[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 3, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31087-31098]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14198]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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
[email protected]. 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/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ginger Vagenas, EPA Region IX, 415-
972-3964, [email protected]

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 lead-contaminated 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA first established a lead standard in 1978 at 1.5 micrograms
per meter cubed ([micro]g/m\3\) as a quarterly average.\2\ Based on new
health and scientific data, the EPA revised the federal lead standard
to 0.15 [micro]g/m\3\ 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

[micro]g/m\3\ averaged over a 3-month rolling period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 43 FR 46246 (October 5, 1978).
    \3\ See 73 FR 66964 (November 12, 2008) (``lead NAAQS rule'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 75 FR 71033 and 76 FR 72097.
    \5\ Arizona 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \6\ See 79 FR 52205.
    \7\ For an exact description of the Hayden Lead NAA, see 40 CFR
81.303.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For the Hayden Lead NAA, the attainment date is October 3,
2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Plan, page 38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See letter dated March 3, 2017, from Timothy S. Franquist,
Director, Air Quality Division, ADEQ, to Alexis Strauss, Acting
Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See 2017 Hayden Lead Plan, Appendix F, Public Process
Documentation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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,

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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See 73 FR 66964.
    \13\ These guidance documents can be found in the docket for
today's action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     ``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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 80 FR 47859.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Lead Q&A Addendum p. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Additional 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.
    \18\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ SLAMS 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Pb emissions
                     Source category                           (tpy)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...................................................            3.43
Area....................................................          <0.001
Mobile Source (non-road)................................           0.015
Mobile Source (on-road).................................
                                                         ---------------
    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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Pb emissions
                     Source category                           (tpy)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smelting point sources..................................            1.09
Smelting fugitives......................................            1.88
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   2012 base year Pb      2019 projected year Pb
                        Source category                         emissions (tpy) (actual      emissions (tpy)
                                                                       emissions)         (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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   2012 base year Pb      2019 projected year Pb
                        Source category                         emissions (tpy) (actual      emissions (tpy)
                                                                       emissions)         (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

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 non-smelting
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See, 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))
    \21\ See, e.g., Lead Q&A Addendum p. 1.

                                   Table 5--Base Year, Projected Actual, and Maximum Allowable Modeled Lead Emissions
                                                                 for the Hayden Facility
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Projected
                                                       2012 actual Pb      2019 projected actual Pb       reductions in   Maximum allowable- modeled Pb
         Modeled source             Controls applied      emissions             emissions (tpy)             actual Pb       emissions (PTE) (tpy) \a\
                                                            (tpy)                                         emissions (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Main stack......................  Secondary hood                 1.08  0.904...........................              16  2.99.
                                   baghouse, improved
                                   primary and
                                   secondary hooding,
                                   tertiary hooding.
Flash furnace fugitives.........  Matte tapping                 0.495  0.1025..........................            79.3  1.03.
                                   ventilation system.
Converter aisle fugitives.......  Secondary hood                0.968  0.024...........................            97.5  0.37.
                                   baghouse, improved
                                   primary and
                                   secondary hooding,
                                   tertiary hooding.
Anode furnace fugitives.........  Improved                      0.417  0.04............................            89.7  0.04.
                                   ventilation system.
Anode baghouse stack............  Sent to the main             0.0113  Included in main stack..........             N/A  Included in main stack.
                                   stack.
Slag dump.......................  Restrictions on                0.05  0.05............................  ..............  0.05.
                                   slag dumping
                                   location.
Gas cleaning waste material.....  Thickener project..            0.26  0.07............................              73  0.07.
Concentrate storage area........  Wind fence, water             0.001  0.000056........................              94  0.00088.
                                   sprays.
Bedding area....................  Wind fence, water           0.00017  0.000015........................              91  0.00016.
                                   sprays.
Reverts operations..............  Wind fence, water            0.0122  0.00042.........................              97  0.0041.
                                   sprays.
Paved roads.....................  Sweepers...........           0.091  0.015 \b\.......................              84  0.015.
Unpaved roads...................  Chemical dust                 0.046  0.028 \b\.......................              39  0.028.
                                   suppressant (on a
                                   schedule achieving
                                   90% control
                                   efficiency).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ PTE 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.
\b\ Projected 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

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 2017 Hayden Lead Plan, page 38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See 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.
    \29\ Consent Decree No. CV-15-02206-PHX-DLR (D. Ariz).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 58 FR 67748 (December 22, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

    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

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ The EPA published revisions to Appendix Wat 82 FR 5182
(January 17, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ The 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-dispersion-modeling-preferred-and-recommended-models.
    \34\ See email from Farah Mohammadesmaeili, ADEQ to Rynda Kay,
EPA, Region 9, dated May 22, 2018.
    \35\ See 82 FR 5182, 5189 (January 17, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Ambient air is considered to be the air in those areas
where the public generally has access. Non-ambient 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See email from Farah Mohammadesmaeili, ADEQ, to Rynda Kay,
EPA Region 9, dated May 25, 2018.
    \38\ See email from Farah Mohammadesmaeili, ADEQ, to Rynda Kay,
EPA Region 9, dated May 22, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See Auer, A.H., 1978. Correlation of Land Use and Cover
with Meteorological Anomalies. Journal of Applied Meteorology,
17(5):636-643.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 [mu]g/m\3\. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Data from 2013 were used because two months of data were
missing in the 2012 base year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
[mu]g/m\3\, which is below the NAAQS level of 0.15 [mu]g/m\3\.\43\ \44\
This modeled concentration includes the background lead concentration
of 0.0028 [micro]g/m\3\. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See ``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.
    \44\ As illustrated in Table 5 of today's action, actual
emissions are expected to be well below allowable levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ 73 FR 66964 at 67038.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 technology-intensive 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
technology-intensive 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Id., at 67039; Lead Q&A, p. 2.
    \47\ Id.
    \48\ See 73 FR 66964 (November 12, 2008) at 67038-67039.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ The 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.

    Table 6--Control Implementation Schedule and Emission Reductions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Pb emissions
          Control measure                  Date of          reduced per
                                       implementation       year (tpy)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Implementation of chemical dust     April 14, 2018......         0.018
 suppression for unpaved roads.
Implementation of wind fences for   October 24, 2017 and         0.00488
 materials piles (uncrushed          April 18, 2018.
 reverts, reverts crushing and
 crushed reverts, bedding
 materials, and concentrate).
Implementation of water sprays for  July 13, 2018.......
 materials piles (uncrushed
 reverts, reverts crushing and
 crushed reverts, bedding
 materials, and concentrate).
Implementation of new acid plant    November 30, 2016...         0.190
 scrubber blowdown drying system.
Implementation of new primary,      July 1, 2018........         1.318
 secondary, and tertiary hooding
 systems for converter aisle.
Implementation of new ventilation   July 1, 2018........         0.393
 system for matte tapping and slag
 skimming for flash furnace.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 non-smelting 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ See Table 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ See Lead Q&A, p.3.
    \52\ See CAA section 172(c)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ 73 FR 66964 at 67039.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 [mu]g/m\3\.\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 [mu]g/m\3\.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ 0.20 [mu]g/m\3\-0.12 [mu]g/m\3\/7 years = 0.0114 [mu]g/
m\3\.
    \55\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

the implementation of this measure would reduce the modeled design
value from 0.14165 [mu]g/m\3\ to 0.12935 [mu]g/m\3\.\58\ This amounts
to a reduction of 0.0123 [mu]g/m\3\, which exceeds the amount of
reductions required from contingency measures (one year's RFP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ The EPA approved this rule on February 22, 2018 (83 FR
7614).
    \57\ To 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 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).
    \58\ See ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ See letter from Matthew Lakin, EPA Region 9, to Terry
Rambler, San Carlos Apache Tribe, dated December 18, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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


[Federal Register: April 14, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 70)]
[Notices]
[Page 17241]
[DOCID:fr14ap09-115]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a closed meeting on Thursday, April
16, 2009 at 2 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the
scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
    Commissioner Walter, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
    The subject matter of the closed meeting scheduled for Thursday,
April 16, 2009 will be:
    Consideration of amicus participation; institution and settlement
of injunctive actions; institution and settlement of administrative
proceedings of an enforcement nature; an adjudicatory matter; and other
matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 9, 2009.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-8480 Filed 4-13-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 202 (Friday, October 20, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 48810]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22836]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP17-820-001.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Compliance filing 20171012 Compliance Filing to be
effective 11/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 10/12/17.
    Accession Number: 20171012-5089.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/24/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-30-000.
    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Service
Agreement--Mercuria Energy to be effective 10/14/2017.
    Filed Date: 10/12/17.
    Accession Number: 20171012-5102.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/24/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-31-000.
    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Service
Agreements--BP and EQT Energy to be effective 10/13/2017.
    Filed Date: 10/12/17.
    Accession Number: 20171012-5133.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/24/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-32-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Non-Conforming Agreement
Filing (SWG 2017) to be effective 11/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 10/13/17.
    Accession Number: 20171013-5000.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/25/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-33-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Occidental Energy Negotiated
Rate Filing RP18- to be effective 11/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 10/13/17.
    Accession Number: 20171013-5034.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/25/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-34-000.
    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate--KeySpan to
Con Ed 794826 to be effective 11/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 10/13/17.
    Accession Number: 20171013-5042.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/25/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated October 16, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-22836 Filed 10-19-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P