The EPA Region 9 Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, signed the following proposed rule on April 21, 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/search/home.action and on Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov) in Docket No. EPA-R09-

OAR-2014-0266. 

6560-50-P 

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 (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 107(d)(3) of the Clean Air Act, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 

redesignate the Hayden area in Arizona, which encompasses 

portions of southern Gila and eastern Pinal counties, from 

“unclassifiable” to “nonattainment” for the 2008 national 

ambient air quality standards for lead (Pb). EPA’s proposal to 

redesignate the Hayden area is based on recorded violations of 

the Pb standards at the Arizona Department of Environmental 

Quality’s (ADEQ’s) Globe Highway monitoring site, located near 

the towns of Hayden and Winkleman, Arizona, and additional 

relevant air quality information. The effect of this action 

would be to redesignate the Hayden area to nonattainment for the 

Pb standards and thereby to impose certain planning requirements 

on the State of Arizona to reduce Pb concentrations within this 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on April 

21, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

2 

area, including, but not limited to, the requirement to submit, 

within 18 months of redesignation, a revision to the Arizona 

state implementation plan that provides for attainment of the Pb 

standards as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 

five years after the date of redesignation to nonattainment. 

DATE: Any comments must arrive by [Insert date 30 days from the 

date of publication in the Federal Register]. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-

OAR-2014-0266, by one of the following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions. 

2. E-mail: vagenas.ginger@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Ginger Vagenas (Air-2), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, CA 94105-3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or 

otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on April 

21, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

3 

www.regulations.gov is an “anonymous access” system, and EPA 

will not know your identity or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. If you send e-mail 

directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the public comment. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and 

cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to 

consider your comment. 

Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available 

electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA 

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While 

documents in the docket are listed in the index, some 

information may be publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material, large format or voluminous 

documents), and some may not be publicly available in either 

location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please 

schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the 

contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ginger Vagenas, EPA Region IX, 

(415) 972-3964, vagenas.ginger@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, “we,” “us” 

and “our” refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on April 

21, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

4 

I. Background 

II. EPA’s Decision to Address Pb Violations Monitored in the 

Hayden Area Through Redesignation 

III. State of Arizona’s Recommendation and EPA’s Analysis 

IV. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

EPA revised the primary (health-based) Pb national ambient 

air quality standard (NAAQS) on October 15, 2008, lowering it 

from the 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3) level set in 1978 

to a level of 0.15 mg/m3. The secondary (welfare-based) standard 

was revised to be identical in all respects to the primary 

standard. See 73 FR 66964, November 12, 2008. An area violates 

the revised standards if any arithmetic 3-month mean (hereafter 

referred to as “average”) concentration measured within the 

preceding three years is greater than 0.15 mg/m3. EPA also 

expanded the Pb monitoring network by requiring new monitors to 

be sited near sources emitting one ton or more of Pb per year by 

January 1, 2010 and in certain non-source oriented locations by 

January 1, 2011. 

Section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or “Act”) 

establishes a process for making initial area designations when 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on April 

21, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

5 

a NAAQS is revised. In general, states are required to submit 

designation recommendations to EPA within one year of 

promulgation of a new or revised standard and EPA is required to 

complete initial designations within two years of promulgation. 

However, if EPA has insufficient information to promulgate 

designations, it can extend the period for initial designations 

for up to one year. For the initial designations for the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS, data from pre-existing monitors provided sufficient 

information to make some designations within the two-year 

timeframe. Because other areas would not have monitoring data 

until after the newly required monitors were in place, EPA 

decided to promulgate initial designations for the Pb NAAQS in 

two separate actions. The first round of designations 

(promulgated November 16, 2010 (75 FR 71033, November 22, 2010)) 

included areas with sufficient monitoring information at the 

time to determine nonattainment; the second round (promulgated 

November 8, 2011 (76 FR 72097, November 22, 2011)) included all 

other areas. 

On December 15, 2009, in accordance with the process set 

out in CAA section 107(d)(1), Arizona submitted its recommended 

designations for the revised standard to EPA. At that time, 

ambient air quality data collected by EPA Region 9’s Superfund 

Division from a monitor sited at the Hayden Maintenance 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on April 

21, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

6 

Building, located just west of the ASARCO copper concentrate and 

smelting facility, indicated that the Hayden area was violating 

the new standard.1 Arizona recommended that EPA promulgate an 

unclassifiable/attainment designation for most of the State, but 

recommended that EPA delay designating the Hayden area because 

the Asarco Hayden copper smelter (ASARCO), the source of Pb 

emissions in the area, had committed to improve its control of 

Pb emissions. Arizona further recommended that if the Hayden 

area continued to violate the Pb NAAQS on or after March 2010, 

it should be designated nonattainment. Subsequently, ADEQ 

recommended that if EPA were to determine that monitored 

concentrations in the Hayden area were exceeding the standard, 

the EPA should follow the Governor’s recommendation to 

promulgate a lead nonattainment area with boundaries identical 

to the Hayden sulfur dioxide nonattainment area boundaries with 

respect to State lands.2 

In 2010, in conjunction with the initial designations for 

the 2008 Pb NAAQS, EPA undertook a technical analysis for the 

Hayden, Arizona area to evaluate the available air quality data 

 

1 Values from July, August, and September 2008 resulted in a 3-month average 

design value of 0.17 μg/m3 at the Hayden Maintenance Building monitor. 

2 Letter (with enclosure) from Benjamin H. Grumbles, Director, ADEQ, to Laura 

Yoshii, Acting Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region 9, dated December 17, 

2009. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on April 

21, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

7 

and to determine whether the boundary recommended by the State 

encompassed the area that did not meet, or that contributed to 

ambient air quality in the area that did not meet, the 2008 Pb 

standard, consistent with section 107(d)(1)(A). The analysis 

identified the monitor that was violating the newly revised 

standard and evaluated nearby areas for contributions to ambient 

lead concentrations in the area.3 EPA evaluated the surrounding 

area based on the weight of evidence of the following factors 

recommended in previous EPA guidance: 

· Air quality in potentially included versus excluded areas; 

· Emissions and emissions-related data in areas potentially 

included versus excluded from the nonattainment area, 

including population data, growth rates and patterns and 

emissions controls; 

· Meteorology (weather and transport patterns); 

· Topography (surface features such as mountain ranges or 

other air basin boundaries); 

· Jurisdictional boundaries (e.g., counties, air districts, 

and reservations); and 

 

3 See the 2010 draft technical support document entitled “ARIZONA, Area 

Designations for the 2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards.”
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on April 

21, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

8 

· Any other relevant information submitted to or collected by 

EPA. 

Based on our consideration of available air quality data 

and the factors listed above, EPA determined that a designation 

of nonattainment was appropriate and that the Hayden area 

boundaries recommended by the State in 2009 encompassed the 

entire area that did not meet (or that contributed to ambient 

air quality in a nearby area that did not meet) the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS. Accordingly, in a letter dated June 14, 2010, EPA 

notified Arizona that we intended to designate the Hayden area 

nonattainment for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.4 

EPA subsequently published a notice in the Federal Register 

providing an opportunity for the public to comment on our 

intended designations (75 FR 39254, July 8, 2010). Commenters 

challenged our proposal to designate the Hayden area 

nonattainment and asserted that the monitoring data we relied 

upon (i.e., the data collected at the Superfund Divison’s Hayden 

Maintenance Building site), was not collected in accordance with 

applicable quality assurance and quality control (“QA/QC”) 

requirements. Based on our evaluation of the monitoring data 

issues raised in these comments, we determined that we did not 

 

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

Janice K. Brewer, Governor of Arizona, dated June 14, 2010. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on April 

21, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

9 

have sufficient information to promulgate a nonattainment 

designation for the Hayden area at that time. Accordingly, we 

delayed our designation for the Hayden area until the final 

round of designations, slated for the following year. 

On November 8, 2011, EPA completed its initial designations 

for the revised Pb standard.5 Most of Arizona was designated 

unclassifiable/attainment for the Pb NAAQS. We designated the 

Hayden area, with the boundaries Arizona recommended,6 as 

unclassifiable rather than nonattainment because there were 

available monitoring data recorded at ADEQ’s new Globe Highway 

monitoring site indicating a significant likelihood that the 

area was violating the 2008 Pb NAAQS, but the available 

information was insufficient at that time to make a 

nonattainment designation.7 In our letter to Governor Brewer 

notifying her of our action, EPA explained that, should we 

subsequently determine that the lead standards were being 

violated, we would initiate the process to redesignate the 

 

5 See 76 FR 72097, November 22, 2011.

6 See 40 CFR 81.303 for a legal description of the boundary of the Hayden 

area. 

7 Because of the form of the 2008 Pb NAAQS, one 3-month average ambient air 

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

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

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

and therefore could not be relied upon as the basis for a nonattainment 

designation. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on April 

21, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

10 

Hayden area to nonattainment.8

II. EPA’s Decision to Address Pb Violations Monitored in the 

Hayden Area Through Redesignation 

The CAA grants EPA the authority to change the designation 

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

circumstances. More specifically EPA has the authority under CAA 

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

the basis of air quality data, planning and control 

considerations, or any other air quality-related considerations. 

Table 1, below, presents a summary of the latest available 

quality-assured Pb monitoring data from the State-operated 

monitor (ADEQ’s Globe Highway monitor). A map showing the 

location of the monitor is included in our Technical Support 

Document (EPA TSD), which is contained in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

Table 1. 2012 Pb Design Values (DVs, mg/m3), 

ADEQ’s Globe Highway Monitor (AQS ID 04-007-1002) 

3-month period 

2012 

DVs 

Nov-Dec-Jan 0.07 

Dec-Jan-Feb 0.14 

Jan-Feb-Mar 0.15 

Feb-Mar-Apr 0.20 

Mar-Apr-May 0.16 

Apr-May-Jun 0.20 

 

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

Governor of Arizona, dated November 8, 2011. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on April 

21, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

11 

May-Jun-Jul 0.15 

Jun-Jul-Aug 0.14 

Jul-Aug-Sep 0.12 

Aug-Sep-Oct 0.11 

Sept-Oct-Nov 0.09 

Oct-Nov-Dec 0.06 

*Data pulled from AQS on March 31, 2014 

As shown in Table 1, the ADEQ’s Globe Highway monitor 

recorded three violations in 2012. An area violates the revised 

standards if any arithmetic 3-month average concentration is 

greater than 0.15 mg/m3. The NAAQS is met if an area does not 

measure any exceedances of the standard for three consecutive 

calendar years. 

On June 12, 2013, under CAA section 107(d)(3)(A), EPA 

notified the Governor of Arizona that the designation for Hayden 

should be revised. EPA’s June 2013 decision to initiate the 

redesignation process for the Hayden area stemmed from review of

the quality assured, certified monitoring data that indicate 

that three-month rolling average values violated the Pb 

standards for February-April, March-May, and April-June 2012. In 

light of the violations of the Pb standard recorded in 2012 at 

ADEQ’s Globe Highway monitor, EPA concluded that the SIP 

planning and control requirements that are triggered by 

redesignation of an area to nonattainment for the Pb NAAQS would 

be the most appropriate means to ensure that this air quality 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on April 

21, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

12 

problem is remedied. 

Section III of this document describes the State of 

Arizona’s 2013 recommendation with respect to this proposed 

redesignation to nonattainment and summarizes EPA’s review of 

both the State’s recommendation and additional relevant 

information, and our conclusions based on that review. Section 

IV describes our proposed action and the corresponding CAA 

planning requirements that would thereby be triggered. 

III. State of Arizona’s Recommendation and EPA’s Analysis 

Monitoring Data 

Pursuant to section 107(d)(3)(B) of the Act, on September 

25, 2013, the Governor of Arizona responded to EPA’s June 12, 

2013 notification that the Hayden area should be redesignated to 

nonattainment for the Pb NAAQS. Governor Brewer recommended that 

the Hayden area not be redesignated to nonattainment “because 

there have been no lead [Pb] standard violations since June 

2012, when the ASARCO Hayden Copper Smelter completed the 

addition of controls to reduce lead emissions.”9 The Governor 

acknowledged that if additional violations of the 2008 Pb NAAQS 

occur, a designation to nonattainment for the Pb standard would 

be appropriate and that in such a case, the Pb nonattainment 

 

9 Letter from Janice K. Brewer, Governor of Arizona, to Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region 9, dated September 25, 2013. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on April 

21, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

13 

area boundaries should be identical to the Hayden sulfur dioxide 

(SO2) nonattainment area boundaries, as recommended in her 

December 15, 2009 letter.10,11 

In support of the Governor’s recommendation, ADEQ submitted 

to EPA a technical support document entitled, “Relationship 

Between Ambient Sulfur Dioxide and Lead Concentrations”12 (ADEQ 

2013 TSD). The ADEQ 2013 TSD examines the relationship between 

ambient concentrations of SO2 and Pb over time. ADEQ asserts that 

there is a very strong relationship between the two pollutants, 

but that the separation between the SO2 concentrations and Pb 

concentrations increased after July 2012, which they attribute 

to a decrease in Pb emissions due to new controls. The document 

states that ambient SO2 concentrations were approximately 263 

times that of Pb during the period of January 15, 2011 to June 

30, 2012. From July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013, the average SO2/Pb 

ratio changed to approximately 719. ADEQ points to this “abrupt 

change” in the ratio of SO2 to Pb concentrations that occurred 

around July 2012 as evidence that the Pb emissions controls 

 

10 The boundaries of the SO2 nonattainment area and the Pb unclassifiable area 

are identical. 

11 The Governor explicitly excludes Indian country, which is appropriate 

given that the State of Arizona is not authorized to administer programs 

under the CAA in the affected Indian country. 

12 Letter (with enclosure) from Eric C. Massey, Director, Air Quality, ADEQ, to 

Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region 9, dated October 4, 

2013.
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on April 

21, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

14 

installed at that time have reduced the ambient concentrations 

of Pb. ADEQ concludes that, “[w]hile it is believed that the 

installed control devices were effective in reducing the ambient 

Pb concentrations in Hayden, AZ, additional data would be needed 

to verify that the Globe Highway Pb monitor continues to attain 

the Pb NAAQS.”13 

EPA has reviewed the Governor’s recommendation and ADEQ’s 

2013 TSD and concurs with the statement that ADEQ’s Globe 

Highway monitor has not measured a violation since July of 2012. 

However, given the form of the Pb NAAQS, in order to be 

considered to be attaining the standard an area must have three 

years of valid air quality data without any violations of the 

2008 Pb NAAQS.14 As shown in Table 1, the most recent certified 

monitoring data collected at ADEQ’s Globe Highway monitor near 

the ASARCO facility show three violations of the 2008 Pb NAAQS 

in 2012. Accordingly, we also concur with ADEQ’s conclusion that 

the data gathered thus far by the ADEQ Globe Highway monitor are 

not sufficient to determine that the area has attained the 

NAAQS. 

Other Air Quality-Related Considerations 

 

13 ADEQ 2013 TSD, page 4. 

14 Data from calendar year 2013 have not yet been certified as being complete 

and accurate, and are therefore considered to be supplemental data for this 

action. This certification is due by May 1, 2014 pursuant to 40 CFR 58.15.
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on April 

21, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

15 

In addition to certified data from 2012 collected at the 

ADEQ Globe Highway Monitor, EPA has evaluated monitoring data 

collected in calendar year 2013. Because these data have not yet 

been certified as being completely submitted and accurate, we 

present data from 2013 as supplemental information for this 

action. 

As of March 31, 2014, data through December 31, 2013 from 

ADEQ’s Globe Highway monitor (04-007-1002) are available in 

EPA’s Air Quality System (AQS) database. According to the 

preliminary data from the ADEQ Globe Highway monitor, no threemonth rolling averages from 2013 have violated the Pb NAAQS, 

although two monthly averages from 2013 (March and June) were 

above the 0.15 μg/m3 level of the Pb NAAQS. See Table 2. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on April 

21, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

16 

Table 2. Preliminary 2013 Data from ASARCO’s Monitoring Network and ADEQ’s 

Globe Highway Monitor. Pb Concentrations (μg/m3). 

ASARCO Monitors 

ADEQ 

Monitor 

Hillcrest 

Ave. 

Parking 

Lot 

Post Office Winkelman 

HS 

Globe 

Highway 

Globe 

Highway - 

ADEQ 

ST-23 ST-14 ST-26 

ST-26 

colocated ST-02 ST-05 (04-007-

1002) 

January 

2013 

monthly 

average: -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.063 

Nov 2012 – 

Jan 2013 

3 month 

average -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.04 

February 

2013 

monthly 

average: -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.049 

Dec 2012 - 

Feb 2013 

3 month 

average -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.04 

March 2013 

monthly 

average: -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.170 

Jan – 

March 2013 

3 month 

average -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.09 

April 2013 

monthly 

average: -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.112 

Feb – Apr 

2013 

3 month 

average -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.11 

May 2013 

monthly 

average: -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.062 

Mar – May 

2013 

3 month 

average -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.11 

June 2013 

monthly 

average: -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.183 

Apr – Jun 

2013 

3 month 

average -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.12 

July 2013 

monthly 

average: 0.096 -- -- -- -- -- 0.081 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on April 

21, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

17 

May – Jul 

2013 

3 month 

average -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.11 

Aug 2013 

monthly 

average: 0.185 0.664 0.183 -- -- -- 0.069 

Jun – Aug 

2013 

3 month 

average -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.11 

Sept 2013 

monthly 

average: 0.115 0.289 0.096 -- 0.015 0.063 0.045 

Jul-Sep 

2013 

3 month 

average: 0.13 -- -- -- -- -- 0.06 

Oct 2013 

monthly 

average: 0.115 0.257 0.069 -- 0.016 0.078 0.055 

Aug-Oct 

2013 

3 month 

average: 0.14 0.40 -- -- -- 0.06 

Nov 2013 

monthly 

average: 0.346 1.396 0.124 0.118 0.015 0.019 0.021 

Sep-Nov 

2013 

3 month 

average: 0.19 0.65 0.10 -- 0.02 0.05 0.04 

Dec 2013 

monthly 

average: 0.01 

Oct-Dec 

2013 

3 month 

average: 0.03 

In July 2013, ASARCO installed and began collecting 

monitoring data from a new network of ambient monitors 

surrounding the facility.15 Because the ASARCO data are 

preliminary, EPA has evaluated the use of this set of secondary 

data by considering trends, gradients, and the magnitude of 

 

15 ASARCO’s monitors were sited in accordance with 40 CFR 58. See Figure 8 of 

EPA’s TSD for a map showing the locations of the ASARCO-operated monitors.
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on April 

21, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

18 

measured concentrations relative to the standard. 

The new monitoring network includes a monitor (Globe 

Highway-ASARCO) located 14 meters southwest of ADEQ’s Globe 

Highway monitor. Preliminary, uncertified data from both the 

ADEQ Globe Highway monitor and the Globe Highway-ASARCO monitor 

are available for September-November 2013. The Globe HighwayASARCO monitor measured approximately 0.017 μg/m3 higher on 

average than ADEQ’s Globe Highway monitor. While the two 

monitors measured slightly different values, they trend well 

with one another. See Figure 9 of EPA’s TSD. Given the complex 

terrain in the ravine where these monitors are located, winds 

may be affecting these monitors differently. The different 

values measured at the two monitors may also be a result of 

minor differences in approved analytical procedures that result 

in lower values from the ADEQ monitor.16

 

16 In reviewing the analytical procedures employed by the laboratory 

performing analysis on the ADEQ filters (Pima County Regional Wastewater 

Reclamation Department Compliance & Regulatory Affairs Office (CRAO) 

Laboratory) and the laboratory performing analysis on the ASARCO filters 

(Inter-Mountain Laboratories (IML)), EPA found that the sample preparation 

step differed between the two laboratories. While both laboratories followed 

approved Federal Equivalent Methods (FEMs), EPA recommended that CRAO review 

its sample preparation method to determine if additional best practices may 

be appropriate. Initial analyses by CRAO indicate employing additional best 

practices may yield results of approximately 11% more lead per sample. The 

laboratory analytical procedures were otherwise found to be comparable. See 

Memorandum “Review of Laboratory Procedures to Address Accuracy Concerns for 

Inter-Laboratory Bias for the Asarco Superfund Site,” from Joe Eidelberg and 

Mathew Plate, to Gwen Yoshimura and John Hillenbrand, U.S. EPA Region 9. 

March 31, 2014. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on April 

21, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

19 

Of the five new ASARCO Pb monitors, the three monitors 

sited to the west and to the southwest of the facility show 

higher averages than the Globe Highway-ASARCO monitor during the 

period of overlap. In September, the monthly averages for the 

Post Office, Hillcrest Avenue, and Parking Lot monitors were 1.5 

to 4.5 times higher than the monthly average for the Globe 

Highway-ASARCO monitor. The two complete three-month averages 

reported to date at the Parking Lot monitor are well over the 

standard, at 0.40 μg/m3 for August-October 2013, and 0.65 μg/m3

(more than four times over the standard) for September-November 

2013. The three-month average from September-November 2013 at 

the Hillcrest Avenue monitor was also over the standard, at 0.19 

μg/m3. These elevated levels indicate that while ADEQ’s Globe 

Highway monitor appears to be recording levels below the 

standard, other locations around the smelter that the public has 

access to are experiencing higher concentrations. See Table 2. 

Given that lead is heavy and expected to fall out of the 

air quickly, lead concentrations would generally be highest next 

to the facility and near specific facility operations that 

produce point or fugitive source emissions. An exception to this 

would be if the main emission point was through a tall stack at 

high temperatures, resulting in the air mass remaining buoyant 

for a time before falling out to breathing-level heights. The 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on April 

21, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

20 

data collected by the ASARCO monitors show concentrations 

decreasing as one moves from the monitors closest to the 

facility (i.e., the Parking Lot, Hillcrest Avenue, and Post 

Office monitors) to those farther away (i.e., the Globe Highway 

and Winkelman High School monitors), indicating that fugitives 

or other non-stack emissions might have more significant air 

quality impacts on the neighborhood surrounding the facility 

than stack emissions.17 The Hillcrest Avenue and Parking Lot 

monitors, both to the southwest of the facility and close to 

materials handling activities, also trend well with one another 

(see Figure 10 of the EPA TSD). 

EPA and ADEQ have discussed the challenge of siting a 

single, source-specific monitor that will capture the maximum 

ambient concentration of Pb, given the complex meteorology and 

topography found in the Hayden area. While the ADEQ Globe 

Highway site was chosen to capture the maximum concentration 

using the information available at the time,18 this recent 

information gathered by ASARCO’s more extensive monitoring 

network indicates that higher ambient concentrations of Pb exist 

elsewhere in the Hayden area. Given the strong trends and 

 

17 See Table 7 of the TSD.

18 Quality Assurance Program Plan for the Lead (Pb) Ambient Air Monitoring 

Network, Attachment A. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, October 

2011. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on April 

21, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

21 

gradient apparent from the available preliminary data, and that 

preliminary data collected after the controls on anode furnaces 

were installed indicate two of the ASARCO monitors are measuring 

violations of the Pb standard (the parking lot monitor is over 

four times the standard), the secondary data support our 

decision to redesignate the area to nonattainment. 

Boundary of the Hayden Area 

In conjunction with the initial designations for the 2008 

Pb NAAQS, states submitted recommendations to EPA regarding the 

status (i.e., attainment, unclassifiable, or nonattainment) and 

boundaries for areas within each state. CAA section 107(d)(1)(A) 

generally defines a nonattainment area as any area that does not 

meet, or that contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby 

area that does not meet, the national primary or secondary 

ambient air quality standard for the relevant pollutant. For 

areas with a violating monitor, the county boundary was the 

default boundary of the nonattainment area. States could, 

however, recommend an alternative as long as the proposed 

nonattainment area boundaries encompassed the entire area that 

did not meet, and any nearby area that contributed to ambient 

air quality in the area that did not meet, the 2008 Pb NAAQS. In 

general, factors such as emissions, air quality, and meteorology 

were particularly relevant in determining appropriate 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on April 

21, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

22 

boundaries. States also were able to take into account 

jurisdictional considerations when establishing an area’s 

boundaries.19 

As noted in the Background section above, in 2009 Arizona 

recommended that EPA defer designation of the Hayden area, and 

stated that if EPA were to determine monitored concentrations 

were exceeding the Pb NAAQS, EPA should promulgate a Pb 

nonattainment area with boundaries identical to the Hayden SO2

nonattainment area.20 In 2010, we undertook a technical analysis 

of the State’s recommended boundary, and determined it 

encompassed all areas that appeared to be violating or 

contributing to violations of the Pb NAAQS in the Hayden area. 

In 2011, we designated the Hayden area, with the boundaries the 

Governor recommended, as unclassifiable because data indicating 

violations of the 2008 Pb NAAQS were preliminary at the time 

final designations were due under the CAA. 

For this action, we have reviewed and, where appropriate, 

updated our 2010 analysis of relevant factors related to 

establishing an appropriate nonattainment area boundary. A brief 

summary of the key factors in the Hayden Area boundary analysis 

 

19 See 76 FR 72097 at 72102.

20 The basis for Arizona’s recommended boundary is discussed in ADEQ’s 2009 

boundary recommendation technical support document. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on April 

21, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

23 

is included below. 

Air Quality Data

For this factor, we considered the Pb design values for air 

quality monitors in the Hayden area and the surrounding area 

based on certified 2010-2012 data. Of the five State-operated Pb 

monitors located throughout Arizona that collected data within 

this time period, only the ADEQ Globe Highway monitor, located 

near the ASARCO Hayden copper smelter, measured violations of 

the Pb NAAQS. The design values for the remaining monitors, 

which are located outside the Hayden area, are well below the 

standard. 

Emissions and Emissions-Related Data 

Sources of Pb emissions located in areas surrounding the 

violating monitor were evaluated to determine whether a nearby 

area is contributing to monitored violations. Because of the 

significant distance, and in most cases, relatively low levels 

of emissions, we do not believe sources outside the Hayden area 

boundary are causing or contributing to Pb NAAQS violations in 

Hayden.

Topography

This factor takes into account the physical features of the 

land that might have an effect on the air shed, and therefore on 

the distribution of Pb in the Hayden area. The ASARCO Hayden 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on April 

21, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

24 

copper smelter is located in very complex terrain, which forms 

natural boundaries. Mountainsides limit the extent of the area 

exceeding the Pb standard to a relatively small area around the 

smelter, which is the main source of Pb emissions. For the same 

reason, locations outside the area do not contribute to NAAQS 

exceedances within it.21 The topography of the area supports 

retention of the existing area boundary. 

Based on our technical analysis and currently available 

information, EPA concurs with the State’s recommendation that 

the area’s existing boundary remain unchanged. For a more 

detailed discussion, see the TSD for this action, which is 

included in the docket. 

Conclusion 

EPA has considered the information provided by ADEQ and 

agrees that preliminary data suggest that the installation of 

pollution control equipment on the anode furnaces at the ASARCO 

facility might have resulted in a reduction of ambient Pb 

concentrations, as measured at ADEQ’s Globe Highway monitor. 

However, because three years without a violation are required to 

attain the Pb standard, the ADEQ Globe Highway monitor continues 

to have a design value that violates the standard and we concur 

 

21 Because of the constraints imposed by the terrain, meteorology does not play 

a significant role in determining the boundary for this area.
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on April 

21, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

25 

with ADEQ’s conclusion that ongoing monitoring will be needed to 

determine if the improvement in air quality as measured at the 

Globe Highway monitor will persist. Further, the more extensive 

monitoring network now in place provides preliminary data that 

show ambient concentrations above the standard are occurring 

even after ASARCO installed controls in June of 2012. Therefore, 

based on our review of ADEQ’s Globe Highway monitoring data and 

our analysis of additional relevant, available information, 

including data collected by ASARCO’s ambient air quality Pb 

monitors, EPA concludes it is appropriate to redesignate the 

Hayden area to nonattainment for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. Consistent 

with Arizona’s recommendation, we are not proposing any changes 

to the area’s existing boundaries. 

Under CAA section 107(d)(3)(C), EPA must notify the State 

whenever EPA intends to modify State recommendations concerning 

areas to be redesignated, at least 60 days prior to EPA 

promulgation of final redesignations. While EPA and Arizona are 

in agreement with respect to the boundaries of the Hayden area, 

the Governor recommended against redesignating the area to 

nonattainment unless additional violations of the Pb NAAQS were 

to occur. As noted above, based on our review of available air 

quality data, we have determined that redesignating the Hayden 

area to nonattainment for the Pb NAAQS is appropriate. EPA 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on April 

21, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

26 

intends to notify the State of Arizona of our proposed action 

when this notice is signed. 

IV. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment 

Pursuant to section 107(d)(3) of the Clean Air Act and 

based on our evaluation of air quality data, our review of the 

Governor’s recommendation, and our consideration of additional 

relevant information, EPA is proposing to redesignate from 

“unclassifiable” to “nonattainment” the Hayden area, located in 

southern Gila County and eastern Pinal County, Arizona, for the 

2008 Pb NAAQS. EPA’s proposal to redesignate the Hayden area is 

based on recorded violations of the Pb standard at ADEQ’s Globe 

Highway monitor, and on additional air quality considerations as 

set forth in this document and in the TSD. 

Areas redesignated to nonattainment, as proposed herein, 

are subject to the applicable requirements of part D, title I of 

the Act (see section 191 of the Act). Within 18 months of the 

redesignation, the State is required to submit to EPA an 

implementation plan for the area containing, among other things: 

(1) provisions to assure that reasonably available control 

measures (including reasonably available control technology) are 

implemented; (2) a demonstration, including modeling, that the 

plan will provide for attainment of the Pb NAAQS as 

expeditiously as practicable, but no later than five years after 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on April 

21, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

27 

the area’s designation as nonattainment; (3) provisions that 

result in reasonable further progress toward timely attainment 

by adherence to an ambitious compliance schedule; (4) 

contingency measures that are to be implemented if the area 

fails to achieve and maintain reasonable further progress or 

fails to attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date; and 

(5) a permit program meeting the requirements of section 173 

governing the construction and operation of new and modified 

major stationary sources of Pb.22 Any Pb nonattainment area would 

also be subject to EPA’s general conformity regulations (40 CFR 

part 93, subpart B) upon the effective date of redesignation. 

See section 176(c) of the Act. 

We will accept comments from the public on this proposal 

for thirty days from the date of publication of this notice, and 

will consider any relevant comments in taking final action on 

today’s proposal. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review 

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

 

22 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. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on April 

21, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

28 

EPA has determined that the redesignation to nonattainment 

proposed today, as well as the establishment of SIP submittal 

schedules, would result in none of the effects identified in 

Executive Order 12866, section 3(f). Under section 107(d)(3) of 

the Act, redesignations to nonattainment are based upon air 

quality considerations. The proposed redesignation, based upon 

air quality data showing that the Hayden area is not attaining 

the Pb standard and upon other air-quality-related 

considerations, does not, in and of itself, impose any new 

requirements on any sectors of the economy. Similarly, the 

establishment of new SIP submittal schedules would merely 

establish the dates by which SIPs must be submitted, and would 

not adversely affect entities. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 

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

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 

et. seq., a redesignation to nonattainment under section 

107(d)(3), and the establishment of a SIP submittal schedule for 

a redesignated area, do not, in and of themselves, directly 

impose any new requirements on small entities. See Mid-Tex 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on April 

21, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

29 

Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. FERC, 773 F.2d 327 (D.C. Cir. 

1985)(agency’s certification need only consider the rule’s 

impact on entities subject to the requirements of the rule). 

Instead, this rulemaking simply proposes to make a factual 

determination and to establish a schedule to require the State 

to submit SIP revisions, and does not propose to directly 

regulate any entities. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), 

EPA certifies that today’s proposed action does not have a 

significant impact on a substantial number of small entities 

within the meaning of those terms for RFA purposes. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(UMRA), Public Law 104-4, EPA has concluded that this proposed 

rule is not likely to result in the promulgation of any Federal 

mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more 

for State, local or tribal governments in the aggregate, or for 

the private sector, in any one year. It is questionable whether 

a redesignation would constitute a federal mandate in any case. 

The obligation for the state to revise its State Implementation 

Plan that arises out of a redesignation is not legally 

enforceable and at most is a condition for continued receipt of 

federal highway funds. Therefore, it does not appear that such 

an action creates any enforceable duty within the meaning of 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on April 

21, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

30 

section 421(5)(a)(i) of UMRA (2 U.S.C. 658(5)(a)(i)), and if it 

does the duty would appear to fall within the exception for a 

condition of Federal assistance under section 421(5)(a)(i)(I) of 

UMRA (2 U.S.C. 658(5)(a)(i)(I). 

Even if a redesignation were considered a Federal mandate, 

the anticipated costs resulting from the mandate would not 

exceed $100 million to either the private sector or state, local 

and tribal governments. Redesignation of an area to 

nonattainment does not, in itself, impose any mandates or costs 

on the private sector, and thus, there is no private sector 

mandate within the meaning of section 421(7) of UMRA (2 U.S.C. 

658(7)). The only cost resulting from the redesignation itself 

is the cost to the State of Arizona of developing, adopting, and 

submitting any necessary SIP revision. Because that cost will 

not exceed $100 million, this proposal (if it is a federal 

mandate at all) is not subject to the requirements of sections 

202 and 205 of UMRA (2 U.S.C. 1532 and 1535). EPA has also 

determined that this proposal would not result in regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments because only the State would take any action as 

result of today’s rule, and thus the requirements of section 203 

(2 U.S.C. 1533) do not apply. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on April 

21, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

31 

Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in the development of regulatory 

policies that have federalism implications.” This rule will not 

have substantial direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 

13132, because it merely proposes to redesignate an area for 

Clean Air Act planning purposes and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities 

established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of 

section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal 

officials in the development of regulatory policies that have 

tribal implications.” The area proposed for redesignation does 

not include any tribal lands, but is adjacent to the San Carlos 

Apache Tribe’s reservation. EPA has been communicating with and 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on April 

21, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

32 

plans to continue to consult with representatives of the San 

Carlos Apache Tribe, as provided in Executive Order 13175. 

Accordingly, EPA has addressed Executive Order 13175 to the 

extent that it applies to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks 

This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 

(“Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks”) (62 

FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not an economically 

significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions that Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions 

Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is 

not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 

Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to 

evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new 

regulation. The EPA believes that the requirements of NTTAA are 

inapplicable to this action because they would be inconsistent 

with the Clean Air Act. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on April 

21, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

33 

J. Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

Today’s action proposes to redesignate an area to 

nonattainment for an ambient air quality standard. It will not 

have disproportionately high and adverse effects on any 

communities in the area, including minority and 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. 

___April 21, 2014__ __________/s/________________ 

Dated: Jared Blumenfeld 

Regional Administrator 

Region IX