Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2018 / Proposed Rules 31087 

1 IQ (intelligence quotient) is a score created by 

dividing a person’s mental age score, obtained by 

administering an intelligence test, by the person’s 

chronological age, both expressed in terms of years 

and months. ‘‘Glossary of Important Assessment 

and Measurement Terms,’’ Philadelphia, PA: 

National Council on Measurement in Education. 

2016. 

2See 43 FR 46246 (October 5, 1978). 

3See 73 FR 66964 (November 12, 2008) (‘‘lead 

NAAQS rule’’). 

contained comments that were either 

supportive of the DFR or were 

considered not to be significant adverse 

comments (Document IDs OSHA–2018– 

0003–0004 thru OSHA–2018–0003– 

0010). Three of these submissions also 

contained comments that were outside 

the scope of the DFR and OSHA is not 

considering portions of those 

submissions that are outside the scope 

(OSHA–2018–0003–0004 thru OSHA– 

2018–0003–0006). Accordingly, OSHA 

is not proceeding with the proposed 

rule and is withdrawing it from the 

rulemaking process. 

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1910 

Beryllium, General industry, Health, 

Occupational safety and health. 

Authority and Signature 

Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary of Labor for Occupational 

Safety and Health, directed the 

preparation of this document under the 

following authorities: Sections 4, 6, and 

8 of the Occupational Safety and Health 

Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657), 

Secretary of Labor’s Order 5–2007 (72 

FR 31159), and 29 CFR part 1911. 

Signed at Washington, DC, on June 27, 

2018. 

Loren Sweatt, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for 

Occupational Safety and Health. 

[FR Doc. 2018–14275 Filed 7–2–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2018–0222; FRL–9980– 

21—Region 9] 

Approval of Arizona Air Plan; Hayden 

Lead Nonattainment Area Plan for the 

2008 Lead Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

state implementation plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the State of Arizona to 

meet Clean Air Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’) 

requirements applicable to the Hayden 

lead (Pb) nonattainment area (‘‘Hayden 

Lead NAA’’). The EPA is proposing to 

approve the base year emissions 

inventory, the attainment 

demonstration, the control strategy, 

including reasonably available control 

technology and reasonably available 

control measures demonstrations, the 

reasonable further progress 

demonstration, the contingency 

measure, and the new source review 

(NSR) provisions of the submittal as 

meeting the requirements of the CAA 

and the EPA’s implementing regulations 

for the 2008 lead national ambient air 

quality standard (NAAQS). 

DATES: Any comments on this proposal 

must arrive by August 2, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2018–0222, at http://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

Vagenas.Ginger@epa.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. For either manner of 

submission, the EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For the EPA’s full public comment 

policy, information about CBI or 

multimedia submissions, and general 

guidance on making effective 

comments, please visit http://

www2.epa.gov/dockets/commentingepa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ginger Vagenas, EPA Region IX, 415– 

972–3964, vagenas.ginger@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, the terms 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ mean the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. The Lead NAAQS 

B. Designation of the Hayden Lead NAA 

C. CAA Requirements for Lead 

Nonattainment Areas 

D. Sources of Lead in the Hayden Lead 

NAA 

II. Arizona’s SIP Submittal To Address the 

Hayden Lead NAA 

A. Arizona’s SIP Submittal 

B. CAA Procedural and Administrative 

Requirements for SIP Submittals 

III. CAA and Regulatory Requirements for 

Lead Attainment SIPs 

A. CAA and EPA Guidance 

B. Infrastructure SIPs for Lead 

IV. Review of the 2017 Hayden Lead Plan 

A. Summary of the EPA’s Proposed 

Actions 

B. Emissions Inventories 

C. Reasonably Available Control Measure/ 

Reasonably Available Control 

Technology Demonstration and Adopted 

Control Strategy 

D. Attainment Demonstration 

E. Reasonable Further Progress 

Demonstration 

F. Contingency Measures 

G. New Source Review 

V. The EPA’s Proposed Action and Request 

for Public Comments 

A. The EPA’s Proposed Approvals 

B. Request for Public Comments 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

A. The Lead NAAQS 

Under the CAA, the EPA must 

establish NAAQS for six pollutants, 

including lead. Lead is generally 

emitted in the form of particles that are 

deposited in water, soil, and dust. 

People may be exposed to lead by 

inhaling it or by ingesting leadcontaminated food, water, soil, or dust. 

Once in the body, lead is quickly 

absorbed into the bloodstream and can 

result in a broad range of adverse health 

effects including damage to the central 

nervous system, cardiovascular 

function, kidneys, immune system, and 

red blood cells. Children are 

particularly vulnerable to lead exposure, 

in part because they are more likely to 

ingest lead and in part because their 

still-developing bodies are more 

sensitive to the effects of lead. The 

harmful effects to children’s developing 

nervous systems (including their brains) 

arising from lead exposure may include 

IQ 1 loss, poor academic achievement, 

long-term learning disabilities, and an 

increased risk of delinquent behavior. 

The EPA first established a lead 

standard in 1978 at 1.5 micrograms per 

meter cubed (mg/m3) as a quarterly 

average.2 Based on new health and 

scientific data, the EPA revised the 

federal lead standard to 0.15 mg/m3 and 

revised the averaging time for the 

standard on October 15, 2008.3 A 

violation of the standard occurs when 

ambient lead concentrations exceed 0.15 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
31088 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

4See 75 FR 71033 and 76 FR 72097. 

5Arizona Department of Environmental Quality’s 

Globe Highway monitor registered four violations of 

the lead NAAQS in 2011; however, at the time of 

designation the data had not been quality assured 

and certified. Consequently, we did not rely on 

them as the basis for a nonattainment designation. 

6See 79 FR 52205. 

7For an exact description of the Hayden Lead 

NAA, see 40 CFR 81.303. 

8For the Hayden Lead NAA, the attainment date 

is October 3, 2019. 

9Plan, page 38. 

10See letter dated March 3, 2017, from Timothy 

S. Franquist, Director, Air Quality Division, ADEQ, 

to Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, 

EPA Region IX. 

11See 2017 Hayden Lead Plan, Appendix F, 

Public Process Documentation. 

mg/m3 averaged over a 3-month rolling 

period. 

B. Designation of the Hayden Lead NAA 

The process for designating areas 

following promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS is set forth in section 

107(d) of the CAA. The CAA requires 

the EPA to complete the initial area 

designations process within two years of 

promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. 

Section 107(d) of the CAA allows the 

EPA to extend the period for initial 

designations for up to a year in cases 

where the available information is 

insufficient to promulgate designations. 

The initial designations for the 2008 

lead NAAQS were established in two 

rounds and were completed on 

November 22, 2010 and November 22, 

2011.4 The EPA initially designated the 

Hayden, Arizona area as unclassifiable 

due to insufficient monitoring data.5

The CAA grants the EPA the authority 

to change the designation of areas 

(‘‘redesignate’’) in light of changes in 

circumstances. More specifically, the 

EPA has the authority under CAA 

section 107(d)(3) to redesignate areas 

based on 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 Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(ADEQ or ‘‘State’’) Globe Highway 

monitor showed that the area was 

violating the lead NAAQS. Accordingly, 

on May 2, 2014, the EPA issued a 

proposal to redesignate the Hayden area 

to nonattainment for the 2008 lead 

NAAQS. That proposal was finalized on 

September 3, 2014, effective October 3, 

2014.6 7

C. CAA Requirements for Lead 

Nonattainment Areas 

Designation of an area as 

nonattainment starts the process for a 

state to develop and submit to the EPA 

a SIP under title 1, part D of the CAA. 

Under CAA sections 191(a) and 192(a), 

attainment demonstration SIPs for the 

lead NAAQS are due 18 months after 

the effective date of an area’s 

nonattainment designation and must 

provide for attainment of the standard 

as expeditiously as practicable, but no 

later than five years after designation.8

The CAA requires that the SIP include 

emissions inventories, a reasonable 

further progress (RFP) demonstration, a 

reasonably available control measures/ 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACM/RACT) demonstration, an 

attainment demonstration, and 

contingency measures. In general, to 

demonstrate timely attainment, control 

measures need to be implemented as 

expeditiously as practicable. 

D. Sources of Lead in the Hayden Lead 

NAA 

Stationary sources of lead are 

generally large industrial sources, 

including metals processing, 

particularly primary and secondary lead 

smelters. Lead can also be emitted by 

iron and steel foundries, primary and 

secondary copper smelters, industrial, 

commercial and institutional boilers, 

waste incinerators, glass manufacturing, 

refineries, and cement manufacturing. 

ADEQ has determined that the cause of 

the nonattainment status in the Hayden 

area is the primary copper smelter 

owned and operated by ASARCO, LLC 

(‘‘Asarco’’). The State notes that this 

facility ‘‘accounts for over 99 percent of 

Pb emissions’’ and that the ‘‘[e]missions 

generally come from the hot-metal 

smelting process and lead-bearing 

fugitive dust.’’ 9

Because regional ambient air lead 

concentrations indicate low ambient 

lead levels relative to the 2008 lead 

NAAQS, and because the only ambient 

levels exceeding the NAAQS were at 

sites near the Asarco facility, ADEQ’s 

lead attainment strategy is focused on 

reducing lead emissions generated by 

this source. 

II. Arizona’s SIP Submittal To Address 

for the Hayden Lead NAA 

A. Arizona’s SIP Submittal 

ADEQ is the air quality agency that 

develops SIPs for the Hayden area. The 

SIP for the Hayden Lead NAA, entitled 

‘‘SIP Revision: Hayden Lead 

Nonattainment Area’’ (‘‘2017 Hayden 

Lead Plan’’ or ‘‘Plan’’) was due April 3, 

2016. It was adopted by ADEQ on 

March 3, 2017, and submitted to the 

EPA on the same day.10

B. CAA Procedural and Administrative 

Requirements for SIP Submittals 

CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and 

110(l) require a state to provide 

reasonable public notice and 

opportunity for public hearing prior to 

the adoption and submittal of a SIP or 

SIP revision. To meet this requirement, 

every SIP submittal should include 

evidence that adequate public notice 

was given and a public hearing was held 

consistent with the EPA’s implementing 

regulations in 40 CFR 51.102. 

ADEQ has satisfied applicable 

statutory and regulatory requirements 

for reasonable public notice and hearing 

prior to adoption and submittal of the 

2017 Hayden Lead Plan. The State 

provided a public comment period and 

held a public hearing prior to the 

adoption of the Plan on March 3, 2017. 

The SIP submittal includes notices of 

the State’s public hearing as evidence 

that the hearing was properly noticed.11

We therefore find that the submittal 

meets the procedural requirements of 

CAA sections 110(a) and 110(l). 

CAA section 110(k)(1)(B) requires the 

EPA to determine whether a SIP 

submittal is complete within 60 days of 

receipt. This section also provides that 

any plan that the EPA has not 

affirmatively determined to be complete 

or incomplete will become complete six 

months after the date of submittal by 

operation of law. The EPA’s SIP 

completeness criteria are found in 40 

CFR part 51, appendix V. The 2017 

Hayden Plan became complete by 

operation of law on September 3, 2017. 

III. CAA and Regulatory Requirements 

for Lead Attainment SIPs 

A. CAA and EPA Guidance 

Requirements for the lead NAAQS are 

set forth in title 1, part D, subparts 1 and 

5 of the CAA, which includes section 

172, ‘‘Nonattainment plan provisions in 

general,’’ and sections 191 and 192, 

‘‘Plan submission deadlines’’ and 

‘‘Attainment dates,’’ respectively. 

Section 192(a) establishes that the 

attainment date for lead nonattainment 

areas is ‘‘as expeditiously as 

practicable’’ but no later than five years 

from the date of the nonattainment 

designation for the area. The EPA 

designated the Hayden area as a 

nonattainment area effective October 3, 

2014, and thus the applicable 

attainment date is no later October 3, 

2019. Under section 172(a)(2)(D), the 

Administrator is precluded from 

granting an extension of this attainment 

date because the statute separately 

establishes a specific attainment date in 

section 192(a). 

Section 172(c) contains the general 

statutory planning requirements 

applicable to all nonattainment areas, 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2018 / Proposed Rules 31089 

12See 73 FR 66964. 

13These guidance documents can be found in the 

docket for today’s action. 

14 80 FR 47859. 

15See Lead Q&A and Lead Q&A Addendum. 

16See Lead Q&A Addendum p. 1. 

17Additional emissions inventory reporting 

requirements are also found in EPA’s Air Emissions 

Reporting Rule (AERR) (codified at 40 CFR part 51 

subpart A) and 73 FR 76539. Although the AERR 

requirements are separate from the SIP-related 

requirements in CAA section 172(c)(3) and 40 CFR 

51.117(e)(1), the AERR requirements are intended to 

be compatible with the SIP-related requirements. 

18The Asarco primary copper smelter is a large 

complex that consists of smelter operations as well 

as concentrator operations. In sections of the Plan, 

ADEQ refers to these operations separately as the 

‘‘smelter complex’’ and ‘‘concentrator complex.’’ 

Since the smelter and concentrator operations are 

permitted as a single stationary source, we use the 

term ‘‘Hayden Facility’’ and ‘‘Facility’’ to refer to 

the entirety of the smelter and concentrator 

operations. 

19SLAMS include the ambient air quality sites 

and monitors that are required by the EPA’s 

regulations and are needed to meet specific 

monitoring objectives, including NAAQS 

comparisons. See 40 CFR 58.1. 

including the requirements for 

emissions inventories, RACM/RACT, 

attainment demonstrations, RFP 

demonstrations, and contingency 

measures. When the EPA issued the 

lead NAAQS rule, we included some 

guidelines for implementing these 

planning requirements.12 The EPA also 

issued several guidance documents 

related to planning requirements for the 

lead NAAQS.13 These include: 

• ‘‘2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 

Implementation Questions and 

Answers,’’ Memorandum from Scott L. 

Mathias, Interim Director, Air Quality 

Policy Division, EPA Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, to 

Regional Air Division Directors, Regions 

I–X, July 8, 2011, (‘‘Lead Q&A’’); and 

• ‘‘Addendum to the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS Implementation Questions and 

Answers Signed on July 11, 2011, by 

Scott Mathias,’’ August 10, 2012. (‘‘Lead 

Q&A Addendum’’); and 

• Implementation of the 2008 Lead 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards—Guide to Developing 

Reasonably Available Control Measures 

(RACM) for Controlling Lead Emissions, 

EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, EPA–457/R–12–001, March 

2012 (‘‘Lead RACM Guidance’’). 

The lead NAAQS rule and its 

preamble and the guidance documents 

address the statutory planning 

requirements for emissions inventories, 

RACM/RACT, attainment 

demonstrations including air quality 

modeling requirements, RFP 

demonstrations, and contingency 

measures. The lead NAAQS rule also 

addresses other matters such as 

monitoring, designations, lead 

infrastructure SIPs, and exceptional 

events. We will discuss each of the CAA 

and regulatory requirements for lead 

attainment plans in the next section, 

which details our review of the 2017 

Hayden Lead Plan. 

B. Infrastructure SIPs for Lead 

Under section 110 of the CAA, all 

states (including those without 

nonattainment areas) are required to 

submit infrastructure SIPs within three 

years of the promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS. Because the lead 

NAAQS was signed and widely 

disseminated on October 15, 2008, the 

infrastructure SIPs were due by October 

15, 2011. Section 110(a)(1) and (2) 

require states to address basic program 

elements, including requirements for 

emissions inventories, monitoring, and 

modeling, among other things. 

Subsections (A) through (M) of section 

110(a)(2) set forth the elements that a 

state’s program must contain in the SIP. 

Arizona’s lead infrastructure SIP was 

approved by the EPA on August 10, 

2015.14

IV. Review of the 2017 Hayden Lead 

Plan 

A. Summary of the EPA’s Proposed 

Actions 

The EPA is proposing to approve the 

2017 Hayden Lead Plan. We are 

proposing to approve the 2012 base year 

emissions inventory in this SIP revision 

as meeting the applicable requirements 

of the CAA and EPA guidance. We are 

also proposing to approve the 

attainment demonstration, RACM/RACT 

analysis, RFP demonstration, and the 

contingency measure as meeting the 

applicable requirements of the CAA and 

EPA guidance. 

The EPA’s analysis and findings are 

discussed below for each applicable 

requirement. The technical support 

document (TSD) for today’s proposed 

action contains additional details on 

selected lead planning requirements. 

B. Emissions Inventories 

1. Requirements for Emissions 

Inventories 

The emissions inventory and source 

emission rate data for an area serve as 

the foundation for air quality modeling 

and other analyses that enable states to 

estimate the degree to which different 

sources within a nonattainment area 

contribute to violations within the 

affected area. These analyses also enable 

states to assess the expected 

improvement in air quality within the 

nonattainment area due to the adoption 

and implementation of control 

measures. CAA section 172(c)(3) 

requires that states submit a 

‘‘comprehensive, accurate, current 

inventory of actual emissions from all 

sources of the relevant pollutant.’’ 

Therefore, all sources of lead emissions 

in the nonattainment area must be 

included in the submitted inventory. A 

base year emissions inventory is 

required for the attainment 

demonstration and for meeting RFP 

requirements. In general, the base year 

emissions inventory should be derived 

from one of the years on which the 

nonattainment designation was based.15

In order to demonstrate attainment in 

accordance with CAA section 172, the 

state should also provide an attainment 

emissions inventory to identify the level 

of emissions in the area sufficient to 

attain the NAAQS. The attainment 

inventory should generally contain 

maximum allowable emissions for the 

attainment year for all sources within 

the modeling domain.16

In addition to inventory reporting 

requirements in CAA section 172(c)(3), 

40 CFR 51.117(e)(1) requires that the 

inventory contain all point sources that 

emit 0.5 tons of lead emissions per year 

(tpy).17 Based on annual emissions 

reporting for 2011, the only point source 

in the Hayden Lead NAA with a 

potential to emit over 0.5 tpy of lead is 

the Asarco primary copper smelter, 

located in Hayden, AZ (‘‘Hayden 

Facility’’ or ‘‘Facility’’).18

2. Base Year Emissions Inventory 

The base year emissions inventory 

establishes a baseline that is used to 

evaluate emission reductions achieved 

by the control strategy and to establish 

RFP requirements. ADEQ’s discussion 

of emissions inventory development can 

be found in the Plan on pages 28–36, as 

well as in Appendices A and D. ADEQ 

selected 2012 as the base year for 

emissions inventory preparation for 

several reasons. At time of preparation, 

2012 was the most recent year with 

verified ambient air monitoring data 

from a SLAMS (State or Local Air 

Monitoring Station) monitor.19 It is also 

a representative year of exceedances of 

the primary lead NAAQS. In addition, 

the Hayden lead nonattainment 

designation was based upon 2012 

monitoring data. 

Lead emissions are grouped into two 

general categories: Stationary and 

mobile sources. Stationary sources can 

be further divided into ‘‘point’’ and 

‘‘area’’ sources. Point sources are 

typically located at permitted facilities 

and have one or more identified and 

fixed pieces of equipment and 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
31090 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

emissions points. These facilities are 

required to report their emissions to 

ADEQ on an annual basis. Conversely, 

area sources consist of widespread and 

numerous smaller emission sources, 

such as small permitted facilities, 

households, and other land uses. The 

mobile sources category can be divided 

into two major subcategories: ‘‘On-road’’ 

and ‘‘off-road’’ mobile sources. On-road 

mobile sources include light-duty 

automobiles, light-, medium-, and 

heavy-duty trucks, and motorcycles. 

Off-road mobile sources include aircraft, 

locomotives, construction equipment, 

mobile equipment, and recreational 

vehicles. A summary of ADEQ’s 2012 

base year inventory for each of these 

categories is included in Table 1 below. 

TABLE 1—2012 BASE YEAR LEAD

EMISSION INVENTORY FOR THE HAYDEN LEAD NAA 

Source category Pb emissions 

(tpy) 

Point ...................................... 3.43 

Area ...................................... <0.001 

Mobile Source (non-road) ..... 0.015 

Mobile Source (on-road) .......

TABLE 1—2012 BASE YEAR LEAD

EMISSION INVENTORY FOR THE HAYDEN LEAD NAA—Continued 

Source category Pb emissions 

(tpy) 

Total ............................... 3.45 

Source: Plan, Tables 12–16. 

As seen above, the substantial 

majority of lead emissions in the 

Hayden Lead NAA are from the point 

source category (i.e., the Hayden 

Facility). The Hayden Facility consists 

of multiple emission points that ADEQ 

further categorized into smelting point 

sources (stack emissions), smelting 

fugitives, road dust, and other process 

fugitives (from non-smelting process 

equipment). A more detailed summary 

of the Hayden Facility’s lead emissions 

is included in Table 2 below. 

TABLE 2—2012 BASE YEAR LEAD

EMISSIONS INVENTORY FOR THE

HAYDEN FACILITY

Source category Pb emissions 

(tpy) 

Smelting point sources ......... 1.09 

Smelting fugitives ................. 1.88 

TABLE 2—2012 BASE YEAR LEAD

EMISSIONS INVENTORY FOR THE

HAYDEN FACILITY—Continued 

Source category Pb emissions 

(tpy) 

Road (paved and unpaved) .. 0.14 

Non-smelting process fugitives ................................... 0.32 

Total ............................... 3.43 

Source: Id. 

3. Projected Year Emissions Inventory 

The Hayden area was designated 

nonattainment for lead in 2014. The 

CAA provides that nonattainment areas 

must attain the NAAQS as expeditiously 

as practicable, but no later than five 

years after the effective date of 

designation. Therefore, the Hayden Lead 

NAA must attain the lead NAAQS by 

2019. The projected emissions inventory 

for 2019 is part of the attainment 

demonstration required under CAA 

section 172 and informs the air quality 

modeling for 2019, which is discussed 

in detail below in section IV.D. ADEQ 

developed a projected 2019 lead 

emissions inventory for the Hayden 

Lead NAA as summarized in Table 3 

below. 

TABLE 3—BASE YEAR AND PROJECTED YEAR LEAD EMISSIONS INVENTORY FOR THE HAYDEN LEAD NAA 

Source category 

2012 base year 

Pb emissions (tpy) 

(actual emissions) 

2019 projected year 

Pb emissions (tpy) 

(allowable emissions) 

Point ......................................................................................................................................... 3.43 4.60 

Area ......................................................................................................................................... <0.001 <0.001 

Mobile Source (non-road) ........................................................................................................ 0.015 0.020 

Mobile Source (on-road) ..........................................................................................................

Total .................................................................................................................................. 3.45 4.62 

Source: Id. 

As with the base year inventory, the 

substantial majority of lead emissions 

for the projected year inventory are 

attributable to the point source category, 

which represents the Hayden Facility. A 

more detailed summary of the Hayden 

Facility’s lead emissions is included in 

Table 4 below. 

TABLE 4—COMPARISON OF BASE YEAR AND PROJECTED YEAR LEAD EMISSIONS INVENTORY FOR THE HAYDEN FACILITY

Source category 

2012 base year 

Pb emissions (tpy) 

(actual emissions) 

2019 projected year 

Pb emissions (tpy) 

(allowable emissions) 

Smelting point sources ............................................................................................................ 1.09 2.99 

Smelting fugitives ..................................................................................................................... 1.88 1.44 

Road (paved and unpaved) ..................................................................................................... 0.137 0.043 

Non-smelting fugitives ............................................................................................................. 0.322 0.131 

Total .................................................................................................................................. 3.43 4.60 

Source: Id. 

As seen in the tables above, the 

projected year emissions inventory, 

which is generally based on maximum 

allowable emissions (also referred to as 

potential to emit or PTE), is higher than 

the base year inventory, which is based 

on actual emissions. The use of actual 

emissions for the base year, as well as 

the use of maximum allowable 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2018 / Proposed Rules 31091 

20See, e.g., CAA section 172(c)(3) (requiring ‘‘a 

comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of 

actual emissions from all sources of the relevant 

pollutant or pollutants in such area.’’ (emphasis 

added)) 

21See, e.g., Lead Q&A Addendum p. 1. 

emissions for the projection year and 

the attainment modeling, is consistent 

with CAA requirements 20 and EPA 

guidance.21 Use of maximum allowable 

emissions for the modeling ensures the 

attainment demonstration takes into 

account possible increases in emissions 

that are allowed by the underlying rules 

and permit conditions; however, actual 

emissions at the Facility are expected to 

decline. As shown in Table 5, the 2019 

projected actual emissions are lower 

than actual emissions in the 2012 base 

year inventory. Furthermore, even 

assuming that the Facility were to emit 

at the maximum allowable levels in 

2019, the submitted modeling shows 

that the Hayden area would still attain 

the lead NAAQS, primarily due to the 

nature of emission changes and their 

predicted ambient impact. The increase 

from base year actual emissions to 

projected year maximum allowable 

emissions is primarily attributable to 

smelting point sources at the Hayden 

Facility. Other source categories at the 

Facility, such as the roads and nonsmelting fugitives, decrease from the 

base year inventory to the projected year 

inventory, and, due to their dispersion 

characteristics, these sources have more 

influence on the maximum predicted 

ambient impacts in the nonattainment 

area than the smelter point sources. As 

a result, while the reductions in road 

and non-smelting fugitive lead 

emissions are small compared to the 

emissions from the smelting point 

sources, these reductions occur at 

sources that are primary contributors to 

maximum predicted ambient impact in 

the nonattainment area. 

TABLE 5—BASE YEAR, PROJECTED ACTUAL, AND MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE MODELED LEAD EMISSIONS

FOR THE HAYDEN FACILITY

Modeled source Controls applied 

2012 actual 

Pb emissions 

(tpy) 

2019 projected actual 

Pb emissions 

(tpy) 

Projected 

reductions 

in actual 

Pb emissions 

(%) 

Maximum allowablemodeled Pb emissions 

(PTE) 

(tpy) a

Main stack ............ Secondary hood baghouse, improved 

primary and secondary hooding, 

tertiary hooding.

1.08 0.904 ........................... 16 2.99. 

Flash furnace fugitives.Matte tapping ventilation system ....... 0.495 0.1025 ......................... 79.3 1.03. 

Converter aisle fugitives.Secondary hood baghouse, improved 

primary and secondary hooding, 

tertiary hooding.

0.968 0.024 ........................... 97.5 0.37. 

Anode furnace fugitives.Improved ventilation system .............. 0.417 0.04 ............................. 89.7 0.04. 

Anode baghouse 

stack.

Sent to the main stack ...................... 0.0113 Included in main stack N/A Included in main stack. 

Slag dump ............ Restrictions on slag dumping location 0.05 0.05 ............................. ........................ 0.05. 

Gas cleaning 

waste material.

Thickener project ............................... 0.26 0.07 ............................. 73 0.07. 

Concentrate storage area.Wind fence, water sprays .................. 0.001 0.000056 ..................... 94 0.00088. 

Bedding area ........ Wind fence, water sprays .................. 0.00017 0.000015 ..................... 91 0.00016. 

Reverts operations Wind fence, water sprays .................. 0.0122 0.00042 ....................... 97 0.0041. 

Paved roads ......... Sweepers ........................................... 0.091 0.015 b ......................... 84 0.015. 

Unpaved roads ..... Chemical dust suppressant (on a 

schedule achieving 90% control efficiency).

0.046 0.028 b ......................... 39 0.028. 

aPTE values for the concentrate storage area, bedding area, and reverts operations were derived using the same calculation methods that 

were applied to calculate 2019 projected actuals. However, for PTE values, Asarco supplied more conservative throughput. Also, the lead factors 

used for PTE calculations were based on mean lead assay values (source specific) plus two standard deviations. bProjected actual values for paved and unpaved roads were based on PTE. 

Source: ADEQ Modeling TSD, Table 8–1. 

4. Proposed Action on the Base Year 

Emissions Inventory 

We have reviewed the emissions 

inventory and calculation methodology 

used by ADEQ in the 2017 Hayden Lead 

Plan for consistency with CAA 

requirements, the lead NAAQS rule, and 

the EPA’s guidance. We find that the 

2012 base year inventory is a 

comprehensive, accurate, and current 

inventory of actual emissions of lead in 

the Hayden Lead NAA. We therefore 

propose to approve the 2012 base year 

inventory as meeting the requirements 

of CAA section 172(c)(3). We are not 

proposing action on the projected 

attainment inventory, since it is not a 

required SIP element. However, we have 

evaluated it for consistency with EPA 

guidance and find that it supports the 

attainment and RFP demonstrations, as 

discussed in the TSD and below. 

C. Reasonably Available Control 

Measure/Reasonably Available Control 

Technology Demonstration and 

Adopted Control Strategy 

1. Requirements for RACM/RACT 

CAA section 172(c)(1) requires that 

each attainment plan provide for 

implementation of RACM (including 

RACT for existing sources) as 

expeditiously as practicable and provide 

for attainment of the NAAQS. The EPA 

defines RACM as measures that are both 

reasonably available and contribute to 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
31092 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

22See, for example, 44 FR 53761 (September 17, 

1979) and footnote 3 of that notice. 

23 73 FR 67038. 

24 2017 Hayden Lead Plan, Chapter 3: Emissions 

Inventories and Appendix A: Emission Inventory 

Technical Support Document for the 2008 Hayden 

Lead Nonattainment Area, Chapter 5, Base Year 

Emission Inventory for Lead in the Hayden 

Planning Area. 

25 2017 Hayden Lead Plan, page 38. 

26See letter dated April 6, 2017, from Timothy S. 

Franquist, Director, Air Quality Division, ADEQ, to 

Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA 

Region IX. 

27 83 FR 7614. 

28 83 FR 13716. 29Consent Decree No. CV–15–02206–PHX–DLR 

(D. Ariz). 

30 58 FR 67748 (December 22, 1993). 

31See Technical Support Document for the EPA’s 

Rulemaking for the Arizona State Implementation 

Plan: Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 

Rule R18–2–B1301.01, Limits on Lead-Bearing 

Fugitive Dust from the Hayden Smelter, and 

Appendix 15, Test Methods for Determining 

Opacity and Stabilization of Unpaved Roads 

(August 2017); Technical Support Document for the 

EPA’s Rulemaking for the Arizona State 

Implementation Plan: Arizona Administrative Code 

Title 18, Chapter 2 Appendix 14 and Rule R18–2– 

715.02 (March 2018); and Technical Support 

Document for the EPA’s Rulemaking for the Arizona 

State Implementation Plan: Arizona Administrative 

Code Title 18, Chapter 2, Article 13 Part B— 

Hayden, Arizona, Planning Area R18–2–B1301— 

Limits on Lead Emissions from the Hayden Smelter 

(March 2018). 

attainment as expeditiously as 

practicable in the nonattainment area. 

Lead nonattainment plans must contain 

RACM (including RACT) that address 

sources of ambient lead concentrations. 

The EPA’s historic definition of RACT 

is the lowest emissions limitation that a 

particular source is capable of meeting 

by the application of control technology 

that is reasonably available, considering 

technological and economic 

feasibility.22 The EPA recommends that, 

at a minimum, all stationary sources 

emitting 0.5 tpy or more of lead should 

undergo a RACT review.23 Based on the 

2011 national emissions inventory (2011 

NEI v2) and the 2012 base year 

emissions inventory, the Asarco copper 

smelter is the only point source in the 

Hayden Lead NAA that emits over 0.5 

tpy of lead.24

2. RACM/RACT Demonstration in the 

2017 Hayden Lead Plan 

Because of lead’s dispersion 

characteristics, the highest ambient 

concentrations of lead are expected to 

be near lead sources, such as the 

Hayden Facility. This RACM/RACT 

analysis focuses on evaluating controls 

at the Hayden Facility, and unlike in a 

typical RACM demonstration for other 

types of pollutants, we are not 

evaluating the broader set of source 

categories in the Hayden Lead NAA. 

This is an appropriate approach in this 

case because the Hayden Facility is the 

source of over 99 percent of lead 

emissions in the Hayden Lead NAA.25

ADEQ’s control strategy relies on the 

implementation of two source-specific 

regulations in the Arizona 

Administrative Code: Rule R18–2– 

B1301 (Limits on Lead Emissions from 

the Hayden Smelter) and Rule R18–2– 

B1301.01 (Limits on Lead-Bearing 

Fugitive Dust from the Hayden Smelter), 

and two associated appendices. ADEQ 

submitted these rules to the EPA for SIP 

approval on April 6, 2017.26 We 

approved Rule R18–2–B1301.01 and 

Appendix 15 into the Arizona SIP on 

February 22, 2018,27 and proposed to 

approve Rule R18–2–B1301 and 

Appendix 14 on March 30, 2018.28 The 

controls required under these rules are 

also required under a 2015 consent 

decree between Asarco and the United 

States.29

ADEQ’s RACM/RACT analysis can be 

found on pages 60 through 121 of the 

2017 Hayden Lead Plan. The EPA’s 

Lead RACM Guidance did not provide 

specific guidance on what constituted 

RACM/RACT for primary copper 

smelters. Consistent with that guidance, 

ADEQ looked to other federal 

requirements for lead control at primary 

copper smelters, similar source 

categories for which the EPA had 

established lead control guidance, and 

other regulations that the EPA has 

approved as RACM/RACT for lead 

control. ADEQ used the following 

references for comparison of lead 

controls: The national emissions 

standard for hazardous air pollutants 

(NESHAP) requirements for primary 

copper smelters at 40 CFR 63, subpart 

QQQ and the NESHAP requirements for 

secondary lead smelters at 40 CFR 63, 

subpart X. For fugitive lead-bearing dust 

control, ADEQ also used the following 

references for comparison: Appendix 1 

of the General Preamble for 

Implementation of Title I of the Clean 

Air Act,30 which describes control 

measures for fugitive lead-bearing dust; 

South Coast Air Quality Management 

District (SCAQMD) Rule 1420.1 for lead 

battery recycling facilities (‘‘Emissions 

Standards for Lead and Other Toxic Air 

Contaminants from Large Lead-Acid 

Battery Recycling Facilities’’); and 

particulate matter (PM) fugitive dust 

rules enacted by other states and local 

agencies. 

The EPA’s TSDs on Rules R18–2– 

B1301 and R18–2–B1301.01 and 

Appendices 14 and 15 contain our 

detailed analysis on the enforceability, 

stringency, and SIP revision 

implications for the measures contained 

in these rules.31 We evaluate below 

whether these measures satisfy the 

statutory requirements for RACM/RACT 

for the Hayden Lead NAA. 

a. Rule R18–2–B1301 and Appendix 14 

Rule R18–2–B1301 establishes a lead 

emission limit for the Hayden Facility’s 

main stack and operations and 

maintenance (O&M) requirements, 

including the development of an O&M 

plan for the capture and control system, 

monitoring provisions for parametric 

limits required to ensure sufficient 

capture of fugitive lead emissions from 

the smelter, performance testing 

requirements, compliance 

determination requirements, 

recordkeeping requirements, and 

reporting requirements. Rule R18–2– 

B1301 also requires the completion of a 

fugitive emissions study to characterize 

lead emissions from the smelter 

structure that may contribute to 

nonattainment, but are not captured or 

controlled. Appendix 14 establishes 

specific requirements for the study, 

which is required to validate both the 

estimate of fugitive emissions used in 

the attainment demonstration and the 

operating conditions or ranges for the 

capture devices’ O&M plan. 

Rule R18–2–B1301 establishes a lead 

emission limit from the smelter’s stack 

of 0.683 pounds of lead per hour. 

Fugitive lead emissions from the smelter 

structure are constrained through an 

improved fugitive gas capture system 

over the furnace taps and converter 

chambers. In lieu of a fugitive emissions 

limit, Asarco must operate its gas 

capture system within certain operating 

parameters as described in the facility’s 

O&M plan. Rule R18–2–B1301 defines 

critical parameters and specifies 

operating limits on those parameters 

that the O&M plan must require, at a 

minimum, in order to sufficiently 

control fugitive emissions. The fugitive 

emissions rate will be validated through 

a year-long fugitive emission study as 

described in Appendix 14, and it must 

not exceed the modeled attainment 

emission rate. If actual fugitive 

emissions exceed the modeled emission 

rates shown in Table 5 above and 

Asarco is unable to demonstrate 

attainment of the NAAQS at the actual 

measured fugitive emissions levels, 

ADEQ will need to revise the O&M plan 

parametric limit minimums as required 

in R18–2–B1301 and, as necessary, 

require additional controls to further 

reduce fugitive emissions. ADEQ must 

submit these changes as revisions to the 

Arizona SIP. Other requirements 

include monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting provisions to ensure 

compliance with the emission and 

parametric limits. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2018 / Proposed Rules 31093 

We compared these requirements 

with the primary copper smelter 

NESHAP and the secondary lead 

smelter NESHAP in the TSD we 

prepared in support of our rulemaking 

action on R18–2–B1301, and we found 

the rule requirements to be generally 

consistent with those in the NESHAP. 

For example, the primary copper 

smelter NESHAP requires a capture 

system and control device O&M plan 

and requires that the smelter operate 

consistently with good air pollution 

control practices, similar to R18–2– 

B1301. The requirements of R18–2– 

B1301 are also similar to the secondary 

lead smelter NESHAP requirements, 

except that the NESHAP includes 

emissions limits of 1.0 milligrams of 

lead per dry standard cubic meter for 

any process vent gas and 0.20 

milligrams of lead per dry cubic meter 

on a rolling 12-month average basis. We 

propose to find that these limits are not 

required as RACM for the Hayden 

Facility because they are intended for a 

different type of facility and, as 

discussed below, ADEQ’s air quality 

modeling indicates that the main stack 

emission limit in R18–2–B1301 (0.683 

pound of lead per hour) is sufficient for 

the Hayden area to attain the lead 

NAAQS. 

b. Rule R18–2–B1301.01 and Appendix 

15 

Rule R18–2–B1301.01 establishes 

work practice requirements and control 

measures on sources of lead-bearing 

fugitive dust surrounding the Hayden 

Facility. Appendix 15 applies to 

unpaved roads at the Hayden Facility 

and includes the following: (1) A test 

method for determining opacity for 

fugitive dust from these rules, (2) a test 

method for determining silt content of 

the trafficked parts of unpaved roads, 

and (3) a Qualification and Testing 

section containing certification 

requirements and procedures, 

specifications, and calibration 

procedures. 

Rule R18–2–B1301.01 specifies a 

range of operational standards and work 

practices for processes that may cause 

emissions of lead-bearing fugitive dust. 

The requirements must be detailed in a 

fugitive dust plan that at minimum 

includes the performance and 

housekeeping requirements. Subsection 

(D) includes the following minimum 

performance and housekeeping 

requirements, which must be met 

independent of the fugitive dust plan: 

• Procedures for high wind events, 

including wetting of sources and 

cessation of operations if necessary; 

• Physical inspection requirements of 

control equipment and dust-generating 

processes to ensure proper operation; 

• Opacity limit of 20 percent and 

requirements to take corrective action if 

opacity exceeds 15 percent; 

• Requirements for paved road 

cleaning at least daily, with vehicular 

track-out controls and 15 mile per hour 

speed limits; 

• Requirements for the application 

frequency of chemical dust suppressant 

to unpaved roads, controls on silt 

loading on those roads (silt loading may 

not exceed 0.33 ounces per square feet 

or 6 percent), runoff collection 

requirements to prevent dust from 

becoming airborne, and 15 miles per 

hour speed limits; 

• Materials storage, handling, and 

unloading requirements for copper 

concentrate and reverts, including 

requirements for storage on concrete 

pads, water sprayers, and wind fences; 

• Bedding requirements (including 

loading and unloading operations 

requirements for wind fences and water 

spraying to maintain a nominal 10 

percent surface moisture content), 

rumble grates to reduce trackout at exits, 

and a daily cleaning schedule inside 

and near the protected area; and 

• Requirements for the acid plant 

scrubber blowdown drying system, 

which must be housed in an enclosed 

system that uses a venturi scrubber, 

thickener, filter press and electric dryer 

under negative pressure. 

Subsection (E) of Rule R18–2– 

B1301.01 includes contingency 

requirements for increasing the 

frequency of road cleaning if the 

Hayden area does not attain the NAAQS 

by the attainment date or make RFP. 

The remainder of the rule includes 

monitoring, compliance demonstration, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements. Appendix 15 includes 

test methods and procedures for 

determining compliance with opacity 

limits on unpaved roads, silt content on 

trafficked parts of unpaved roads, and a 

qualification and testing section for 

certifying observers in measuring 

opacity and road stabilization. These 

requirements address the known 

sources of fugitive dust resulting from 

operations surrounding the Hayden 

Facility that may contribute to airborne 

lead emissions. We compared these 

requirements in our TSD reviewing Rule 

R18–2–B1301.01 with the primary 

copper smelter NESHAP and SCAQMD 

Rule 1420.1 for lead control. Rule R18– 

2–B1301.01 is more stringent than the 

primary copper smelter NESHAP. For 

example, Rule R18–2–B1301.01 

includes specific fugitive dust 

requirements and a 20 percent opacity 

limit for lead-bearing fugitive dust, 

whereas the NESHAP contains more 

general requirements for a fugitive dust 

plan and no opacity limit for fugitive 

dust. We concluded that while the 

SCAQMD rule was more stringent in 

some respects (i.e., requiring total 

enclosure of the facility, lower speed 

limits, more frequent sweeping 

schedules), it was also intended for a 

different type of facility (lead battery 

recycling) and therefore was not directly 

comparable to the Hayden Facility. 

We also compared these requirements 

to those found in various RACM/RACT 

particulate matter (PM) rules, as the 

controls for lead-bearing fugitive dust in 

a context like the Hayden Facility are 

like those for controlling PM. We found 

that Rule R18–2–B1301.01 was as 

stringent or more stringent than those 

PM rules. For example, in addition to a 

20 percent opacity limit and 

requirements for chemical dust 

suppressant and soil stabilization, 

which are also included in the PM rules, 

Rule R18–2–B1301.01 has requirements 

for unpaved roads and corrective 

measures for visible emissions that are 

not found in the PM rules. 

3. Proposed Actions on RACM/RACT 

Demonstration and Adopted Control 

Strategy 

For the reasons described above, we 

find that the control measures required 

under Rules R18–2–B1301 and R18–2– 

B1301.01 and reflected in the 2017 

Hayden Lead Plan are reasonably 

available for the Hayden Facility. In 

addition, as explained in the following 

section, ADEQ’s air quality modeling 

indicates these measures are sufficient 

to provide for attainment in the Hayden 

Lead NAA. These measures are required 

to be implemented by July 1, 2018 (for 

Rule R18–2–B1301) and December 1, 

2018 (for Rule R18–2–B1301.01). We 

believe these are the most expeditious 

dates practicable, given the history of 

planning for this source, the current 

time frame for implementation, and the 

complexity of these control measures. 

Accordingly, we propose to find that the 

RACM/RACT measures are both 

reasonably available and provide for 

attainment as expeditiously as 

practicable in the Hayden Lead NAA. 

Therefore, we propose to find that the 

2017 Hayden Lead Plan provides for the 

implementation of RACM/RACT as 

required by CAA section 172(c)(1). 

D. Attainment Demonstration 

1. Requirements for Attainment 

Demonstration 

CAA section 172 requires a state to 

submit a plan for each of its 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
31094 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

32The EPA published revisions to Appendix Wat 

82 FR 5182 (January 17, 2017). 

33The EPA periodically releases updated versions 

of AERMOD. At the time the State conducted its 

modeling, version 15181, the then-current 

regulatory version, was released with several beta 

options. The regulatory default for version 15181 is 

the use of version 15181, as released by the EPA, 

without the use of any of the beta options. See 

https://www.epa.gov/scram/air-quality-dispersionmodeling-preferred-and-recommended-models. 

34See email from Farah Mohammadesmaeili, 

ADEQ to Rynda Kay, EPA, Region 9, dated May 22, 

2018. 

35See 82 FR 5182, 5189 (January 17, 2017). 

36Ambient air is considered to be the air in those 

areas where the public generally has access. Nonambient air generally includes property owned or 

controlled by the source to which access by the 

public is prohibited by a fence or other effective 

physical barrier. 

37See email from Farah Mohammadesmaeili, 

ADEQ, to Rynda Kay, EPA Region 9, dated May 25, 

2018. 

38See email from Farah Mohammadesmaeili, 

ADEQ, to Rynda Kay, EPA Region 9, dated May 22, 

2018. 

39See Auer, A.H., 1978. Correlation of Land Use 

and Cover with Meteorological Anomalies. Journal 

of Applied Meteorology, 17(5):636–643. 

nonattainment areas that demonstrates 

attainment of the applicable ambient air 

quality standard as expeditiously as 

practicable but no later than the 

specified attainment date. This 

demonstration should consist of four 

parts: 

(1) Technical analyses that locate, 

identify, and quantify sources of 

emissions that are contributing to 

violations of the lead NAAQS; 

(2) Analyses of future year emissions 

reductions and air quality improvement 

resulting from already-adopted national, 

state, and local programs and from 

potential new state and local measures 

required to meet the RACT, RACM, and 

RFP requirements in the area; 

(3) Additional emissions reduction 

measures with schedules for 

implementation; and 

(4) Contingency measures required 

under section 172(c)(9) of the CAA. 

The requirements for the first three 

parts are described in the sections on 

emissions inventories and RACM/RACT 

above and in the sections on air quality 

modeling and the attainment 

demonstration that follow immediately 

below. The requirements for the fourth 

part are described below in section IV.F. 

2. Air Quality Modeling in the 2017 

Hayden Lead Plan 

In the following discussion we 

evaluate various features of the 

modeling that ADEQ used in its 

attainment demonstration. The lead 

attainment demonstration must include 

air quality dispersion modeling 

developed in accordance with EPA’s 

Guideline on Air Quality Models, 40 

CFR part 51, appendix W (‘‘Appendix 

W’’).32 A more detailed description of 

the modeling used to support this action 

and our review can be found in the 2017 

Hayden Lead Plan, Appendix B, 

Modeling Technical Support Document: 

Hayden Pb State Implementation Plan 

Revision (‘‘ADEQ Modeling TSD’’) and 

our TSD for today’s proposed action. 

a. Model Selection 

In 2005, the EPA promulgated 

AERMOD as the Agency’s preferred 

near-field dispersion model for a wide 

range of regulatory applications 

addressing stationary sources (e.g., for 

estimating lead concentrations) in all 

types of terrain, based on extensive 

developmental and performance 

evaluation. The State used AERMOD 

version 15181 to model all emission 

sources using regulatory default 

options.33 After submitting the Plan, 

ADEQ discovered an error in the 

processing of the Camera Hill 

meteorological data. In May 2018, 

ADEQ submitted revised modeling 

using corrected Camera Hill 

meteorological data and AERMOD 

version 16216r,34 which the EPA 

designated as the regulatory version of 

AERMOD in January 2017.35 All other 

inputs remained the same. The 

remainder of this section refers to 

results of the revised modeling, which 

effectively supersedes the modeling 

originally submitted with the Plan. 

The modeling domain was centered 

on the Hayden Facility and extended to 

the edges of the Hayden Lead NAA. A 

grid spacing of 25 meters was used to 

resolve AERMOD model concentrations 

along the ambient air boundary 

surrounding the Hayden Facility and 

was increased toward the edges of the 

NAA. Receptors were excluded within 

the ambient air boundary, which is 

generally defined by the facility’s 

physical fence line, except in certain 

areas where the State inspected the 

terrain and concluded steep topography 

precludes public access.36 We conclude 

that the model receptors placed by the 

State adequately characterize ambient 

air conditions. 

b. Meteorological Data 

ADEQ conducted its modeling using 

meteorological data collected between 

August 2013 and August 2014 at two 

on-site surface meteorological stations: 

The Camera Hill site located 

approximately 0.35 kilometer (km) 

south of the smelter building, and the 

Hayden Old Jail site located 

approximately 1.06 km west of the 

concentrator and smelter complexes at 

the Hayden Facility. Due to the complex 

topography of the area, wind speed and 

direction can vary significantly between 

the two stations. The State conducted a 

performance evaluation to test which 

meteorological dataset performs best 

when AERMOD-predicted 

concentrations are compared to 

monitored concentrations.37 The State 

concluded emissions from the main 

stack and those emanating from the 

smelter building roofline are best 

represented by Camera Hill, while lower 

elevation sources were best represented 

by Hayden Old Jail, and used these 

respective data sets for those sources. 

Accordingly, ADEQ ran the model 

separately for each set of sources and 

summed the results appropriately. The 

State provided audit reports for each 

monitoring station to document the 

station’s installation and data collection 

procedures.38 The State used AERMET 

version 16216 to process meteorological 

data for use with AERMOD. 

The State used AERSURFACE version 

13016 using data from the Camera Hill 

and Hayden Old Jail sites to estimate the 

surface characteristics (i.e., albedo, 

Bowen ratio, and surface roughness 

(zo)). The State estimated zo values for 

12 spatial sectors out to 1 km at a 

seasonal temporal resolution for average 

conditions. We conclude that the State 

appropriately selected meteorological 

sites, properly processed meteorological 

data, and adequately estimated surface 

characteristics. 

ADEQ used the Auer (1978) 39 land 

use method, with land cover data from 

the United States Geological Survey 

National Land Cover Data 1992 

archives, to determine that the 3-km 

area around the Hayden Facility is 

composed of 96.2 percent rural land 

types. Therefore, the State selected rural 

dispersion coefficients for modeling. We 

agree with the ADEQ’s determination 

that the facility should be modeled as a 

rural source. 

c. Emissions Data 

ADEQ developed a modeling 

emissions inventory based on 2012 data 

for sources within the Hayden Lead 

NAA and for the 50-km buffer zone 

extending from the NAA boundary. In 

2012, the Hayden Facility emitted 3.43 

tpy lead, accounting for more than 99 

percent of lead emissions in the Hayden 

Lead NAA. The Freeport McMoRan 

Incorporated copper smelter, located 46 

km north of the Hayden Facility, 

emitted 4.87 tons of lead in 2012; 

however, the two smelters are separated 

by large mountains, making these two 

airsheds distinct. The State determined 

that aside from the Hayden facility, no 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2018 / Proposed Rules 31095 

40See Plan Appendix B (ADEQ Modeling TSD), 

Section 5, and Appendix A (ADEQ Emission 

Inventory TSD), Section 7. 

41 Detailed information on 2019 projected 

emission estimates is contained in spreadsheet 

‘‘2012 Actuals & 2019 projections.xlsx,’’ while 

supporting information for the maximum allowable 

PTE estimates is contained in ‘‘Facility PTE.xlsm.’’ 

42 Data from 2013 were used because two months 

of data were missing in the 2012 base year. 

43See ‘‘Hayden-Pb-Modeling Notes-05142018’’ 

(attached to email from Farah Mohammadesmaeili, 

ADEQ, to Rynda Kay, EPA Region 9, dated May 22, 

2018), and Memo to Rulemaking Docket EPA–R09– 

OAR–2018–0222 titled ‘‘Revised Attainment 

Demonstration and Contingency Measure 

Modeling—LEADPOST Output Files,’’ from Rynda 

Kay, EPA Region 9, dated June 12, 2018. 44As illustrated in Table 5 of today’s action, 

actual emissions are expected to be well below 

allowable levels. 

45 73 FR 66964 at 67038. 

46 Id., at 67039; Lead Q&A, p. 2. 

47 Id. 

48See 73 FR 66964 (November 12, 2008) at 

67038–67039. 

49The Plan bases certain implementation dates on 

the date of EPA’s approval of Asarco’s fugitive dust 

plan under Consent Decree No. CV–15–02206– 

PHX–DLR (D. Ariz). See Plan Table 23. The EPA 

approved the wind fence elements of the fugitive 

dust plan on June 26, 2017 and December 20, 2017. 

See Letters from Matt Salazar, EPA Region 9, to 

Joseph Wilhelm, Asarco, dated June 26, 2017 and 

December 20, 2017. The remaining elements were 

approved on March 15, 2018. See Letter from Matt 

Salazar, EPA Region 9, to Joseph Wilhelm, Asarco, 

dated March 15, 2018. The implementation dates in 

Table 6 are calculated accordingly. 

other sources were drivers of 

nonattainment or have the potential to 

cause significant concentration 

gradients in the vicinity of the Hayden 

Lead NAA. We agree with the State’s 

determination that only Hayden Facility 

emissions need to be included in the 

attainment modeling. 

Asarco is undertaking substantial 

upgrades to the Facility that will reduce 

lead and other pollutant emissions (see 

section IV.C, above). The State modeled 

post-upgrade lead emissions based on 

an emission limit of 0.67 lb/hour for the 

main stack and emission estimates for 

fugitive emission sources based on 

control requirements in Rules R18–2– 

B1301 and R18–2–B1301.01. These 

rules address roofline vents over the 

anode furnace, converter aisle, and the 

flash furnace; outdoor slag pouring; 

materials storage and handling (bedding 

area, revert piles, concentrate storage), 

paved and unpaved roads, crushing and 

screening, and a gas cleaning plant. The 

State provided details and supporting 

information for the control efficiencies 

assumed in developing model emission 

rates. This information, which we 

reviewed and agree is reasonable, is 

contained in multiple appendices 40 and 

supporting spreadsheets 41 that were 

submitted with the Plan. 

The State adequately characterized 

source parameters (as described in 

detail in our TSD) as well as the 

Facility’s building layout and locations 

in its modeling. Where appropriate, the 

Building Profile Input Program for 

PRIME, which is a component of 

AERMOD, was used to assist in 

characterizing building downwash. 

d. Background Concentrations 

ADEQ selected background lead 

concentrations using ambient air 

measurements recorded in 2013 at 

Children’s Park monitor in Tucson, 

Arizona (AQS ID: 04–019–1028), a 

regionally representative site. This 

monitor began measuring 24-hour mean 

concentrations of lead in total 

suspended particulate in February 2012 

and operated through May 2016. The 

State used all available measurements 

during 2013 and calculated a mean 

concentration of 0.0028 mg/m3. The 

State used this as the background 

concentration, and added it to the 

modeled design values.42 The State 

determined that it was more appropriate 

to base a background concentration on 

data from this site as opposed to using 

monitoring data near the Hayden 

Facility during smelter shut-down 

periods. During shut-downs an 

increased amount of material handling 

occurs throughout the facility, elevating 

the observed concentrations. We agree 

that ADEQ appropriately and 

conservatively calculated background 

concentrations. 

e. Summary of Results 

The EPA has reviewed ADEQ’s 

attainment demonstration for the 

Hayden Lead NAA and is proposing to 

determine that the supporting modeling 

is consistent with CAA requirements 

and Appendix W. The State’s modeling 

indicates that if the Facility were to emit 

at maximum allowed levels, the 

maximum 3-month average ambient 

concentration would be 0.14165 mg/m3, 

which is below the NAAQS level of 0.15 

mg/m3.43 44 This modeled concentration 

includes the background lead 

concentration of 0.0028 mg/m3. The 

modeling indicates that the controls 

required under Rules R18–2–B1301 and 

R18–2–B1301.01 are sufficient for the 

Hayden Lead NAA to attain the 2008 

lead NAAQS. 

E. Reasonable Further Progress 

Demonstration 

1. Requirements for RFP 

CAA section 172(c)(2) requires that 

attainment plans shall provide for RFP. 

RFP is defined in section 171(1) as such 

annual incremental reductions in 

emissions of the relevant air pollutant as 

are required by CAA title I, part D for 

nonattainment areas or may reasonably 

be required by the Administrator for the 

purpose of ensuring attainment of the 

applicable NAAQS by the applicable 

date. Historically, RFP has been met 

through generally linear incremental 

progress toward attainment by the 

applicable attainment date. However, 

the EPA believes that RFP for lead 

nonattainment areas should be met by 

‘‘adherence to an ambitious compliance 

schedule,’’ which is expected to 

periodically yield significant emission 

reductions, and as appropriate, linear 

progress.45

The EPA recommends that SIPs for 

lead nonattainment areas provide a 

detailed schedule for compliance with 

RACM (including RACT) in the affected 

areas and accurately indicate the 

corresponding annual emission 

reductions to be achieved,46 and expects 

that a detailed schedule would provide 

for periodic yields in significant 

emissions reductions.47 We believe that 

it is appropriate to expect early 

implementation of less technologyintensive control measures (e.g., 

controlling fugitive dust emissions at 

the stationary source, as well as 

required controls on area sources) while 

phasing in the more technologyintensive control measures, such as 

those involving the purchase and 

installation of new hardware. The 

expeditious implementation of RACM/ 

RACT at affected sources within the 

nonattainment area is an appropriate 

approach to assure attainment of the 

lead NAAQS in an expeditious 

manner.48

2. RFP Demonstration in the 2017 

Hayden Lead Plan 

The RFP demonstration for the 

Hayden area is located in Chapter 4 of 

the 2017 Hayden Lead Plan. The Plan 

includes a detailed schedule for the 

expeditious implementation of key 

controls required under Rules R18–2– 

B1301 and R18–2–B1301.01, along with 

the emissions reductions associated 

with these controls, as shown in Table 

6.49 Failure to implement any of these 

control measures by the associated 

deadline would constitute a failure to 

make RFP and thus trigger 

implementation of contingency 

measures, as described in section IV.F 

below. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
31096 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

50See Table 6. 

51See Lead Q&A, p.3. 

52See CAA section 172(c)(9). 

53 73 FR 66964 at 67039. 

54 0.20 mg/m3¥0.12 mg/m3/7 years = 0.0114 mg/ 

m3. 

55See Memo to Rulemaking Docket EPA–R09– 

OAR–2018–0222 titled ‘‘Revised Attainment 

Demonstration and Contingency Measure 

Modeling—LEADPOST Output Files,’’ from Rynda 

Kay, EPA Region 9, dated June 12, 2018. 

56The EPA approved this rule on February 22, 

2018 (83 FR 7614). 

57To cross check the emissions inventory, ADEQ 

back-calculated the silt content percentage on 

paved roads to determine if it was consistent with 

emissions factors in AP–42. ADEQ assumed the 9.5 

percent silt content was the result of a 45 percent 

reduction due to once daily street sweeping. The 45 

TABLE 6—CONTROL IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE AND EMISSION REDUCTIONS

Control measure Date of implementation 

Pb emissions 

reduced per 

year 

(tpy) 

Implementation of chemical dust suppression for unpaved roads .............................................. April 14, 2018 .......................... 0 .018 

Implementation of wind fences for materials piles (uncrushed reverts, reverts crushing and 

crushed reverts, bedding materials, and concentrate).

October 24, 2017 and April 18, 

2018.

0 .00488 

Implementation of water sprays for materials piles (uncrushed reverts, reverts crushing and 

crushed reverts, bedding materials, and concentrate).

July 13, 2018.

Implementation of new acid plant scrubber blowdown drying system ........................................ November 30, 2016 ................ 0 .190 

Implementation of new primary, secondary, and tertiary hooding systems for converter aisle .. July 1, 2018 ............................. 1 .318 

Implementation of new ventilation system for matte tapping and slag skimming for flash furnace.July 1, 2018 ............................. 0 .393 

Source: Plan, Table 23. 

For informational purposes, Figures 7 

and 8 in the Plan also depict past and 

projected changes to ambient 

concentrations of lead. These figures 

demonstrate that implementation of the 

controls required under the Plan will 

bring the ambient concentration in the 

Hayden Lead NAA into compliance 

with the lead NAAQS. The ambient 

concentration projections also support 

the State’s contingency measure 

analysis, as discussed below. 

3. Proposed Action on the RFP 

Demonstration 

Consistent with EPA guidance, the 

Hayden lead SIP provides a detailed 

schedule for implementing required 

controls and accurately indicates the 

corresponding annual emission 

reductions to be achieved.50 These 

reductions will occur at sources, such as 

unpaved roads and various nonsmelting fugitive sources that have a 

greater influence on the maximum 

predicted ambient impacts than the 

smelter point sources and the schedule 

provides for periodic yields in 

significant emissions reductions 

sufficient to attain the NAAQS. We 

therefore propose to find that the 2017 

Hayden Lead Plan meets the 

requirements of section 172(c)(2) for 

RFP. 

F. Contingency Measures 

1. Requirements for Contingency 

Measures 

Under CAA section 172(c)(9), all lead 

attainment plans must include 

contingency measures to be 

implemented if an area fails to meet RFP 

or fails to attain the lead NAAQS by the 

applicable attainment date. These 

contingency measures must be fully 

adopted rules or control measures that 

are ready to be implemented quickly 

and without significant additional 

action by the state or the EPA if the area 

fails to meet RFP requirements or fails 

to meet its attainment date. They must 

also be measures not relied on to 

demonstrate RFP or attainment in the 

plan and should provide SIP-creditable 

emissions reductions generally 

equivalent to about one year’s worth of 

RFP. The EPA has explained that, 

‘‘where a single source is responsible for 

nonattainment, it may be possible to 

identify the amount of reductions 

required by reference to reductions in 

ambient air concentrations.’’ 51 Finally, 

the SIP should contain a trigger 

mechanism for the contingency 

measures and specify a schedule for 

their implementation.52

The EPA recognizes that certain 

actions, such as the notification of 

sources, modification of permits, etc., 

may be needed before a measure can be 

implemented. However, states must 

show that their contingency measures 

can be implemented with only minimal 

further action on their part and with no 

additional rulemaking actions such as 

public hearings or legislative review. 

The EPA generally expects all actions 

needed to affect full implementation of 

the contingency measures to occur 

within 60 days after the EPA notifies the 

state of such failure.53 The state should 

therefore ensure that the measures are 

fully implemented as expeditiously as 

practicable after the requirement takes 

effect. 

2. Contingency Measure in the 2017 

Hayden Lead Plan 

Chapter 4 of the 2017 Hayden Lead 

Plan describes the contingency measure 

that will be implemented if the area fails 

to meet RFP or fails to attain by its 

attainment date. The contingency 

measure and the associated calculations 

are summarized below. 

Because lead concentrations in the 

Hayden area are almost entirely 

attributable to the Asarco smelter, 

ADEQ chose to use ambient air 

concentrations to demonstrate 

equivalency to a year’s worth of RFP. To 

determine the amount of emissions 

reductions needed for contingency 

measures (annual average RFP) ADEQ 

used the following equation: 

(2012 highest monitored 

concentration—2019 modeled 

concentration)/7 years = Annual 

Average RFP 

Using this equation, ADEQ initially 

calculated it would need a contingency 

measure that would achieve a reduction 

in ambient lead concentrations of at 

least 0.0114 mg/m3.54 Based on the 

revised modeling submitted by ADEQ in 

May 2018, the contingency measure 

would need to achieve a reduction of at 

least 0.0086 mg/m3.55

ADEQ Rule R18–2–B1301.01 requires 

that Asarco increase the frequency of 

paved road cleaning from once per day 

to twice per day within 60 days of 

notification by the EPA that the area has 

failed to make RFP or to attain by the 

statutory attainment date.56 To 

determine the benefit of the increased 

road cleaning frequency, ADEQ applied 

a 45 percent reduction to the paved road 

silt content percentage that Asarco 

reported in its 2015 emissions inventory 

(which reflected once-daily street 

sweeping).57 The State determined that 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2018 / Proposed Rules 31097 

percent figure is consistent with the Maricopa 

Association of Governments’ Five Percent Plan for 

PM10, which used a 55 percent reduction, but adds 

in a 10 percent safety margin. The EPA approved 

the Five Percent Plan on June 10, 2014 (79 FR 

33107). Using this assumption, ADEQ calculated 

the silt content percentage on paved roads without 

once-daily street sweeping to be approximately 21 

percent, which is in line with the range of values 

in AP–42 (15.4–21.7 percent). 

58See ‘‘Hayden-Pb-Modeling Notes-05142018’’ 

(attached to email from Farah Mohammadesmaeili, 

ADEQ, to Rynda Kay, EPA Region 9, dated May 22, 

2018), Section 4.7.3 and Appendix E of the Plan, 

and Memo to Rulemaking Docket EPA–R09–OAR– 

2018–0222 titled ‘‘Revised Attainment 

Demonstration and Contingency Measure 

Modeling—LEADPOST Output Files,’’ from Rynda 

Kay, EPA Region 9, dated June 12, 2018. 

59 80 FR 67319 (November 2, 2015). 60 83 FR 19631 (May 4, 2018). 

the implementation of this measure 

would reduce the modeled design value 

from 0.14165 mg/m3 to 0.12935 mg/m3.58

This amounts to a reduction of 0.0123 

mg/m3, which exceeds the amount of 

reductions required from contingency 

measures (one year’s RFP). 

3. Proposed Action on the Contingency 

Measures 

Rule R18–2–B1301.01, which 

includes a schedule for prompt 

implementation of the contingency 

measure, is fully adopted by the State 

and has been approved by the EPA. The 

reductions generated by the contingency 

measure exceed one year’s RFP. We 

therefore propose to find that the State 

has demonstrated that the 2017 Hayden 

Lead Plan meets the requirements of 

section 172(c)(9) for contingency 

measures that would be triggered for 

failure to make RFP and/or for failure to 

attain. 

G. New Source Review 

1. Requirements for NSR 

States containing areas designated as 

nonattainment for the lead NAAQS 

must submit SIPs that address the 

requirements of nonattainment NSR. 

Specifically, CAA section 172(c)(5) 

requires states that have areas 

designated as nonattainment for the lead 

NAAQS to submit provisions requiring 

permits for the construction and 

operation of new or modified stationary 

sources anywhere in the nonattainment 

area, in accordance with the permit 

requirements under CAA section 173. 

2. NSR in the 2017 Hayden Lead Plan 

The 2017 Hayden Lead Plan explains 

that in 2012 ADEQ submitted a SIP 

revision to update its NSR program and 

that the EPA subsequently issued a 

limited approval/limited disapproval of 

this SIP revision.59 ADEQ also noted 

that it had revised its rules to correct the 

deficiencies identified in the limited 

approval/limited disapproval and 

intended to submit these changes as a 

SIP revision. ADEQ subsequently 

submitted this revision and, on May 4, 

2018, the EPA approved it into the 

SIP.60 These two recent SIP revisions 

ensure that ADEQ’s rules provide for 

appropriate NSR for lead sources 

undergoing construction or major 

modification in the Hayden Lead NAA. 

Therefore, the EPA concludes that the 

NSR requirements have been met for 

this area. 

3. Proposed Action on NSR 

We propose to find that the State has 

demonstrated that the Arizona SIP 

meets the requirements of CAA section 

172(c)(5) for the Hayden Lead NAA. 

V. The EPA’s Proposed Action and 

Request for Public Comments 

A. The EPA’s Proposed Approvals 

This SIP submittal addresses CAA 

requirements and EPA regulations for 

expeditious attainment of the 2008 lead 

NAAQS for the Hayden Lead NAA. For 

the reasons discussed above, the EPA is 

proposing to approve under CAA 

section 110(k)(3) the following elements 

of the 2017 Hayden Lead Plan: 

(1) The SIP’s base year emissions 

inventory as meeting the requirements 

of CAA section 172(c)(3) and 40 CFR 

51.117(e)(1); 

(2) the attainment demonstration, 

including air quality modeling, as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 172(c)(1); 

(3) the RACM/RACT demonstration as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 172(c)(1); 

(4) the RFP demonstration as meeting 

the requirements of CAA section 

172(c)(2); and 

(5) the contingency measures as 

meeting the requirements of the CAA 

section 172(c)(9); 

We are also proposing to find that the 

State has demonstrated that the Arizona 

SIP meets the requirements of CAA 

section 172(c)(5) for the Hayden Lead 

NAA. 

B. Request for Public Comments 

We are taking public comments for 

thirty days following the publication of 

this proposed rule in the Federal 

Register. We will take all comments into 

consideration in our final rule. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the 

EPA’s role is to approve State choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely proposes to approve State 

law as meeting federal requirements and 

does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

State law. For that reason, this proposed 

action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 

FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory 

action because SIP approvals are 

exempted under Executive Order 12866; 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where the EPA or 

an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
31098 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

61See letter from Matthew Lakin, EPA Region 9, 

to Terry Rambler, San Carlos Apache Tribe, dated 

December 18, 2017. 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). We have 

offered to consult with the San Carlos 

Apache Tribe, which has lands 

bordering on the Hayden Lead NAA.61

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Lead, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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

Dated: June 21, 2018. 

Michael Stoker, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2018–14198 Filed 7–2–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 80 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0167; FRL–9980–42– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AT93 

Public Hearing for Standards for 2019 

and Biomass-Based Diesel Volume for 

2020 Under the Renewable Fuel 

Standard Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Announcement of public 

hearing. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is announcing a public 

hearing to be held in Ypsilanti, MI on 

July 18, 2018 for the proposed rule 

‘‘Renewable Fuel Standard Program: 

Standards for 2019 and Biomass-Based 

Diesel Volume for 2020.’’ This proposed 

rule will be published separately in the 

Federal Register. The pre-publication 

version of this proposal can be found at 

https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuelstandard-program/regulations-andvolume-standards-under-renewablefuel-standard. In the separate notice of 

proposed rulemaking, EPA has 

proposed amendments to the renewable 

fuel standard program regulations that 

would establish annual percentage 

standards for cellulosic biofuel, 

biomass-based diesel, advanced biofuel, 

and renewable fuels that would apply to 

all gasoline and diesel produced in the 

U.S. or imported in the year 2019. In 

addition, the separate proposal includes 

a proposed biomass-based diesel 

applicable volume for 2020. 

DATES: The public hearing will be held 

on July 18, 2018 at the location noted 

below under ADDRESSES. The hearing 

will begin at 9:00 a.m. and end when all 

parties present who wish to speak have 

had an opportunity to do so. Parties 

wishing to testify at the hearing should 

notify the contact person listed under 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 

July 13, 2018. Additional information 

regarding the hearing appears below 

under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. 

ADDRESSES: The hearing will be held at 

the following location: Ann Arbor 

Marriott Ypsilanti at Eagle Crest, 1275 S. 

Huron St., Ypsilanti, MI 48197 (phone 

number 734–487–2000). A complete set 

of documents related to the proposal 

will be available for public inspection 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0167. 

Documents can also be viewed at the 

EPA Docket Center, located at 1301 

Constitution Avenue NW, Room 3334, 

Washington, DC between 8:30 a.m. and 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia 

MacAllister, Office of Transportation 

and Air Quality, Assessment and 

Standards Division, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood 

Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; telephone 

number: (734) 214–4131; Fax number: 

(734) 214–4816; Email address: RFSHearing@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

proposal for which EPA is holding the 

public hearing will be published 

separately in the Federal Register. The 

pre-publication version can be found at 

https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuelstandard-program/regulations-andvolume-standards-under-renewablefuel-standard. 

Public Hearing: The public hearing 

will provide interested parties the 

opportunity to present data, views, or 

arguments concerning the proposal 

(which can be found at https://

www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standardprogram/regulations-and-volumestandards-under-renewable-fuelstandard). The EPA may ask clarifying 

questions during the oral presentations 

but will not respond to the 

presentations at that time. Written 

statements and supporting information 

submitted during the comment period 

will be considered with the same weight 

as any oral comments and supporting 

information presented at the public 

hearing. Written comments must be 

received by the last day of the comment 

period, as specified in the notice of 

proposed rulemaking. 

How can I get copies of this document, 

the proposed rule, and other related 

information? 

The EPA has established a docket for 

this action under Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2018–0167. The EPA has also 

developed a website for the Renewable 

Fuel Standard (RFS) program, including 

the notice of proposed rulemaking, at 

the address given above. 

Please refer to the notice of proposed 

rulemaking for detailed information on 

accessing information related to the 

proposal. 

Dated: June 26, 2018. 

Christopher Grundler, 

Director, Office of Transportation and Air 

Quality, Office of Air and Radiation. 

[FR Doc. 2018–14329 Filed 7–2–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Chapter I 

[EPA–HQ–OA–2018–0107; FRL–9980–45– 

OA] 

RIN 2010–AA12 

Increasing Consistency and 

Transparency in Considering Costs 

and Benefits in the Rulemaking 

Process 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking; extension of comment 

period. 

SUMMARY: On June 13, 2018, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

proposed an advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking titled, ‘‘Increasing 

Consistency and Transparency in 

Considering Costs and Benefits in 

Rulemaking Process.’’ The EPA is 

extending the comment period on the 

proposed rule, which was scheduled to 

close on July 13, 2018, until August 13, 

2018. The EPA is making this change in 

response to public requests for an 

extension of the comment period. 

DATES: The public comment period for 

the proposed rule published in the 

Federal Register on June 13, 2018 (83 

FR 27524), is extended. Written 

comments must be received on or before 

August 13, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OA–2018–0107 at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS