[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 73 (Monday, April 19, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20353-20359]
[FR Doc No: 2021-07793]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R08-OAR-2020-0741; FRL-10022-27-Region 8]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Montana; Butte
PM10 Nonattainment Area Limited Maintenance Plan and Redesignation
Request

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
fully approve the Limited Maintenance Plan (LMP) submitted by the State
of Montana to EPA on March 23, 2020, for the Butte Moderate
nonattainment area (NAA) for particulate matter with an aerodynamic
diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers
(PM10) and concurrently redesignate the NAA to attainment
for the 24-hour PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS). In order to approve the LMP and redesignation, EPA is
proposing to determine that the Butte, MT NAA has attained the 1987 24-
hour PM10 NAAQS of 150 [micro]g/m\3\. This determination is
based upon monitored air quality data for the PM10 NAAQS
during the years 2014-2018. EPA is taking this action pursuant to the
Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before May 19, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2020-0741 to the Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://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.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available electronically in
www.regulations.gov. To reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission, for
this action we do not plan to offer hard copy review of the docket.
Please email or call the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section if you need to make alternative arrangements for access
to the docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Gregory, Air and Radiation
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail
Code 8P-ARD-QP, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303)
312-6175<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

I. Background

Description of the Butte NAA

    The Butte NAA is the only NAA in Silver Bow County, is irregularly
shaped, and generally encompasses the populated areas surrounding the
city of Butte, except for the town of Walkerville. Butte was originally
designated as a Group I area on August 7, 1987, meaning it was likely
to violate the PM10 NAAQS, and was subsequently classified
as a Moderate NAA for the 1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS on March
15, 1991. See 56 FR 11101. States containing initial Moderate
PM10 NAAs were required to submit, by November 15, 1991, a
Moderate NAA State Implementation Plan (SIP) that, among other
requirements, implemented Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM)
by December 10, 1993, and demonstrated whether it was practicable to
attain the PM10 NAAQS by December 31, 1994. See generally 57
FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); see also 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
    The State of Montana submitted an initial PM10 SIP to
EPA on July 9, 1992, and a subsequent submission on January 13, 1993.
EPA approved the Butte initial control plan on March 11, 1994 (59 FR
11550). Revisions to emissions limits, associated attainment and
maintenance demonstrations and contingency measures were submitted to
EPA on August 26, 1994. The State of Montana's SIP for the Butte
Moderate NAA included, among other things: A comprehensive emissions
inventory; RACM; A demonstration that attainment of the PM10
NAAQS would be achieved in Butte by December 31, 1994; Reasonable
Further Progress (RFP) requirements; and control measures that satisfy
the contingency measures requirement of section 172(c)(9) of the CAA.
The EPA fully approved the Butte NAA PM10 attainment plan on
March 22, 1995 (60 FR 15056).

II. Requirements for Redesignation

A. CAA Requirements for Redesignation of NAAs

    NAAs can be redesignated to attainment after the area has measured
air quality data showing it has attained the NAAQS and when certain
planning requirements are met. Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, and the
General Preamble to Title I provide the criteria for redesignation. See
57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992). These criteria are further clarified in a
policy and guidance memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air
Quality Management Division, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards dated September 4, 1992, ``Procedures for Processing Requests
to Redesignate Areas to Attainment.\1\ '' The criteria for
redesignation are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate
Areas to Attainment'' (Calcagni memo) outlines the criteria for
redesignation (see docket for memo).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) The Administrator has determined that the area has attained the
applicable NAAQS;
    (2) The Administrator has fully approved the applicable SIP for the
area under section 110(k) of the CAA;
    (3) The state containing the area has met all requirements
applicable to the area under section 110 and part D of the CAA;
    (4) The Administrator has determined that the improvement in air
quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions;
and
    (5) The Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the
area as meeting the requirements of section 175A of the CAA.

B. The LMP Option for PM10 NAAs

    On August 9, 2001, the EPA issued guidance on streamlined
maintenance plan provisions for certain moderate PM10 NAAs
seeking redesignation to attainment (Memo from Lydia Wegman, Director,
Air Quality Standards and Strategies Division, entitled ``Limited
Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate PM10 Nonattainment
Areas,'' (hereafter the LMP Option memo)).\2\ The LMP Option memo
contains a statistical demonstration to show that areas meeting certain
air quality criteria will, with a high degree of probability, maintain
the standard 10 years into the future. Thus, the EPA has already
provided the maintenance demonstration for areas meeting the criteria
outlined in the LMP Option memo. It follows that future year emission
inventories for these areas, and some of the standard analyses to
determine transportation conformity with the SIP are no longer
necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate
PM10 Nonattainment Areas'' outlines the criteria for
development of a PM10 limited maintenance plan (see
docket for memo).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To qualify for the LMP Option, the area should have attained the
1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS, based upon the most recent 5 years
of air quality data at all monitors in the area, and the 24-hour design
value should be at or below the Critical Design Value (CDV). The CDV is
a calculated design value that indicates that the area has a low
probability (1 in 10) of exceeding the NAAQS in the future. For the
purposes of qualifying for the LMP option, a presumptive CDV of 98
[micro]g/m\3\ is most often employed, but an area may elect to use a
site-specific CDV should the average design value be above 98 [micro]g/
m\3\, while demonstrating that the area has a low probability of
exceeding the NAAQS in the future. The annual PM10 standard
was effectively revoked on December 18, 2006 (71 FR 61143), and as such
will not be discussed as a requirement for qualifying for the LMP
option. In addition, the area should expect only limited growth in on-
road motor vehicle PM10 emissions (including fugitive dust)
and should have passed a motor vehicle regional emissions analysis
test. The LMP Option memo also identifies core provisions that must be
included in the LMP. These provisions include an attainment year
emissions inventory, assurance of continued operation of an EPA-
approved air quality monitoring network, and contingency provisions.

C. Conformity Under the LMP Option

    The transportation conformity rule (40 CFR parts 51 and 93) and the
general conformity rule (40 CFR parts 51 and 93) apply to NAAs and
maintenance areas covered by an approved maintenance plan. Under either
conformity rule, an acceptable method of demonstrating that a federal
action conforms to the applicable SIP is to demonstrate that expected
emissions from the planned action are consistent with the emissions
budget for the area.
    While the EPA's LMP Option does not exempt an area from the need to
affirm conformity, it explains that the area may demonstrate conformity
without submitting an emissions budget. Under the LMP Option, emissions
budgets are treated as essentially not constraining for the length of
the maintenance period because it is unreasonable to expect that the
qualifying areas would experience so much growth in that period that a
violation of the PM10 NAAQS would result. For transportation
conformity purposes, the EPA would conclude that emissions in these
areas need not be capped for the maintenance period; and therefore, a
regional emissions analysis would not be required. Similarly, federal
actions subject to the general conformity rule could be considered to
satisfy the ``budget test'' specified in 40 CFR 93.158(a)(5)(i)(A) for
the same reasons that the budgets are essentially considered not
limited.

III. Review of Montana's Submittal Addressing the Requirements for
Redesignation and Limited Maintenance Plan

A. Has the Butte NAA attained the applicable NAAQS?

    States must demonstrate that an area has attained the 24-hour
PM10 NAAQS through analysis of ambient air quality data from
an ambient air monitoring network representing peak PM10
concentrations. The data should be stored in the EPA Air Quality System
(AQS) database. Today, EPA is proposing to determine that the Butte NAA
has attained the PM10 NAAQS based on monitoring data from
calendar years 2014-2018. The 24-hour standard is attained when the
expected number of days with levels above 150 [micro]g/m\3\ (averaged
over a 3-year period) is less than or equal to one. See 40 CFR 50.6(a).
Three consecutive years of air quality data are generally necessary to
show attainment of the 24-hour and annual standards for
PM10. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix K. A complete year of air
quality data, as referred to in 40 CFR part 50, appendix K, is
comprised of all four calendar quarters with each quarter containing
data from at least 75% of the scheduled sampling days.
    The Butte NAA has one State and Local Air Monitoring Station
(SLAMS) monitor operated by the Montana Department of Environmental
Quality (MDEQ). Table 1 summarizes the PM10 data collected
from 2014-2019 for the Butte NAA.\3\ The EPA deems the data collected
from these monitors valid, and the data have been submitted by the MDEQ
to be included in AQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ While the submission from the State for this action includes
2014-2018 monitoring data, the EPA supplied 2019 monitoring data in
this action in order to provide an analysis of PM10
concentrations in the Butte, MT area using the most current
monitoring data available.

           Table 1--Summary of Maximum 24-Hour PM10 Concentrations ([micro]g/m\3\) for Butte 2014-2019
                [Based on data from Greeley School site, AQS identification number (30-093-0005)]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Maximum          2nd Maximum         Number of
             Year                concentration      concentration       exceedances         Monitoring  site
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014.........................                 60                 57                  0  Greeley School.
2015.........................                118                115                  0  Greeley School.
2016.........................                 52                 51                  0  Greeley School.
2017.........................                144                111                  0  Greeley School.
2018.........................                 72                 66                  0  Greeley School.
2019.........................                 69                 56                  0  Greeley School.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The PM10 concentrations reported at the Butte monitoring
site showed no measured exceedances of the 24-hour PM10
NAAQS from 2014-2018, and as such, the EPA proposes to determine that
the Butte NAA has attained the

standard for the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. Additionally, EPA
analysis of PM10 concentrations reported at the Butte
monitoring site in the year 2019 show no measured exceedances.

B. Does the Butte NAA have a fully approved SIP under CAA section
110(k)?

    In order to qualify for redesignation, the SIP for the area must be
fully approved under CAA section 110(k) and must satisfy all
requirements that apply to the area. Section 189 of the CAA contains
requirements and milestones for all initial Moderate NAA SIPs
including: (1) Provisions to assure that RACM (including such
reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area as may be
obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of Reasonably Available
Control Technology (RACT) shall be implemented no later than December
10, 1993; (2) A demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the
plan will provide for attainment as expeditiously as practicable by no
later than December 31, 1994, or, where the state is seeking an
extension of the attainment date under section 188(e), a demonstration
that attainment by December 31, 1994, is impracticable and that the
plan provides for attainment by the most expeditious alternative date
practicable (CAA sections 189(a)(1)(A)); (3) Quantitative milestones
which are to be achieved every 3 years and which demonstrate RFP toward
attainment by December 31, 1994, (CAA sections 172(c)(2) and 189(c));
and (4) Contingency measures to be implemented if the area fails to
make RFP or attain by its attainment deadline. These contingency
measures are to take effect without further action by the state or the
EPA. (CAA section 172(c)(9)).
    The EPA approved the Butte Moderate area plan on May 22, 1995 (60
FR 15056). The Butte plan included RACM, an attainment demonstration,
emissions inventory, quantitative milestones, and control and
contingency measure requirements. As such, the area has a fully
approved NAA SIPs under section 110(k) of the CAA.

C. Has the State met all applicable requirements under section 110 and
Part D of the CAA?

    Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA requires that a state containing a
NAA must meet all applicable requirements under section 110 and Part D
of the CAA for an area to be redesignated to attainment. The EPA
interprets this to mean that the state must meet all requirements that
applied to the area prior to, and at the time of, the submission of a
complete redesignation request. The following is a summary of how
Montana meets these requirements.
1. CAA Section 110 Requirements
    Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA contains general requirements for
SIPs. These requirements include, but are not limited to, submittal of
a SIP that has been adopted by the state after reasonable notice and
public hearing; provisions for establishment and operation of
appropriate apparatus, methods, systems and procedures necessary to
monitor ambient air quality; implementation of a permit program;
provisions for Part C--Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
and Part D--New Source Review (NSR) permit programs; criteria for
stationary source emission control measures, monitoring and reporting,
provisions for modeling; and provisions for public and local agency
participation. See the General Preamble for further explanation of
these requirements. See 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992).
    For purposes of redesignation, the EPA's review of the Montana SIP
shows that the State has satisfied all requirements under section
110(a)(2) of the CAA. Further, in 40 CFR 52.1372, the EPA has approved
Montana's plan for the attainment and maintenance of the national
standards under section 110.
2. Part D Requirements
    Part D contains general requirements applicable to all areas
designated nonattainment. The general requirements are followed by a
series of subparts specific to each pollutant. All PM10 NAAs
must meet the general provisions of Subpart 1 and the specific
PM10 provisions in Subpart 4, ``Additional Provisions for
Particulate Matter Nonattainment Areas.'' The following paragraphs
discuss these requirements as they apply to the Butte NAA.
3. Subpart 1, Section 172(c)
    Subpart 1, section 172(c) contains general requirements for NAA
plans. A thorough discussion of these requirements may be found in the
General Preamble. See 57 FR 13538 (April 16, 1992). CAA section
172(c)(2) requires nonattainment plans to provide for RFP. Section
171(1) of the CAA defines RFP as ``such annual incremental reductions
in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required by this part
(part D of title I) or may reasonably be required by the Administrator
for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable national
ambient air quality standard by the applicable date.'' Since EPA is
proposing to determine that the Butte NAA is in attainment of the
PM10 NAAQS, we believe that no further showing of RFP or
quantitative milestones is necessary.
4. Section 172(c)(3)--Emissions Inventory Section
    Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires a comprehensive, accurate,
current inventory of actual emissions from all sources in the Butte
PM10 NAA. Montana included an emissions inventory for the
calendar year 2014 with the March 23, 2020 submittal of the LMP for the
NAA. The LMP Option memo states that an attainment inventory should
represent emissions during the same 5-year period associated with the
air quality data used to determine that the area meets the
applicability requirements of the LMP option. The Butte LMP includes an
emission inventory from 2014, representative of the 2013-2017 5-year
period which served as the 5-year period relied upon in the LMPs as
meeting the air quality data requirements of the LMP option memo.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The emissions inventory included in the Butte MT submission
is the 2014 National Emissions Inventory (NEI). The NEI is a
composite of data from many different sources, with PM data coming
primarily from EPA models as well as from state, tribal, and local
air quality management agencies. Different data sources use
different data collection methods, and many of the emissions data
are based on estimates rather than actual measurements. The EPA
considers the 2014 NEI representative of the period from 2014-2018
because MT provided comparable vehicle miles traveled (VMT) data in
their submission. See Butte, MT Submission, Appendix C, Montana
Department of Transportation Future VMT Projections, p.C-1 in
docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Section 172(c)(5)--NSR
    The 1990 CAA Amendments contained revisions to the NSR program
requirements for the construction and operation of new and modified
major stationary sources located in NAAs. The CAA requires states to
amend their SIPs to reflect these revisions but does not require
submittal of this element along with the other SIP elements. The CAA
established June 30, 1992, as the submittal date for the revised NSR
programs (section 189 of the CAA).
    Montana has a fully approved nonattainment NSR program, approved on
August 30, 1995 (60 FR 45051). Montana also has a fully approved PSD
program, approved on August 30, 1995 (60 FR 45051). Upon the effective
date of redesignation of an area from nonattainment to attainment, the
requirements of the Part D NSR program will be replaced by the PSD
program and the maintenance area NSR program.

6. Section 172(c)(7)--Compliance With CAA Section 110(a)(2): Air
Quality Monitoring Requirements
    Once an area is redesignated, the state must continue to operate an
appropriate air monitoring network in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 to
verify attainment status of the area. The State of Montana operates one
PM10 SLAMS in each of the NAAs. The Butte monitoring site
meets EPA SLAMS network design and siting requirements set forth at 40
CFR part 58, appendices D and E. In section 3.5 of the LMP that we are
proposing to approve, the State commits to continued operation of the
monitoring network.
7. Section 172(c)(9)--Contingency Measures
    The CAA requires that contingency measures take effect if the area
fails to meet RFP requirements or fails to attain the NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date. Since the Butte NAA has attained the 1987
24-hour PM10 NAAQS, contingency measures are no longer
required under section 172(c)(9) of the CAA. However, contingency
provisions are required for maintenance plans under section 175(a)(d).
We describe the contingency provisions Montana provided in the LMP
section below.
8. Part D Subpart 4
    Part D subpart 4, section 189(a), (c) and (e) requirements apply to
any Moderate NAA before the area can be redesignated to attainment. The
requirements which were applicable prior to the submission of the
request to redesignate the area must be fully approved into the SIP
before redesignating the area to attainment. These requirements
include: (a) Provisions to assure that RACM was implemented by December
10, 1993; (b) Either a demonstration that the plan provided for
attainment as expeditiously as practicable but not later than December
31, 1994, or a demonstration that attainment by that date was
impracticable; (c) Quantitative milestones which were achieved every 3
years and which demonstrate RFP toward attainment by December 31, 1994;
and (d) Provisions to assure that the control requirements applicable
to major stationary sources of PM10 also apply to major
stationary sources of PM10 precursors except where the
Administrator determined that such sources do not contribute
significantly to PM10 levels which exceed the NAAQS in the
area. These provisions were fully approved into the SIP upon the EPA's
approval of the PM10 Moderate area plan for the Butte NAA on
March 22, 1995 (60 FR 15056).

D. Has the State demonstrated that the air quality improvement is due
to permanent and enforceable reductions?

    The state must be able to reasonably attribute the improvement in
air quality to permanent and enforceable emission reductions. In making
this showing, the state must demonstrate that air quality improvements
are the result of actual enforceable emission reductions. This showing
should consider emission rates, production capacities, and other
related information. The analysis should assume that sources are
operating at permitted levels (or historic peak levels) unless evidence
is presented that such an assumption is unrealistic. Permanent and
enforceable control measures in the Butte NAA SIP includes RACM.
Emission sources in the NAA has been implementing RACM for at least 10
years.
    Areas that qualify for the LMP will meet the NAAQS, even under
worst case meteorological conditions. Under the LMP option, the
maintenance demonstration is presumed to be satisfied if an area meets
the qualifying criteria. Thus, by qualifying for the LMP, Montana has
demonstrated that the air quality improvements in the Butte NAA is the
result of permanent emission reductions and not a result of either
economic trends or meteorology. A description of the LMP qualifying
criteria and how the Butte area meets these criteria is provided in the
following section.
    Permanent and enforceable emission reductions in the Butte NAA have
reduced emissions 76% since 1990. The primary controls incorporated
into the SIP included rules specifying wood combustion control, rules
specifying open burning controls, rules specifying fugitive road dust
control, permit condition revisions at the Montana Resources mine,
crusher, and concentrator and at Rh[ocirc]ne-Poulenc industrial
sources, and federal tailpipe standards. Based on the 2014 national
emissions inventory, PM10 emissions in all source areas are
below the levels approved in the original control plan.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Butte, MT submission in docket, Table 2.4--Butte, MT--
PM10 Emission Summary, p. 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Does the area have a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant to
section 175A of the CAA?

    In this action, we are proposing to approve the LMP for the Butte
NAA in accordance with the principles outlined in the LMP Option.

F. Has the State demonstrated that the Butte NAA qualifies for the LMP
Option?

    The LMP Option memo outlines the requirements for an area to
qualify for the LMP Option. First, the area should be attaining the
NAAQS. As stated above in Section III. A., the EPA has determined that
the Butte NAA is attaining the PM10 NAAQS.
    Second, the average design value (ADV) for the past 5 years of
monitoring data (2014-2018) must be at or below the CDV. As noted in
Section II.B., the CDV is a margin of safety value and is the value at
which an area has been determined to have a 1 in 10 probability of
exceeding the NAAQS. The LMP Option memo provides two methods for
review of monitoring data for the purpose of qualifying for the LMP
option. The first method is a comparison of a site's ADV with the CDV
of 98 [micro]g/m\3\ for the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. A second
method that applies to the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS is the
calculation of a site-specific CDV and a comparison of the site-
specific CDV with the ADV for the past 5 years of monitoring data.
Table 2 outlines the design values for the years 2014-2018, and
presents the ADC.
    Table 3 summarizes the wildfire related events that were excluded
from the calculated design values in Table 2. Table 3 include all
regionally concurred exceptional events, as well as values between 98
[micro]g/m\3\ and 155 [micro]g/m\3\, which were treated in a manner
analogous to exceedance data under the Exceptional Events Rule (EER)
for the purpose of determining the LMP option eligibility. The values
between 98 [micro]g/m\3\ and 155 [micro]g/m\3\ will remain in the Air
Quality System (AQS) database for use in calculating DV's for every
purpose besides determining LMP eligibility.\6\ The EER can be found in
40 CFR 50.14 and 40 CFR 51.930, and outlines the requirements for the
treatment of monitored air quality data that has been heavily
influenced by an exceptional event. 40 CFR 50.1(j) defines an
exceptional event as an event which affects air quality, is not
reasonably controllable or preventable, is an event caused by human
activity that is unlikely to recur at a particular location or a
natural event and is determined by the Administrator in accordance with
40 CFR 50.14 to be an exceptional event. Exceptional events do not
include stagnation of air masses or meteorological inversions,

meteorological events involving high temperatures or lack of
precipitation, or air pollution relating to source noncompliance. 40
CFR 50.14(b) states that the EPA shall exclude data from use in
determinations of exceedances and NAAQS violations where a state
demonstrates to the EPA's satisfaction that an exceptional event caused
a specific air pollution concentration in excess of one or more NAAQS
at a particular air quality monitoring location and otherwise satisfies
the requirements of section 50.14. Table 3 below includes some
exceptional events not formally concurred on by EPA. These exceptional
events were excluded by EPA in accordance with the LMP guidance.\7\ We
have concurred that these values can be excluded for the sole purpose
of determining PM10 LMP eligibility and supporting
documentation of EPA's concurrence with the wildfire related events can
be found in the docket.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Update on Application of the Exceptional Events Rule to the
PM10 Limited Maintenance Plan Option, U.S. EPA, William
T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy Division, OAQPS, May 7,
2009.
    \7\ See Update on Application of the Exceptional Events Rule to
the PM10 Limited Maintenance Plan Option, U.S. EPA,
William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy Division, OAQPS,
May 7, 2009 and Additional Methods, Determinations, and Analyses to
Modify Air Quality Data Beyond Exceptional Events, U.S. EPA, Richard
Wayland, Director, Air Quality Assessment Division and Anna Marie
Wood, Director, Air Quality Policy Division, April 4, 2019 memos in
docket.
    \8\ February 8, 2019 letter to MDEQ, Re: Exceptional Events
Requests Regarding Exceedances of the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS
and the LMP Eligibility Threshold at Montana Monitoring Sites with
PM10 Nonattainment Areas; and November 1, 2018 letter to
MDEQ, Re: Request for EPA concurrence on exceptional event claims
for fine (PM2.5) and coarse (PM10) particulate
matter data impacted by wildfires in 2015 and 2016. See Butte, MT
submission in docket.

            Table 2-Summary of 24-Hour PM10 Design Concentrations ([micro]g/m\3\) for Butte 2014-2018
                [Based on data from Greeley School site, AQS identification number (30-029-0049)]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Design concentration
          Design concentration years               ([micro]g/m\3\)                  Monitoring site
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014-2016.....................................                    60  Greeley School.
2015-2017.....................................                    85  Greeley School.
2016-2018.....................................                    80  Greeley School.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Design Concentration (Of Most Recent 3 Design                 75 [micro]g/m\3\
 Concentrations)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Table 3-Butte 24-Hour PM10 Events Excluded From the 2014-2019 Data for the Purpose of Determining LMP
                                                   Eligibility
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    24-Hour value
                     Date                          ([micro]g/m\3\)                  Monitoring site
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8/15/2015.....................................                   100  Greeley School.
8/20/2015.....................................                   103  Greeley School.
8/28/2015.....................................                   115  Greeley School.
8/29/2015.....................................                   118  Greeley School.
9/2/2017......................................                   111  Greeley School.
9/3/2017......................................                   144  Greeley School.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These values were excluded by EPA solely for the purpose of determining limited maintenance plan (LMP)
  eligibility in accordance with LMP guidance. The values remain in AQS and are still used for all other
  purposes (including calculating the estimated exceedances and official design concentrations).

    The ADV for the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS for Butte, based on
data from the SLAMS monitor for the years 2014-2018 is 75 [micro]g/
m\3\. This value falls below the presumptive 24-hour CDV of 98
[micro]g/m\3\ and would all meet the first threshold for LMP
eligibility.
    In addition to having an ADV that is lower than either the
presumptive or area specific CDV, and in order to qualify for the LMP,
the area must meet the motor vehicle regional emissions analysis test
in attachment B of the LMP Option memo. Using the methodology outlined
in the memo, based on monitoring data for the period 2014-2018, the EPA
has determined that the Butte NAA passes the motor vehicle regional
emissions analysis test, with a projected design value of 74.3
[micro]g/m\3\ after 10 years, respectively, attributable to motor
vehicle emission growth. For the calculations used to determine how the
Butte NAA passed the motor vehicle regional analysis test, see the
supporting documents in the docket.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See memo to file in docket dated February 16, 2021 titled
``Memo to File--Butte, MT Motor Vehicle Regional Emissions
Analysis''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The monitoring data for the period 2014-2018 shows that Butte has
attained the 24-hour NAAQS for PM10, and the 24-hour ADV for
the area is less than the 24-hour PM10 presumptive and area-
specific CDV. Finally, the area has met the regional vehicle emissions
analysis test. Thus, the Butte NAA qualifies for the LMP Option
described in the LMP Option memo. The LMP Option memo also indicates
that once a state selects the LMP Option and it is in effect, the state
will be expected to determine, on an annual basis, that the LMP
criteria are still being met. If the state determines that the LMP
criteria are not being met, it should take action to reduce
PM10 concentrations enough to requalify for the LMP. One
possible approach the state could take is to implement contingency
measures. Please see section 3.6 of the Butte LMP for a description of
contingency provisions submitted as part of the State's submittal.

G. Does the State have an approved attainment emissions inventory which
can be used to demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS?

    The state's approved attainment plan should include an emissions
inventory (attainment inventory) which can be used to demonstrate
attainment of the NAAQS. The inventory should represent emissions
during the same 5-year period associated with air quality data used to
determine whether the area meets the applicability requirements of the
LMP Option. The state should review its inventory every 3 years to
ensure emissions growth is incorporated in the attainment inventory if
necessary.

In this instance, Montana completed an attainment year inventory for
the attainment year 2014 for the Butte NAA. The EPA has reviewed the
2014 emissions inventories and determined that they are current,
accurate and complete. In addition, the emissions inventory submitted
with the LMP for the calendar year 2014 is representative of the level
of emissions during the time period used to calculate the ADV since
2014 is included in the 5-year period used to calculate the design
values (2014-2018).

H. Does the LMP include an assurance of continued operation of an
appropriate epa-approved air quality monitoring network, in accordance
with 40 CFR part 58?

    The PM10 monitoring network for the Butte NAA has been
developed and maintained in accordance with federal siting and design
criteria in 40 CFR part 58, appendices D and E and in consultation with
the EPA Region 8. In Section 3.5 of the Butte LMP, Montana states that
it will continue to operate its monitoring network to meet EPA
requirements.

I. Does the plan meet the CAA requirements for contingency provisions
for maintenance plans?

    Section 175A of the CAA states that a maintenance plan must include
contingency provisions, as necessary, to promptly correct any violation
of the NAAQS which may occur after redesignation of the area to
attainment. As explained in the LMP Option memo, these contingency
measures do not have to be fully adopted at the time of redesignation.
As noted above, CAA section 175A requirements are distinct from CAA
section 172(c)(9) contingency measures. Section 3.6 of the Butte LMP
describes a process and timeline to identify and evaluate appropriate
contingency measures in the event of a quality assured violation of the
PM10 NAAQS. Upon notification of a PM10
exceedance in any of the three areas, the MDEQ and the appropriate
local government will develop contingency measures designed to prevent
or correct a violation of the PM10 standard. This process
will be completed within twelve months of the exceedance notification.
Upon violating the PM10 standard, the MDEQ and local
government will determine if the local contingency measures will be
adequate to prevent further exceedances or violations. If the agencies
determine that local measures will be inadequate, the MDEQ and local
government will adopt state-enforceable measures.
    The current and proposed contingency provisions in the Butte LMP
meet the requirements for contingency provisions as outlined in the LMP
Option memo.

J. Has the State met transportation and general conformity
requirements?

1. Transportation Conformity
    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA.
Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not
produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or
delay timely attainment of the NAAQS (CAA section 176(c)(1)(B)). The
EPA's conformity rule at 40 CFR part 93, subpart A requires that
transportation plans, programs and projects conform to SIPs and
establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not
they conform. To effectuate its purpose, the conformity rule typically
requires a demonstration that emissions from the applicable Regional
Transportation Plan and the Transportation Improvement Program are
consistent with the motor vehicle emission budget (MVEB) contained in
the control strategy SIP revision or maintenance plan (40 CFR 93.101,
93.118, and 93.124). The EPA notes that a MVEB is usually defined as
the level of mobile source emissions of a pollutant relied upon in the
attainment or maintenance demonstration to attain or maintain
compliance with the NAAQS in the nonattainment or maintenance areas.
MVEBs are, however, treated differently with respect to LMP areas.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Further information concerning the EPA's interpretations
regarding MVEBs can be found in the preamble to the EPA's November
24, 1993, transportation conformity rule (see 58 FR 62193-62196).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our LMP Option memorandum does not require that MVEBs be identified
in the maintenance plan. While the EPA's LMP Option memorandum does not
exempt an area from the need to affirm conformity, it explains that the
area may demonstrate transportation conformity without identifying and
submitting a MVEB. The basis for this provision is that it is
unreasonable to expect that an LMP area will experience so much growth
during the maintenance period that a violation of the PM10
NAAQS would result. Therefore, for transportation conformity purposes,
the EPA has concluded that mobile source emissions in LMP areas need
not be capped, with respect to a MVEB, for the maintenance period and a
regional emissions analysis (40 CFR 93.118), for transportation
conformity purposes, is also not required.
    However, since LMP areas are still maintenance areas, certain
aspects will continue to be required for transportation projects
located within the Butte PM10 maintenance area.
Specifically, for conformity determinations, projects will have to
demonstrate that they are fiscally constrained (40 CFR 93.108) and meet
the criteria for consultation (40 CFR 93.105 and 40 CFR 93.112) and
timely implementation (as applicable) of Transportation Control
Measures (40 CFR 93.113). In addition, projects located within the
Butte PM10 LMP area will be required to be evaluated for
potential PM10 hot-spot issues in order to satisfy the
``project level'' conformity determination requirements. As
appropriate, a project may then need to address the applicable criteria
for a PM10 hot-spot analysis as provided in 40 CFR 93.116
and 40 CFR 93.123.
    Finally, our proposed approval of the Butte PM10 LMP may
affect future PM10 project-level transportation conformity
determinations prepared by the Montana Department of Transportation in
conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal
Transit Administration. See 40 CFR 93.100. As such, the EPA is
proposing to approve the Butte LMP as meeting the appropriate
transportation conformity requirements found in 40 CFR part 93, subpart
A.
2. General Conformity
    Federal actions, other than transportation conformity, that meet
specific criteria need to be evaluated with respect to the requirements
of 40 CFR part 93, subpart B. The EPA's general conformity rule
requirements are designed to ensure that emissions from a federal
action will not cause or contribute to new violations of the NAAQS,
exacerbate current violations, or delay timely attainment. However, as
noted in our LMP Option memorandum and similar to the above discussed
transportation conformity provisions, federal actions subject to our
general conformity requirements would be considered to satisfy the
``budget test,'' as specified in 40 CFR 93.158(a)(5)(i)(A). As
discussed above, the basis for this provision in the LMP Option
memorandum is that it is unreasonable to expect that an LMP area will
experience so much growth during the maintenance period that a
violation of the PM10 NAAQS would result. Therefore, for
purposes of general conformity, a general conformity PM10
emissions budget does not need to be identified in the maintenance
plan, nor

submitted, and the emissions from federal agency actions are
essentially considered to not be limited.

IV. The EPA's Proposed Action

    For the reasons explained in Section III, we are proposing to
approve the LMP for the Butte NAA and the State's request to
redesignate the Butte NAA from nonattainment to attainment for the 1987
24-hour PM10 NAAQS. Additionally, the EPA is proposing to
determine that the Butte NAA has attained the NAAQS for
PM10. This determination is based upon monitored air quality
data for the PM10 NAAQS during the years 2014-2018. The EPA
is proposing to approve the Butte LMP as meeting the appropriate
transportation conformity requirements found in 40 CFR part 93, subpart
A.

V. 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
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 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 CAA; and
     Does not provide 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).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where 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

40 CFR Part 52

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

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
and Wilderness areas.

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

    Dated: April 8, 2021.
Debra H. Thomas,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2021-07793 Filed 4-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 71 (Wednesday, April 13, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20598-20602]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8951]

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

 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2008-0514; FRL-9294-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Ohio; Control of Emissions of Organic Materials That Are Not Regulated
by Volatile Organic Compound Reasonably Available Control Technology
Rules

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve, as part of Ohio's State
Implementation Plan (SIP) under the Clean Air Act (CAA), a revised rule
3745-21-07, ``Control of emissions of organic materials from stationary
sources (i.e., emissions that are not regulated by rule 3745-21-09,
3745-21-12, 3745-21-14, 3745-21-15, 3745-21-16, or 3745-21-18 of the
Administrative Code).'' This rule has been revised because the prior
version of 3745-21-07, in Ohio's SIP, has inadequate compliance test
methods and definitions. The most significant problem with the prior
version is the definition of ``photochemically reactive material,''
which is different than the definition of ``volatile organic
compounds'' (VOC), upon which EPA's reasonably available control
technology (RACT) regulations are based. The revised rule is approvable
because it satisfies the requirements for RACT under the CAA.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 13, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2008-0514, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: John Mooney, Chief, Attainment Planning and
Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
     Hand Delivery: John Mooney, Chief, Attainment Planning and
Maintenance

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal
holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2008-0514. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment.
    If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the
public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an
electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or
CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses. For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to
Section I of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
    Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division,
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Steven Rosenthal,
Environmental Engineer, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5
office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Rosenthal, Environmental
Engineer, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
II. What action is EPA taking today and what is the purpose of this
action?
III. What are the provisions of OAC 3745-21-07 and are they
approvable?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date, and page number).
    2. Follow directions--EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

II. What action is EPA taking today and what is the purpose of this
action?

    EPA is proposing to approve into Ohio's SIP revised rule OAC 3745-
21-07, ``Control of emissions of organic materials from stationary
sources (i.e., emissions that are not regulated by rule 3745-21-09,
3745-21-12, 3745-21-14, 3745-21-15, 3745-21-16, or 3745-21-18 of the
Administrative Code).'' This rule was submitted by the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) to EPA on April 7, 2008, but
was not approvable at that time because both sheet molding compound
(SMC) manufacturing operations and new or modified sources after
February 18, 2008, were exempted from that version of the rule.
However, on November 10, 2010, Ohio EPA submitted to EPA a new Rule
3745-21-25 ``Control of VOC emissions from reinforced plastic
composites production operations,'' which adequately regulates SMC
manufacturing operations. Also, on October 25, 2010, Ohio EPA submitted
a demonstration that the new 3745-21-07 does not violate the
requirements of Section 110(l) of the CAA by not applying to new or
modified sources after February 18, 2010. This demonstration is
discussed in detail in the following section of this document.

III. What are the provisions of OAC 3745-21-07 and are they approvable?

    As discussed below, this rule satisfies RACT requirements and is
consistent with the CAA and EPA regulations. A general discussion of
the main elements of OAC 3745-21-07 (Control of emissions of organic
materials from stationary sources), all of which are approvable,
follows:
3745-21-07(A) Applicability
    (1)--Reserved.
    (2)--Reserved.
    (3)--This paragraph states that the rule applies to any source or
operation, for which installation commenced prior to the effective date
of this rule, and that is specifically identified in tables in
paragraphs (K) to (N). This rule shall not apply to VOC emissions from
any such source or operation regulated by the VOC rules 3745-21-09,
3745-21-12, 3745-21-13, 3745-21-14, 3745-21-15, 3745-21-15, 3745-21-16,
or 3745-21-18. Although this rule does not apply to any sources for
which installation commenced after the effective date of the rule
(February 18, 2010) or will commence installation in the future, Ohio
demonstrated that this will likely not result in an increase in
emissions. More specifically, Ohio reviewed all permits issued between
January 2008 and September 2010, and determined that, due to other
control requirements, no permit would result in an increase in VOC
emissions due to paragraphs (A)(3) and (A)(5). Furthermore, Ohio also
demonstrated that sufficient reductions are available from oxides of
nitrogen

(NOX) RACT rule reductions to more than offset any potential
future increase in emissions, thereby satisfying the requirements of
section 110(l) of the CAA.
    In December 2007, Ohio EPA promulgated rules in OAC chapter 3745-
110, ``NOX RACT.'' These rules addressed the control of
emissions of NOX from stationary sources such as boilers,
combustion turbines, and stationary internal combustion engines. The
rules were submitted as part of the attainment strategy in the
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain ozone moderate nonattainment area. On September
15, 2009, EPA redesignated the Cleveland-Akron-Lorain metropolitan area
to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard. At the same time, EPA approved a waiver from the
NOX RACT requirements of section 182(f) of the CAA for this
area. Ohio's NOX RACT rules are, therefore, ``surplus'' and
can be used to offset any potential increase in emissions from any
future source that would have had more stringent control requirements
from the older 3745-21-07 that is currently in the SIP. Ohio obtained
538 tons NOX/year actual (and surplus) emission reductions
from the Arcelor-Mittal facility as a result of the installation of low
NOX burners in its three reheat furnaces. The requirement
for these low NOX burners is permanent and enforceable
because the burner controls are needed to comply with OAC 3745-110,
Ohio's NOX RACT rule. In the Cleveland-Akron-Lorain area,
the ratio of NOX emissions to VOC emissions is 1.36 pounds
NOX/pound VOC. Applying this factor, the VOC offset
potential for the Arcelor-Mittal facility NOX reductions is
396 tons VOC/year. Even if any reasonably foreseeable source were to be
constructed that would have been controlled under the prior version of
3745-21-07 but would be uncontrolled under revised rule 3745-21-07, the
difference in emissions would be more than compensated by the surplus
emission reduction at the Arcelor-Mittal facility.
    (4)--This paragraph voids control requirements contained in a
permit-to-install, permit-by-rule, permit-to-operate, or Title V permit
if the requirements refer to photochemically reactive materials or the
need to determine or document materials as being photochemically
reactive materials or any recordkeeping and reporting requirements
related to photochemically reactive materials. This paragraph is
approvable because it is consistent with the main purpose of this rule
revision, namely to eliminate the definition of photochemically
reactive material.
    (5)--This paragraph states that the rule does not apply to any
source for which installation commenced after the effective date of the
rule. Please refer to the discussion of (A)(3).
    (6)--This paragraph specifies methods of determining compliance.
    (6)(a)--This paragraph specifies that the test methods and
procedures of paragraphs (A) to (C) of rule 3745-21-10 of Ohio's rules
be used to determine emission and control efficiency information for
controlled and uncontrolled sources.
    (6)(b)--This paragraph allows the use of emission factors approved
by EPA.
    (6)(c)--This paragraph allows emission test data from similar
sources or operations to be used provided where EPA has indicated in
writing that the use of such tests is acceptable.
    This paragraph is approvable because it specifies EPA-approved test
methods, emission factors and test data from similar sources.
    (B)-(J)--Reserved.
    (K)--This paragraph provides specific control requirements for
storage tanks covered by the prior version of 3745-21-07 that is
contained in Ohio's SIP.
    (K)(1)--Lists emission units subject to the control requirements in
(K)(2), which requires that the storage tank be equipped with either a
floating pontoon or double-deck type cover that includes closure seals
or with a vapor recovery system or control system that reduces the
emissions of organic compounds by at least 90 percent by weight.
    (K)(3)--Lists emission units, consisting of storage tanks with a
capacity of 65,000 gallons or less, subject to the control requirements
in (K)(4). (K)(4) requires the use of submerged fill or a vapor
recovery system.
    This paragraph is approvable because it is consistent with the
control requirements in the prior version of 3745-21-07 that is
contained in Ohio's SIP.
    (L)--This paragraph provides facility specific control requirements
for oil-water separators covered by the prior version of 3745-21-07
that is contained in Ohio's SIP. Any subject oil-water separators must
be equipped with a solid cover with all openings sealed, a floating
pontoon or double deck type cover that includes closure seals, or a
vapor recovery system that reduces the emissions of organic compounds
by at least ninety percent by weight.
    This paragraph is approvable because the control requirements are
consistent with the prior version of 3745-21-07 that is contained in
Ohio's SIP.
    (M)--This paragraph provides facility-specific and general control
requirements for emissions from operations using liquid organic
materials.
    (M)(1)--Lists emission units, covered by the prior version of 3745-
21-07 that is contained in Ohio's SIP, that are subject to the control
requirements in (M)(2).
    (M)(2)--Requires that the emission units listed in (M)(1) be
subject to a control system that reduces organic emissions by at least
85 percent.
    (M)(3)--Other operations using liquid organic materials.
    (M)(3)(a)--This paragraph lists nine conditions in (M)(3)(a)(i) to
(M)(3)(a)(ix). Any article, machine, equipment, or other contrivance
meeting all of these conditions must comply with the control
requirements in (M)(2). These conditions include that the article,
machine, equipment, or other contrivance is equipped with control
equipment for organic compound emissions and also that it commenced
installation prior to the effective date of this rule.
    (M)(3)(b)--This paragraph requires the owner or operator of any
article, machine, equipment, or other contrivance meeting the
specifications of paragraph (M)(3)(a), and not listed in paragraph
(M)(1), to notify Ohio EPA, within 90 days after the effective date of
this rule, of the need to be specified in paragraph (M)(1)--and
therefore be subject to the control requirements in (M)(2).
    (M)(3)(c)--This paragraph lists seven conditions and if any of them
are met then the control requirements of (M)(2)/(M)(3)(a), and the
reporting requirements in (M)(3)(b) shall not apply to any article,
machine, equipment, or other contrivance that would otherwise be
subject.
    (M)(3)(c)(i)--This paragraph exempts any article, machine,
equipment, or other contrivance that commenced operation after the
effective date of this rule. Please see discussion for (A)(3) and
(A)(5).
    (M)(3)(c)(ii)--This paragraph exempts any article, machine,
equipment, or other contrivance whose uncontrolled potential to emit
does not exceed 40 pounds per day of organic compound emissions and
allows the uncontrolled potential to emit to be established using
physical or operational limitation(s) that are federally enforceable or
legally and practically enforceable by the state.
    (M)(3)(c)(iii) and (iv)--These paragraphs exempt any article,
machine, equipment, or other contrivance that is subject to and
complying with an

overall control efficiency that is greater than 85 percent.
    (M)(3)(c)(v)--This paragraph refers to paragraphs (M)(3)(g) and
(M)(4), and is discussed with those paragraphs.
    (M)(3)(c)(vi)--This paragraph exempts heatset web offset printing
lines that are subject to and complying with a requirement that
specifies that their drier(s) be equipped with a control device having
either a control efficiency equal to or greater than 90 percent or an
outlet concentration of less than 20 parts per million, by volume.
    (M)(3)(c)(vii)--This paragraph exempts any article, machine,
equipment, or other contrivance that is regulated by and complying with
chapter 3745-76, which regulates non-methane organic emissions from
existing landfills.
    (M)(3)(d), (e) and (f)--These paragraphs provide alternative
emission limitations, which have been adequately documented, to those
in (M)(2), for specifically identified emission units at the indicated
facilities.
    (M)(3)(g) and (h)--These paragraphs address SMC operations. Please
refer to the discussion of (M)(5)(h).
    (M)(4)--Except as provided in paragraph (M)(5) (discussed below)
this paragraph requires the owner or operator of each article, machine,
equipment, or other contrivance in which any liquid organic material
comes into contact with flame or is baked, heat-cured, or heat-
polymerized, in the presence of oxygen, and is not specified in
paragraph (M)(1) of this rule, to not discharge more than 15 pounds of
organic materials into the atmosphere in any one day, nor more than 3
pounds in any hour, unless the organic material emissions have been
reduced by at least 85 percent by weight. This paragraph does not apply
to any source for which installation commenced on or after the
effective date of this rule.
    (M)(5)--This paragraph lists several exemptions that are carried
over from the prior version of 3745-21-07 that is contained in Ohio's
SIP.
    (M)(5)(a)--exempts the use of cleanup material from the control
requirements in paragraph (M)(2).
    (M)(5)(b)--exempts emissions that are not VOCs from the control
requirements in (M)(2), (M)(3)(a), and (M)(4).
    (M)(5)(c)--This paragraph exempts the use of liquid organic
material, from the control requirements in paragraph (M)(2), if the
liquid organic material has a boiling point higher than 200 degrees
Fahrenheit at 0.5 millimeter mercury absolute pressure, or has an
equivalent vapor pressure, unless the liquid organic material is
exposed to temperatures exceeding 220 degrees Fahrenheit.
    (M)(5)(d)--This paragraph exempts sources from the requirements of
paragraph (M)(4) if (i) the volatile content of the material described
in (M)(4) consists only of water and liquid organic material, and the
liquid organic material comprises no more than 20 percent by volume of
the volatile content; or, (ii) the volatile content of the material
described in paragraph (M)(4) does not exceed 20 percent by volume.
    (M)(5)(e)--This paragraph allows the provisions of paragraphs
(M)(2), (M)(3)(d), (M)(3)(e), (M)(3)(f), (M)(3)(g), (M)(3)(h), and
(M)(4) to be replaced by an alternative emission limitation if EPA
determines that the alternative emission limitation is the lowest
emission limitation that the article, machine, equipment, or other
contrivance is capable of meeting by the application of control
technology that is reasonably available considering technological and
economic feasibility.
    (M)(5)(f)--This paragraph exempts emissions resulting from the use
of any liquid organic materials if those emissions are regulated by
rule 3745-21-09, 3745-21-12, 3745-21-13, 3745-21-14,3745-21-15, 3745-
21-16, or 3745-21-18.
    (M)(5)(g)--Consistent with existing OAC 3745-21-07, this rule
exempts sources in Darke, Fairfield, Madison, Perry, Pickaway, Preble,
or Union County that are within a facility having the potential to emit
not more than 100 tons of organic compounds per calendar year.
    (M)(5)(h)--This paragraph exempts sheet molding compound
manufacturing operations from the emission limits in (M)(3)(g) provided
that the resin delivery system to the doctor box on the SMC
manufacturing machine is closed or covered and a nylon containing film
is used to enclose the sheet molding compound.
    This exemption is acceptable because Ohio has adopted OAC 3745-21-
25 for Reinforced Plastics Composites Production Operations, which
provides a sufficient level of control (95 percent for subject sources)
for SMC machines. OAC 3745-21-25 was proposed for approval on January
27, 2011 (76 FR 4835). Paragraph M is approvable because the control
requirements (typically 85 percent or higher) and exemptions are
consistent with the prior version of 3745-21-07 that is contained in
Ohio's SIP, except as it applies to SMC machines. As stated above, Ohio
adopted rule 3745-21-25 for the control of SMC machines. (N) This
paragraph requires that smokeless flares be required for the waste gas
flare systems that were covered by the prior version of 3745-21-07 that
is contained in Ohio's SIP. This paragraph is approvable because it is
consistent with the control requirements in the prior version of 3745-
21-07 that is contained in Ohio's SIP.

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 CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this 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);
     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 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).

    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: March 30, 2011.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2011-8951 Filed 4-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 122 (Tuesday, June 27, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 29090]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13340]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2017-0027; OMB No. 1660-0013]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Exemption of State-Owned Properties Under Self-
Insurance Plan

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites
the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity
to comment on an extension, without change, of a currently approved
information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning the collection of
information necessary to allow States to request an exemption from
maintaining flood insurance on State-owned structures.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before August 28, 2017.

ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use
only one of the following means to submit comments:
    (1) Online. Submit comments at www.regulations.gov under Docket ID
FEMA-XXXX-XXXX. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to Docket Manager, Office of
Chief Counsel, DHS/FEMA, 500 C Street SW., 8NE, Washington, DC 20472-
3100.
    All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket
ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material,
all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any
personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this
information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy Act
notice that is available via the link in the footer of
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Suzan Krowel, Insurance Examiner,
Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, DHS/FEMA, at (202)
701-3701. You may contact the Records Management Division for copies of
the proposed collection of information at email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: State-owned properties covered under an
adequate State policy of self-insurance satisfactory to FEMA are not
required to purchase flood insurance in accordance with Section
102(c)(1) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, as amended (42
U.S.C. 4012a(c)(1)). NFIP regulations, 44 CFR part 75, establish the
procedures by which a State insurance plans must meet to be found
exempt from the requirement to purchase flood insurance coverage for
State-owned structures and their contents. To be eligible for the
exemption, State properties must be located in areas identified by the
Administrator as A, AO, AH, A1-30, AE, AR, AR/A1-30, AR/AE, AR/AO, AR/
AH, AR/A, A99, M, V, VO, V1-30, VE, and E zones, in which the sale of
insurance has been made available.

Collection of Information

    Title: Exemption of State-owned Properties Under Self-Insurance.
    Type of Information Collection: Extension, without change, of a
currently approved information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0013.
    FEMA Forms: None.
    Abstract: Application for exemption must be made by the Governor or
other duly authorized official of the State accompanied by sufficient
supporting documentation which certifies that the plan of self-
insurance upon which the application for exemption is based meets or
exceeds the standards in NFIP regulations at 44 CFR 75.11.
    Affected Public: State, Local or Tribal Government.
    Number of Respondents: 20.
    Number of Responses: 20.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 5.
    Estimated Cost: The estimated annual cost to respondents for the
hour burden is $8,547. There are no annual costs to respondents
operations and maintenance costs for technical services. There is no
annual start-up or capital costs. The cost to the Federal Government is
$3,920.10.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Dated: June 21, 2017.
Tammi Hines,
Records Management Program Chief (Acting), Mission Support, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2017-13340 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-52-P


                 Summary of Region 1 Public Listening Session                            on 111(d) for Power Plants                                                                 November 4, 2013  -  Boston, MA

On November 4, 2013, EPA Region 1 held a public listening session to obtain public input on how EPA can craft carbon pollution standards from existing power plants.  Approximately 140 people attended the meeting, and of those attendees, 74 people spoke.  Of the speakers, approximately 95% were in favor of EPA moving forward with greenhouse gas rules for existing power plants.

A high-level summary of the meeting is provided below.

Overview of Speakers:

Speakers included and represented public officials, small businesses, business communities, recreation communities, faith-based organizations, unions, consumer advocates, environmental groups, community groups, asset management firms, students, public health groups, energy groups, academics, entrepreneurs, concerned citizens, and parents.

Impacts of climate change:

Many speakers were concerned about climate changes and its impacts on health, outdoor recreation, businesses (including small businesses), jobs, livelihoods, vulnerable populations, natural resources, assets, and communities, and more broadly, the environment and the economy.

Overview of Comments on 111(d):

The majority of speakers supported action by EPA on existing power plants, and many urged EPA to not only act, but to act quickly and boldly.  Amongst these speakers, many also encouraged strong standards, with some calling for standards equivalent to EPA's proposal for new sources.  Several also urged EPA to meet the existing timeline (including timely review of state plans), with one speaker encouraging EPA to move even faster.  Several speakers explicitly supported the phase-out of coal or more stringent regulations for coal.

Some speakers advised the standards would send market signals to drive long-term investments, spur technological innovation and create jobs, while providing businesses with needed environmental and economic stability.  Other speakers supported these standards as a part of a transition to a cleaner electricity generation fleet.

Another speaker cited research that demonstrated measures to reduce carbon have large co-benefits, co-benefits large enough to offset the costs of carbon policies.  Those benefits include reductions in ozone, particulate matter and mercury pollution.

Generally, speakers presented both supply- and demand-side solutions for addressing carbon pollution from power plants.  These speakers discussed energy efficiency, demand response, solar power, wind power, hydropower, tidal power, electric vehicles, biofuels, net metering, renewable portfolio standards and smart grid, and they urged EPA to consider options beyond onsite controls at power plants.

Other speakers cautioned EPA not to penalize states who were early implementers of carbon pollution programs for existing power plants.  This is discussed further in the section on "State Regulations".

Economic Impacts:

While most speakers were supportive of EPA standards for carbon emissions, some speakers cautioned EPA on several fronts.  Those speakers urged EPA to ensure that regulations are fair and not rushed through, and account for the human element of those who may be negatively affected by EPA regulations (e.g., coal miners).  Several other speakers advised that EPA regulations should prevent premature closures of environmentally compliant coal facilities.

The speakers also encouraged EPA to take action to address job losses associated with EPA's regulations, supporting a just transition (e.g. retraining, funding, other support) to new jobs (potentially clean energy jobs) for displaced workers, especially in coal-heavy states.

Some speakers stated that EPA regulations should not harm the affordability and reliability of energy, also articulating concerns about over-reliance on a single fuel such as natural gas.  However, other speakers presented evidence that reliability and the economy are enhanced by carbon emissions reductions.

Considering the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI):

Support for RGGI as a compliance pathway fell mostly in two categories: those that believed that RGGI and pacts like RGGI have been successful and should qualify as a compliance path for participating states; and those that believed all or part of RGGI is a successful model that EPA should build upon for a national program.  In particular, speakers urged EPA to consider market-based tools that have worked in RGGI including its auction system and reinvestment program that uses RGGI funds for energy efficiency and clean energy projects.  Speakers demonstrated that RGGI has provided economic benefit while reducing emissions.

Several speakers added that allowances should not be free and that EPA should ensure that the floor of the standards is not set too low.  Several speakers indicated that RGGI provides a simple and quantifiable accounting system for emissions reductions.  One speaker recommended that EPA consider the New Hampshire RGGI program when it was first introduced (as opposed to the current program).

Several speakers encouraged EPA to support states interested in joining RGGI for 111(d) compliance.  However, while supporting RGGI, one speaker suggested that RGGI may not suit all states.

Energy Efficiency (EE) and Renewable Energy (RE):

A  number of speakers urged EPA to consider EE and RE as a part of the solution for reducing carbon pollution from power plants.  These speakers encouraged EPA to design the regulations to be flexible enough to include EE and RE as part of the solution.  One speaker suggested that EE and RE may help limit over-reliance on natural gas.  Another speaker suggested that EPA's EE/RE Roadmap could be extended to carbon pollution.

Several speakers emphasized that EE is a least-cost resource and that EPA should adopt a policy to pursue all cost-effective EE that is at lower cost than new generation.  Speakers pointed out that EE can increase reliability.  However, EPA should work with stakeholders to establish credible and harmonized methodologies for quantifying and crediting reductions from EE.  More specifically, one speaker advised EPA to remove barriers to energy efficiency improvements at power plants.

Regarding RE, speakers asked EPA to provide renewable energy an even playing field, to invest in renewable and clean alternatives, to transition to these safer, cleaner sources of energy.  One speaker recommended that the USA consider a renewable energy super grid.

Setting the Standard:

State representatives encouraged EPA to consider the "Best System of Emissions Reductions" very broadly to encompass the electric system as a whole, allowing flexibility for compliance not only at a state level, but at a regional level.  One speaker articulated that EPA should set a technology-based standard based on the best boiler and turbine technology; and that any non-technology-based compliance option would need to be quantified to demonstrate that it would exceed the technology-based standard.  Two speakers supported a mass-based emissions approach as opposed to a rate-based approach, while one speaker supported the rate-based approach.  While one speaker wanted a firm limit on emissions from power plants, another speaker asked for a state-wide target based on the generation mix.  Several speakers urged EPA to regulate more than just coal and gas and to categorize fuels not by their source or make-up, but by the emissions they contribute, so as not to give a free pass to other carbon emitters.  One speaker recommended that power plants achieve a 35-40% reduction from 2005 levels in order to meet the President's goal of 17% by 2020.

Several speakers encouraged EPA to consider technology potential and innovation as EPA sets the new standards.  These speakers also advocated maximum flexibility for states to adopt new and advanced energy technologies, allowing room for creativity and potentially spurring innovation through EPA's regulations.

Several speakers expressed concern over an over-reliance on or over-incentivizing a single source of fuel and articulated the need for EPA to encourage a diversity of fuels as it sets its standards.  One speaker suggested subsidies for compliant facilities that would not otherwise be economically viable as a measure to ensure fuel diversity.  Another speaker recommended a wire charge on rate payers to support these compliant facilities.

One speaker discussed the need for transparency and consistency in measurement and verification of emissions reductions.

State Regulations:

Speakers urged EPA to provide states ample time and flexibility for designing their state regulations.  Furthermore, they recommended that EPA regulations provide sufficient flexibility to accommodate existing policy solutions that are already in place, recognizing that each state will have different methods that are optimal for that state.  In particular, states advised EPA to account for existing state work, taking care to ensure that early implementers are credited for their proactive steps.  States recommended that EPA require different percentages of emissions reductions from each state, in recognition of early action.  Lastly, one speaker suggested that EPA establish clear criteria for state 111(d) submissions, such as a model template, that would encompass the flexibility sought by states while still being enforceable by EPA.

Carbon Tax/Price:

Several speakers supported the use of a carbon tax or price.  These speakers suggested that such a tax or price would level the playing field for renewable energy, and urged EPA to create incentives for states to use the revenue to invest in energy efficiency and other emissions reduction programs.

Ensuring Program Effectiveness:

While speakers encouraged EPA to incorporate flexibility, several speakers cautioned that standards cannot be so broad that it allows for actions that do not achieve real emissions reductions; and that effectiveness should not be compromised.  For those states that choose not to implement their own plans, one speaker urged EPA to establish a strong federal implementation standard.  Several speakers encouraged EPA to think long-term in its public policy, acknowledge that there will be stranded assets and to work with EPA's attorneys on the guidelines' preamble.

Federal Leadership:

Several speakers called on EPA and the federal government to provide bold, wise leadership, particularly where collective actions are needed such as climate change and carbon pollution.  They recommended federal coordination across agencies and encouraged EPA to work with businesses.