1602 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

including a Coast Guard commissioned, 

warrant, or petty officer designated by 

the Captain of the Port North Carolina 

(COTP) for the enforcement of the safety 

zone. 

Captain of the Port means the 

Commander, Sector North Carolina. 

Participants means persons and 

vessels involved in support of the gantry 

crane transport. 

(c) Regulations. (1) The general 

regulations governing safety zones in 

§ 165.23 apply to the area described in 

paragraph (a) of this section. 

(2) With the exception of participants, 

entry into or remaining in this safety 

zone is prohibited unless authorized by 

the COTP North Carolina or the COTP 

North Carolina’s designated 

representative. All vessels under 40 feet 

in height within this safety zone when 

this section becomes effective may 

request permission to remain in the 

zone. All other vessels must depart the 

zone immediately. 

(3) To request permission to remain 

in, enter, or transit through the safety 

zone, contact the COTP North Carolina 

or the COTP North Carolina’s 

representative through the Coast Guard 

Sector North Carolina Command Duty 

Officer, Wilmington, North Carolina, at 

telephone number 910–343–3882, or on 

VHF–FM marine band radio channel 13 

(165.65 MHz) or channel 16 (156.8 

MHz). 

(d) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast 

Guard may be assisted in the patrol and 

enforcement of the safety zone by 

Federal, State, and local agencies. 

(e) Enforcement period. This 

regulation will be enforced during 

vessel transit on April 1, 2018 or 

alternatively, March 29th, 30th, 31st, 

April 2nd, 3rd, or 4th, 2018. 

Dated: December 19, 2017. 

Bion B. Stewart, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the 

Port North Carolina. 

[FR Doc. 2018–00421 Filed 1–11–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

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, 

leone.kevin@epa.gov. 

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 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 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/m3); 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/m3 (which 

includes background concentrations); 

and therefore, East Helena is below the 

lead NAAQS threshold for the 2008 lead 

NAAQS standard (0.15 ug/m3). 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 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
1604 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

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 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2017–0061; FRL–9972–29– 

Region 6] 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants; Delegation 

of Authority to Texas 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has 

submitted updated regulations for 

receiving delegation of EPA authority 

for implementation and enforcement of 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for 

all sources (both part 70 and non-part 70 

sources). These regulations apply to 

certain NESHAP promulgated by the 

EPA, as amended between April 24, 

2013 and August 3, 2016. The 

delegation of authority under this action 

does not apply to sources located in 

Indian Country. The EPA is providing 

notice proposing to approve the 

delegation of certain NESHAPs to 

TCEQ. 

DATES: Written comments should be 

received on or before February 12, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by EPA–R06–OAR–2017– 

0061, at http://www.regulations.gov or 

via email to barrett.richard@epa.gov. 

For additional information on how to 

submit comments see the detailed 

instructions in the ADDRESSES section of 

the direct final rule located in the rules 

section of this issue of the Federal 

Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Rick Barrett, (214) 665–7227; email: 

barrett.richard@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

final rules section of this issue of the 

Federal Register, the EPA is approving 

TCEQ’s request for delegation of 

authority to implement and enforce 

certain NESHAP for all sources (both 

part 70 and non-part 70 sources). TCEQ 

has adopted certain NESHAP by 

reference into Texas’s state regulations. 

In addition, the EPA is waiving its 

notification requirements so sources 

will only need to send notifications and 

reports to TCEQ. The EPA is taking 

direct final action without prior 

proposal because the EPA views this as 

a noncontroversial action and 

anticipates no adverse comments. A 

detailed rationale for the approval is set 

forth in the direct final rule. If no 

relevant adverse comments are received 

in response to this action, no further 

activity is contemplated. If the EPA 

receives relevant adverse comments, the 

direct final rule will be withdrawn, and 

all public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. The EPA 

will not institute a second comment 

period. Any parties interested in 

commenting should do so at this time. 

For additional information, see the 

direct final rule which is located in the 

rules section of this issue of the Federal 

Register. 

Dated: January 4, 2018. 

Wren Stenger, 

Director, Multimedia Division, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2018–00448 Filed 1–11–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS