80_FR_46420 80 FR 46271 - Notice of Availability of the Environmental Protection Agency's Updated Ozone Transport Modeling Data for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)

80 FR 46271 - Notice of Availability of the Environmental Protection Agency's Updated Ozone Transport Modeling Data for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 149 (August 4, 2015)

Page Range46271-46280
FR Document2015-18878

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is providing notice that interstate ozone transport modeling and associated data and methods are available for public review and comment. These data and methods will be used to inform a rulemaking proposal that the EPA is developing and expects to release later this year to address interstate ozone transport for the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). This notice also meets the EPA's expressed intent to update the air quality modeling data that were released on January 22, 2015, and to share the updated data with states and other stakeholders. The information available includes: (1) Emission inventories for 2011 and 2017, supporting data used to develop those emission inventories, methods and data used to process emission inventories into a form that can be used for air quality modeling; and (2) base year 2011 and projected 2017 ozone concentrations and projected 2017 ozone state contribution data at individual ozone monitoring sites based on air quality modeling, supporting data including 2009-2013 base period and 2017 projected ozone design values, and methods used to process air quality model outputs to calculate 2017 ozone concentrations and contributions at individual monitoring sites. A docket has been established to facilitate public review of the data and to track comments.

Federal Register, Volume 80 Issue 149 (Tuesday, August 4, 2015) 
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 149 (Tuesday, August 4, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46271-46280]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18878]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0500; FRL-9931-68-OAR]


Notice of Availability of the Environmental Protection Agency's 
Updated Ozone Transport Modeling Data for the 2008 Ozone National 
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of data availability (NODA); request for public comment.

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

[[Page 46272]]

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is providing notice 
that interstate ozone transport modeling and associated data and 
methods are available for public review and comment. These data and 
methods will be used to inform a rulemaking proposal that the EPA is 
developing and expects to release later this year to address interstate 
ozone transport for the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality 
standards (NAAQS). This notice also meets the EPA's expressed intent to 
update the air quality modeling data that were released on January 22, 
2015, and to share the updated data with states and other stakeholders. 
The information available includes: (1) Emission inventories for 2011 
and 2017, supporting data used to develop those emission inventories, 
methods and data used to process emission inventories into a form that 
can be used for air quality modeling; and (2) base year 2011 and 
projected 2017 ozone concentrations and projected 2017 ozone state 
contribution data at individual ozone monitoring sites based on air 
quality modeling, supporting data including 2009-2013 base period and 
2017 projected ozone design values, and methods used to process air 
quality model outputs to calculate 2017 ozone concentrations and 
contributions at individual monitoring sites. A docket has been 
established to facilitate public review of the data and to track 
comments.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 23, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2015-0500, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: (202)566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2015-0500.
     Mail: EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Attention 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0500, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 
20460. Please include a total of 2 copies.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, WJC 
West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 3334, Washington, DC 
20004, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0500. Such deliveries 
are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and 
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed 
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2015-0500. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be 
included in the public docket without change and may be made available 
online at 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 www.regulations.gov 
or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you 
claim to be CBI. For CBI information on a disk or CD-ROM that you mail 
to the EPA docket office, 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. Information so marked will not be 
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 
2. 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.
    The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, 
which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information 
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email 
comment directly to the EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, 
your email 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, the 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 the 
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot 
contact you for clarification, the 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.
    When submitting comments, remember to:
    1. Identify the notification by docket number and other identifying 
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    2. Explain your comments, why you agree or disagree; suggest 
alternatives and substitute data that reflect your requested changes.
    3. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information 
and/or data that you used.
    4. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and 
suggest alternatives.
    5. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of 
profanity or personal threats.
    6. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline 
identified.
    For additional information about the EPA's public docket, visit the 
EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    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 either electronically 
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket 
and Information Center, EPA/DC, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open 
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 
566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-
1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions on the emissions data 
and on how to submit comments on the emissions data and related 
methodologies, contact Alison Eyth, Air Quality Assessment Division, 
Environmental Protection Agency, C339-02, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, 
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709; telephone number: (919)541-2478; fax 
number: (919)541-1903; email: eyth.alison@epa.gov. For questions on the 
air quality modeling and ozone contributions and how to submit comments 
on the air quality modeling data and related methodologies, contact 
Norm Possiel, Air Quality Assessment Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, C439-01, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 
27709; telephone number: (919)541-5692; fax number: (919)541-0044; 
email: possiel.norm@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On January 22, 2015, the EPA issued a memo and preliminary air 
quality modeling data that would help states as

[[Page 46273]]

they develop State Implementation Plans to address cross-state 
transport of air pollution under the ``Good Neighbor'' Provision of the 
Clean Air Act (CAA), section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), as it pertains to the 
2008 ozone NAAQS.\1\ That information included the EPA's preliminary 
air quality modeling data that applies the Cross-State Air Pollution 
Rule (CSAPR--76 FR 48208) approach to contribution projections for the 
year 2018 for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Specifically, the EPA 
provided data identifying ozone monitoring sites that are projected to 
be nonattainment or have maintenance problems for the 2008 ozone NAAQS 
in 2018. The EPA also provided the projected contribution estimates 
from 2018 anthropogenic oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and 
volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions in each state to ozone 
concentrations at each of these sites. The year 2018 was used as the 
analytic year for the preliminary modeling because at the onset of the 
modeling assessment, that year aligned with the December 2018 
attainment date for Moderate ozone nonattainment areas. However, 
subsequent to the completion of the 2018 modeling, the EPA issued the 
final 2008 Ozone NAAQS SIP Requirements Rule,\2\ which revised the 
attainment deadline for ozone nonattainment areas currently designated 
as Moderate for the 2008 ozone NAAQS to July 2018. The EPA established 
this deadline in the 2015 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule after previously 
establishing a deadline of December 31, 2018, that was vacated by the 
DC Circuit in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA. In order to 
demonstrate attainment by the revised attainment deadline, the 
demonstration would have to be based on design values calculated using 
2015 through 2017 ozone season data, since the July 2018 deadline does 
not afford a full ozone season of measured data. Therefore, the EPA has 
adopted 2017 as the analytic year for the updated ozone transport 
modeling information being released as part of this NODA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Information on the 
Interstate Transport ``Good Neighbor'' Provision for the 2008 Ozone 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) under CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), January 22, 2015, available at http://www.epa.gov/airtransport/GoodNeighborProvision2008NAAQS.pdf.
    \2\ 80 FR 12264, 12268 (Mar. 6, 2015); 40 CFR 51.1103.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2011 and 2018 emissions inventory data used for the preliminary 
air quality modeling were released for public review on November 27, 
2013 (78 FR 70935), and January 14, 2014 (79 FR 2437), respectively. 
Based in part on comments received from the public review process, the 
EPA updated the 2011 emissions inventory data, developed emissions 
inventory data for 2017, and used these data in air quality modeling to 
develop updated projections of future year ozone concentrations and 
contributions.
    In the January 22, 2015 memo, the EPA expressed its intent to 
update the preliminary air quality modeling data and to share the 
updated data with states and other stakeholders. This notice meets this 
intent. Additionally, the EPA, together with its state partners, is 
assessing the next steps to address interstate air pollution transport 
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS under the CAA. The EPA recognizes its backstop 
role to develop and promulgate federal implementation plans, as 
appropriate. We are planning to take this action, if necessary, by 
issuing a proposal for a federal rule later this year. This notice 
provides an opportunity to review and comment on the agency's ozone 
transport modeling data that EPA intends to use in this forthcoming 
proposal.

II. Air Quality Modeling Data and Methodologies

    Using the updated emissions inventories, the EPA performed 
photochemical air quality modeling to project ozone concentrations at 
air quality monitoring sites to 2017, and to estimate state-by-state 
contributions to those 2017 concentrations. We then used the air 
quality modeling results to identify nonattainment or maintenance sites 
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 2017, consistent with the CSAPR approach to 
identify such sites. We used the contribution information to quantify 
projected interstate contributions from emissions in each upwind state 
to ozone concentrations at each of the projected 2017 nonattainment and 
maintenance sites in downwind states.
    The EPA's air quality modeling used the updated version of the 
2011-based air quality modeling platform. This platform includes 
emissions for the 2011 base year and a 2017 future base case as well as 
meteorology for 2011. The 2011 meteorology was used in air quality 
model simulations for both 2011 and 2017. The 2011 and 2017 emissions 
data are described in more detail in Section III.
    The EPA used the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions 
(CAMx version 6.11) for modeling the 2011 base year and 2017 future 
base case emissions scenarios to identify sites with projected 
nonattainment and maintenance problems in 2017. The air quality model 
runs were performed for a modeling domain that covers the 48 states in 
the contiguous U.S. along with adjacent portions of Canada and Mexico. 
The spatial resolution (i.e., grid size) for this modeling domain is 12 
km x 12 km. The 2011 and 2017 scenarios were both modeled for the full 
year with 2011 meteorology. The meteorological data used as input to 
the air quality modeling was obtained from an annual simulation of 
version 3.4 of the Weather Research Forecast Model (WRF) for 2011. The 
initial and boundary concentration inputs to the air quality modeling 
were derived from an annual simulation of the Goddard Earth Observing 
System global chemical transport model (GEOS-Chem). The CAMx 
predictions for 2011 were compared to corresponding measurements as 
part of a model performance evaluation. Information on the development 
of the 2011 meteorological and initial and boundary concentration 
inputs to the CAMx simulations and the model performance evaluation 
methodologies and results are described in the ``Updated Air Quality 
Modeling Technical Support Document'' (AQM TSD) for the 2008 Ozone 
NAAQS Interstate Transport Assessment, which is available in the docket 
for this notice. Also in this docket is a report on the performance 
evaluation for the annual 2011 WRF meteorological model simulation.

A. Identification of Projected 2017 Nonattainment and Maintenance Sites

    The ozone predictions from the 2011 and 2017 CAMx model runs were 
used to project measured ozone design values to 2017 following the 
approach described in the EPA's draft guidance for attainment 
demonstration modeling.\3\ We selected 2011 as the base year to reflect 
the most recent National Emissions Inventory (NEI). In addition, the 
meteorological conditions during the summer of 2011 were generally 
conducive for ozone formation across much of the U.S., particularly the 
eastern U.S. We selected 2017 as the projected analysis year to 
coincide with the attainment date for Moderate nonattainment areas 
under the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The draft attainment modeling guidance 
recommends using 5-year weighted average ambient design values \4\ 
centered on the base year as the starting point for projecting design 
values to the future. Because 2011 is the

[[Page 46274]]

base year of emissions, we started with the average ambient 8-hour 
ozone design values for the period 2009 through 2013 (i.e., the average 
of design values for 2009-2011, 2010-2012, and 2011-2013). The 5-year 
weighted average ambient design value at each site was projected to 
2017 using model-predicted Relative Response Factors (RRFs) \5\ that 
were calculated based on procedures described in the draft attainment 
demonstration modeling guidance. The 2017 projected average ozone 
design values were evaluated to identify those sites with design values 
that exceed the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\6\ Consistent with the approach used 
in CSAPR, those sites with 2017 average design values that exceed the 
NAAQS are projected to be in nonattainment in 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The December 3, 2014, draft ozone, fine particulate matter 
and regional haze SIP modeling guidance is available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/Draft_O3-PM-RH_Modeling_Guidance-2014.pdf.
    \4\ The air quality design value for a site is the 3-year 
average annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone 
concentration.
    \5\ In brief, the RRF for a particular location is the ratio of 
the 2017 ozone model prediction to the 2011 ozone model prediction. 
The RRFs were calculated using model outputs for the May through 
September period.
    \6\ In determining compliance with the NAAQS, ozone design 
values are truncated to integer values. For example, a design value 
of 75.9 ppb is truncated to 75 ppb which is attainment. In this 
manner, design values at or above 76.0 ppb are considered 
nonattainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, we followed the CSAPR approach to identify sites 
with projected maintenance problems in 2017. As part of the approach 
for identifying sites with projected future maintenance problems, the 
highest (i.e., maximum) ambient design value from the 2011-centered 5-
year period (i.e., the maximum of design values from 2009-2011, 2010-
2012, and 2011-2013) was projected to 2017 for each site using the 
site-specific RRFs. Following the CSAPR approach, monitoring sites with 
a maximum design value that exceeds the NAAQS, even if the average 
design value is below the NAAQS, are projected to have a maintenance 
problem in 2017. In this regard, nonattainment sites are also 
maintenance sites because the maximum design value at nonattainment 
sites is always greater than or equal to the 5-year weighted average. 
Monitoring sites with a 2017 average design value below the NAAQS, but 
with a maximum design value that exceeds the NAAQS, are considered 
maintenance-only sites. These sites are projected to have a maintenance 
problem, but not a nonattainment problem in 2017.
    The base period ambient and projected 2017 average and maximum 
design values at individual nonattainment sites and maintenance-only 
sites are provided in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.

           Table 1--2009-2013 and 2017 Average and Maximum Design Values at Projected Nonattainment Sites in the East (Top) and West (Bottom)
                                                                     [Units are ppb]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             2009-2013       2009-2013
           Monitor ID                        State                      County            average design  maximum design   2017 average    2017 maximum
                                                                                               value           value       design value    design value
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
90013007........................  Connecticut...............  Fairfield.................            84.3            89.0            77.1            81.4
90019003........................  Connecticut...............  Fairfield.................            83.7            87.0            78.0            81.1
90099002........................  Connecticut...............  New Haven.................            85.7            89.0            77.2            80.2
240251001.......................  Maryland..................  Harford...................            90.0            93.0            81.3            84.0
360850067.......................  New York..................  Richmond..................            81.3            83.0            76.3            77.8
361030002.......................  New York..................  Suffolk...................            83.3            85.0            79.2            80.8
390610006.......................  Ohio......................  Hamilton..................            82.0            85.0            76.3            79.1
480391004.......................  Texas.....................  Brazoria..................            88.0            89.0            81.4            82.3
481210034.......................  Texas.....................  Denton....................            84.3            87.0            76.9            79.4
482011034.......................  Texas.....................  Harris....................            81.0            82.0            76.8            77.8
482011039.......................  Texas.....................  Harris....................            82.0            84.0            78.2            80.2
484392003.......................  Texas.....................  Tarrant...................            87.3            90.0            79.6            82.1
484393009.......................  Texas.....................  Tarrant...................            86.0            86.0            78.6            78.6
551170006.......................  Wisconsin.................  Sheboygan.................            84.3            87.0            77.0            79.4
 
60190007........................  California................  Fresno....................            94.7            95.0            89.0            89.3
60190011........................  California................  Fresno....................            93.0            96.0            87.6            90.4
60190242........................  California................  Fresno....................            91.7            95.0            87.1            90.3
60194001........................  California................  Fresno....................            90.7            92.0            84.2            85.4
60195001........................  California................  Fresno....................            97.0            99.0            90.6            92.5
60251003........................  California................  Imperial..................            81.0            82.0            79.3            80.3
60290007........................  California................  Kern......................            91.7            96.0            86.2            90.2
60290008........................  California................  Kern......................            86.3            88.0            80.6            82.2
60290011........................  California................  Kern......................            80.0            81.0            76.2            77.1
60290014........................  California................  Kern......................            87.7            89.0            82.8            84.0
60290232........................  California................  Kern......................            87.3            89.0            82.2            83.8
60295002........................  California................  Kern......................            90.0            91.0            84.5            85.5
60296001........................  California................  Kern......................            84.3            86.0            79.7            81.3
60311004........................  California................  Kings.....................            87.0            90.0            81.1            83.9
60370002........................  California................  Los Angeles...............            80.0            82.0            79.0            81.0
60370016........................  California................  Los Angeles...............            94.0            97.0            92.8            95.8
60371002........................  California................  Los Angeles...............            80.0            81.0            77.1            78.1
60371201........................  California................  Los Angeles...............            90.0            90.0            87.9            87.9
60371701........................  California................  Los Angeles...............            84.0            85.0            82.2            83.2
60372005........................  California................  Los Angeles...............            79.5            82.0            78.1            80.6
60376012........................  California................  Los Angeles...............            97.3            99.0            94.5            96.2
60379033........................  California................  Los Angeles...............            90.0            91.0            86.0            86.9
60392010........................  California................  Madera....................            85.0            86.0            79.8            80.8
60470003........................  California................  Merced....................            82.7            84.0            78.1            79.3
60610006........................  California................  Placer....................            84.0            86.0            78.2            80.0

[[Page 46275]]

 
60650004........................  California................  Riverside.................            85.0            85.0            82.3            82.3
60650012........................  California................  Riverside.................            97.3            99.0            93.5            95.1
60651016........................  California................  Riverside.................           100.7           101.0            95.7            96.0
60652002........................  California................  Riverside.................            84.3            85.0            79.8            80.5
60655001........................  California................  Riverside.................            92.3            93.0            87.6            88.2
60656001........................  California................  Riverside.................            94.0            98.0            88.1            91.9
60658001........................  California................  Riverside.................            97.0            98.0            93.3            94.3
60658005........................  California................  Riverside.................            92.7            94.0            89.2            90.4
60659001........................  California................  Riverside.................            88.3            91.0            82.7            85.2
60670012........................  California................  Sacramento................            93.3            95.0            85.7            87.3
60675003........................  California................  Sacramento................            86.3            88.0            80.5            82.0
60710005........................  California................  San Bernardino............           105.0           107.0           103.6           105.6
60710012........................  California................  San Bernardino............            95.0            97.0            91.8            93.8
60710306........................  California................  San Bernardino............            83.7            85.0            81.2            82.4
60711004........................  California................  San Bernardino............            96.7            98.0            94.3            95.6
60712002........................  California................  San Bernardino............           101.0           103.0            99.5           101.5
60714001........................  California................  San Bernardino............            94.3            97.0            92.3            95.0
60714003........................  California................  San Bernardino............           105.0           107.0           101.8           103.8
60719002........................  California................  San Bernardino............            92.3            94.0            88.0            89.6
60719004........................  California................  San Bernardino............            98.7            99.0            95.7            96.0
60731006........................  California................  San Diego.................            81.0            82.0            76.6            77.6
60990006........................  California................  Stanislaus................            87.0            88.0            83.0            83.9
61070006........................  California................  Tulare....................            81.7            85.0            77.0            80.1
61070009........................  California................  Tulare....................            94.7            96.0            87.3            88.5
61072002........................  California................  Tulare....................            85.0            88.0            78.6            81.4
61072010........................  California................  Tulare....................            89.0            90.0            82.7            83.6
61112002........................  California................  Ventura...................            81.0            83.0            78.3            80.2
80350004........................  Colorado..................  Douglas...................            80.7            83.0            76.0            78.1
80590006........................  Colorado..................  Jefferson.................            80.3            83.0            76.3            78.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


          Table 2--2009-2013 and 2017 Average and Maximum Design Values at Projected Maintenance-Only Sites in the East (Top) and West (Bottom)
                                                                     [Units are ppb]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             2009-2013       2009-2013
           Monitor ID                        State                      County            average design  maximum design   2017 average    2017 maximum
                                                                                               value           value       design value    design value
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
90010017........................  Connecticut...............  Fairfield.................            80.3            83.0            75.8            78.4
211110067.......................  Kentucky..................  Jefferson.................            82.0            85.0            75.8            78.6
211850004.......................  Kentucky..................  Oldham....................            82.0            86.0            73.7            77.3
240053001.......................  Maryland..................  Baltimore.................            80.7            84.0            73.2            76.2
260050003.......................  Michigan..................  Allegan...................            82.7            86.0            75.5            78.5
261630019.......................  Michigan..................  Wayne.....................            78.7            81.0            74.0            76.2
340071001.......................  New Jersey................  Camden....................            82.7            87.0            74.2            78.1
340150002.......................  New Jersey................  Gloucester................            84.3            87.0            75.1            77.5
340230011.......................  New Jersey................  Middlesex.................            81.3            85.0            73.0            76.3
340290006.......................  New Jersey................  Ocean.....................            82.0            85.0            73.9            76.6
360810124.......................  New York..................  Queens....................            78.0            80.0            75.7            77.6
420031005.......................  Pennsylvania..............  Allegheny.................            80.7            82.0            75.3            76.5
421010024.......................  Pennsylvania..............  Philadelphia..............            83.3            87.0            75.1            78.4
480850005.......................  Texas.....................  Collin....................            82.7            84.0            74.9            76.0
481130069.......................  Texas.....................  Dallas....................            79.7            84.0            74.0            78.0
481130075.......................  Texas.....................  Dallas....................            82.0            83.0            75.8            76.7
481211032.......................  Texas.....................  Denton....................            82.7            84.0            75.1            76.3
482010024.......................  Texas.....................  Harris....................            80.3            83.0            75.9            78.5
482010026.......................  Texas.....................  Harris....................            77.3            80.0            73.5            76.1
482010055.......................  Texas.....................  Harris....................            81.3            83.0            75.4            77.0
482011050.......................  Texas.....................  Harris....................            78.3            80.0            74.6            76.2
484390075.......................  Texas.....................  Tarrant...................            82.0            83.0            75.5            76.4
484393011.......................  Texas.....................  Tarrant...................            80.7            83.0            74.5            76.6
 
40131004........................  Arizona...................  Maricopa..................            79.7            81.0            75.0            76.2
60170020........................  California................  El Dorado.................            82.7            84.0            75.1            76.3
60390004........................  California................  Madera....................            79.3            81.0            75.3            76.9
60610003........................  California................  Placer....................            83.0            85.0            75.4            77.2

[[Page 46276]]

 
60670006........................  California................  Sacramento................            78.7            81.0            74.0            76.1
60773005........................  California................  San Joaquin...............            79.0            80.0            75.9            76.8
80050002........................  Colorado..................  Arapahoe..................            76.7            79.0            74.4            76.6
80590011........................  Colorado..................  Jefferson.................            78.7            82.0            75.8            78.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Quantification of Interstate Ozone Contributions

    The EPA performed nationwide, state-level ozone source 
apportionment modeling using the CAMx Ozone Source Apportionment 
Technology/Anthropogenic Precursor Culpability Analysis (OSAT/APCA) 
technique \7\ to quantify the contribution of 2017 base case 
NOX and VOC emissions from all sources in each state to 
projected 2017 ozone concentrations at each air quality monitoring 
site. In the source apportionment model run, we tracked the ozone 
formed from each of the following contribution categories (i.e., 
``tags''):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ As part of this technique, ozone formed from reactions 
between biogenic VOC and NOX with anthropogenic 
NOX and VOC are assigned to the anthropogenic emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     States--anthropogenic NOX and VOC emissions 
from each state tracked individually (emissions from all anthropogenic 
sectors in a given state were combined);
     Biogenics--biogenic NOX and VOC emissions 
domain-wide (i.e., not by state);
     Boundary Concentrations--concentrations transported into 
the modeling domain;
     Tribes--the emissions from those tribal lands for which we 
have point source inventory data in the 2011 NEI (we did not model the 
contributions from individual tribes);
     Canada and Mexico--anthropogenic emissions from sources in 
the portions of Canada and Mexico included in the modeling domain (we 
did not model the contributions from Canada and Mexico separately);
     Fires--combined emissions from wild and prescribed fires; 
and
     Offshore--combined emissions from offshore marine vessels 
and offshore drilling platforms.
    The CAMx OSAT/APCA model run was performed for the period May 1 
through September 30 using the 2017 future base case emissions and 2011 
meteorology for this time period. The hourly contributions \8\ from 
each tag were processed to obtain the 8-hour average contributions 
corresponding to the time period of the 8-hour daily maximum 
concentration on each day in the 2017 model simulation. This step was 
performed for those model grid cells containing monitoring sites in 
order to obtain 8-hour average contributions for each day at the 
location of each site. The model-predicted contributions were then 
applied in a relative sense to quantify the contributions to the 2017 
average design value at each site. Additional details on the source 
apportionment modeling and the procedures for calculating contributions 
can be found in the AQM TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Contributions from anthropogenic emissions under 
``NOX-limited'' and ``VOC-limited'' chemical regimes were 
combined to obtain the net contribution from NOX and VOC 
anthropogenic emissions in each state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The average contribution metric is intended to provide a reasonable 
representation of the contribution from individual states to the 
projected 2017 design value, based on modeled transport patterns and 
other meteorological conditions generally associated with modeled high 
ozone concentrations in the vicinity of the monitoring site. An average 
contribution metric constructed in this manner is beneficial since the 
magnitude of the contributions is directly related to the magnitude of 
the design value at each site.
    The resulting 2017 contributions from each tag to each monitoring 
site are provided in the AQM TSD. The largest contributions from each 
state to projected 2017 downwind nonattainment sites and to projected 
downwind maintenance-only sites are provided in Table 3.

  Table 3--Largest Ozone Contributions From Each State to Downwind 2017
  Projected Nonattainment and to 2017 Projected Maintenance-Only Sites
                             [Units are ppb]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Largest
                                    contribution to a       Largest
                                           2017        contribution to a
           Upwind state               nonattainment    2017 maintenance-
                                     site in downwind     only site in
                                          states        downwind states
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama...........................               0.79               1.28
Arizona...........................               1.78               0.41
Arkansas..........................               1.24               2.15
California........................               1.75               3.44
Colorado..........................               0.36               0.34
Connecticut.......................               0.46               0.41
Delaware..........................               0.68               2.23
District of Columbia..............               0.73               0.64
Florida...........................               0.57               0.72
Georgia...........................               0.58               0.56
Idaho.............................               0.23               0.35

[[Page 46277]]

 
Illinois..........................              17.48              23.17
Indiana...........................               7.15              14.95
Iowa..............................               0.61               0.85
Kansas............................               0.80               1.03
Kentucky..........................              11.17               2.14
Louisiana.........................               3.81               4.23
Maine.............................               0.00               0.08
Maryland..........................               2.39               7.11
Massachusetts.....................               0.10               0.37
Michigan..........................               2.69               1.79
Minnesota.........................               0.40               0.47
Mississippi.......................               0.78               1.48
Missouri..........................               1.63               3.69
Montana...........................               0.15               0.17
Nebraska..........................               0.51               0.36
Nevada............................               0.84               0.73
New Hampshire.....................               0.02               0.07
New Jersey........................              12.38              11.48
New Mexico........................               1.05               0.54
New York..........................              16.96              17.21
North Carolina....................               0.55               0.93
North Dakota......................               0.14               0.28
Ohio..............................               3.99               7.92
Oklahoma..........................               1.70               2.46
Oregon............................               0.65               0.65
Pennsylvania......................              13.51              15.93
Rhode Island......................               0.02               0.08
South Carolina....................               0.19               0.21
South Dakota......................               0.08               0.12
Tennessee.........................               1.67               0.90
Texas.............................               2.44               2.95
Utah..............................               1.59               1.66
Vermont...........................               0.01               0.05
Virginia..........................               5.29               4.70
Washington........................               0.22               0.09
West Virginia.....................               2.99               3.11
Wisconsin.........................               0.56               2.59
Wyoming...........................               1.22               1.22
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In CSAPR, the EPA used a contribution screening threshold of 1 
percent of the NAAQS to identify upwind states in the eastern U.S. that 
may significantly contribute to downwind nonattainment and/or 
maintenance problems and which warrant further analysis. The EPA will 
take comment on the appropriate threshold to be applied for purposes of 
the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the upcoming rulemaking proposal to address 
interstate ozone transport for that standard. The EPA is not proposing 
or taking comment on this threshold as part of this NODA.

C. Air Quality Modeling Information Available for Public Comment

    The EPA is requesting comment on the components of the 2011 air 
quality modeling platform, the air quality model applications and model 
performance evaluation, and the projected 2017 ozone design value 
concentrations and contribution data. The EPA is also seeking comment 
on the methodology for calculating contributions at individual 
monitoring sites. The EPA encourages all states and sources to review 
and comment on the information provided in this NODA.
    The EPA has placed key information related to the air quality 
modeling into the electronic docket for this notice (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-
0500) which is available at www.regulations.gov. This includes the AQM 
TSD, an Excel file which contains the 2009-2013 base period and 2017 
projected average and maximum ozone design values at individual 
monitoring sites, and an Excel file with the ozone contributions from 
each state and all other source tags to each monitoring site. However, 
the air quality modeling input and output data files are too large to 
be directly uploaded into the electronic docket and/or are not in 
formats accepted by that docket. These air quality modeling files have 
been placed on a data drive in the docket office. Electronic copies of 
the non-emissions air quality modeling input files and the air quality 
modeling output files can also be obtained prior to the end of the 
comment period by contacting Norm Possiel at possiel.norm@epa.gov. A 
detailed description of the 2011 and 2017 emissions data and procedures 
for accessing and commenting on these data are provided below.

III. Emissions Data and Methodologies

    The EPA is requesting comment on the updated 2011 and 2017 emission

[[Page 46278]]

inventories; supporting ancillary files used to allocate emissions 
temporally, spatially, and by emissions species; and on the emissions 
modeling methods used to develop the emission inventories, including 
but not restricted to, the activity data, model input databases, and 
the projection, control, and closure data used to develop projected 
2017 emissions. Summaries of the emission inventories are provided to 
aid in the review of the data, but comments are sought on the actual 
inventories, model inputs, data, and methods used to develop the 
projected emissions.

A. Instructions for Submitting Emissions Comments and Alternative 
Emissions Data

    The EPA can most effectively use comments on emissions data that 
provide specific alternative values to those in the EPA data sets, and 
for which accompanying documentation supports the alternative values. 
Commenters should provide the alternative data at a level of detail 
appropriate to the data set into which it will be incorporated, thereby 
including all key fields needed to substitute the old data with the 
new. For example, any data provided as an alternative to the EPA's 
point source emissions data should include all key fields used to 
identify point source data such as facility, unit, release point, 
process, and pollutant, along with alternative emissions values. If a 
commenter were to provide a new set of county total emissions as an 
alternative to detailed point source emissions data, the EPA would not 
be able to use that new data. Commenters should also include 
documentation that describes methods for development of any alternative 
values and relevant references supporting the alternative approach.
    Any alternative emission inventory or ancillary data provided 
should be compatible with the formats used by the Sparse Matrix 
Operator Kernel Emissions (SMOKE) modeling system version 3.6.5, which 
is used by the EPA to process emission inventories into a format that 
can be used for air quality modeling. Formats are defined in the SMOKE 
Version 3.6.5 User's Manual available from http://www.cmascenter.org/smoke/. Only the rows of data that have changed from those provided by 
the EPA should be included in the alternative data sets. Alternative 
data that are not an input to SMOKE, such as model input databases for 
mobile source models, should be provided in a format in which it could 
be directly input to the model.
    Commenters wishing to comment on inventory projection methods 
should submit to the docket comments that describe an alternative 
approach to the existing methods, along with documentation describing 
why that method is an improvement over the existing method.

B. Emissions Information Available for Public Comment

    The released data include emission inventories that represent 
projected emissions into the atmosphere of criteria and some hazardous 
air pollutants in the years 2011 and 2017, additional ancillary data 
files that are used to convert the NEI emissions into a form that can 
be used for air quality modeling, and methods used to prepare the air 
quality model inputs and to develop projections of emissions for the 
year 2017. The platform includes emission inventories for sources at 
specific locations called point sources; emissions from fire events; 
and county-level emissions of onroad mobile sources, nonroad mobile 
sources, and nonpoint stationary sources.
    The provided emission inventories are split into categories called 
modeling sectors. For example, facility-specific point emission sources 
are split into electric generating units (EGUs), oil and gas point 
sources, and other point sources. Nonpoint emission sources are split 
into agricultural ammonia sources, area fugitive dust sources, non-
Category 3 commercial marine and locomotive sources, residential wood 
sources, oil and gas nonpoint sources, agricultural burning sources, 
and other nonpoint sources. Additional modeling sectors are onroad and 
nonroad mobile sources, Category 3 commercial marine sources, and 
emissions from wild and prescribed fires.
    The emission inventories for the future year of 2017 have been 
developed using projection methods that are specific to the type of 
emission source. Future emissions are projected from the 2011 base case 
either by running models to estimate future year emissions from 
specific types of emission sources (i.e., EGUs, and onroad and nonroad 
mobile sources), or for other types of sources by adjusting the base 
year emissions according to the best estimate of changes expected to 
occur in the intervening years (i.e., non-EGU point and nonpoint 
sources).
    For some sectors, the same emissions are used in the base and 
future years, such as biogenic emissions, wild and prescribed fire 
emissions, and Canadian emissions. For all other sectors, rules and 
specific legal obligations that go into effect in the intervening 
years, along with changes in activity for the sector, are considered 
when possible. Documentation of the methods used for each sector is 
provided in the TSD Preparation of Emissions Inventories for the 
Version 6.2, 2011 Emissions Modeling Platform, which can be found in 
the docket for this notice.
    Emission projections for EGUs for 2017 were developed using the 
Integrated Planning Model (IPM). The National Electric Energy Data 
System (NEEDS) database contains the generation unit records used for 
the model plants that represent existing and planned/committed units in 
EPA modeling applications of IPM. The NEEDS database includes basic 
geographic, operating, air emissions, and other data on these 
generating units and is updated for the EPA's version 5.14 power sector 
modeling platform. The EGU emission projections included in this data 
release are reported in an air quality modeling-ready flat file taken 
from the EPA Base Case v.5.14, developed using IPM. The 2017 EGU 
emission projections in the flat file format, the corresponding NEEDS 
database, and user guides and documentation are available in the docket 
for this notice, and at http://www.epa.gov/powersectormodeling.
    To project future emissions from onroad and nonroad mobile sources, 
the EPA uses the Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) and the 
National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM), respectively. Development of 
the future year onroad and nonroad emissions requires a substantial 
amount of lead time and resources. The EPA had already prepared the 
emissions projections for 2018 when the attainment deadline for 
Moderate nonattainment areas was revised to July 2018 in the 2008 Ozone 
SIP Requirements Rule, as discussed above, effectively requiring the 
agency to adjust its projection year to 2017. Thus, for purposes of 
this NODA, the EPA calculated the 2017 emissions from mobile sources 
using post-modeling adjustments to 2018 emissions, but the agency 
anticipates that it will directly generate the mobile source emissions 
for 2017 that will be used in the air quality modeling for the final 
rule to address interstate transport for the 2008 ozone standard. The 
EPA obtained 2018 projections by running the MOVES and NMIM models 
using year-specific information about fuel mixtures, activity data, and 
the impacts of national and state-level rules and control programs. The 
input databases and future year activity data for onroad mobile sources 
are provided with the 2011v6.2 platform available at http://
www.epa.gov/ttn/

[[Page 46279]]

chief/emch/index.html#2011. The 2018 onroad and nonroad mobile source 
emissions were adjusted for 2017 using factors derived from national 
scale runs of MOVES and NMIM, respectively.
    For non-EGU point and nonpoint sources, projections of 2017 
emissions were developed by starting with the 2011 emissions 
inventories and applying adjustments that represent the impact of 
national, state, and local rules coming into effect in the years 2012 
through 2017, along with the impacts of planned shutdowns, the 
construction of new plants, specific information provided by states, 
and specific legal obligations resolving alleged environmental 
violations, such as consent decrees. Changes in activity are considered 
for sectors such as oil and gas, residential wood combustion, cement 
kilns, livestock, aircraft, commercial marine vessels and locomotives. 
Data files that include factors that represent the changes are 
provided, along with summaries that quantify the emission changes 
resulting from the projections at a state and national level.
    The provided data include relevant emissions inventories for 
neighboring countries used in our modeling, specifically the 2010 
emissions inventories for Canada and the 2008 and 2018 emissions 
inventories for Mexico. Canadian emissions for a future year were not 
available.
    Ancillary data files used to allocate annual emissions to the 
hourly, gridded emissions of chemical species used by the air quality 
model are also provided. The types of ancillary data files include 
temporal profiles that allocate annual and monthly emissions down to 
days and hours, spatial surrogates that allocate county-level emissions 
onto the grid cells used by the AQM, and speciation profiles that 
allocate the pollutants in the NEI to the chemical species used by the 
air quality model. In addition, there are temporal, spatial, and 
speciation cross-reference files that map the emission sources in the 
emission inventories to the appropriate profiles based on their 
location, emissions source classification code (SCC), and, in some 
cases, the specific facility or unit. With the exception of some 
speciation profiles and temporal profiles for EGUs and mobile sources, 
the same ancillary data files are used to prepare the 2011 and 2017 
emissions inventories for air quality modeling.
    Information related to this section is located in the docket. 
However, as mentioned above, some of the emissions data files are too 
large to be directly uploaded into the electronic docket and/or are not 
in formats accepted by that docket. Therefore, the information placed 
in the electronic docket, associated detailed data, and summaries to 
help with interpretation of the data are available for public review 
with the 2011v6.2 platform available on the Emissions Modeling 
Clearinghouse on the EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/index.html#2011. Requests for electronic copies of pre-merged, 
intermediate and air quality model-ready emissions files for input to 
air quality modeling can be obtained by contacting Alison Eyth at 
eyth.alison@epa.gov.
    The emissions inventories, along with many of the ancillary files, 
are provided in the form of flat files that can be input to SMOKE. Flat 
files are comma-separated values-style text files with columns and rows 
that can be loaded into spreadsheet or database software. The columns 
of interest in the emission inventory files are specified in each 
subsection below. The EPA specifically requests comment on the 
following components of the provided emissions modeling inventories and 
ancillary files:
     Emissions values and supporting data for EGUs. The EPA 
requests comment on the IPM version 5.14 input assumptions, NEEDS 
database, 2018 unit-level parsed files because 2017 parsed files are 
not available, 2017 flat file inputs and outputs (including 
modifications to the IPM 2018 Base Case to inform 2017 NOX 
emissions), temporal profiles use to allocate seasonal emissions to 
hours, and cross references and matching between IPM and NEI.
     Emission values for non-EGU sources. The EPA requests 
comment on the criteria air pollutant projected 2017 emissions in the 
modeling inventories, such as NOX, VOC, sulfur dioxide, 
particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers, particulate matter less 
than 10 micrometers, and ammonia, with a focus on the ozone precursors 
NOX and VOC. The EPA will also accept comments on 2017 
projections of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), as they are included in 
the outputs of models used to develop 2017 emission projections. 
However, HAPs are not the focus of this effort. The annual emissions 
values are located in the ANN_VALUE column of emission inventory files 
in the Flat File 2010 (FF10) format. Some emission inventories (e.g., 
nonroad) may also have values filled in to the monthly value columns 
(e.g., JAN_VALUE, FEB_VALUE, . . ., DEC_VALUE). The EPA requests 
comment on both the annual and monthly emissions values, where 
applicable. Summaries of emissions by state and county are provided to 
aid in the review of emissions values.
     Model inputs and activity data used to develop mobile 
source emission inventories. The EPA requests comment on the mobile 
source model input data used to develop the projected future mobile 
source emission inventories. These include both the databases used to 
create emission factors and the vehicle miles traveled and vehicle 
population activity data used to compute the emissions. Of particular 
interest are county total vehicle miles traveled, the mixture of 
vehicle types in 2017, hoteling hours of combination long-haul trucks, 
and changes to the inspection and maintenance programs. Alternative 
activity data should be provided in the SMOKE FF10 activity data 
format.
     Projection data and methods. The EPA seeks comment on the 
data used to project point and nonpoint source emissions from 2011 to 
2017, and on the methods and assumptions used to implement the 
projections. In this context, nonpoint source emissions are inclusive 
of commercial marine vessel, railroad, oil and gas, and other nonpoint 
emissions. In particular, the EPA seeks comment on its assumptions 
regarding the manner in which specific consent decrees and state- or 
locality-specific control programs will be implemented.
     Existing control techniques. The emission inventories 
include information on emissions control techniques listed in terms of 
control codes submitted to the EIS. These are listed in the CONTROL_IDS 
and CONTROL_MEASURES columns in the emission inventory flat files, with 
levels of reduction in the ANN_PCT_RED column. Projection of non-EGU 
point source emissions to future years is dependent on this 
information. The EPA seeks comment on whether data on existing controls 
given in the inventory flat files are incomplete or erroneous. The flat 
files must be consulted for details of control techniques by pollutant.
     Emissions modeling methods. The EPA is using SMOKE version 
3.6.5 to prepare data for air quality modeling. The EPA requests 
comment on the methods by which SMOKE is used to develop air quality 
model-ready emissions, as illustrated in the scripts provided with the 
modeling platform and as described in the TSD Preparation of Emissions 
Inventories for the Version 6.2, 2011 Emissions Modeling Platform, 
available with the 2011v6.2 platform at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/index.html#2011.
     Temporal allocation. Annual emission inventories must be 
allocated

[[Page 46280]]

to hourly values prior to air quality modeling. This may be done with 
temporal profiles in several steps, such as annual-to-month, month-to-
day, and day-to-hour. The exact method used depends on the type of 
emissions being processed. The EPA seeks comment on the allocation of 
the emission inventories to month, day, and hour for all types of 
emission processes. In particular, the EPA seeks information that could 
help improve the temporal allocation in 2017 of emissions from EGUs, 
nonroad mobile sources, residential wood combustion sources, and the 
temporal allocation of vehicle miles traveled needed to model onroad 
mobile sources. The EPA seeks local- and region-specific data that can 
be used to improve the temporal allocation of emissions data.
     Spatial surrogates. Spatial surrogates are used to 
allocate county-level emissions to the grid cells used for air quality 
modeling. The EPA requests comment on the spatial surrogates used to 
spatially allocate the 2011 and 2017 emissions. The same spatial 
surrogates are used in the base and future years.
     Chemical speciation. Prior to air quality modeling, the 
pollutants in the emission inventories must be converted into the 
chemical species used by the air quality model using speciation 
profiles. The speciation profiles provided are consistent with version 
4.4 of the SPECIATE database. The EPA requests comment on the provided 
speciation profiles, as well as any information that could help improve 
the speciation of oil and gas emissions in both the eastern and western 
U.S. in 2017. Oil and gas speciation information, along with VOC to TOG 
adjustment factors that are used to compute methane emissions, would be 
of the most use at the county or oil/gas basin level of detail and also 
for each distinct process at oil and gas drilling/production facilities 
(e.g., glycol dehydrators).
    To aid in the interpretation of the provided data files and how 
they relate to the aspects of the data on which the EPA is requesting 
comment, the EPA has provided a summary document in the docket that 
describes in more detail the provided data and summary files.

    Dated: July 23, 2015.
Stephen D. Page,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2015-18878 Filed 8-3-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 149 / Tuesday, August 4, 2015 / Notices 46271 the potential for serious delivery identification of the facilities damaged; required by Department of problems on the pipeline’s own system (4) The time the service interruption or Transportation (DOT) reporting or the pipeline grid. damage to the facilities occurred; (5) requirements under the Natural Gas Filings (in accordance with the The customers affected by the service Pipeline Safety Act of 1968, a copy of provisions of section 4(d) of the NGA) 2 interruption or damage to the facilities; such report shall be submitted to the must contain information necessary to (6) Emergency actions taken to maintain Director of the Commission’s Division of advise the Commission when a change service; and (7) Company contact and Pipeline Certificates, within 30 days of in service has occurred. Section 7(d) of telephone number. The Commission the reportable incident.4 the NGA 3 authorizes the Commission to may contact pipelines reporting damage issue a temporary certificate in cases of or other pipelines to determine If the Commission failed to collect emergency to assure maintenance of availability of supply, and if necessary, these data, it would lose the ability to adequate service or to serve particular authorize transportation or construction monitor and evaluate transactions, customers, without notice or hearing. of facilities to alleviate constraints in operations, and reliability of interstate Respondents to the FERC–576 are response to these reports. pipelines and perform its regulatory encouraged to submit the reports by A report required by 18 CFR functions. These reports are kept by the email to pipelineoutage@ferc.gov but 260.9(a)(1)(i) of damage to natural gas Commission Staff as non-public also have the option of faxing the facilities resulting in loss of pipeline information and are not made part of the reports to the Director of the Division of throughput or storage deliverability public record. Pipeline Certificates. 18 CFR 260.9(b) shall be reported to the Director of the requires that a report of service Type of Respondents: Natural gas Commission’s Division of Pipeline interruption or damage to natural gas Certificates at the earliest feasible time companies. facilities state: (1) The location of the when pipeline throughput or storage Estimate of Annual Burden 5: The service interruption or damage to deliverability has been restored. Commission estimates the annual public natural gas pipeline or storage facilities; In any instance in which an incident reporting burden for the information (2) The nature of any damage to pipeline or damage report involving collection as: or storage facilities; (3) Specific jurisdictional natural gas facilities is FERC–576—REPORT OF SERVICE INTERRUPTIONS Annual Total annual number Average Total burden hours Cost per Number of of burden & cost number of & respondent respondents responses per responses total ($) per response 6 annual cost respondent (1) (2) (1) * (2) = (3) (4) (3) * (4) = (5) (5) ÷ (1) Submittal of Original Email/Fax ............... 22 2 44 1 44 72 $72 $3,168 Submittal of Damage Report ................... 22 2 44 0.25 11 18 $18 $198 Submittal of DOT Incident Report ........... 22 1 22 0.25 5.5 18 $18 $99 Total .................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 60.5 108 $3,465 Comments: Comments are invited on: of automated collection techniques or ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (1) Whether the collection of other forms of information technology. AGENCY information is necessary for the proper Dated: July 29, 2015. performance of the functions of the [EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0500; FRL–9931–68– Kimberly D. Bose, OAR] Commission, including whether the Secretary. information will have practical utility; Notice of Availability of the [FR Doc. 2015–19058 Filed 8–3–15; 8:45 am] (2) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate Environmental Protection Agency’s of the burden and cost of the collection BILLING CODE 6717–01–P Updated Ozone Transport Modeling of information, including the validity of Data for the 2008 Ozone National the methodology and assumptions used; Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; AGENCY: Environmental Protection and (4) ways to minimize the burden of Agency (EPA). the collection of information on those ACTION: Notice of data availability who are to respond, including the use (NODA); request for public comment. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 2 (15 U.S.C. 717c). provide information to or for a Federal agency. For per Response * $72.00 per Hour = Average Cost per 3 (15 U.S.C. 717f). further explanation of what is included in the Response. The hourly cost figure comes from the 4 18 CFR 260.9(d). information collection burden, reference 5 Code of FERC average salary ($149,489/year). Commission 5 The Commission defines burden as the total Federal Regulations 1320.3. staff believes the FERC average salary to be time, effort, or financial resources expended by 6 The estimates for cost per response are derived representative wage for industry respondents. persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or using the following formula: Average Burden Hours VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:45 Aug 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM 04AUN1

46272 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 149 / Tuesday, August 4, 2015 / Notices SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Instructions: Direct your comments to 3. Describe any assumptions and Agency (EPA) is providing notice that Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015– provide any technical information and/ interstate ozone transport modeling and 0500. The EPA’s policy is that all or data that you used. associated data and methods are comments received will be included in 4. Provide specific examples to available for public review and the public docket without change and illustrate your concerns, and suggest comment. These data and methods will may be made available online at alternatives. be used to inform a rulemaking proposal www.regulations.gov, including any 5. Explain your views as clearly as that the EPA is developing and expects personal information provided, unless possible, avoiding the use of profanity to release later this year to address the comment includes information or personal threats. interstate ozone transport for the 2008 claimed to be Confidential Business 6. Make sure to submit your ozone national ambient air quality Information (CBI) or other information comments by the comment period standards (NAAQS). This notice also whose disclosure is restricted by statute. deadline identified. meets the EPA’s expressed intent to Do not submit information that you For additional information about the update the air quality modeling data consider to be CBI or otherwise EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA that were released on January 22, 2015, protected through www.regulations.gov Docket Center homepage at http:// and to share the updated data with or email. Clearly mark the part or all of www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. states and other stakeholders. The the information that you claim to be Docket: All documents in the docket information available includes: (1) CBI. For CBI information on a disk or are listed in the www.regulations.gov Emission inventories for 2011 and 2017, CD–ROM that you mail to the EPA index. Although listed in the index, supporting data used to develop those docket office, mark the outside of the some information is not publicly emission inventories, methods and data disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then available, e.g., CBI or other information used to process emission inventories identify electronically within the disk or whose disclosure is restricted by statute. into a form that can be used for air CD–ROM the specific information that Certain other material, such as quality modeling; and (2) base year 2011 is claimed as CBI. Information so copyrighted material, will be publicly and projected 2017 ozone marked will not be disclosed except in available only in hard copy. Publicly concentrations and projected 2017 accordance with procedures set forth in available docket materials are available ozone state contribution data at 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one either electronically in individual ozone monitoring sites based complete version of the comment that www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at on air quality modeling, supporting data includes information claimed as CBI, a the Air and Radiation Docket and including 2009–2013 base period and copy of the comment that does not Information Center, EPA/DC, WJC West 2017 projected ozone design values, and contain the information claimed as CBI Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution methods used to process air quality must be submitted for inclusion in the Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public model outputs to calculate 2017 ozone public docket. Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to concentrations and contributions at The www.regulations.gov Web site is 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, individual monitoring sites. A docket an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which excluding legal holidays. The telephone has been established to facilitate public means the EPA will not know your number for the Public Reading Room is review of the data and to track identity or contact information unless (202) 566–1744, and the telephone comments. you provide it in the body of your number for the Air Docket is (202) 566– comment. If you send an email 1742. DATES: Comments must be received on comment directly to the EPA without FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For or before September 23, 2015. going through www.regulations.gov, questions on the emissions data and on ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, your email address will be how to submit comments on the identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– automatically captured and included as emissions data and related OAR–2015–0500, by one of the part of the comment that is placed in the methodologies, contact Alison Eyth, Air following methods: public docket and made available on the Quality Assessment Division, • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// Internet. If you submit an electronic Environmental Protection Agency, www.regulations.gov. Follow the online comment, the EPA recommends that C339–02, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, instructions for submitting comments. you include your name and other Research Triangle Park, NC 27709; • Fax: (202)566–9744. Attention contact information in the body of your telephone number: (919)541–2478; fax Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015– comment and with any disk or CD–ROM number: (919)541–1903; email: 0500. you submit. If the EPA cannot read your eyth.alison@epa.gov. For questions on • Mail: EPA Docket Center, WJC West comment due to technical difficulties the air quality modeling and ozone Building, Attention Docket ID No. EPA– and cannot contact you for clarification, contributions and how to submit HQ–OAR–2015–0500, U.S. the EPA may not be able to consider comments on the air quality modeling Environmental Protection Agency, your comment. Electronic files should data and related methodologies, contact Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania avoid the use of special characters, any Norm Possiel, Air Quality Assessment Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. form of encryption, and be free of any Division, Environmental Protection Please include a total of 2 copies. defects or viruses. Agency, C439–01, 109 T.W. Alexander • Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental When submitting comments, Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC Protection Agency, WJC West Building, remember to: 27709; telephone number: (919)541– 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 1. Identify the notification by docket 5692; fax number: (919)541–0044; tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 3334, Washington, DC 20004, Attention number and other identifying email: possiel.norm@epa.gov. Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015– information (subject heading, Federal SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 0500. Such deliveries are only accepted Register date and page number). during the Docket’s normal hours of 2. Explain your comments, why you I. Background operation, and special arrangements agree or disagree; suggest alternatives On January 22, 2015, the EPA issued should be made for deliveries of boxed and substitute data that reflect your a memo and preliminary air quality information. requested changes. modeling data that would help states as VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:45 Aug 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM 04AUN1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 149 / Tuesday, August 4, 2015 / Notices 46273 they develop State Implementation review process, the EPA updated the states in the contiguous U.S. along with Plans to address cross-state transport of 2011 emissions inventory data, adjacent portions of Canada and air pollution under the ‘‘Good developed emissions inventory data for Mexico. The spatial resolution (i.e., grid Neighbor’’ Provision of the Clean Air 2017, and used these data in air quality size) for this modeling domain is 12 km Act (CAA), section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), as modeling to develop updated x 12 km. The 2011 and 2017 scenarios it pertains to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.1 projections of future year ozone were both modeled for the full year with That information included the EPA’s concentrations and contributions. 2011 meteorology. The meteorological preliminary air quality modeling data In the January 22, 2015 memo, the data used as input to the air quality that applies the Cross-State Air EPA expressed its intent to update the modeling was obtained from an annual Pollution Rule (CSAPR—76 FR 48208) preliminary air quality modeling data simulation of version 3.4 of the Weather approach to contribution projections for and to share the updated data with Research Forecast Model (WRF) for the year 2018 for the 2008 8-hour ozone states and other stakeholders. This 2011. The initial and boundary NAAQS. Specifically, the EPA provided notice meets this intent. Additionally, concentration inputs to the air quality data identifying ozone monitoring sites the EPA, together with its state partners, modeling were derived from an annual that are projected to be nonattainment is assessing the next steps to address simulation of the Goddard Earth or have maintenance problems for the interstate air pollution transport for the Observing System global chemical 2008 ozone NAAQS in 2018. The EPA 2008 ozone NAAQS under the CAA. transport model (GEOS-Chem). The also provided the projected contribution The EPA recognizes its backstop role to CAMx predictions for 2011 were estimates from 2018 anthropogenic develop and promulgate federal compared to corresponding oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and volatile implementation plans, as appropriate. measurements as part of a model organic compound (VOC) emissions in We are planning to take this action, if performance evaluation. Information on each state to ozone concentrations at necessary, by issuing a proposal for a the development of the 2011 each of these sites. The year 2018 was federal rule later this year. This notice meteorological and initial and boundary used as the analytic year for the provides an opportunity to review and concentration inputs to the CAMx preliminary modeling because at the comment on the agency’s ozone simulations and the model performance onset of the modeling assessment, that transport modeling data that EPA evaluation methodologies and results year aligned with the December 2018 intends to use in this forthcoming are described in the ‘‘Updated Air attainment date for Moderate ozone proposal. Quality Modeling Technical Support nonattainment areas. However, II. Air Quality Modeling Data and Document’’ (AQM TSD) for the 2008 subsequent to the completion of the Methodologies Ozone NAAQS Interstate Transport 2018 modeling, the EPA issued the final Assessment, which is available in the 2008 Ozone NAAQS SIP Requirements Using the updated emissions docket for this notice. Also in this Rule,2 which revised the attainment inventories, the EPA performed docket is a report on the performance deadline for ozone nonattainment areas photochemical air quality modeling to evaluation for the annual 2011 WRF currently designated as Moderate for the project ozone concentrations at air meteorological model simulation. 2008 ozone NAAQS to July 2018. The quality monitoring sites to 2017, and to estimate state-by-state contributions to A. Identification of Projected 2017 EPA established this deadline in the Nonattainment and Maintenance Sites 2015 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule after those 2017 concentrations. We then used the air quality modeling results to The ozone predictions from the 2011 previously establishing a deadline of identify nonattainment or maintenance and 2017 CAMx model runs were used December 31, 2018, that was vacated by sites for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in to project measured ozone design values the DC Circuit in Natural Resources 2017, consistent with the CSAPR to 2017 following the approach Defense Council v. EPA. In order to approach to identify such sites. We used described in the EPA’s draft guidance demonstrate attainment by the revised the contribution information to quantify for attainment demonstration attainment deadline, the demonstration projected interstate contributions from modeling.3 We selected 2011 as the base would have to be based on design emissions in each upwind state to ozone year to reflect the most recent National values calculated using 2015 through concentrations at each of the projected Emissions Inventory (NEI). In addition, 2017 ozone season data, since the July 2017 nonattainment and maintenance the meteorological conditions during 2018 deadline does not afford a full sites in downwind states. the summer of 2011 were generally ozone season of measured data. The EPA’s air quality modeling used Therefore, the EPA has adopted 2017 as conducive for ozone formation across the updated version of the 2011-based much of the U.S., particularly the the analytic year for the updated ozone air quality modeling platform. This transport modeling information being eastern U.S. We selected 2017 as the platform includes emissions for the projected analysis year to coincide with released as part of this NODA. 2011 base year and a 2017 future base The 2011 and 2018 emissions the attainment date for Moderate case as well as meteorology for 2011. nonattainment areas under the 2008 inventory data used for the preliminary The 2011 meteorology was used in air ozone NAAQS. The draft attainment air quality modeling were released for quality model simulations for both 2011 modeling guidance recommends using public review on November 27, 2013 (78 and 2017. The 2011 and 2017 emissions 5-year weighted average ambient design FR 70935), and January 14, 2014 (79 FR data are described in more detail in values 4 centered on the base year as the 2437), respectively. Based in part on Section III. starting point for projecting design comments received from the public The EPA used the Comprehensive Air values to the future. Because 2011 is the 1 Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Information on the Interstate Transport ‘‘Good version 6.11) for modeling the 2011 base 3 The December 3, 2014, draft ozone, fine Neighbor’’ Provision for the 2008 Ozone National year and 2017 future base case particulate matter and regional haze SIP modeling Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) under emissions scenarios to identify sites guidance is available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), January 22, 2015, with projected nonattainment and scram/guidance/guide/Draft_O3–PM–RH_ available at http://www.epa.gov/airtransport/Good Modeling_Guidance-2014.pdf. NeighborProvision2008NAAQS.pdf. maintenance problems in 2017. The air 4 The air quality design value for a site is the 3- 2 80 FR 12264, 12268 (Mar. 6, 2015); 40 CFR quality model runs were performed for year average annual fourth-highest daily maximum 51.1103. a modeling domain that covers the 48 8-hour average ozone concentration. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:45 Aug 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM 04AUN1

46274 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 149 / Tuesday, August 4, 2015 / Notices base year of emissions, we started with are projected to be in nonattainment in nonattainment sites are also the average ambient 8-hour ozone 2017. maintenance sites because the design values for the period 2009 As noted above, we followed the maximum design value at through 2013 (i.e., the average of design CSAPR approach to identify sites with nonattainment sites is always greater values for 2009–2011, 2010–2012, and projected maintenance problems in than or equal to the 5-year weighted 2011–2013). The 5-year weighted 2017. As part of the approach for average. Monitoring sites with a 2017 average ambient design value at each identifying sites with projected future average design value below the NAAQS, site was projected to 2017 using model- maintenance problems, the highest (i.e., but with a maximum design value that maximum) ambient design value from exceeds the NAAQS, are considered predicted Relative Response Factors the 2011-centered 5-year period (i.e., the maintenance-only sites. These sites are (RRFs) 5 that were calculated based on maximum of design values from 2009– procedures described in the draft projected to have a maintenance 2011, 2010–2012, and 2011–2013) was attainment demonstration modeling problem, but not a nonattainment projected to 2017 for each site using the guidance. The 2017 projected average site-specific RRFs. Following the problem in 2017. ozone design values were evaluated to CSAPR approach, monitoring sites with The base period ambient and identify those sites with design values a maximum design value that exceeds projected 2017 average and maximum that exceed the 2008 ozone NAAQS.6 the NAAQS, even if the average design design values at individual Consistent with the approach used in value is below the NAAQS, are nonattainment sites and maintenance- CSAPR, those sites with 2017 average projected to have a maintenance only sites are provided in Tables 1 and design values that exceed the NAAQS problem in 2017. In this regard, 2, respectively. TABLE 1—2009–2013 AND 2017 AVERAGE AND MAXIMUM DESIGN VALUES AT PROJECTED NONATTAINMENT SITES IN THE EAST (TOP) AND WEST (BOTTOM) [Units are ppb] 2009–2013 av- 2009–2013 2017 max- 2017 average Monitor ID State County erage design maximum de- imum design design value value sign value value 90013007 .......... Connecticut ....................... Fairfield ............................. 84.3 89.0 77.1 81.4 90019003 .......... Connecticut ....................... Fairfield ............................. 83.7 87.0 78.0 81.1 90099002 .......... Connecticut ....................... New Haven ....................... 85.7 89.0 77.2 80.2 240251001 ........ Maryland ........................... Harford .............................. 90.0 93.0 81.3 84.0 360850067 ........ New York .......................... Richmond .......................... 81.3 83.0 76.3 77.8 361030002 ........ New York .......................... Suffolk ............................... 83.3 85.0 79.2 80.8 390610006 ........ Ohio ................................... Hamilton ............................ 82.0 85.0 76.3 79.1 480391004 ........ Texas ................................ Brazoria ............................. 88.0 89.0 81.4 82.3 481210034 ........ Texas ................................ Denton ............................... 84.3 87.0 76.9 79.4 482011034 ........ Texas ................................ Harris ................................. 81.0 82.0 76.8 77.8 482011039 ........ Texas ................................ Harris ................................. 82.0 84.0 78.2 80.2 484392003 ........ Texas ................................ Tarrant ............................... 87.3 90.0 79.6 82.1 484393009 ........ Texas ................................ Tarrant ............................... 86.0 86.0 78.6 78.6 551170006 ........ Wisconsin .......................... Sheboygan ........................ 84.3 87.0 77.0 79.4 . 60190007 .......... California ........................... Fresno ............................... 94.7 95.0 89.0 89.3 60190011 .......... California ........................... Fresno ............................... 93.0 96.0 87.6 90.4 60190242 .......... California ........................... Fresno ............................... 91.7 95.0 87.1 90.3 60194001 .......... California ........................... Fresno ............................... 90.7 92.0 84.2 85.4 60195001 .......... California ........................... Fresno ............................... 97.0 99.0 90.6 92.5 60251003 .......... California ........................... Imperial ............................. 81.0 82.0 79.3 80.3 60290007 .......... California ........................... Kern ................................... 91.7 96.0 86.2 90.2 60290008 .......... California ........................... Kern ................................... 86.3 88.0 80.6 82.2 60290011 .......... California ........................... Kern ................................... 80.0 81.0 76.2 77.1 60290014 .......... California ........................... Kern ................................... 87.7 89.0 82.8 84.0 60290232 .......... California ........................... Kern ................................... 87.3 89.0 82.2 83.8 60295002 .......... California ........................... Kern ................................... 90.0 91.0 84.5 85.5 60296001 .......... California ........................... Kern ................................... 84.3 86.0 79.7 81.3 60311004 .......... California ........................... Kings ................................. 87.0 90.0 81.1 83.9 60370002 .......... California ........................... Los Angeles ...................... 80.0 82.0 79.0 81.0 60370016 .......... California ........................... Los Angeles ...................... 94.0 97.0 92.8 95.8 60371002 .......... California ........................... Los Angeles ...................... 80.0 81.0 77.1 78.1 60371201 .......... California ........................... Los Angeles ...................... 90.0 90.0 87.9 87.9 60371701 .......... California ........................... Los Angeles ...................... 84.0 85.0 82.2 83.2 60372005 .......... California ........................... Los Angeles ...................... 79.5 82.0 78.1 80.6 60376012 .......... California ........................... Los Angeles ...................... 97.3 99.0 94.5 96.2 60379033 .......... California ........................... Los Angeles ...................... 90.0 91.0 86.0 86.9 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 60392010 .......... California ........................... Madera .............................. 85.0 86.0 79.8 80.8 60470003 .......... California ........................... Merced .............................. 82.7 84.0 78.1 79.3 60610006 .......... California ........................... Placer ................................ 84.0 86.0 78.2 80.0 5 In brief, the RRF for a particular location is the calculated using model outputs for the May through For example, a design value of 75.9 ppb is truncated ratio of the 2017 ozone model prediction to the September period. to 75 ppb which is attainment. In this manner, 2011 ozone model prediction. The RRFs were 6 In determining compliance with the NAAQS, design values at or above 76.0 ppb are considered ozone design values are truncated to integer values. nonattainment. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:45 Aug 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM 04AUN1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 149 / Tuesday, August 4, 2015 / Notices 46275 TABLE 1—2009–2013 AND 2017 AVERAGE AND MAXIMUM DESIGN VALUES AT PROJECTED NONATTAINMENT SITES IN THE EAST (TOP) AND WEST (BOTTOM)—Continued [Units are ppb] 2009–2013 av- 2009–2013 2017 max- 2017 average Monitor ID State County erage design maximum de- imum design design value value sign value value 60650004 .......... California ........................... Riverside ........................... 85.0 85.0 82.3 82.3 60650012 .......... California ........................... Riverside ........................... 97.3 99.0 93.5 95.1 60651016 .......... California ........................... Riverside ........................... 100.7 101.0 95.7 96.0 60652002 .......... California ........................... Riverside ........................... 84.3 85.0 79.8 80.5 60655001 .......... California ........................... Riverside ........................... 92.3 93.0 87.6 88.2 60656001 .......... California ........................... Riverside ........................... 94.0 98.0 88.1 91.9 60658001 .......... California ........................... Riverside ........................... 97.0 98.0 93.3 94.3 60658005 .......... California ........................... Riverside ........................... 92.7 94.0 89.2 90.4 60659001 .......... California ........................... Riverside ........................... 88.3 91.0 82.7 85.2 60670012 .......... California ........................... Sacramento ....................... 93.3 95.0 85.7 87.3 60675003 .......... California ........................... Sacramento ....................... 86.3 88.0 80.5 82.0 60710005 .......... California ........................... San Bernardino ................. 105.0 107.0 103.6 105.6 60710012 .......... California ........................... San Bernardino ................. 95.0 97.0 91.8 93.8 60710306 .......... California ........................... San Bernardino ................. 83.7 85.0 81.2 82.4 60711004 .......... California ........................... San Bernardino ................. 96.7 98.0 94.3 95.6 60712002 .......... California ........................... San Bernardino ................. 101.0 103.0 99.5 101.5 60714001 .......... California ........................... San Bernardino ................. 94.3 97.0 92.3 95.0 60714003 .......... California ........................... San Bernardino ................. 105.0 107.0 101.8 103.8 60719002 .......... California ........................... San Bernardino ................. 92.3 94.0 88.0 89.6 60719004 .......... California ........................... San Bernardino ................. 98.7 99.0 95.7 96.0 60731006 .......... California ........................... San Diego ......................... 81.0 82.0 76.6 77.6 60990006 .......... California ........................... Stanislaus .......................... 87.0 88.0 83.0 83.9 61070006 .......... California ........................... Tulare ................................ 81.7 85.0 77.0 80.1 61070009 .......... California ........................... Tulare ................................ 94.7 96.0 87.3 88.5 61072002 .......... California ........................... Tulare ................................ 85.0 88.0 78.6 81.4 61072010 .......... California ........................... Tulare ................................ 89.0 90.0 82.7 83.6 61112002 .......... California ........................... Ventura .............................. 81.0 83.0 78.3 80.2 80350004 .......... Colorado ............................ Douglas ............................. 80.7 83.0 76.0 78.1 80590006 .......... Colorado ............................ Jefferson ........................... 80.3 83.0 76.3 78.8 TABLE 2—2009–2013 AND 2017 AVERAGE AND MAXIMUM DESIGN VALUES AT PROJECTED MAINTENANCE-ONLY SITES IN THE EAST (TOP) AND WEST (BOTTOM) [Units are ppb] 2009–2013 av- 2009–2013 2017 max- 2017 average Monitor ID State County erage design maximum de- imum design design value value sign value value 90010017 .......... Connecticut ....................... Fairfield ............................. 80.3 83.0 75.8 78.4 211110067 ........ Kentucky ........................... Jefferson ........................... 82.0 85.0 75.8 78.6 211850004 ........ Kentucky ........................... Oldham .............................. 82.0 86.0 73.7 77.3 240053001 ........ Maryland ........................... Baltimore ........................... 80.7 84.0 73.2 76.2 260050003 ........ Michigan ............................ Allegan .............................. 82.7 86.0 75.5 78.5 261630019 ........ Michigan ............................ Wayne ............................... 78.7 81.0 74.0 76.2 340071001 ........ New Jersey ....................... Camden ............................. 82.7 87.0 74.2 78.1 340150002 ........ New Jersey ....................... Gloucester ......................... 84.3 87.0 75.1 77.5 340230011 ........ New Jersey ....................... Middlesex .......................... 81.3 85.0 73.0 76.3 340290006 ........ New Jersey ....................... Ocean ................................ 82.0 85.0 73.9 76.6 360810124 ........ New York .......................... Queens .............................. 78.0 80.0 75.7 77.6 420031005 ........ Pennsylvania ..................... Allegheny .......................... 80.7 82.0 75.3 76.5 421010024 ........ Pennsylvania ..................... Philadelphia ....................... 83.3 87.0 75.1 78.4 480850005 ........ Texas ................................ Collin ................................. 82.7 84.0 74.9 76.0 481130069 ........ Texas ................................ Dallas ................................ 79.7 84.0 74.0 78.0 481130075 ........ Texas ................................ Dallas ................................ 82.0 83.0 75.8 76.7 481211032 ........ Texas ................................ Denton ............................... 82.7 84.0 75.1 76.3 482010024 ........ Texas ................................ Harris ................................. 80.3 83.0 75.9 78.5 482010026 ........ Texas ................................ Harris ................................. 77.3 80.0 73.5 76.1 482010055 ........ Texas ................................ Harris ................................. 81.3 83.0 75.4 77.0 482011050 ........ Texas ................................ Harris ................................. 78.3 80.0 74.6 76.2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 484390075 ........ Texas ................................ Tarrant ............................... 82.0 83.0 75.5 76.4 484393011 ........ Texas ................................ Tarrant ............................... 80.7 83.0 74.5 76.6 40131004 .......... Arizona .............................. Maricopa ........................... 79.7 81.0 75.0 76.2 60170020 .......... California ........................... El Dorado .......................... 82.7 84.0 75.1 76.3 60390004 .......... California ........................... Madera .............................. 79.3 81.0 75.3 76.9 60610003 .......... California ........................... Placer ................................ 83.0 85.0 75.4 77.2 VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:45 Aug 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM 04AUN1

46276 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 149 / Tuesday, August 4, 2015 / Notices TABLE 2—2009–2013 AND 2017 AVERAGE AND MAXIMUM DESIGN VALUES AT PROJECTED MAINTENANCE-ONLY SITES IN THE EAST (TOP) AND WEST (BOTTOM)—Continued [Units are ppb] 2009–2013 av- 2009–2013 2017 max- 2017 average Monitor ID State County erage design maximum de- imum design design value value sign value value 60670006 .......... California ........................... Sacramento ....................... 78.7 81.0 74.0 76.1 60773005 .......... California ........................... San Joaquin ...................... 79.0 80.0 75.9 76.8 80050002 .......... Colorado ............................ Arapahoe ........................... 76.7 79.0 74.4 76.6 80590011 .......... Colorado ............................ Jefferson ........................... 78.7 82.0 75.8 78.9 B. Quantification of Interstate Ozone source inventory data in the 2011 NEI applied in a relative sense to quantify Contributions (we did not model the contributions the contributions to the 2017 average The EPA performed nationwide, state- from individual tribes); design value at each site. Additional • Canada and Mexico— details on the source apportionment level ozone source apportionment anthropogenic emissions from sources modeling and the procedures for modeling using the CAMx Ozone in the portions of Canada and Mexico calculating contributions can be found Source Apportionment Technology/ included in the modeling domain (we Anthropogenic Precursor Culpability in the AQM TSD. did not model the contributions from The average contribution metric is Analysis (OSAT/APCA) technique 7 to Canada and Mexico separately); quantify the contribution of 2017 base intended to provide a reasonable • Fires—combined emissions from case NOX and VOC emissions from all representation of the contribution from wild and prescribed fires; and sources in each state to projected 2017 • Offshore—combined emissions individual states to the projected 2017 ozone concentrations at each air quality from offshore marine vessels and design value, based on modeled monitoring site. In the source offshore drilling platforms. transport patterns and other apportionment model run, we tracked The CAMx OSAT/APCA model run meteorological conditions generally the ozone formed from each of the was performed for the period May 1 associated with modeled high ozone following contribution categories (i.e., through September 30 using the 2017 concentrations in the vicinity of the ‘‘tags’’): future base case emissions and 2011 monitoring site. An average contribution • States—anthropogenic NOX and meteorology for this time period. The metric constructed in this manner is VOC emissions from each state tracked hourly contributions 8 from each tag beneficial since the magnitude of the individually (emissions from all were processed to obtain the 8-hour contributions is directly related to the anthropogenic sectors in a given state average contributions corresponding to magnitude of the design value at each were combined); the time period of the 8-hour daily site. • Biogenics—biogenic NOX and VOC maximum concentration on each day in The resulting 2017 contributions from emissions domain-wide (i.e., not by the 2017 model simulation. This step each tag to each monitoring site are state); was performed for those model grid provided in the AQM TSD. The largest • Boundary Concentrations— cells containing monitoring sites in contributions from each state to concentrations transported into the order to obtain 8-hour average projected 2017 downwind modeling domain; contributions for each day at the nonattainment sites and to projected • Tribes—the emissions from those location of each site. The model- downwind maintenance-only sites are tribal lands for which we have point predicted contributions were then provided in Table 3. TABLE 3—LARGEST OZONE CONTRIBUTIONS FROM EACH STATE TO DOWNWIND 2017 PROJECTED NONATTAINMENT AND TO 2017 PROJECTED MAINTENANCE-ONLY SITES [Units are ppb] Largest contribu- Largest contribu- tion to a 2017 tion to a 2017 Upwind state nonattainment site maintenance-only in downwind site in downwind states states Alabama ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.79 1.28 Arizona ......................................................................................................................................................... 1.78 0.41 Arkansas ...................................................................................................................................................... 1.24 2.15 California ...................................................................................................................................................... 1.75 3.44 Colorado ...................................................................................................................................................... 0.36 0.34 Connecticut .................................................................................................................................................. 0.46 0.41 Delaware ...................................................................................................................................................... 0.68 2.23 District of Columbia ..................................................................................................................................... 0.73 0.64 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Florida .......................................................................................................................................................... 0.57 0.72 Georgia ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.58 0.56 Idaho ............................................................................................................................................................ 0.23 0.35 7 As part of this technique, ozone formed from 8 Contributions from anthropogenic emissions contribution from NOX and VOC anthropogenic reactions between biogenic VOC and NOX with under ‘‘NOX-limited’’ and ‘‘VOC-limited’’ chemical emissions in each state. anthropogenic NOX and VOC are assigned to the regimes were combined to obtain the net anthropogenic emissions. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:45 Aug 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM 04AUN1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 149 / Tuesday, August 4, 2015 / Notices 46277 TABLE 3—LARGEST OZONE CONTRIBUTIONS FROM EACH STATE TO DOWNWIND 2017 PROJECTED NONATTAINMENT AND TO 2017 PROJECTED MAINTENANCE-ONLY SITES—Continued [Units are ppb] Largest contribu- Largest contribu- tion to a 2017 tion to a 2017 Upwind state nonattainment site maintenance-only in downwind site in downwind states states Illinois ........................................................................................................................................................... 17.48 23.17 Indiana ......................................................................................................................................................... 7.15 14.95 Iowa ............................................................................................................................................................. 0.61 0.85 Kansas ......................................................................................................................................................... 0.80 1.03 Kentucky ...................................................................................................................................................... 11.17 2.14 Louisiana ...................................................................................................................................................... 3.81 4.23 Maine ........................................................................................................................................................... 0.00 0.08 Maryland ...................................................................................................................................................... 2.39 7.11 Massachusetts ............................................................................................................................................. 0.10 0.37 Michigan ....................................................................................................................................................... 2.69 1.79 Minnesota .................................................................................................................................................... 0.40 0.47 Mississippi .................................................................................................................................................... 0.78 1.48 Missouri ........................................................................................................................................................ 1.63 3.69 Montana ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.15 0.17 Nebraska ...................................................................................................................................................... 0.51 0.36 Nevada ......................................................................................................................................................... 0.84 0.73 New Hampshire ........................................................................................................................................... 0.02 0.07 New Jersey .................................................................................................................................................. 12.38 11.48 New Mexico ................................................................................................................................................. 1.05 0.54 New York ..................................................................................................................................................... 16.96 17.21 North Carolina .............................................................................................................................................. 0.55 0.93 North Dakota ................................................................................................................................................ 0.14 0.28 Ohio ............................................................................................................................................................. 3.99 7.92 Oklahoma ..................................................................................................................................................... 1.70 2.46 Oregon ......................................................................................................................................................... 0.65 0.65 Pennsylvania ................................................................................................................................................ 13.51 15.93 Rhode Island ................................................................................................................................................ 0.02 0.08 South Carolina ............................................................................................................................................. 0.19 0.21 South Dakota ............................................................................................................................................... 0.08 0.12 Tennessee ................................................................................................................................................... 1.67 0.90 Texas ........................................................................................................................................................... 2.44 2.95 Utah ............................................................................................................................................................. 1.59 1.66 Vermont ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.01 0.05 Virginia ......................................................................................................................................................... 5.29 4.70 Washington .................................................................................................................................................. 0.22 0.09 West Virginia ................................................................................................................................................ 2.99 3.11 Wisconsin ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.56 2.59 Wyoming ...................................................................................................................................................... 1.22 1.22 In CSAPR, the EPA used a model applications and model to each monitoring site. However, the contribution screening threshold of 1 performance evaluation, and the air quality modeling input and output percent of the NAAQS to identify projected 2017 ozone design value data files are too large to be directly upwind states in the eastern U.S. that concentrations and contribution data. uploaded into the electronic docket may significantly contribute to The EPA is also seeking comment on the and/or are not in formats accepted by downwind nonattainment and/or methodology for calculating that docket. These air quality modeling maintenance problems and which contributions at individual monitoring files have been placed on a data drive warrant further analysis. The EPA will sites. The EPA encourages all states and in the docket office. Electronic copies of take comment on the appropriate sources to review and comment on the the non-emissions air quality modeling threshold to be applied for purposes of information provided in this NODA. input files and the air quality modeling the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the The EPA has placed key information output files can also be obtained prior upcoming rulemaking proposal to related to the air quality modeling into to the end of the comment period by address interstate ozone transport for the electronic docket for this notice contacting Norm Possiel at that standard. The EPA is not proposing (EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0500) which is possiel.norm@epa.gov. A detailed or taking comment on this threshold as available at www.regulations.gov. This description of the 2011 and 2017 part of this NODA. emissions data and procedures for tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES includes the AQM TSD, an Excel file which contains the 2009–2013 base accessing and commenting on these data C. Air Quality Modeling Information are provided below. Available for Public Comment period and 2017 projected average and maximum ozone design values at III. Emissions Data and Methodologies The EPA is requesting comment on individual monitoring sites, and an the components of the 2011 air quality Excel file with the ozone contributions The EPA is requesting comment on modeling platform, the air quality from each state and all other source tags the updated 2011 and 2017 emission VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:45 Aug 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM 04AUN1

46278 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 149 / Tuesday, August 4, 2015 / Notices inventories; supporting ancillary files Commenters wishing to comment on along with changes in activity for the used to allocate emissions temporally, inventory projection methods should sector, are considered when possible. spatially, and by emissions species; and submit to the docket comments that Documentation of the methods used for on the emissions modeling methods describe an alternative approach to the each sector is provided in the TSD used to develop the emission existing methods, along with Preparation of Emissions Inventories for inventories, including but not restricted documentation describing why that the Version 6.2, 2011 Emissions to, the activity data, model input method is an improvement over the Modeling Platform, which can be found databases, and the projection, control, existing method. in the docket for this notice. and closure data used to develop Emission projections for EGUs for B. Emissions Information Available for 2017 were developed using the projected 2017 emissions. Summaries of Public Comment the emission inventories are provided to Integrated Planning Model (IPM). The aid in the review of the data, but The released data include emission National Electric Energy Data System comments are sought on the actual inventories that represent projected (NEEDS) database contains the inventories, model inputs, data, and emissions into the atmosphere of generation unit records used for the methods used to develop the projected criteria and some hazardous air model plants that represent existing and emissions. pollutants in the years 2011 and 2017, planned/committed units in EPA additional ancillary data files that are modeling applications of IPM. The A. Instructions for Submitting Emissions used to convert the NEI emissions into NEEDS database includes basic Comments and Alternative Emissions a form that can be used for air quality geographic, operating, air emissions, Data modeling, and methods used to prepare and other data on these generating units The EPA can most effectively use the air quality model inputs and to and is updated for the EPA’s version comments on emissions data that develop projections of emissions for the 5.14 power sector modeling platform. provide specific alternative values to year 2017. The platform includes The EGU emission projections included emission inventories for sources at in this data release are reported in an air those in the EPA data sets, and for specific locations called point sources; quality modeling-ready flat file taken which accompanying documentation emissions from fire events; and county- from the EPA Base Case v.5.14, supports the alternative values. level emissions of onroad mobile developed using IPM. The 2017 EGU Commenters should provide the sources, nonroad mobile sources, and emission projections in the flat file alternative data at a level of detail nonpoint stationary sources. format, the corresponding NEEDS appropriate to the data set into which it The provided emission inventories will be incorporated, thereby including database, and user guides and are split into categories called modeling documentation are available in the all key fields needed to substitute the sectors. For example, facility-specific old data with the new. For example, any docket for this notice, and at http:// point emission sources are split into www.epa.gov/powersectormodeling. data provided as an alternative to the electric generating units (EGUs), oil and To project future emissions from EPA’s point source emissions data gas point sources, and other point onroad and nonroad mobile sources, the should include all key fields used to sources. Nonpoint emission sources are EPA uses the Motor Vehicle Emissions identify point source data such as split into agricultural ammonia sources, Simulator (MOVES) and the National facility, unit, release point, process, and area fugitive dust sources, non-Category Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM), pollutant, along with alternative 3 commercial marine and locomotive respectively. Development of the future emissions values. If a commenter were sources, residential wood sources, oil year onroad and nonroad emissions to provide a new set of county total and gas nonpoint sources, agricultural requires a substantial amount of lead emissions as an alternative to detailed burning sources, and other nonpoint time and resources. The EPA had point source emissions data, the EPA sources. Additional modeling sectors already prepared the emissions would not be able to use that new data. are onroad and nonroad mobile sources, projections for 2018 when the Commenters should also include Category 3 commercial marine sources, attainment deadline for Moderate documentation that describes methods and emissions from wild and prescribed nonattainment areas was revised to July for development of any alternative fires. 2018 in the 2008 Ozone SIP values and relevant references The emission inventories for the Requirements Rule, as discussed above, supporting the alternative approach. future year of 2017 have been developed effectively requiring the agency to adjust Any alternative emission inventory or using projection methods that are its projection year to 2017. Thus, for ancillary data provided should be specific to the type of emission source. purposes of this NODA, the EPA compatible with the formats used by the Future emissions are projected from the calculated the 2017 emissions from Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel 2011 base case either by running models mobile sources using post-modeling Emissions (SMOKE) modeling system to estimate future year emissions from adjustments to 2018 emissions, but the version 3.6.5, which is used by the EPA specific types of emission sources (i.e., agency anticipates that it will directly to process emission inventories into a EGUs, and onroad and nonroad mobile generate the mobile source emissions for format that can be used for air quality sources), or for other types of sources by 2017 that will be used in the air quality modeling. Formats are defined in the adjusting the base year emissions modeling for the final rule to address SMOKE Version 3.6.5 User’s Manual according to the best estimate of interstate transport for the 2008 ozone available from http:// changes expected to occur in the standard. The EPA obtained 2018 www.cmascenter.org/smoke/. Only the intervening years (i.e., non-EGU point projections by running the MOVES and rows of data that have changed from and nonpoint sources). NMIM models using year-specific tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES those provided by the EPA should be For some sectors, the same emissions information about fuel mixtures, activity included in the alternative data sets. are used in the base and future years, data, and the impacts of national and Alternative data that are not an input to such as biogenic emissions, wild and state-level rules and control programs. SMOKE, such as model input databases prescribed fire emissions, and Canadian The input databases and future year for mobile source models, should be emissions. For all other sectors, rules activity data for onroad mobile sources provided in a format in which it could and specific legal obligations that go are provided with the 2011v6.2 platform be directly input to the model. into effect in the intervening years, available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:45 Aug 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM 04AUN1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 149 / Tuesday, August 4, 2015 / Notices 46279 chief/emch/index.html#2011. The 2018 that docket. Therefore, the information state and county are provided to aid in onroad and nonroad mobile source placed in the electronic docket, the review of emissions values. emissions were adjusted for 2017 using associated detailed data, and summaries • Model inputs and activity data used factors derived from national scale runs to help with interpretation of the data to develop mobile source emission of MOVES and NMIM, respectively. are available for public review with the inventories. The EPA requests comment For non-EGU point and nonpoint 2011v6.2 platform available on the on the mobile source model input data sources, projections of 2017 emissions Emissions Modeling Clearinghouse on used to develop the projected future were developed by starting with the the EPA’s Web site at http:// mobile source emission inventories. 2011 emissions inventories and www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/ These include both the databases used applying adjustments that represent the index.html#2011. Requests for to create emission factors and the impact of national, state, and local rules electronic copies of pre-merged, vehicle miles traveled and vehicle coming into effect in the years 2012 intermediate and air quality model- population activity data used to through 2017, along with the impacts of ready emissions files for input to air compute the emissions. Of particular planned shutdowns, the construction of quality modeling can be obtained by interest are county total vehicle miles new plants, specific information contacting Alison Eyth at eyth.alison@ traveled, the mixture of vehicle types in provided by states, and specific legal epa.gov. 2017, hoteling hours of combination obligations resolving alleged The emissions inventories, along with long-haul trucks, and changes to the environmental violations, such as many of the ancillary files, are provided inspection and maintenance programs. consent decrees. Changes in activity are in the form of flat files that can be input Alternative activity data should be considered for sectors such as oil and to SMOKE. Flat files are comma- provided in the SMOKE FF10 activity gas, residential wood combustion, separated values-style text files with data format. cement kilns, livestock, aircraft, columns and rows that can be loaded • Projection data and methods. The commercial marine vessels and into spreadsheet or database software. EPA seeks comment on the data used to locomotives. Data files that include The columns of interest in the emission project point and nonpoint source factors that represent the changes are inventory files are specified in each emissions from 2011 to 2017, and on the provided, along with summaries that subsection below. The EPA specifically methods and assumptions used to quantify the emission changes resulting requests comment on the following implement the projections. In this from the projections at a state and components of the provided emissions context, nonpoint source emissions are national level. modeling inventories and ancillary files: inclusive of commercial marine vessel, The provided data include relevant • Emissions values and supporting railroad, oil and gas, and other nonpoint emissions inventories for neighboring data for EGUs. The EPA requests emissions. In particular, the EPA seeks countries used in our modeling, comment on the IPM version 5.14 input comment on its assumptions regarding specifically the 2010 emissions assumptions, NEEDS database, 2018 the manner in which specific consent inventories for Canada and the 2008 and unit-level parsed files because 2017 decrees and state- or locality-specific 2018 emissions inventories for Mexico. parsed files are not available, 2017 flat control programs will be implemented. Canadian emissions for a future year file inputs and outputs (including • Existing control techniques. The were not available. modifications to the IPM 2018 Base Case emission inventories include Ancillary data files used to allocate to inform 2017 NOX emissions), information on emissions control annual emissions to the hourly, gridded temporal profiles use to allocate techniques listed in terms of control emissions of chemical species used by seasonal emissions to hours, and cross codes submitted to the EIS. These are the air quality model are also provided. references and matching between IPM listed in the CONTROL_IDS and The types of ancillary data files include and NEI. CONTROL_MEASURES columns in the temporal profiles that allocate annual • Emission values for non-EGU emission inventory flat files, with levels and monthly emissions down to days sources. The EPA requests comment on of reduction in the ANN_PCT_RED and hours, spatial surrogates that the criteria air pollutant projected 2017 column. Projection of non-EGU point allocate county-level emissions onto the emissions in the modeling inventories, source emissions to future years is grid cells used by the AQM, and such as NOX, VOC, sulfur dioxide, dependent on this information. The EPA speciation profiles that allocate the particulate matter less than 2.5 seeks comment on whether data on pollutants in the NEI to the chemical micrometers, particulate matter less existing controls given in the inventory species used by the air quality model. In than 10 micrometers, and ammonia, flat files are incomplete or erroneous. addition, there are temporal, spatial, with a focus on the ozone precursors The flat files must be consulted for and speciation cross-reference files that NOX and VOC. The EPA will also accept details of control techniques by map the emission sources in the comments on 2017 projections of pollutant. emission inventories to the appropriate hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), as they • Emissions modeling methods. The profiles based on their location, are included in the outputs of models EPA is using SMOKE version 3.6.5 to emissions source classification code used to develop 2017 emission prepare data for air quality modeling. (SCC), and, in some cases, the specific projections. However, HAPs are not the The EPA requests comment on the facility or unit. With the exception of focus of this effort. The annual methods by which SMOKE is used to some speciation profiles and temporal emissions values are located in the develop air quality model-ready profiles for EGUs and mobile sources, ANN_VALUE column of emission emissions, as illustrated in the scripts the same ancillary data files are used to inventory files in the Flat File 2010 provided with the modeling platform prepare the 2011 and 2017 emissions (FF10) format. Some emission and as described in the TSD Preparation tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES inventories for air quality modeling. inventories (e.g., nonroad) may also of Emissions Inventories for the Version Information related to this section is have values filled in to the monthly 6.2, 2011 Emissions Modeling Platform, located in the docket. However, as value columns (e.g., JAN_VALUE, FEB_ available with the 2011v6.2 platform at mentioned above, some of the emissions VALUE, . . ., DEC_VALUE). The EPA http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/ data files are too large to be directly requests comment on both the annual index.html#2011. uploaded into the electronic docket and monthly emissions values, where • Temporal allocation. Annual and/or are not in formats accepted by applicable. Summaries of emissions by emission inventories must be allocated VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:45 Aug 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM 04AUN1

46280 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 149 / Tuesday, August 4, 2015 / Notices to hourly values prior to air quality ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION electronically through the United States modeling. This may be done with AGENCY government online source for Federal temporal profiles in several steps, such regulations at http:// [EPA–HQ–OW–2014–0170; FRL—9931–67– as annual-to-month, month-to-day, and OW] www.regulations.gov. day-to-hour. The exact method used 3. Internet access. Copies of the depends on the type of emissions being RIN 2040–ZA24 supporting documents are available at processed. The EPA seeks comment on Final 2014 Effluent Guidelines Program http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/ the allocation of the emission Plan and 2014 Annual Effluent lawsguidance/cwa/304m/index.cfm inventories to month, day, and hour for Guidelines Review Report all types of emission processes. In II. How Is This Document Organized? particular, the EPA seeks information AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The outline of this notice follows. that could help improve the temporal allocation in 2017 of emissions from ACTION: Notice of availability. A. Legal Authority EGUs, nonroad mobile sources, B. Summary of the Final 2014 Effluent SUMMARY: This notice announces the Guidelines Program Plan residential wood combustion sources, availability of the Environmental and the temporal allocation of vehicle Protection Agency’s (EPA) Final 2014 A. Legal Authority miles traveled needed to model onroad Effluent Guidelines Program Plan and mobile sources. The EPA seeks local- EPA’s 2014 Annual Effluent Guidelines This notice is published under the and region-specific data that can be Review Report. Section 304(m) of the authority of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1251, used to improve the temporal allocation Clean Water Act requires EPA to et seq., and in particular sections 301(d), of emissions data. biennially publish a plan for new and 304(b), 304(g), 304(m), 306, 307(b) and • Spatial surrogates. Spatial revised effluent guidelines, after public 308 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 1311(d), surrogates are used to allocate county- notice and comment. The Plan identifies 1314(b), 1314(g), 1314(m), 1316, level emissions to the grid cells used for any new or existing industrial categories 1317(b), and 1318. air quality modeling. The EPA requests selected for effluent guidelines and provides a schedule. EPA typically B. Summary of the Final 2014 Effluent comment on the spatial surrogates used publishes a preliminary plan upon Guidelines Program Plan to spatially allocate the 2011 and 2017 emissions. The same spatial surrogates which the public is invited to comment, EPA prepared the Final 2014 Effluent are used in the base and future years. and then publishes a final plan Guidelines Program Plan (the Plan) thereafter. EPA published the • Chemical speciation. Prior to air Preliminary 2014 Plan on September 16, pursuant to Clean Water Act section quality modeling, the pollutants in the 304(m). The Plan provides a summary of 2014, and received public comment on emission inventories must be converted it. EPA’s review of effluent guidelines and into the chemical species used by the air pretreatment standards, consistent with FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. quality model using speciation profiles. CWA sections 301(d), 304(b), 304(g), William F. Swietlik, Engineering and The speciation profiles provided are 304(m), and 307(b). It includes EPA’s Analysis Division, Office of Water, consistent with version 4.4 of the 4303T, U.S. Environmental Protection evaluation of indirect discharge SPECIATE database. The EPA requests Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue categories that do not have categorical comment on the provided speciation NW., Washington, DC., 20460; pretreatment standards for the purpose profiles, as well as any information that telephone number: (202) 566–1129; fax of identifying potential new categories could help improve the speciation of oil number: (202) 566–1053; email address: for which pretreatment standards under and gas emissions in both the eastern swietlik.william@epa.gov CWA section 307(b) might be warranted. and western U.S. in 2017. Oil and gas SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: From these reviews, the Plan identifies speciation information, along with VOC any new or existing industrial categories to TOG adjustment factors that are used I. General Information selected for effluent guidelines, and to compute methane emissions, would A. Supporting Documents—Key provides a schedule. In addition, the be of the most use at the county or oil/ documents providing additional Plan presents any new or existing gas basin level of detail and also for information about EPA’s 2014 annual categories of industry selected for each distinct process at oil and gas review and the Final 2014 Plan include further review and analysis. The Final drilling/production facilities (e.g., glycol the 2014 Effluent Guidelines Review 2014 Plan and the 2014 Annual Review dehydrators). Report and the Final 2014 Effluent Report can be found at http:// Guidelines Program Plan. water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/ To aid in the interpretation of the B. How can I get copies of these provided data files and how they relate cwa/304m/index.cfm documents and other related to the aspects of the data on which the Dated: July 24, 2015. information? EPA is requesting comment, the EPA 1. Docket. EPA has established official Kenneth J. Kopocis, has provided a summary document in public dockets for these actions under Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water. the docket that describes in more detail Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2014– [FR Doc. 2015–18877 Filed 8–3–15; 8:45 am] the provided data and summary files. 0170. The official public docket is the BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Dated: July 23, 2015. collection of materials that is available tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Stephen D. Page, for public viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and EPA West, Room 3334, Standards. 1301Constitution Ave. NW., [FR Doc. 2015–18878 Filed 8–3–15; 8:45 am] Washington, DC 20460. BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 2. Electronic Access. You can access this Federal Register document VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:45 Aug 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM 04AUN1


Document Created: 2015-12-18 14:51:58
Document Modified: 2015-12-18 14:51:58
CategoryRegulatory Information
CollectionFederal Register
sudoc ClassAE 2.7:
GS 4.107:
AE 2.106:
PublisherOffice of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
SectionNotices
ActionNotice of data availability (NODA); request for public comment.
DatesComments must be received on or before September 23, 2015.
ContactFor questions on the emissions data and on how to submit comments on the emissions data and related methodologies, contact Alison Eyth, Air Quality Assessment Division, Environmental Protection Agency, C339-02, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709; telephone number: (919)541-2478; fax number: (919)541-1903; email: [email protected] For questions on the air quality modeling and ozone contributions and how to submit comments on the air quality modeling data and related methodologies, contact Norm Possiel, Air Quality Assessment Division, Environmental Protection Agency, C439-01, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709; telephone number: (919)541-5692; fax number: (919)541-0044; email: [email protected]
FR Citation80 FR 46271 
2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR