
regulatory air monitors in the Miami NAA produced complete, valid 1-
hour SO<INF>2</INF> design values for the 2015-2017 data period.
Because complete and valid monitoring data were available to determine
that the Miami NAA failed to attain the SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS by the
attainment date, we do not find it necessary or appropriate to consider
air quality dispersion modeling or a demonstration that the control
strategy in the SIP has been fully implemented in our attainment
determination. We acknowledge FMMI's comment that recognizing upgrades
to the smelter, dispersion modeling demonstrating attainment, and
monitoring data demonstrating progress toward attainment would provide
a more appropriate context for our request for comment on additional
measures that could be feasibly implemented at the FMMI Miami Smelter.
We note that we are not taking final action to prescribe additional
measures for the Miami SO<INF>2</INF> SIP revision under CAA section
179(d)(2) at this time.
As noted by FMMI, the SO<INF>2</INF> SIP Guidance indicates that,
following a finding of failure to attain, in appropriate circumstances
the EPA may approve a revised plan that affirms the previously approved
control strategy but establishes a new attainment date. In particular,
the SO<INF>2</INF> SIP Guidance indicates that this approach may be
appropriate if the state can determine, based on recent monitoring data
or other relevant information, that the control strategy in the
existing SIP will result in attainment once three years of data
reflecting those controls are available.\21\ We recognize the progress
that the Miami SO<INF>2</INF> NAA has made toward attainment of the
2010 SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS since emissions control and capture
improvements were implemented at the FMMI Miami Smelter in January
2018. However, as FMMI acknowledges in its comment, monitors in the
Miami area recorded multiple exceedances of the SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS in
2018-2020, even after full implementation of the improvements required
under the SIP. We appreciate that, since 2018, FMMI has implemented
additional improvements to emissions capture at the Miami Smelter to
address those exceedances. However, because those
[[Page 4810]]
improvements were implemented after the attainment date, they were
evidently not required under the existing SIP. This suggests that the
control strategy in the existing SIP is, in fact, not sufficient to
provide for attainment of the NAAQS and that substantive revisions to
the requirements of the SIP may be needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ SO<INF>2</INF> SIP Guidance, 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, we do not agree with the commenter's assertion that
certain SIP requirements, including contingency measures, can be
suspended based on one calendar year of monitoring data indicating no
hourly exceedances of the NAAQS level. The commenter appears to be
referring to the EPA's clean data policy, which is discussed in the
SO<INF>2</INF> SIP Guidance.\22\ However, contrary to the commenter's
suggestion, a single year of clean monitoring data is not a sufficient
basis for the EPA to suspend attainment-related SIP requirements under
the SO<INF>2</INF> clean data policy. Rather, ADEQ would need to
demonstrate that the area has three consecutive calendar years of air
quality monitoring data which show that the area is meeting the
standard and provide either (1) modeling of the most recent three years
of actual emissions for the area or (2) a demonstration that the
affected monitor(s) is located in the area of maximum
concentration.\23\ We also note that a clean data finding would only
suspend the requirements for the State to submit SIP revisions to
address certain attainment-related requirements. Such a finding would
not affect existing requirements that already apply under the SIP. Such
requirements can only be altered by a SIP revision meeting the
requirements of CAA section 110(l). Therefore, contrary to the
commenter's suggestion, a clean data finding would not alter the
States' or sources' ongoing obligations to implement the contingency
measures in the previously approved SIP for the Miami NAA that will be
triggered by the findings in this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Id. at 51-60.
\23\ Id. at 57-58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 5: One commenter, a private citizen, argues that, due to
the unique nature of the Asarco Hayden Smelter and FMMI Miami Smelter,
the time allotted for each smelter to retrofit its equipment before the
attainment date is capricious and arbitrary. The commenter states that
the EPA's finding of failure to attain should consider improvements
made at both smelters, the challenges posed to both smelters as a
result of the EPA's tightened Pb and SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS, and the
short time frame allotted for both smelters to retrofit their equipment
before the applicable attainment dates. Finally, citing CAA sections
110 and 172, the commenter argues that the EPA should seek revisions to
the SIP and extend the attainment dates in order to prove the
retrofitted smelters have fulfilled requirements under 172(c).\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ We interpret the commenter's reference to ``42 U.S.C. 7410
(h)(k)(j) and U.S.C. 7502 (2)(a)'' to refer to CAA sections 110(h),
(j), and (k) (42 U.S.C. 7410(h), (j), and (k)), and 172(a)(2) (42
U.S.C. 7502(a)(2)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response 5: We disagree that the time allotted for each smelter to
retrofit its equipment before the attainment date is capricious and
arbitrary. CAA section 192(a) provides that the attainment date for
newly designated Pb and SO<INF>2</INF> nonattainment areas is ``as
expeditiously as practicable but no later than 5 years from the date of
the nonattainment designation.'' \25\ Thus, the October 4, 2018
attainment date for the Hayden and Miami SO<INF>2</INF> NAAs and the
October 3, 2019 attainment date for Hayden Pb NAA were the latest
possible dates permitted by statute. While we acknowledge that the
monitoring data relied upon in the proposed action do not reflect all
of the emissions control and capture improvements that have been made
to date at the Hayden Asarco Smelter and FMMI Miami Smelter, as
discussed in response 2 of this document, the EPA is required to
determine whether a nonattainment area attained the NAAQS based on the
area's air quality as of the attainment date. The EPA does not have the
discretion to consider air quality monitoring data collected after the
attainment date in making determinations of attainment or failure to
attain under CAA section 179(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Pursuant to CAA sections 172(a)(2)(D) and 192(a), the
attainment date extension provision under section 172(a)(2)(A) does
not apply to the Pb or SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We do not agree with the commenter's suggestion that we should take
action under CAA sections 110(h), (j) or (k) in relation to the Hayden
Pb, Hayden SO<INF>2</INF>, or Miami SO<INF>2</INF> NAAs. CAA
subsections 110(h), 42 U.S.C. 7410(h), (``Publication of comprehensive
document for each State setting forth requirements of applicable
implementation plan'') and 110(j), 42 U.S.C. 7410(j) (``Technological
systems of continuous emission reduction on new or modified stationary
sources; compliance with performance standards'') have no particular
relevance to attainment plans, and we believe the references to these
sections may have been in error. If the commenter is suggesting that
the EPA seek revisions to the SIP and extend attainment dates under its
authority to issue a SIP call under CAA section 110(k)(5), we do not
believe such a SIP call is necessary or appropriate for the Hayden Pb,
Hayden SO<INF>2</INF>, or Miami SO<INF>2</INF> NAAs at this time. The
findings in this action trigger new attainment dates \26\ and
requirements for SIP revisions under CAA section 179(d), and the newly
required SIP revisions must meet the requirements of CAA sections 110
and 172, including the provisions of section 172(c), 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)
referenced by the commenter.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ As noted in the proposal, under CAA section 179(d)(3), the
new attainment date for each nonattainment area is the date by which
attainment can be achieved as expeditiously as practicable, but no
later than five years after the EPA publishes a final action in the
Federal Register determining that the nonattainment area failed to
attain the applicable Pb or SO<INF>2</INF> standard.
\27\ CAA section 179(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Environmental Justice Considerations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) requires that
Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by
law, identify and address disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of their actions on minority and low-
income populations. Additionally, Executive Order 13985 (86 FR 7009,
January 25, 2021) directs Federal Government agencies to assess
whether, and to what extent, their programs and policies perpetuate
systemic barriers to opportunities and benefits for people of color and
other underserved groups, and Executive Order 14008 (86 FR 7619,
February 1, 2021) directs Federal agencies to develop programs,
policies, and activities to address the disproportionate health,
environmental, economic, and climate impacts on disadvantaged
communities. To identify environmental burdens and susceptible
populations in underserved communities in the Hayden Pb, Hayden
SO<INF>2</INF>, and Miami SO<INF>2</INF> NAAs, and to examine the
implications of the proposed findings of failure to attain the 2008 Pb
and 2010 SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS on these communities, we performed a
screening-level analysis using the EPA's environmental justice (EJ)
screening and mapping tool (``EJSCREEN'').\28\ Our screening-level
analysis indicates that communities in the NAAs affected by this
action, particularly in the neighborhoods surrounding the Asarco
[[Page 4811]]
Hayden and FMMI Miami smelters, score highly compared to the national
average for the EJSCREEN ``Demographic Index,'' which is the average of
an area's percent minority and percent low income populations, i.e.,
the two demographic indicators explicitly named in Executive Order
12898.\29\ These neighborhoods also score highly compared to the
national average for the ``population with less than high school
education'' and ``population over age 64'' indicators. Additionally,
these neighborhoods score highly compared to the national average for
numerous EJ Index indicators, including the Pb paint EJ Index and
wastewater discharge EJ Index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ EJSCREEN provides a nationally consistent dataset and
approach for combining environmental and demographic indicators.
EJSCREEN is available at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen/what-ejscreen">https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen/what-ejscreen</a>.
The EPA used EJSCREEN to obtain environmental and demographic
indicators representing the Hayden and Miami nonattainment areas as
well as for buffer areas of approximately 1-, 2-, and 3-mile radii
centered around the Asarco Hayden and FMMI Miami smelters. These
indicators are included in the file titled ``EJSCREEN summary.xlsx''
available in the rulemaking docket for this action.
\29\ EJSCREEN reports environmental indicators (e.g., air toxics
cancer risk, Pb paint exposure, and traffic proximity and volume)
and demographic indicators (e.g., people of color, low income, and
linguistically isolated populations). Depending on the indicator, a
community that scores highly for an indicator may have a higher
percentage of its population within a demographic group or a higher
average exposure or proximity to an environmental health hazard
compared to the state, region, or national average. EJSCREEN also
reports EJ indexes, which are combinations of a single environmental
indicator with the EJSCREEN Demographic Index. For additional
information about environmental and demographic indicators and EJ
indexes reported by EJSCREEN, see EPA, ``EJSCREEN Environmental
Justice Mapping and Screening Tool--EJSCREEN Technical
Documentation,'' section 2 (September 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in the EPA's EJ technical guidance, people of color
and low-income populations often experience greater exposure and
disease burdens than the general population, which can increase their
susceptibility to adverse health effects from environmental
stressors.\30\ Underserved communities can also experience reduced
access to health care, nutritional, and fitness resources, further
increasing their susceptibility. In addition to the demographic and
environmental indicators identified in our screening level analysis,
the proximity of underserved communities to the Asarco Hayden and FMMI
Miami smelters (and exposure to Pb and SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from
these facilities) contribute to the potential EJ concerns faced by
communities in the affected nonattainment areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ EPA, ``Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental
Justice in Regulatory Analysis,'' section 4 (June 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This final action triggers the implementation of contingency
measures and requires the State of Arizona to develop updated SIP
revisions providing for attainment of the 2008 Pb NAAQS in Hayden and
attainment of the 2010 SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS in Hayden and Miami. The
implementation of contingency measures and development of required SIP
revisions will result in air quality improvements and human health
benefits for Hayden- and Miami-area residents, including those in
underserved communities. Conversely, failure to make the determinations
in this final action could inhibit or delay the attainment of the 2008
Pb and 2010 SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS in these areas, perpetuating the EJ
concerns potentially faced by communities in these areas. Thus, we
believe that finalizing our proposed action will help to reduce
disproportionate health, environmental, economic, and climate impacts
on disadvantaged communities in the Hayden and Miami areas and that
this action will not have disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income
populations and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order
12898.
IV. Final Action
Under CAA section 179(c)(1), the EPA is taking final action to
determine that the Hayden Pb NAA failed to attain the 2008 Pb primary
and secondary NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of October 3,
2019. The EPA is also taking final action to determine that the Hayden
and Miami SO<INF>2</INF> NAAs failed to attain the 2010 1-hour primary
SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of October 4,
2018. As a result of these determinations, the State of Arizona is
required under CAA section 179(d) to submit revisions to the Arizona
SIP for the Hayden Pb, Hayden SO<INF>2</INF>, and Miami SO<INF>2</INF>
NAAs that, among other elements, provide for attainment of the
respective standards as expeditiously as practicable but no later than
January 31, 2027. At this time, we are not prescribing additional
measures for the Pb and SO<INF>2</INF> SIP revisions under CAA section
179(d)(2). The SIP revisions required under CAA section 179(d) are due
for submittal to the EPA by January 31, 2023. This final action also
triggers the implementation of contingency measures adopted in these
areas under CAA section 172(c)(9).
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive orders
can be found at <a href="https://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders">https://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders</a>.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review, and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action and therefore
was not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the PRA because it does not contain any information
collection activities.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This final
action requires the State to adopt and submit SIP revisions to satisfy
CAA requirements and does not itself directly regulate any small
entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate of $100 million
or more, as described in UMRA (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action itself
imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments,
or the private sector. This action determines that the Hayden Pb NAA
and the Hayden and Miami SO<INF>2</INF> NAAs failed to attain the NAAQS
by the applicable attainment dates and triggers existing statutory
timeframes for the State to submit SIP revisions. Such a determination
in and of itself does not impose any Federal intergovernmental mandate.
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.
F. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. The finding of failure to attain the Pb and
SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS does not apply to tribal areas, and the rule will
not impose a burden on Indian reservation lands or other areas where
the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction within the Hayden Pb, Hayden SO<INF>2</INF> and Miami
SO<INF>2</INF> nonattainment areas. Thus, this rule does not have
tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs
[[Page 4812]]
on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive
Order 13175. Nonetheless, the EPA notified the San Carlos Apache Tribe
of the San Carlos Reservation, which borders the eastern boundary of
the Hayden Pb and Hayden SO<INF>2</INF> NAAs, of this action.
G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because the effect of this action is to trigger
additional planning requirements under the CAA. This action does not
establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate 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 because it is not
a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898. The documentation for this decision
is contained in section III of this document. The docket for this
rulemaking action includes a summary of environmental justice
indicators for communities in the Hayden and Miami areas obtained using
the EPA's EJSCREEN tool.
K. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
L. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by April 1, 2022. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Pollution, Sulfur
dioxide.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: January 21, 2022.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends chapter I,
title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart D--Arizona
0
2. Section 52.125 is amended by adding paragraph (h) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.125 Control strategy and regulations: Sulfur Oxides
* * * * *
(h) Effective March 2, 2022, the EPA has determined that the Hayden
and Miami nonattainment areas failed to attain the 2010 1-hour primary
sulfur dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>) national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) by the applicable attainment date of October 4, 2018. This
determination triggers the requirements of CAA section 179(d) for the
State of Arizona to submit a revision to the Arizona SIP for the Hayden
and Miami nonattainment areas to the EPA by January 31, 2023. The SIP
revision must, among other elements, provide for attainment of the 1-
hour primary SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS in the Hayden and Miami
SO<INF>2</INF> NAAs as expeditiously as practicable but no later than
January 31, 2027.
0
3. Section 52.127 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 52.127 Control strategy and regulations: Lead.
(a) Effective March 2, 2022, the EPA has determined that the Hayden
nonattainment area failed to attain the 2008 primary and secondary lead
(Pb) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) by the applicable
attainment date of October 3, 2019. This determination triggers the
requirements of CAA section 179(d) for the State of Arizona to submit a
revision to the Arizona SIP for the Hayden nonattainment area to the
EPA by January 31, 2023. The SIP revision must, among other elements,
provide for attainment of the 2008 Pb NAAQS in the Hayden Pb NAA as
expeditiously as practicable but no later than January 31, 2027.
(b) [Reserved]
[FR Doc. 2022-01595 Filed 1-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on January 31, 2022.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.