The EPA Region 9 Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, signed the following final rule on August 20, 2014, and EPA is submitting 

it for publication in the Federal Register (FR). While we have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this Internet version of the rule, it is 

not the official version of the rule for purposes of compliance. Please refer to the official version in a forthcoming FR publication, which 

will appear on the Government Printing Office’s FDsys website (http://fdsys.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/home.action) and on Regulations.gov 

(http://www.regulations.gov) in Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0266.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 81 

[EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0266; FRL-] 

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: Pursuant to section 107(d)(3) of the Clean Air Act, 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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, on August 20, 2014. We 

have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

2 

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. 

DATE: This rule is effective on [Insert date 30 days from the 

date of publication in the Federal Register]. 

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. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, on August 20, 2014. We 

have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

3 

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 

(mg/m3) level set in 1978 to a level of 0.15 mg/m3. The secondary 

(welfare-based) standard was revised to be identical in all 

respects to the primary standard. See 73 FR 66964, November 12, 

2008. An area violates the revised standards if any arithmetic 

3-month mean (hereafter referred to as “average”) concentration 

measured within the preceding three years is greater than 0.15 

mg/m3. EPA also expanded the Pb monitoring network by requiring 

new monitors to be sited near sources emitting one ton or more 

of Pb per year by January 1, 2010 and in certain non-source 

oriented locations by January 1, 2011. In a separate, later 

action, we revised the Pb monitoring regulations to require 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, on August 20, 2014. We 

have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

4 

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 

 

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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, on August 20, 2014. We 

have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

5 

Governor Brewer notifying her of our action, EPA explained that, 

should we subsequently determine that the Pb standards were 

being violated, we would initiate the process to redesignate the 

Hayden area to nonattainment.4 

The CAA grants EPA the authority to change the designation 

of, or “redesignate,” areas in light of changes in 

circumstances. More specifically EPA has the authority under CAA 

section 107(d)(3) to redesignate areas (or portions thereof) on 

the basis of air quality data, planning and control 

considerations, or any other air 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. 

Governor Brewer responded on September 25, 2013, with a 

 

concentration over 0.15 mg/m3 is enough to cause a violation of the Pb NAAQS. 

ADEQ’s Globe Highway monitor registered four violations in 2011; however, at 

the time of designation the data had not been quality assured and certified 

and therefore we did not rely on them as the basis for a nonattainment 

designation. 

4 Letter from Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator, U.S. EPA, to Janice K. Brewer, 

Governor of Arizona, dated November 8, 2011. 

5 The ADEQ Globe Highway monitor recorded three violations of the Pb NAAQS in 

2012. Three-month rolling average values violated the Pb standards for 

February-April, March-May, and April-June 2012. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, on August 20, 2014. We 

have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

6 

recommendation that EPA not redesignate the area to 

nonattainment. Governor Brewer based her recommendation on 

ADEQ’s belief that recently installed pollution controls on the 

anode furnaces at the ASARCO copper smelter, which is the source 

of Pb emissions in the Hayden area, had reduced Pb emissions.6 

Under section 107(d)(3) of the CAA, EPA may modify states’ 

recommendations as it deems necessary. After reviewing the 

Governor’s September 25, 2013 recommendation, the supporting 

information submitted by the State, and additional relevant, 

available information, EPA concluded that it would be 

appropriate to redesignate the Hayden area to nonattainment for 

the 2008 Pb NAAQS. EPA notified the Governor of its intention to 

modify her recommendation in a letter dated April 21, 2014.7

On May 2, 2014, EPA issued our proposal to redesignate the 

Hayden area to nonattainment for the Pb NAAQS. Our proposal was 

based on the monitoring data from the ADEQ Globe Highway monitor 

recorded between January 2010 and December 2012. We also 

evaluated preliminary monitoring data collected in 20138 from the 

 

6 Governor Brewer recommended that the Hayden area not be redesignated to 

nonattainment “because there have been no lead [Pb] standard violations since 

June 2012, when the ASARCO Hayden Copper Smelter completed the addition of 

controls to reduce lead emissions.” See Letter from Janice K. Brewer, 

Governor of Arizona, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA 

Region 9, dated September 25, 2013.

7 Letter from Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region 9, to 

Janice Brewer, Governor of Arizona, dated April 21, 2014. 

8 Because 2013 data had not been certified as being completely submitted and 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, on August 20, 2014. We 

have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

7 

ADEQ Globe Highway monitor and preliminary data from the network 

of monitors operated by ASARCO9 that were installed and began 

collecting data in July and August of 2013. As shown in Table 1, 

ADEQ’s Globe Highway monitor recorded three violations of the Pb 

NAAQS in 2012.10 Two of the ASARCO monitors (the Parking Lot 

monitor and the Hillcrest Avenue monitor) measured values over 

the Pb standards in 2013. EPA evaluated the use of this set of 

secondary data by considering trends, gradients, and the 

magnitude of measured concentrations relative to the Pb 

standards. EPA concluded that strong trends and gradients are 

apparent in the preliminary data, and that preliminary data 

collected by two of the ASARCO monitors after the air pollution 

controls were installed on the anode furnaces suggest violations 

of the Pb standards occurred in the Hayden area in 2013. These 

data, along with newer data (available to date), are presented 

below.11 

Table 1. 2012, 2013, and 2014 Pb Design Values (DVs, mg/m3), ADEQ’s Globe 

Highway Monitor (AQS ID 04-007-1002) and Preliminary Data from ASARCO’s 

Hillcrest and Parking Lot Monitors

 

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. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, on August 20, 2014. We 

have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

8 

3-month 

period 

ADEQ’s Globe Hwy Monitor 

ASARCO’s

Hillcrest Monitor 

(preliminary) 

ASARCO’s

Parking Lot Monitor 

(preliminary) 

2012 2013 

2014 

(preliminary) 2013 2014 2013 2014 

Nov-Dec-Jan 0.07 0.04 0.02 -- 0.29 -- 1.18 

Dec-Jan-Feb 0.14 0.04 0.04 -- 0.22 -- 0.79 

Jan-Feb-Mar 0.15 0.09 0.07 -- 0.19 -- 0.40 

Feb-Mar-Apr 0.20 0.11 Not available -- 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 31, 2014. 

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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, on August 20, 2014. We 

have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

9 

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 Public Comment 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 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. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, on August 20, 2014. We 

have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

10 

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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, on August 20, 2014. We 

have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

11 

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 

 

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 C.F.R. § 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. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, on August 20, 2014. We 

have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

12 

concentration of Pb and whether any additional controls are 

needed. 

Comment 3: ASARCO expressed concerns that the supplemental data 

EPA considered might not be appropriate for determining ambient 

air quality because the monitors were designed for other 

purposes or were not located in ambient air. ASARCO further 

noted that it had not evaluated the conformance of the 

supplemental monitoring data with 40 CFR 58.15. 

Response: The ASARCO monitors were established for multiple 

purposes, including comparison to the NAAQS.14 Further, EPA 

defines ambient air as “that portion of the atmosphere, external 

to buildings, to which the general public has access.” 40 CFR 

50.1(e). The public has access to the areas where the ASARCO 

monitors are located and those monitors are appropriately 

considered to be located in ambient air. While data used as the 

basis for determining whether an area is violating a NAAQS must 

meet specific requirements contained within 40 CFR Part 58, any 

available monitoring data may be considered as supplementary 

information, regardless of monitoring intent or conformance with 

40 CFR 58.15 (Annual air monitoring data certification) in order 

 

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. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, on August 20, 2014. We 

have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

13 

to improve our understanding of what is occurring. The data from 

the ASARCO monitors are provided as supplementary information 

and are appropriate for this purpose. 

Comment 4: ASARCO observed that Arizona is required to submit a 

SIP by April 2015 that will show how the Hayden area will attain 

the SO2 NAAQS, and questioned whether triggering the Pb 

nonattainment planning process by redesignating the area to 

nonattainment for the Pb NAAQS would result in any additional 

emissions reductions or faster reductions in ambient 

concentrations of Pb. ASARCO urged EPA to consider deferring the 

redesignation of the Hayden area to nonattainment as long as the 

Globe Highway monitor does not measure any additional 

exceedances of the Pb NAAQS and ASARCO and ADEQ make 

“expeditious progress toward installing controls in the SO2 NAAQS 

planning process.” ASARCO observed that EPA could exercise its 

right to redesignate the area if progress toward “implementing 

the controls reducing lead emissions” were to stop or be 

delayed, and contended that such an approach would ensure 

expeditious attainment of the NAAQS while “significantly 

reducing the burden” on ADEQ, the planning organizations, and 

EPA.

Response: The Globe Highway monitoring site was chosen to 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, on August 20, 2014. We 

have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

14 

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. 

Exposure to Pb is a serious health concern. It causes a 

range of adverse health effects, most notably in children. 

 

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.
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, on August 20, 2014. We 

have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

15 

Exposures to low levels of Pb early in life have been linked to 

effects on IQ, learning, memory, and behavior.16 Taking the “wait 

and see” approach advocated by ASARCO could delay by several 

years the implementation of controls designed to ensure 

attainment of the Pb NAAQS. 

III. Final Action

For the reasons provided in the proposed rule and TSD and 

in this final rule, EPA is taking final action pursuant to 

section 107(d)(3) of the Clean Air Act to redesignate the Hayden 

area, which encompasses portions of southern Gila and eastern 

Pinal counties, from “unclassifiable” to “nonattainment” for the 

2008 national ambient air quality standards for lead (Pb). This 

redesignation to nonattainment is based on violations of the 

2008 Pb NAAQS recorded at the Globe Highway site and on 

additional relevant information as described above and in more 

detail in our proposal. 

As a result of this redesignation to nonattainment, the 

Hayden area is subject to the applicable requirements of part D, 

title I of the Act (see section 191 of the Act). Within 18 

 

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. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, on August 20, 2014. We 

have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

16 

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 

 

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. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, on August 20, 2014. We 

have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

17 

the effective date of redesignation. See section 176(c) of the 

Act. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), 

EPA has determined that today’s redesignation to nonattainment, 

as well as the establishment of SIP submittal schedules, will 

result in none of the effects identified in Executive Order 

12866, section 3(f). Under section 107(d)(3) of the Act, 

redesignations to nonattainment are based upon air quality 

considerations. This redesignation, based upon air quality data 

showing that the Hayden area is not attaining the Pb standard 

and upon other air-quality-related considerations, does not, in 

and of itself, impose any new requirements on any sectors of the 

economy. Similarly, the establishment of new SIP submittal 

schedules would merely establish the dates by which SIPs must be 

submitted, and would not adversely affect entities. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, on August 20, 2014. We 

have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

18 

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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, on August 20, 2014. We 

have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

19 

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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, on August 20, 2014. We 

have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

20 

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 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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, on August 20, 2014. We 

have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

21 

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, 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, on August 20, 2014. We 

have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

22 

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. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, on August 20, 2014. We 

have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

23 

8/20/14 ____ ____________/s/___________ 

Dated: Jared Blumenfeld 

Regional Administrator 

Region IX 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, on August 20, 2014. We 

have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

24 

Part 81, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations is amended as follows: 

PART 81--[AMENDED] 

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

follows: 

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

Subpart C - Section 107 Attainment Status Designations 

2. In § 81.303, the “Arizona–2008 Lead NAAQS” table is amended 

by revising the entry for “Hayden, AZ” to read as set forth 

below. 

§81.303 Arizona. 

* * * * * 

Arizona--2008 Lead NAAQS 

Designated Area Designation for the 2008 NAAQSa 

Date1 Type 

Hayden, AZ: 

Gila County (part) 

The portions of Gila County 

that are bounded by T4S, 

R15E; T4S, R16E (except 

those portions in the San 

Carlos Indian Reservation); 

T5S, R15E; T5S, R16E 

(except those portions in 

the San Carlos Indian 

Reservation). 

Pinal County (part) 

The portions of Pinal County 

that are bounded by: T4S, 

R14E; T4S, R16E (except 

[Insert Date 

30 days after 

publication] 

[Insert Date 

30 days after 

publication] 

Nonattainment 

Nonattainment 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, on August 20, 2014. We 

have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

25 

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.