[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 9 (Friday, January 12, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1602-1604]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00114]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0634; FRL-9972-14--Region 8]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
State of Montana; Revisions to East Helena Lead SIP

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the 
state of Montana on September 11, 2013. The submittal revises the 
portions of the Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM) that pertain to 
the East Helena Lead SIP. This action is being taken under section 110 
of the Clean Air Act (CAA) (Act).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before February 12, 
2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0634 at 
http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for 
submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or 
removed from www.regulations.gov. 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, the full EPA 
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: Kevin Leone, Air Program, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6227, 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information

What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?

    a. Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI). Do not 
submit CBI to the EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or email. 
Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be 
CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA, 
mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify 
electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that 
is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment 
that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that 
does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for 
inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be 
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 
2.
    b. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, 
remember to:
    i. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying 
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to 
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and 
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information 
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you 
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be 
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and 
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of 
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period 
deadline identified.

II. Background

    The proposed SIP revisions stem from a June 10, 2013, Montana Board 
of Environmental Review Order (Board Order) removing a stipulated 
condition in an August 4, 1995 Board Order. The condition limited the 
allowable concentration of lead in raw feed material at the American 
Chemet Corporation's East Helena facility. Specifically, American 
Chemet requested a change to the 1995 Board Order which would eliminate 
Exhibit A, Section C, Subsection B. This subsection reads:
    ``Feed Material into the plant shall have a quarterly average lead 
content of less than 0.15%, and an average annual lead content of less 
than 0.10%.''
    All other East Helena Lead SIP provisions, including direct 
numerical limits on lead emissions from American Chemet Corporation's 
East Helena facility, would remain unchanged.
    The East Helena Lead SIP includes a ``lead in feed'' limitation for 
the American Chemet facility, which was created as part of the Montana

[[Page 1603]]

Department of Environmental Quality's (DEQ) efforts to respond to the 
EPA's designation of East Helena as a nonattainment area for the 1978 
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for airborne lead. The 
American Chemet East Helena facility produces cuprous oxides, cupric 
oxides, and fine particle size copper powders. In the 1990's, through 
informal discussions between DEQ and American Chemet, the parties 
arrived at restrictions on lead emissions for the East Helena area to 
meet and maintain compliance with the 1978 lead NAAQS. The principal 
target for curtailing lead emissions was the American Smelting and 
Refining Company (ASARCO) facility, which was a lead smelter located 
adjacent to American Chemet's East Helena facility. In addition to 
shutting down its operations in 2001, ASARCO demolished its stacks in 
2009. After the ASARCO facility shut down in 2001, ambient air 
monitoring during the following six months showed that East Helena was 
in compliance with the 1978 lead NAAQS of 1.5 micrograms per cubic 
meter (ug/m \3\).
    The EPA subsequently promulgated a new, more stringent, lead NAAQS 
standard (0.15 ug/m\3\); the final rulemaking was published on November 
12, 2008 (73 FR 66964). In our final 2011 rulemaking (76 FR 72097) to 
designate areas of the country as attainming or nonattaining for the 
2008 lead NAAQS, the EPA noted that the most recent three years of 
available monitoring data from the East Helena nonattainment area 
showed no violations of the 2008 standard (See Montana's September 11, 
2013 submittal), although the monitors were shut down in December 2001 
(roughly six months after the shut down of the large stationary source 
of lead emissions, ASARCO). Effective December 31, 2011, the entire 
state of Montana, including the East Helena area, was designated as 
``Unclassifiable/Attainment'' for the 2008 Lead NAAQS. In the 
rulemaking for the 2011 designation, the EPA reiterated that the 1978 
standard would remain in effect for the East Helena area until an 
implementation plan for the 2008 lead NAAQS was approved by the EPA (76 
FR 72099). Accordingly, and as required in 40 CFR 50.12, Montana's 
nonattainment status for the the 1978 lead NAAQS will apply for East 
Helena until the state submits, and the EPA approves, an implementation 
plan providing for attainment and/or maintenance of the 2008 Lead 
NAAQS. The EPA amended 40 CFR 50.12 to reflect the possibility that the 
nonattainment status for the old standard could be revoked upon the 
EPA's approval of a maintenance plan for the new standard (73 FR 
67043). The EPA encourages Montana to submit such an implementation 
plan for East Helena in the near future.
    On December 18, 2009, in response to the DEQ's request for the 
EPA's guidance concerning modifying the 1995 Board order to eliminate 
Exhibit A, Section C, Subsection B, the EPA sent a letter dated 
December 18, 2009 (See docket) to the DEQ that stated:

``. . . our preliminary view is that we could allow a revision to 
the Montana State Implementation Plan (SIP) that would eliminate 
Exhibit A, Section C, Subsection B from the 1995 Board Order if the 
conditions listed below are met.
    1. DEQ must perform modeling sufficient to demonstrate 
noninterference with the attainment and maintenance of the lead 
NAAQS (a demonstration for the new standard will suffice for the old 
standand). AERMOD is appropriate to use for the modeling. If DEQ 
meets condition 2 below, DEQ may assume in modeling that ASARCO's 
stack emissions are zero but will need to input appropriate values 
for any remaining lead emissions from ASARCO, such as fugitive 
emissions.
    2. The State must finalize the revocation of ASARCO's permit and 
provide us with evidence of, and ASARCO's consent to, the 
revocation. In the alternative, the SIP revision must state that 
ASARCO has shut down permanently and that ASARCO would need to go 
through New Source Review permitting in order to resume 
operations.''

    American Chemet submitted to DEQ a modeling analysis on December 4, 
2012 (see docket). The EPA has reviewed the supplied modeling analysis 
and agrees that the methodology is in accordance with 40 CFR part 51, 
Appendix W and the EPA's ``Guideline on Air Quality Models.'' The 
AERMOD analysis used the emission limits in the SIP, located in 
Condition II.A.4.b of the 1995 Board Order, of 0.007 lb/hr and the 
results of the modeling analysis are valid. The AERMOD modeling 
analysis shows a concentration of 0.14 ug/m\3\ (which includes 
background concentrations); and therefore, East Helena is below the 
lead NAAQS threshold for the 2008 lead NAAQS standard (0.15 ug/m\3\). 
In particular, the modeling shows that operating the facility at the 
remaining SIP limits does not violate the 2008 lead NAAQS, even 
including background ambient lead concentrations. The submitted 
modeling analysis used background concentrations of lead based off of 
lead monitoring results that were performed during the three quarters 
immediately after the ASARCO facility ceased operations in April of 
2001.
    On December 9, 2009, ASARCO's representative sent a letter to DEQ 
requesting the revocation of Montana Air Quality Permit (MAQP) #2557. 
On September 3, 2013, the DEQ sent a letter to the EPA stating that, in 
a letter dated December 16, 2009, the DEQ notified ASARCO of its intent 
to revoke MAQP #2557. In accordance with the Administrative Rules of 
Montana (ARM) 17.8.763, the revocation of MAQP #2557 was final within 
15 days of ASARCO's receipt of the letter unless ASARCO requested a 
hearing before the Board of Environmental Review. ASARCO did not 
request a hearing; therefore, the revocation of MAQP #2557 became final 
following the 15-day appeal period. The previously mentioned letters 
are all available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking. In 
addition, ASARCO's Title V permit expired on April 5, 2007, and DEQ did 
not receive a renewal application. Any new industrial operations on the 
former ASARCO site would be required to go through major New Source 
Review permitting before construction.

III. Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve the state of Montana's revisions, 
as submitted on September 11, 2013, to remove Exhibit A, Section C, 
Subsection B from the August 4, 1995 Board Order. This Board order is 
found in the Montana SIP under ``EPA-approved Source-Specific 
Requirements.'' The final rulemaking approving the 1995 Board Order for 
adoption into the SIP can be found at 66 FR 32760.
    This revision is in compliance with CAA section 110(l) because it 
does not change American Chemet's SIP emission limits and modeling has 
shown that it will not interfere with the 2008 Lead NAAQS. No other 
criteria pollutant emissions would be impacted by this proposed action. 
In addition, CAA section 193 does not apply to this revision because 
the American Chemet limits were approved into the SIP after November 
15, 1990. Furthermore, any new industrial construction on the former 
ASARCO site would be required to go through major New Source Review 
construction permitting before construction.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this action, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule 
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance 
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing the incorporation 
by reference of a change to the State of Montana's SIP regarding a 1995 
Board Order; this action would eliminate

[[Page 1604]]

Exhibit A, Section C, Subsection B. This Board order is found in the 
Montana SIP under ``EPA-approved Source-Specific Requirements.'' The 
EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally 
available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 8 Office 
(please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, 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 Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this 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 Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory 
action because this action is not significant 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 CAA; and
     does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority 
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or 
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible 
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    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 
proposed 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).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen 
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: January 2, 2018.
Douglas H. Benevento,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2018-00114 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


