82 FR 1733 - Notice of Availability of the Environmental Protection Agency's Preliminary Interstate Ozone Transport Modeling Data for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 4 (January 6, 2017)
Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 4 (January 6, 2017)
| Page Range | 1733-1741 | |
| FR Document | 2017-00058 |
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 4 (Friday, January 6, 2017)] [Notices] [Pages 1733-1741] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2017-00058] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0751; FRL-9958-02-OAR] Notice of Availability of the Environmental Protection Agency's Preliminary Interstate Ozone Transport Modeling Data for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of data availability (NODA); request for public comment. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is providing notice that preliminary interstate ozone transport modeling data and associated methods relative to the 2015 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) are available for public review and comment. This information is being provided to help states develop State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to address the requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA) section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The information available includes: (1) Emission inventories for 2011 and 2023, 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) air quality [[Page 1734]] modeling results for 2011 and 2023, base period (i.e., 2009-2013) average and maximum ozone design value concentrations, projected 2023 average and maximum ozone design value concentrations, and projected 2023 ozone contributions from state-specific anthropogenic emissions and other contribution categories to ozone concentrations at individual ozone 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 90 days after publication in the Federal Register. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ- OAR-2016-0751, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, Cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. When submitting comments, remember to: 1. Identify the notice 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-related projection methodologies, contact Alison Eyth, Air Quality Assessment Division, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail code: 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 preliminary 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, Mail code: 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]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background On October 26, 2015 (80 FR 65292), the EPA published a rule revising the 8-hour ozone NAAQS from 0.075 parts per million (ppm) to a new, more protective level of 0.070 ppm. Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs that provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a NAAQS within 3 years of the promulgation of a new or revised standard. Such plans are required to address the applicable requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2) and are generally referred to as ``infrastructure'' SIPs. Among the requirements in CAA section 110(a)(2) that must be addressed in these plans is the ``Good Neighbor'' provision, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), which requires states to develop SIPs that prohibit any source or other emissions activity within the state from emitting air pollutants in amounts that will contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state. With respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS, the Good Neighbor SIPs are due within 3 years of promulgation of the revised NAAQS, or by October 26, 2018. On October 1, 2015, when EPA Administrator McCarthy signed the ozone NAAQS revision, the agency also issued a memorandum \1\ to EPA Regional Administrators communicating a process for delivering the protections afforded by the revised NAAQS, including implementing CAA requirements like the Good Neighbor provision. In that memorandum, the EPA emphasized that we will be working with state, local, federal and tribal partners to carry out the duties of ozone air quality management in a manner that maximizes common sense, flexibility and cost- effectiveness while achieving improved public health expeditiously and abiding by the legal requirements of the CAA. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Memorandum from Janet McCabe, Acting Assistant administrator, Office of Air and Radiation to Regional Administrators, Regions 1-10, ``Implementing the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/implementation_memo.pdf. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The memorandum noted that the EPA believes that the Good Neighbor provision for the 2015 ozone NAAQS can be addressed in a timely fashion using the framework of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), especially given the court decisions upholding important elements of that framework.\2\ The EPA also expressed its intent to issue timely information concerning interstate ozone transport for the 2015 ozone NAAQS as a first step to help [[Page 1735]] facilitate the development of SIPs addressing the Good Neighbor provision. The EPA recognizes that the CAA provides that states have the primary responsibility to submit timely SIPs, as well as the EPA's own backstop role to develop and promulgate Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs), as appropriate. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ See EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584, 1607 (2014) (holding the EPA's use of uniform oxides of nitrogen (NOX ) stringency to apportion emission reduction responsibilities among upwind states ``is an efficient and equitable solution to the allocation problem the Good Neighbor Provision requires the Agency to address''); EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118, 135-36 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (affirming EPA's use of air quality modeling to project future nonattainment and maintenance receptors and to calculate emissions budgets, and holding that the EPA affords independent effect to the ``interfere with maintenance'' prong of the Good Neighbor provision in identifying maintenance receptors). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This notice includes preliminary air quality modeling data that will help states as they develop SIPs to address the cross-state transport of air pollution under the CAA's Good Neighbor provision as it pertains to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. These data are considered preliminary because states may choose to modify or supplement these data in developing their Good Neighbor SIPs and/or EPA may update these data for the purpose of potential future analyses or regulatory actions related to interstate ozone transport for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The EPA has applied what it refers to as the CSAPR framework to address the requirements of the Good Neighbor provision for regional pollutants like ozone. This framework involves a 4-step process: (1) Identifying downwind receptors that are expected to have problems attaining or maintaining clean air standards (i.e., NAAQS); (2) determining which upwind states contribute to these problems in amounts sufficient to ``link'' them to the downwind air quality problems; (3) for states linked to downwind air quality problems, identifying upwind emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS by quantifying upwind reductions in ozone precursor emissions and apportioning emission reduction responsibility among upwind states; and (4) for states that are found to have emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance or the NAAQS downwind, adopting SIPs or FIPs that eliminate such emissions. The EPA applied this framework in the original CSAPR rulemaking (76 FR 48208) to address the Good Neighbor provision for the 1997 ozone NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006 fine particulate matter (PM2.5 ) NAAQS. On October 26, 2016 (81 FR 74504), the EPA again applied this framework in an update to CSAPR (referred to as the CSAPR Update) to address the Good Neighbor provision for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. This notice provides information regarding steps 1 and 2 of the CSAPR framework for purposes of evaluating interstate transport with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. This preliminary modeling to quantify contributions for the year 2023 is intended to help inform state efforts to address interstate transport with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The year 2023 was used as the analytic year for this preliminary modeling because that year aligns with the expected attainment year for Moderate ozone nonattainment areas, given that the CAA requires the EPA to finalize area designations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS in October 2017.\3\ See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 911-12 (D.C. Cir. 2008), modified on reh'g, 550 F.3d 1176 (holding the Good Neighbor provision requires implementation of emissions reductions be harmonized with the applicable downwind attainment dates). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ See 42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(1)(B) (requiring the EPA to finalize designations no later than 2 years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS). On November 17, 2016 (81 FR 81276), the EPA proposed to retain its current approach in establishing attainment dates for each nonattainment area classification, which run from the effective date of designations. This approach is codified at 40 CFR 51.1103 for the 2008 ozone NAAQs, and the EPA proposed to retain the same approach for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. In addition, the EPA proposed the maximum attainment dates for nonattainment areas in each classification, which for Moderate ozone nonattainment is 6 years. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As noted above, this notice meets the EPA's stated intention in the October 2015 memorandum to provide information relevant to the Good Neighbor provision for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Specifically, this notice evaluates states' contributions to downwind ozone problems relative to the screening threshold--equivalent to 1 percent of the NAAQS--that the CSAPR framework uses to identify states ``linked'' to downwind air quality problems for further consideration to address interstate ozone transport. The EPA believes that states will find this information useful in their development of Good Neighbor SIPs for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, and we seek their comments on it.\4\ The EPA believes that states may rely on this or other appropriate modeling, data or analyses to develop approvable Good Neighbor SIPs which, as noted previously, are due on October 26, 2018. States that act now to address their planning obligation pursuant to the Good Neighbor provision would benefit from improved ozone air quality both within the state and with respect to other states. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ Note that the emissions projections in this NODA are consistent with the implementation of various state and federal regulations, and that any change to the future implementation of these regulations may impact these projections and related findings. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This notice provides an opportunity for review and comment on the agency's preliminary ozone transport modeling data relevant for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. II. Air Quality Modeling and Related Data and Methodologies A. Base Year and Future Base Case Emissions For this transport assessment, the EPA used a 2011-based modeling platform to develop base year and future year emissions inventories for input to air quality modeling. This platform included meteorology for 2011, base year emissions for 2011, and future year base case emissions for 2023. The 2011 and 2023 air quality modeling results were used to identify areas that are projected to be nonattainment or have problems maintaining the 2015 ozone NAAQS in 2023. Ozone source apportionment modeling for 2023 was used to quantify contributions from emissions in each state to ozone concentrations at each of the projected nonattainment and maintenance receptors in that future year.\5\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ The 2023 ozone source apportionment modeling was performed using meteorology for the period May through September in order to focus on transport when 8-hour ozone concentrations are typically high at most locations. This modeling did not include high winter ozone concentrations that have been observed in certain parts of the Western U.S. which are believed to result from the combination of strong wintertime inversions, large NOx and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from nearby oil and gas operations, increased ultraviolet (UV) radiation intensity due to reflection off of snow-covered surfaces and potentially other local factors. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The 2011 and 2023 emissions data and the state and federal rules included in the 2023 base case are described in detail in the documents, ``Preparation of Emissions Inventories for the Version 6.3 2011 Emissions Modeling Platform''; ``Updates to Emissions Inventories for the Version 6.3, 2011 Emissions Modeling Platform for the Year 2023''; and ``EPA Base Case v.5.16 for 2023 Ozone Transport NODA Using IPM Incremental Documentation''; all of which are available in the docket for this notice. In brief, the 2011 base year emissions and projection methodologies used here to create emissions for 2023 are similar to what was used in the final CSAPR Update. The key differences between the 2011 inventories used for the final CSAPR Update and the 2011 inventories used for the 2015 ozone NAAQS preliminary interstate transport modeling include updates to mobile source and electric generating unit (EGU) emissions, the inclusion of fire emissions in Canada and Mexico, and updated estimates of anthropogenic emissions for Mexico. The key differences in methodologies for projecting non-EGU sector emissions (e.g., onroad and nonroad mobile, oil [[Page 1736]] and gas, non-EGU point sources) to 2023 as compared to the methods used in the final CSAPR Update to project emissions to 2017 include (1) the use of data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration Annual Energy Outlook 2016 (AEO 2016) to project activity data for onroad mobile sources and the growth in oil and gas emissions, (2) additional general refinements to the projection of oil and gas emissions, (3) incorporation of data from the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association (MARAMA) for projection of non-EGU emissions for states in that region, and (4) updated mobile source emissions for California. For EGUs, the EPA has included several key updates to the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) and its inputs for the agency's 2023 EGU projections used for the air quality modeling provided in this NODA. The updated IPM assumptions incorporated in the EPA's Base Case v.5.16 capture several market trends occurring in the power sector today, and the 2023 EGU projections reflect a continuation of these trends. Notably, natural gas prices remain historically low and are expected to remain low in the foreseeable future given that gas production and pipeline capacity continue to increase while storage is already at an all-time high. These factors have contributed to record- setting U.S. natural gas production levels for the fifth consecutive year in 2015 and record-setting consumption levels for the sixth consecutive year. Additionally, electricity demand growth (including retail sales and direct use) has slowed in every decade since the 1950s, from 9.8 percent per year from 1949 to 1959 to 0.5 percent per year from 2000 to 2015. This trend is projected to continue: AEO 2016 projects lower growth than projected in AEO 2015. In addition, these updated emission projections account for a continuing decline in the cost of renewable energy technologies such as wind and solar, as well as the recently extended production and investment tax credits that support their deployment. All of these factors result in decreased generation and capacity from conventional coal steam relative to EPA's EGU analyses that preceded these updated IPM inputs. Over the past 10 years, coal-fired electricity generation in the U.S. has declined from providing roughly half of the nation's supply to about one-third, and has been replaced with lower-cost sources such as natural gas, wind, and solar. The updated EGU projections also include the Clean Power Plan (CPP), 80 FR 64662 (October 23, 2015). The modeling for the CSAPR Update did not include the CPP due to the former rule's focus on the 2017 ozone season, see 81 FR at 74529. In the CSAPR Update rulemaking, the agency had identified several key factors and uncertainties associated with measuring the effects of the CPP in 2017, but explained that the EPA ``continues to believe that the modeling for the CPP . . . was useful and reliable with respect to the model years analyzed for [the CPP] (i.e., 2020, 2025, and 2030).'' Id.. The period of focus for the modeling here is in the mid-2020s, which falls within the CPP's interim performance period, and the EPA therefore believes it is appropriate to include the CPP in the modeling.\6\ The CPP is targeted at reducing carbon pollution, but on average, nationwide, the CPP would also reduce NOX emissions from EGUs. The agency therefore anticipates that, if the CPP were removed from the modeling, the overall net effect could be higher levels of NOX emissions, on average, and potentially higher ozone concentrations and contributions at receptors. However, note that NOX emissions from EGUs represent just one part of the total NOX inventory. In this regard, for many states it is possible that changes in EGU NOX emissions on the order of what might be expected in 2023 due to the CPP may have limited impact on the concentration and contribution data in this NODA, which are based on total NOX emissions. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ The CPP is stayed by the Supreme Court. West Virginia et al. v. EPA, No. 15A773 (U.S. Feb. 9, 2016). It is currently unclear what adjustments, if any, will need to be made to the CPP's implementation timing in light of the stay. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As noted above, EGU emissions used for the air quality modeling in this NODA are based on IPM v5.16 projections. However, states may choose to use other EGU projections in developing their Good Neighbor SIPs. To continue to update and improve both EPA's and states' EGU projections, the EPA and state agencies, with the facilitation of multi-jurisdictional organizations (MJOs), have been collaborating in a technical engagement process to inform future-year emission projections for EGUs. The ongoing information exchange and data comparison have facilitated a clearer understanding of the capabilities and constraints of various tools and methods. This process will continue to inform how the EPA and states produce EGU emission projections to inform efforts to reduce ozone transport. The EPA observes there are differences between recent emissions and generation data and the corresponding future-year projections in this NODA. The EPA's modeling directly simulates how future-year energy trends and economic signals affect the composition of the fleet. In the 2023 projections presented in this NODA, the EPA's modeling does not project the operation of a number of coal-fired and oil-fired units due to simulated future-year economic conditions, whether or not such capacity has publicly-released plans to retire.\7\ Some other projection methodologies, such as the approach used by the Eastern Regional Technical Advisory Committee (ERTAC), purposefully maintain the current composition of the fleet except where operators have announced expected changes. Comparing these projections is informative because there is inherent uncertainty in anticipating any future-year composition of the EGU fleet, since analysts cannot know in advance exactly which operators will decide to retire which facilities at any given time. The EPA is soliciting comments on whether and, if so, how different projection techniques for EGUs would affect emissions and air quality in a manner that could further assist states with their analysis of transported air pollution. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \7\ Note that much of this change in operation is projected to occur as early as 2020, which is the first year of the 25-year horizon over which EPA's model is optimizing. EPA's modeling adopts the assumption of perfect foresight, which implies that agents know precisely the nature and timing of conditions in future years (e.g., future natural gas supply, future demand) that affect the ultimate cost of decisions along the way. With this perfect foresight, the model looks throughout the entire modeling horizon and selects the overall lowest cost solution for the power sector over that time. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- B. Air Quality Modeling For the final CSAPR Update, EPA used the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx) v6.20 as the air quality model. After the EPA performed air quality modeling for the final CSAPR Update, Ramboll Environ, the CAMx model developer, released an updated version of CAMx (version 6.30). In addition, EPA has recently sponsored updates to the Carbon Bond chemical mechanism in CAMx v6.30 related to halogen chemistry reactions that deplete ozone in marine (i.e., salt water) environments. The updated chemistry is included in a new version 6.32 which the EPA has used for this analysis. Specifically, EPA used CAMx v6.32 for the 2011 base year and 2023 future base case air quality modeling to identify receptors and quantify contributions for the 2015 NAAQS transport assessment. Information on this version of CAMx can be found in the Release Notes and User's Guide for CAMx v6.30 and in a [[Page 1737]] technical report describing the updated halogen chemistry in version 6.32. These documents can be found in the docket for this notice.\8\ Details of the 2011 and 2023 CAMx model applications are described in the ``Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS Preliminary Interstate Transport Assessment'' (AQM TSD) which is available in the docket for this notice. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\ CAMx v6.32 is a pre-release version of CAMx v6.40 which is expected to be made public by Ramboll Environ in late 2016 or early 2017. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C. Information Regarding Potential 2023 Nonattainment and Maintenance Sites The ozone predictions from the 2011 and 2023 CAMx model simulations were used to project 2009-2013 average and maximum ozone design values \9\ to 2023 following the approach described in the EPA's draft guidance for attainment demonstration modeling.\10\ Using the approach in the final CSAPR Update, we evaluated the 2023 projected average and maximum design values in conjunction with the most recent measured ozone design values (i.e., 2013-2015) to identify sites that may warrant further consideration as potential nonattainment or maintenance sites in 2023.\11\ If the approach in the CSAPR Update is applied to evaluate the projected design values, those sites with 2023 average design values that exceed the NAAQS and that are currently measuring nonattainment would be considered to be nonattainment receptors in 2023. Similarly, with the CSAPR Update approach, monitoring sites with a projected 2023 maximum design value that exceeds the NAAQS would be projected to be maintenance receptors in 2023. In the CSAPR Update approach, maintenance-only receptors include both those monitoring sites where the projected 2023 average design value is below the NAAQS, but the maximum design value is above the NAAQS, and monitoring sites with projected 2023 average design values that exceed the NAAQS, but for which current design values based on measured data do not exceed the NAAQS. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\ The ozone design value for a monitoring site is the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration. \10\ The December 3, 2014 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. \11\ In determining compliance with the NAAQS, ozone design values are truncated to integer values. For example, a design value of 70.9 parts per billion (ppb) is truncated to 70 ppb which is attainment. In this manner, design values at or above 71.0 ppb are considered to exceed the NAAQS. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The base period 2009-2013 ambient and projected 2023 average and maximum design values and 2013-2015 and preliminary 2014-2016 measured design values at individual projected 2023 nonattainment receptor sites and maintenance-only receptor sites are provided in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.\12\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \12\ The preliminary 2014-2016 design values are based on data from the Air Quality System (AQS) and AirNow and have not been certified by state agencies. Note that for some sites the preliminary 2014-2016 design values are higher than the corresponding data for 2013-2015. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \13\ In this notice, the East includes all states from Texas northward to North Dakota and eastward to the East Coast. All states in the contiguous U.S. from New Mexico northward to Montana and westward to the West Coast are considered, for this notice, to be in the West. Table 1A--2009-2013 and 2023 Average and Maximum Design Values and 2013-2015 and Preliminary 2014-2016 Design Values (DVs) at Projected Nonattainment Receptor Sites in the East \13\ [Units are ppb] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2009-2013 2009-2013 2023 2023 2013-2015 Site ID County St Average DV Maximum DV Average DV Maximum DV DV 2014-2016 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------DV---- 240251001.......................... Harford.............. MD............ 90.0 93 71.3 73.7 71 73 360850067.......................... Richmond............. NY............ 81.3 83 71.2 72.7 74 76 361030002.......................... Suffolk.............. NY............ 83.3 85 71.3 72.7 72 72 480391004.......................... Brazoria............. TX............ 88.0 89 74.4 75.3 80 75 482010024.......................... Harris............... TX............ 80.3 83 71.1 73.5 79 79 482011034.......................... Harris............... TX............ 81.0 82 71.6 72.5 74 73 484392003.......................... Tarrant.............. TX............ 87.3 90 73.9 76.2 76 73 484393009.......................... Tarrant.............. TX............ 86.0 86 72.0 72.0 78 75 551170006.......................... Sheboygan............ WI............ 84.3 87 71.0 73.3 77 79 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 1B--2009-2013 and 2023 Average and Maximum Design Values and 2013-2015 and Preliminary 2014-2016 Design Values at Projected Nonattainment Receptor Sites in the West [Units are ppb] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2009-2013 2009-2013 2023 2023 2013-2015 Site ID County St Average DV Maximum DV Average DV Maximum DV DV 2014-2016 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------DV---- 60190007........................... Fresno............... CA............ 94.7 95 78.9 79.1 86 86 60190011........................... Fresno............... CA............ 93.0 96 77.8 80.3 85 88 60190242........................... Fresno............... CA............ 91.7 95 79.2 82.0 86 86 60194001........................... Fresno............... CA............ 90.7 92 73.0 74.0 89 91 60195001........................... Fresno............... CA............ 97.0 99 79.1 80.8 88 94 60250005........................... Imperial............. CA............ 74.7 76 72.8 74.1 77 76 60251003........................... Imperial............. CA............ 81.0 82 78.5 79.5 78 76 60290007........................... Kern................. CA............ 91.7 96 76.9 80.5 81 87 60290008........................... Kern................. CA............ 86.3 88 71.2 72.6 78 81 60290014........................... Kern................. CA............ 87.7 89 72.7 73.8 84 84 60290232........................... Kern................. CA............ 87.3 89 72.7 74.1 78 77 60311004........................... Kings................ CA............ 87.0 90 71.0 73.5 80 84 60370002........................... Los Angeles.......... CA............ 80.0 82 73.9 75.7 82 86 60370016........................... Los Angeles.......... CA............ 94.0 97 86.8 89.6 92 95 [[Page 1738]] 60371201........................... Los Angeles.......... CA............ 90.0 90 80.3 80.3 84 85 60371701........................... Los Angeles.......... CA............ 84.0 85 78.3 79.2 89 90 60376012........................... Los Angeles.......... CA............ 97.3 99 86.5 88.0 94 96 60379033........................... Los Angeles.......... CA............ 90.0 91 76.7 77.5 89 90 60392010........................... Madera............... CA............ 85.0 86 71.7 72.6 81 83 60650012........................... Riverside............ CA............ 97.3 99 83.0 84.4 92 93 60651016........................... Riverside............ CA............ 100.7 101 85.1 85.3 98 97 60652002........................... Riverside............ CA............ 84.3 85 72.2 72.8 81 81 60655001........................... Riverside............ CA............ 92.3 93 79.4 80.0 87 87 60656001........................... Riverside............ CA............ 94.0 98 78.4 81.7 90 91 60658001........................... Riverside............ CA............ 97.0 98 86.7 87.6 92 95 60658005........................... Riverside............ CA............ 92.7 94 82.9 84.1 85 91 60659001........................... Riverside............ CA............ 88.3 91 73.3 75.6 84 86 60670012........................... Sacramento........... CA............ 93.3 95 74.1 75.4 80 83 60710005........................... San Bernardino....... CA............ 105.0 107 96.3 98.1 102 108 60710012........................... San Bernardino....... CA............ 95.0 97 84.4 86.2 88 91 60710306........................... San Bernardino....... CA............ 83.7 85 75.5 76.7 86 86 60711004........................... San Bernardino....... CA............ 96.7 98 89.7 91.0 96 100 60712002........................... San Bernardino....... CA............ 101.0 103 92.9 94.7 97 97 60714001........................... San Bernardino....... CA............ 94.3 97 86.0 88.5 88 91 60714003........................... San Bernardino....... CA............ 105.0 107 94.1 95.9 101 101 60719002........................... San Bernardino....... CA............ 92.3 94 79.8 81.2 86 86 60719004........................... San Bernardino....... CA............ 98.7 99 88.5 88.7 99 104 60990006........................... Stanislaus........... CA............ 87.0 88 73.6 74.5 82 83 61070009........................... Tulare............... CA............ 94.7 96 75.8 76.9 89 89 61072010........................... Tulare............... CA............ 89.0 90 72.6 73.4 81 82 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 2A--2009-2013 and 2023 Average and Maximum Design Values and 2013-2015 and Preliminary 2014-2016 Design Values at Projected Maintenance-Only Receptor Sites in the East [Units are ppb] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2009-2013 2009-2013 2023 2023 2013-2015 Site ID County St Average DV Maximum DV Average DV Maximum DV DV 2014-2016 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------DV---- 90013007........................... Fairfield............ CT............ 84.3 89 69.4 73.2 83 81 90019003........................... Fairfield............ CT............ 83.7 87 70.5 73.3 84 85 90099002........................... New Haven............ CT............ 85.7 89 69.8 72.5 78 76 260050003.......................... Allegan.............. MI............ 82.7 86 68.8 71.5 75 74 261630019.......................... Wayne................ MI............ 78.7 81 69.6 71.7 70 72 360810124.......................... Queens............... NY............ 78.0 80 69.9 71.7 69 69 481210034.......................... Denton............... TX............ 84.3 87 70.8 73.0 83 80 482010026.......................... Harris............... TX............ 77.3 80 68.6 71.0 68 68 482011039.......................... Harris............... TX............ 82.0 84 73.0 74.8 69 67 482011050.......................... Harris............... TX............ 78.3 80 69.5 71.0 71 70 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 2B--2009-2013 and 2023 Average and Maximum Design Values and 2013-2015 and Preliminary 2014-2016 Design Values at Projected Maintenance-Only Receptor Sites in the West [Units are ppb] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2009-2013 2009-2013 2023 2023 2013-2015 Site ID County St Average DV Maximum DV Average DV Maximum DV DV 2014-2016 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------DV---- 60295002........................... Kern................. CA............ 84.3 91 70.4 76.0 85 88 60296001........................... Kern................. CA............ 84.3 86 70.6 72.0 79 81 60372005........................... Los Angeles.......... CA............ 78.0 82 70.6 74.3 74 83 61070006........................... Tulare............... CA............ 81.7 85 69.1 71.8 84 84 61112002........................... Ventura.............. CA............ 81.0 83 70.7 72.4 77 77 80350004........................... Douglas.............. CO............ 80.7 83 69.6 71.6 79 77 80590006........................... Jefferson............ CO............ 80.3 83 70.5 72.9 79 77 80590011........................... Jefferson............ CO............ 78.7 82 69.7 72.7 80 80 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [[Page 1739]] D. Information Regarding Quantification of 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 \14\ to provide information regarding the expected contribution of 2023 base case NOX and VOC emissions from all sources in each state to projected 2023 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''): --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \14\ 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 NO X and VOC emissions from each of the contiguous 48 states and the District of Columbia tracked individually (emissions from all anthropogenic sectors in a given state were combined);Biogenics--biogenic NO X and VOC emissions domain-wide (i.e., not by state);Boundary Concentrations--concentrations transported into the modeling domain from the lateral boundaries; 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 (contributions from Canada and Mexico were not modeled separately); Fires--combined emissions from wild and prescribed fires domain-wide (i.e., not by state); and Offshore--combined emissions from offshore marine vessels and offshore drilling platforms (i.e., not by state). The CAMx source apportionment model simulation was performed for the period May 1 through September 30 using the 2023 future base case emissions and 2011 meteorology for this time period. The hourly contributions \15\ 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 2023 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 applied in a relative sense to quantify the contributions to the 2023 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. The resulting 2023 contributions from each tag to each monitoring site are provided in a file in the docket for this notice.\16\ The largest contributions from each state to 2023 downwind nonattainment receptors and to downwind maintenance-only receptors are provided in Tables 3-1 and 3-2, respectively. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \15\ Ozone contributions from anthropogenic emissions under ``NO X -limited'' and ``VOC-limited'' chemical regimes were combined to obtain the net contribution from NOX and VOC anthropogenic emissions in each state. \16\ The file containing the contributions is named: ``2015 O3 NAAQS Transport Assessment_Design Values & Contributions.'' Table 3-1--Largest Contribution From Each State to Downwind 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Receptors [Units are ppb] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Largest Largest contribution contribution Upwind states to a downwind Upwind states to a downwind nonattainment nonattainment receptor receptor ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alabama....................................... 0.37 Montana......................... 0.09 Arizona....................................... 0.74 Nebraska........................ 0.37 Arkansas...................................... 1.16 Nevada.......................... 0.62 California.................................... 0.19 New Hampshire................... 0.01 Colorado...................................... 0.32 New Jersey...................... 11.73 Connecticut................................... 0.43 New Mexico...................... 0.18 Delaware...................................... 0.55 New York........................ 0.19 District of Columbia.......................... 0.70 North Carolina.................. 0.43 Florida....................................... 0.49 North Dakota.................... 0.15 Georgia....................................... 0.38 Ohio............................ 2.38 Idaho......................................... 0.07 Oklahoma........................ 2.39 Illinois...................................... 14.92 Oregon.......................... 0.61 Indiana....................................... 7.14 Pennsylvania.................... 9.11 Iowa.......................................... 0.43 Rhode Island.................... 0.00 Kansas........................................ 1.01 South Carolina.................. 0.16 Kentucky...................................... 2.15 South Dakota.................... 0.08 Louisiana..................................... 2.87 Tennessee....................... 0.52 Maine......................................... 0.01 Texas........................... 1.92 Maryland...................................... 1.73 Utah............................ 0.24 Massachusetts................................. 0.05 Vermont......................... 0.00 Michigan...................................... 1.77 Virginia........................ 5.04 Minnesota..................................... 0.43 Washington...................... 0.15 Mississippi................................... 0.56 West Virginia................... 2.59 Missouri...................................... 1.20 Wisconsin....................... 0.47 Wyoming......................... 0.31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [[Page 1740]] Table 3-2--Largest Contribution From Each State to Downwind 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Receptors [Units are ppb] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Largest Largest contribution contribution Upwind states to a downwind Upwind states to a downwind maintenance maintenance receptor receptor ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alabama....................................... 0.48 Montana......................... 0.11 Arizona....................................... 0.52 Nebraska........................ 0.41 Arkansas...................................... 2.20 Nevada.......................... 0.43 California.................................... 2.03 New Hampshire................... 0.02 Colorado...................................... 0.25 New Jersey...................... 8.65 Connecticut................................... 0.36 New Mexico...................... 0.41 Delaware...................................... 0.38 New York........................ 15.36 District of Columbia.......................... 0.08 North Carolina.................. 0.43 Florida....................................... 0.22 North Dakota.................... 0.13 Georgia....................................... 0.31 Ohio............................ 3.82 Idaho......................................... 0.16 Oklahoma........................ 1.30 Illinois...................................... 21.69 Oregon.......................... 0.17 Indiana....................................... 6.45 Pennsylvania.................... 6.39 Iowa.......................................... 0.60 Rhode Island.................... 0.02 Kansas........................................ 0.64 South Carolina.................. 0.15 Kentucky...................................... 1.07 South Dakota.................... 0.06 Louisiana..................................... 3.37 Tennessee....................... 0.69 Maine......................................... 0.00 Texas........................... 2.49 Maryland...................................... 2.20 Utah............................ 1.32 Massachusetts................................. 0.11 Vermont......................... 0.01 Michigan...................................... 1.76 Virginia........................ 2.03 Minnesota..................................... 0.34 Washington...................... 0.11 Mississippi................................... 0.65 West Virginia................... 0.92 Missouri...................................... 2.98 Wisconsin....................... 1.94 Wyoming......................... 0.92 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In CSAPR and the CSAPR Update, the EPA used a contribution screening threshold of 1 percent of the NAAQS to identify upwind states that may significantly contribute to downwind nonattainment and/or maintenance problems and which warrant further analysis to determine if emissions reductions might be required from each state to address the downwind air quality problem. The EPA determined that 1 percent was an appropriate threshold to use in the analysis for those rulemakings because there were important, even if relatively small, contributions to identified nonattainment and maintenance receptors from multiple upwind states mainly in the eastern U.S. The agency has historically found that the 1 percent threshold is appropriate for identifying interstate transport linkages for states collectively contributing to downwind ozone nonattainment or maintenance problems because that threshold captures a high percentage of the total pollution transport affecting downwind receptors. Based on the approach used in CSAPR and the CSAPR Update, upwind states that contribute ozone in amounts at or above the 1 percent of the NAAQS threshold to a particular downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptor would be considered to be ``linked'' to that receptor in step 2 of the CSAPR framework for purposes of further analysis in step 3 to determine whether and what emissions from the upwind state contribute significantly to downwind nonattainment and interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS at the downwind receptors. For the 2015 ozone NAAQS, the value of a 1 percent threshold would be 0.70 ppb. The individual upwind state to downwind receptor ``linkages'' and contributions based on a 0.70 ppb threshold are identified in the AQM TSD for this notice. The EPA notes that, when applying the CSAPR framework, an upwind state's linkage to a downwind receptor alone does not determine whether the state significantly contributes to nonattainment or interferes with maintenance of a NAAQS to a downwind state. While the 1 percent screening threshold has been traditionally applied to evaluate upwind state linkages in eastern states where such collective contribution was identified, the EPA noted in the CSAPR Update that, as to western states, there may be geographically specific factors to consider in determining whether the 1 percent screening threshold is appropriate. For certain receptors, where the collective contribution of emissions from one or more upwind states may not be a considerable portion of the ozone concentration at the downwind receptor, the EPA and states have considered, and could continue to consider, other factors to evaluate those states' planning obligation pursuant to the Good Neighbor provision.\17\ However, where the collective contribution of emissions from one or more upwind states is responsible for a considerable portion of the downwind air quality problem, the CSAPR framework treats a contribution from an individual state at or above 1 percent of the NAAQS as significant, and this reasoning applies regardless of where the receptor is geographically located. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \17\ See, e.g., 81 FR 31513 (May 19, 2016) (approving Arizona Good Neighbor SIP addressing 2008 ozone NAAQS based on determination that upwind states would not collectively contribute to a considerable portion of the downwind air quality problem). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- III. Analytic Information Available for Public Comment The EPA has placed key information related to the air quality model applications into the electronic docket for this notice. This information includes the AQM TSD, an Excel file which contains the 2009-2013 base period and 2023 projected average and maximum ozone design values at individual monitoring sites and the [[Page 1741]] ozone contributions to individual monitoring sites from anthropogenic emissions in each state and from the other individual categories included in the source apportionment modeling. Also in the docket for this notice are a number of emission summaries by sector, state, county, source classification code, month, unit, day, and control program. In addition, the raw emission inventory files, ancillary data, and scripts used to develop the air quality model-ready emissions which are not in a format accepted by the electronic docket are available from the Air Emissions Modeling Web site for the Version 6.3 Platform at https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-modeling/2011-version-63-platform. Electronic copies of the emissions and non-emissions air quality modeling input files, the CAMx v6.32 model code and run scripts, and the air quality modeling output files from the 2011 and 2023 air quality modeling performed for the 2015 NAAQS ozone transport assessment can be obtained by contacting Norm Possiel at [email protected]. The EPA is requesting comment on the components of the 2011 air quality modeling platform, the methods for projecting 2023 ozone design value concentrations and the methods for calculating ozone contributions. The EPA is also seeking comment on the methods used to project emissions to future years, where 2023 is an example of such a year. Specifically, comments are requested regarding new datasets, impacts of existing and planned federal, state, and local control programs on emissions, and new methods that could be used to prepare more representative emissions projections. That is, EPA is seeking comments on the projection approach and data sets that are potentially useful for computing projected emissions. 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. Summaries of the base and projected future year emission inventories are provided in the docket to aid in the review of these data. As indicated above, the comment period for this notice is 90 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register. Dated: December 28, 2016. Stephen Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. [FR Doc. 2017-00058 Filed 1-5-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2017 / Notices 1733
contains copyrighted material, and included as part of the comment Ends: 04/06/2017, Contact: Kevin
Confidential Business Information that is placed in the official public Bowman 202–502–6287
(‘‘CBI’’), or other information whose docket, and made available in EPA’s EIS No. 20160326, Final, FERC, PA,
disclosure is restricted by statute. electronic public docket. Atlantic Sunrise Project, Review
Information claimed as CBI and other Dated: December 23, 2016. Period Ends: 02/06/2017, Contact:
information whose disclosure is Gautam Srinivasan,
Joanne Wachholder 202–502–8056
restricted by statute is not included in EIS No. 20160327, Final Supplement,
Acting Associate General Counsel.
the official public docket or in the USN, CA, Land Acquisition and
electronic public docket. EPA’s policy is [FR Doc. 2017–00056 Filed 1–5–17; 8:45 am]
Airspace Establishment to Support
that copyrighted material, including BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Large-Scale Marine Air Ground Task
copyrighted material contained in a Force Live-Fire Training Marine
public comment, will not be placed in Corps Combat Center Twentynine
EPA’s electronic public docket but will ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Palms, Review Period Ends: 02/06/
be available only in printed, paper form AGENCY
2017, Contact: Jesse Martinez 619–
in the official public docket. Although [ER–FRL–9031–2] 532–3844
not all docket materials may be EIS No. 20160328, Draft Supplement,
available electronically, you may still Environmental Impact Statements; USACE, LA, Mississippi River, Baton
access any of the publicly available Notice of Availability Rouge to the Gulf of Mexico
docket materials through the EPA Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet,
Docket Center. Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Louisiana, New Industrial Canal Lock
Activities, General Information (202) and Connecting Channels Project,
B. How and to whom do I submit 564–7146 or http://www.epa.gov/nepa.
comments? Comment Period Ends: 02/20/2017,
Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Contact: Mark Lahare 504–862–1344
You may submit comments as Statements (EISs)
provided in the ADDRESSES section. Dated: January 3, 2017.
Filed 12/26/2016 Through 12/30/2016
Please ensure that your comments are Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. Dawn Roberts,
submitted within the specified comment Notice: Section 309(a) of the Clean Air
Management Analyst, NEPA Compliance
period. Comments received after the Division, Office of Federal Activities.
Act requires that EPA make public its
close of the comment period will be comments on EISs issued by other
[FR Doc. 2017–00055 Filed 1–5–17; 8:45 am]
marked ‘‘late.’’ EPA is not required to BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
Federal agencies. EPA’s comment letters
consider these late comments.
on EISs are available at: http://
If you submit an electronic comment,
EPA recommends that you include your www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/ ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
name, mailing address, and an email eisdata.html. AGENCY
address or other contact information in EIS No. 20160319, Draft, BLM, CA,
Central Coast Field Office Draft [EPA–HQ–OAR–2016–0751; FRL–9958–02–
the body of your comment and with any
Resource Management Plan OAR]
disk or CD ROM you submit. This
ensures that you can be identified as the Amendment for the Oil and Gas
Notice of Availability of the
submitter of the comment and allows Leasing and Development, Comment
Environmental Protection Agency’s
EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot Period Ends: 02/21/2017, Contact:
Preliminary Interstate Ozone Transport
read your comment due to technical Melinda Moffitt 916–978–4376
Modeling Data for the 2015 Ozone
difficulties or needs further information EIS No. 20160320, Final, USFS, OR,
National Ambient Air Quality Standard
on the substance of your comment. Any Magone Project, Review Period Ends:
(NAAQS)
identifying or contact information 02/13/2017, Contact: Sasha Fertig
provided in the body of a comment will 541–575–3061 AGENCY: Environmental Protection
be included as part of the comment that EIS No. 20160321, Draft Supplement, Agency (EPA).
is placed in the official public docket, FTA, CA, BART Silicon Valley Phase ACTION: Notice of data availability
and made available in EPA’s electronic II Extension Project, Comment Period (NODA); request for public comment.
public docket. If EPA cannot read your Ends: 02/20/2017, Contact: Mary
comment due to technical difficulties Nguyen 213–202–3960 SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
and cannot contact you for clarification, EIS No. 20160322, Final, FRA, AZ, Agency (EPA) is providing notice that
EPA may not be able to consider your Arizona Passenger Rail Corridor: preliminary interstate ozone transport
comment. Tucson to Phoenix, Review Period modeling data and associated methods
Use of the www.regulations.gov Web Ends: 03/10/2017, Contact: Andrea relative to the 2015 ozone National
site to submit comments to EPA Martin 202–493–6201 Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
electronically is EPA’s preferred method EIS No. 20160323, Draft, NOAA, WI, are available for public review and
for receiving comments. The electronic Wisconsin—Lake Michigan National comment. This information is being
public docket system is an ‘‘anonymous Marine Sanctuary, Comment Period provided to help states develop State
access’’ system, which means EPA will Ends: 03/31/2017, Contact: Russ Implementation Plans (SIPs) to address
not know your identity, email address, Green 920–459–4425 the requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA)
or other contact information unless you EIS No. 20160324, Draft, NOAA, MD, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2015
provide it in the body of your comment. Mallows Bay—Potomac River ozone NAAQS. The information
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
In contrast to EPA’s electronic public National Marine Sanctuary available includes: (1) Emission
docket, EPA’s electronic mail (email) Designation, Comment Period Ends: inventories for 2011 and 2023,
system is not an ‘‘anonymous access’’ 03/31/2017, Contact: Paul Orlando supporting data used to develop those
system. If you send an email comment 240–460–1978 emission inventories, methods and data
directly to the Docket without going EIS No. 20160325, Draft, FERC, VA, used to process emission inventories
through www.regulations.gov, your Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Supply into a form that can be used for air
email address is automatically captured Header Project, Comment Period quality modeling; and (2) air quality
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 Jan 05, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06JAN1.SGM 06JAN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_1737/page/1.svg)
![1736 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2017 / Notices
and gas, non-EGU point sources) to 2023 modeling for the CSAPR Update did not this NODA. The EPA’s modeling
as compared to the methods used in the include the CPP due to the former rule’s directly simulates how future-year
final CSAPR Update to project focus on the 2017 ozone season, see 81 energy trends and economic signals
emissions to 2017 include (1) the use of FR at 74529. In the CSAPR Update affect the composition of the fleet. In the
data from the U.S. Energy Information rulemaking, the agency had identified 2023 projections presented in this
Administration Annual Energy Outlook several key factors and uncertainties NODA, the EPA’s modeling does not
2016 (AEO 2016) to project activity data associated with measuring the effects of project the operation of a number of
for onroad mobile sources and the the CPP in 2017, but explained that the coal-fired and oil-fired units due to
growth in oil and gas emissions, (2) EPA ‘‘continues to believe that the simulated future-year economic
additional general refinements to the modeling for the CPP . . . was useful conditions, whether or not such
projection of oil and gas emissions, (3) and reliable with respect to the model capacity has publicly-released plans to
incorporation of data from the Mid- years analyzed for [the CPP] (i.e., 2020, retire.7 Some other projection
Atlantic Regional Air Management 2025, and 2030).’’ Id.. The period of methodologies, such as the approach
Association (MARAMA) for projection focus for the modeling here is in the used by the Eastern Regional Technical
of non-EGU emissions for states in that mid-2020s, which falls within the CPP’s Advisory Committee (ERTAC),
region, and (4) updated mobile source interim performance period, and the purposefully maintain the current
emissions for California. EPA therefore believes it is appropriate composition of the fleet except where
For EGUs, the EPA has included to include the CPP in the modeling.6 operators have announced expected
several key updates to the Integrated The CPP is targeted at reducing carbon changes. Comparing these projections is
Planning Model (IPM) and its inputs for pollution, but on average, nationwide, informative because there is inherent
the agency’s 2023 EGU projections used the CPP would also reduce NOX uncertainty in anticipating any future-
for the air quality modeling provided in emissions from EGUs. The agency year composition of the EGU fleet, since
this NODA. The updated IPM therefore anticipates that, if the CPP analysts cannot know in advance
assumptions incorporated in the EPA’s were removed from the modeling, the exactly which operators will decide to
Base Case v.5.16 capture several market overall net effect could be higher levels retire which facilities at any given time.
trends occurring in the power sector of NOX emissions, on average, and The EPA is soliciting comments on
today, and the 2023 EGU projections potentially higher ozone concentrations whether and, if so, how different
reflect a continuation of these trends. and contributions at receptors. projection techniques for EGUs would
Notably, natural gas prices remain However, note that NOX emissions from affect emissions and air quality in a
historically low and are expected to EGUs represent just one part of the total manner that could further assist states
remain low in the foreseeable future NOX inventory. In this regard, for many with their analysis of transported air
given that gas production and pipeline states it is possible that changes in EGU pollution.
capacity continue to increase while NOX emissions on the order of what
storage is already at an all-time high. B. Air Quality Modeling
might be expected in 2023 due to the
These factors have contributed to CPP may have limited impact on the For the final CSAPR Update, EPA
record-setting U.S. natural gas concentration and contribution data in used the Comprehensive Air Quality
production levels for the fifth this NODA, which are based on total Model with Extensions (CAMx) v6.20 as
consecutive year in 2015 and record- NOX emissions. the air quality model. After the EPA
setting consumption levels for the sixth As noted above, EGU emissions used performed air quality modeling for the
consecutive year. Additionally, for the air quality modeling in this final CSAPR Update, Ramboll Environ,
electricity demand growth (including NODA are based on IPM v5.16 the CAMx model developer, released an
retail sales and direct use) has slowed projections. However, states may choose updated version of CAMx (version 6.30).
in every decade since the 1950s, from to use other EGU projections in In addition, EPA has recently sponsored
9.8 percent per year from 1949 to 1959 developing their Good Neighbor SIPs. updates to the Carbon Bond chemical
to 0.5 percent per year from 2000 to To continue to update and improve both mechanism in CAMx v6.30 related to
2015. This trend is projected to EPA’s and states’ EGU projections, the halogen chemistry reactions that deplete
continue: AEO 2016 projects lower EPA and state agencies, with the ozone in marine (i.e., salt water)
growth than projected in AEO 2015. In facilitation of multi-jurisdictional environments. The updated chemistry is
addition, these updated emission organizations (MJOs), have been included in a new version 6.32 which
projections account for a continuing collaborating in a technical engagement the EPA has used for this analysis.
decline in the cost of renewable energy process to inform future-year emission Specifically, EPA used CAMx v6.32 for
technologies such as wind and solar, as projections for EGUs. The ongoing the 2011 base year and 2023 future base
well as the recently extended information exchange and data case air quality modeling to identify
production and investment tax credits comparison have facilitated a clearer receptors and quantify contributions for
that support their deployment. All of understanding of the capabilities and the 2015 NAAQS transport assessment.
these factors result in decreased constraints of various tools and Information on this version of CAMx
generation and capacity from methods. This process will continue to can be found in the Release Notes and
conventional coal steam relative to inform how the EPA and states produce User’s Guide for CAMx v6.30 and in a
EPA’s EGU analyses that preceded these EGU emission projections to inform
updated IPM inputs. Over the past 10 efforts to reduce ozone transport. 7 Note that much of this change in operation is
years, coal-fired electricity generation in The EPA observes there are projected to occur as early as 2020, which is the
first year of the 25-year horizon over which EPA’s
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
the U.S. has declined from providing differences between recent emissions
model is optimizing. EPA’s modeling adopts the
roughly half of the nation’s supply to and generation data and the assumption of perfect foresight, which implies that
about one-third, and has been replaced corresponding future-year projections in agents know precisely the nature and timing of
with lower-cost sources such as natural conditions in future years (e.g., future natural gas
gas, wind, and solar. 6 The CPP is stayed by the Supreme Court. West supply, future demand) that affect the ultimate cost
Virginia et al. v. EPA, No. 15A773 (U.S. Feb. 9, of decisions along the way. With this perfect
The updated EGU projections also 2016). It is currently unclear what adjustments, if foresight, the model looks throughout the entire
include the Clean Power Plan (CPP), 80 any, will need to be made to the CPP’s modeling horizon and selects the overall lowest
FR 64662 (October 23, 2015). The implementation timing in light of the stay. cost solution for the power sector over that time.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 Jan 05, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06JAN1.SGM 06JAN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_1737/page/4.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2017 / Notices 1737
technical report describing the updated Using the approach in the final CSAPR 2023. In the CSAPR Update approach,
halogen chemistry in version 6.32. Update, we evaluated the 2023 maintenance-only receptors include
These documents can be found in the projected average and maximum design both those monitoring sites where the
docket for this notice.8 Details of the values in conjunction with the most projected 2023 average design value is
2011 and 2023 CAMx model recent measured ozone design values below the NAAQS, but the maximum
applications are described in the ‘‘Air (i.e., 2013–2015) to identify sites that design value is above the NAAQS, and
Quality Modeling Technical Support may warrant further consideration as monitoring sites with projected 2023
Document for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS potential nonattainment or maintenance average design values that exceed the
Preliminary Interstate Transport sites in 2023.11 If the approach in the NAAQS, but for which current design
Assessment’’ (AQM TSD) which is CSAPR Update is applied to evaluate values based on measured data do not
available in the docket for this notice. the projected design values, those sites exceed the NAAQS.
with 2023 average design values that The base period 2009–2013 ambient
C. Information Regarding Potential 2023
exceed the NAAQS and that are and projected 2023 average and
Nonattainment and Maintenance Sites
currently measuring nonattainment maximum design values and 2013–2015
The ozone predictions from the 2011 would be considered to be and preliminary 2014–2016 measured
and 2023 CAMx model simulations nonattainment receptors in 2023. design values at individual projected
were used to project 2009–2013 average Similarly, with the CSAPR Update 2023 nonattainment receptor sites and
and maximum ozone design values 9 to approach, monitoring sites with a maintenance-only receptor sites are
2023 following the approach described projected 2023 maximum design value provided in Tables 1 and 2,
in the EPA’s draft guidance for that exceeds the NAAQS would be respectively.12
attainment demonstration modeling.10 projected to be maintenance receptors in
TABLE 1A—2009–2013 AND 2023 AVERAGE AND MAXIMUM DESIGN VALUES AND 2013–2015 AND PRELIMINARY 2014–
2016 DESIGN VALUES (DVS) AT PROJECTED NONATTAINMENT RECEPTOR SITES IN THE EAST 13
[Units are ppb]
2009–2013 2009–2013 2023 2023 2013–2015 2014–2016
Site ID County St Average Maximum Average Maximum DV DV
DV DV DV DV
240251001 ............ Harford ........................... MD .... 90.0 93 71.3 73.7 71 73
360850067 ............ Richmond ....................... NY ..... 81.3 83 71.2 72.7 74 76
361030002 ............ Suffolk ............................ NY ..... 83.3 85 71.3 72.7 72 72
480391004 ............ Brazoria ......................... TX ..... 88.0 89 74.4 75.3 80 75
482010024 ............ Harris ............................. TX ..... 80.3 83 71.1 73.5 79 79
482011034 ............ Harris ............................. TX ..... 81.0 82 71.6 72.5 74 73
484392003 ............ Tarrant ........................... TX ..... 87.3 90 73.9 76.2 76 73
484393009 ............ Tarrant ........................... TX ..... 86.0 86 72.0 72.0 78 75
551170006 ............ Sheboygan ..................... WI ..... 84.3 87 71.0 73.3 77 79
TABLE 1B—2009–2013 AND 2023 AVERAGE AND MAXIMUM DESIGN VALUES AND 2013–2015 AND PRELIMINARY 2014–
2016 DESIGN VALUES AT PROJECTED NONATTAINMENT RECEPTOR SITES IN THE WEST
[Units are ppb]
2009–2013 2009–2013 2023 2023 2013–2015 2014–2016
Site ID County St Average Maximum Average Maximum DV DV
DV DV DV DV
60190007 .............. Fresno ............................ CA ..... 94.7 95 78.9 79.1 86 86
60190011 .............. Fresno ............................ CA ..... 93.0 96 77.8 80.3 85 88
60190242 .............. Fresno ............................ CA ..... 91.7 95 79.2 82.0 86 86
60194001 .............. Fresno ............................ CA ..... 90.7 92 73.0 74.0 89 91
60195001 .............. Fresno ............................ CA ..... 97.0 99 79.1 80.8 88 94
60250005 .............. Imperial .......................... CA ..... 74.7 76 72.8 74.1 77 76
60251003 .............. Imperial .......................... CA ..... 81.0 82 78.5 79.5 78 76
60290007 .............. Kern ............................... CA ..... 91.7 96 76.9 80.5 81 87
60290008 .............. Kern ............................... CA ..... 86.3 88 71.2 72.6 78 81
60290014 .............. Kern ............................... CA ..... 87.7 89 72.7 73.8 84 84
60290232 .............. Kern ............................... CA ..... 87.3 89 72.7 74.1 78 77
60311004 .............. Kings .............................. CA ..... 87.0 90 71.0 73.5 80 84
60370002 .............. Los Angeles ................... CA ..... 80.0 82 73.9 75.7 82 86
60370016 .............. Los Angeles ................... CA ..... 94.0 97 86.8 89.6 92 95
8 CAMx v6.32 is a pre-release version of CAMx guidance/guide/Draft_O3-PM-RH_Modeling_ and AirNow and have not been certified by state
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
v6.40 which is expected to be made public by Guidance-2014.pdf. agencies. Note that for some sites the preliminary
Ramboll Environ in late 2016 or early 2017. 11 In determining compliance with the NAAQS, 2014–2016 design values are higher than the
9 The ozone design value for a monitoring site is ozone design values are truncated to integer values. corresponding data for 2013–2015.
For example, a design value of 70.9 parts per billion 13 In this notice, the East includes all states from
the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily
(ppb) is truncated to 70 ppb which is attainment. Texas northward to North Dakota and eastward to
maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration. In this manner, design values at or above 71.0 ppb the East Coast. All states in the contiguous U.S.
10 The December 3, 2014 ozone, fine particulate
are considered to exceed the NAAQS. from New Mexico northward to Montana and
matter, and regional haze SIP modeling guidance is 12 The preliminary 2014–2016 design values are westward to the West Coast are considered, for this
available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/ based on data from the Air Quality System (AQS) notice, to be in the West.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 Jan 05, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06JAN1.SGM 06JAN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_1737/page/5.svg)
![1738 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2017 / Notices
TABLE 1B—2009–2013 AND 2023 AVERAGE AND MAXIMUM DESIGN VALUES AND 2013–2015 AND PRELIMINARY 2014–
2016 DESIGN VALUES AT PROJECTED NONATTAINMENT RECEPTOR SITES IN THE WEST—Continued
[Units are ppb]
2009–2013 2009–2013 2023 2023 2013–2015 2014–2016
Site ID County St Average Maximum Average Maximum DV DV
DV DV DV DV
60371201 .............. Los Angeles ................... CA ..... 90.0 90 80.3 80.3 84 85
60371701 .............. Los Angeles ................... CA ..... 84.0 85 78.3 79.2 89 90
60376012 .............. Los Angeles ................... CA ..... 97.3 99 86.5 88.0 94 96
60379033 .............. Los Angeles ................... CA ..... 90.0 91 76.7 77.5 89 90
60392010 .............. Madera ........................... CA ..... 85.0 86 71.7 72.6 81 83
60650012 .............. Riverside ........................ CA ..... 97.3 99 83.0 84.4 92 93
60651016 .............. Riverside ........................ CA ..... 100.7 101 85.1 85.3 98 97
60652002 .............. Riverside ........................ CA ..... 84.3 85 72.2 72.8 81 81
60655001 .............. Riverside ........................ CA ..... 92.3 93 79.4 80.0 87 87
60656001 .............. Riverside ........................ CA ..... 94.0 98 78.4 81.7 90 91
60658001 .............. Riverside ........................ CA ..... 97.0 98 86.7 87.6 92 95
60658005 .............. Riverside ........................ CA ..... 92.7 94 82.9 84.1 85 91
60659001 .............. Riverside ........................ CA ..... 88.3 91 73.3 75.6 84 86
60670012 .............. Sacramento ................... CA ..... 93.3 95 74.1 75.4 80 83
60710005 .............. San Bernardino .............. CA ..... 105.0 107 96.3 98.1 102 108
60710012 .............. San Bernardino .............. CA ..... 95.0 97 84.4 86.2 88 91
60710306 .............. San Bernardino .............. CA ..... 83.7 85 75.5 76.7 86 86
60711004 .............. San Bernardino .............. CA ..... 96.7 98 89.7 91.0 96 100
60712002 .............. San Bernardino .............. CA ..... 101.0 103 92.9 94.7 97 97
60714001 .............. San Bernardino .............. CA ..... 94.3 97 86.0 88.5 88 91
60714003 .............. San Bernardino .............. CA ..... 105.0 107 94.1 95.9 101 101
60719002 .............. San Bernardino .............. CA ..... 92.3 94 79.8 81.2 86 86
60719004 .............. San Bernardino .............. CA ..... 98.7 99 88.5 88.7 99 104
60990006 .............. Stanislaus ...................... CA ..... 87.0 88 73.6 74.5 82 83
61070009 .............. Tulare ............................. CA ..... 94.7 96 75.8 76.9 89 89
61072010 .............. Tulare ............................. CA ..... 89.0 90 72.6 73.4 81 82
TABLE 2A—2009–2013 AND 2023 AVERAGE AND MAXIMUM DESIGN VALUES AND 2013–2015 AND PRELIMINARY 2014–
2016 DESIGN VALUES AT PROJECTED MAINTENANCE-ONLY RECEPTOR SITES IN THE EAST
[Units are ppb]
2009–2013 2009–2013 2023 2023 2013–2015 2014–2016
Site ID County St Average Maximum Average Maximum DV DV
DV DV DV DV
90013007 .............. Fairfield .......................... CT ..... 84.3 89 69.4 73.2 83 81
90019003 .............. Fairfield .......................... CT ..... 83.7 87 70.5 73.3 84 85
90099002 .............. New Haven .................... CT ..... 85.7 89 69.8 72.5 78 76
260050003 ............ Allegan ........................... MI ...... 82.7 86 68.8 71.5 75 74
261630019 ............ Wayne ............................ MI ...... 78.7 81 69.6 71.7 70 72
360810124 ............ Queens .......................... NY ..... 78.0 80 69.9 71.7 69 69
481210034 ............ Denton ........................... TX ..... 84.3 87 70.8 73.0 83 80
482010026 ............ Harris ............................. TX ..... 77.3 80 68.6 71.0 68 68
482011039 ............ Harris ............................. TX ..... 82.0 84 73.0 74.8 69 67
482011050 ............ Harris ............................. TX ..... 78.3 80 69.5 71.0 71 70
TABLE 2B—2009–2013 AND 2023 AVERAGE AND MAXIMUM DESIGN VALUES AND 2013–2015 AND PRELIMINARY 2014–
2016 DESIGN VALUES AT PROJECTED MAINTENANCE-ONLY RECEPTOR SITES IN THE WEST
[Units are ppb]
2009–2013 2009–2013 2023 2023 2013–2015 2014–2016
Site ID County St Average Maximum Average Maximum DV DV
DV DV DV DV
60295002 .............. Kern ............................... CA ..... 84.3 91 70.4 76.0 85 88
60296001 .............. Kern ............................... CA ..... 84.3 86 70.6 72.0 79 81
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
60372005 .............. Los Angeles ................... CA ..... 78.0 82 70.6 74.3 74 83
61070006 .............. Tulare ............................. CA ..... 81.7 85 69.1 71.8 84 84
61112002 .............. Ventura .......................... CA ..... 81.0 83 70.7 72.4 77 77
80350004 .............. Douglas .......................... CO .... 80.7 83 69.6 71.6 79 77
80590006 .............. Jefferson ........................ CO .... 80.3 83 70.5 72.9 79 77
80590011 .............. Jefferson ........................ CO .... 78.7 82 69.7 72.7 80 80
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 Jan 05, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06JAN1.SGM 06JAN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_1737/page/6.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2017 / Notices 1739
D. Information Regarding • Boundary Concentrations— time period. The hourly contributions 15
Quantification of Ozone Contributions concentrations transported into the from each tag were processed to obtain
The EPA performed nationwide, state- modeling domain from the lateral the 8-hour average contributions
level ozone source apportionment boundaries; corresponding to the time period of the
modeling using the CAMx Ozone • Tribes—the emissions from those 8-hour daily maximum concentration on
Source Apportionment Technology/ tribal lands for which we have point each day in the 2023 model simulation.
Anthropogenic Precursor Culpability source inventory data in the 2011 NEI This step was performed for those
Analysis (OSAT/APCA) technique 14 to (we did not model the contributions model grid cells containing monitoring
provide information regarding the from individual tribes); sites in order to obtain 8-hour average
expected contribution of 2023 base case • Canada and Mexico— contributions for each day at the
NOX and VOC emissions from all anthropogenic emissions from sources location of each site. The model-
sources in each state to projected 2023 in the portions of Canada and Mexico predicted contributions were applied in
ozone concentrations at each air quality included in the modeling domain a relative sense to quantify the
monitoring site. In the source (contributions from Canada and Mexico contributions to the 2023 average design
apportionment model run, we tracked were not modeled separately); value at each site. Additional details on
the ozone formed from each of the • Fires—combined emissions from the source apportionment modeling and
following contribution categories (i.e., wild and prescribed fires domain-wide the procedures for calculating
‘‘tags’’): (i.e., not by state); and contributions can be found in the AQM
• States—anthropogenic NOX and • Offshore—combined emissions TSD. The resulting 2023 contributions
VOC emissions from each of the from offshore marine vessels and from each tag to each monitoring site are
contiguous 48 states and the District of offshore drilling platforms (i.e., not by provided in a file in the docket for this
Columbia tracked individually state). notice.16 The largest contributions from
(emissions from all anthropogenic The CAMx source apportionment each state to 2023 downwind
sectors in a given state were combined); model simulation was performed for the nonattainment receptors and to
• Biogenics—biogenic NOX and VOC period May 1 through September 30 downwind maintenance-only receptors
emissions domain-wide (i.e., not by using the 2023 future base case are provided in Tables 3–1 and 3–2,
state); emissions and 2011 meteorology for this respectively.
TABLE 3–1—LARGEST CONTRIBUTION FROM EACH STATE TO DOWNWIND 8-HOUR OZONE NONATTAINMENT RECEPTORS
[Units are ppb]
Largest Largest
contribution contribution
Upwind states to a downwind Upwind states to a downwind
nonattainment nonattainment
receptor receptor
Alabama ........................................................................ 0.37 Montana ........................................................................ 0.09
Arizona .......................................................................... 0.74 Nebraska ...................................................................... 0.37
Arkansas ....................................................................... 1.16 Nevada ......................................................................... 0.62
California ....................................................................... 0.19 New Hampshire ............................................................ 0.01
Colorado ....................................................................... 0.32 New Jersey ................................................................... 11.73
Connecticut ................................................................... 0.43 New Mexico .................................................................. 0.18
Delaware ....................................................................... 0.55 New York ...................................................................... 0.19
District of Columbia ...................................................... 0.70 North Carolina .............................................................. 0.43
Florida ........................................................................... 0.49 North Dakota ................................................................ 0.15
Georgia ......................................................................... 0.38 Ohio .............................................................................. 2.38
Idaho ............................................................................. 0.07 Oklahoma ..................................................................... 2.39
Illinois ............................................................................ 14.92 Oregon .......................................................................... 0.61
Indiana .......................................................................... 7.14 Pennsylvania ................................................................ 9.11
Iowa .............................................................................. 0.43 Rhode Island ................................................................ 0.00
Kansas .......................................................................... 1.01 South Carolina .............................................................. 0.16
Kentucky ....................................................................... 2.15 South Dakota ................................................................ 0.08
Louisiana ...................................................................... 2.87 Tennessee .................................................................... 0.52
Maine ............................................................................ 0.01 Texas ............................................................................ 1.92
Maryland ....................................................................... 1.73 Utah .............................................................................. 0.24
Massachusetts .............................................................. 0.05 Vermont ........................................................................ 0.00
Michigan ....................................................................... 1.77 Virginia .......................................................................... 5.04
Minnesota ..................................................................... 0.43 Washington ................................................................... 0.15
Mississippi .................................................................... 0.56 West Virginia ................................................................ 2.59
Missouri ........................................................................ 1.20 Wisconsin ..................................................................... 0.47
Wyoming ....................................................................... 0.31
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
14 As part of this technique, ozone formed from 15 Ozone contributions from anthropogenic 16 The file containing the contributions is named:
reactions between biogenic VOC and NOX with emissions under ‘‘NOX-limited’’ and ‘‘VOC-limited’’ ‘‘2015 O3 NAAQS Transport Assessment_Design
anthropogenic NOX and VOC are assigned to the chemical regimes were combined to obtain the net Values & Contributions.’’
anthropogenic emissions. contribution from NOX and VOC anthropogenic
emissions in each state.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 Jan 05, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06JAN1.SGM 06JAN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_1737/page/7.svg)
![1740 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2017 / Notices
TABLE 3–2—LARGEST CONTRIBUTION FROM EACH STATE TO DOWNWIND 8-HOUR OZONE MAINTENANCE RECEPTORS
[Units are ppb]
Largest Largest
contribution contribution
Upwind states to a downwind Upwind states to a downwind
maintenance maintenance
receptor receptor
Alabama ........................................................................ 0.48 Montana ........................................................................ 0.11
Arizona .......................................................................... 0.52 Nebraska ...................................................................... 0.41
Arkansas ....................................................................... 2.20 Nevada ......................................................................... 0.43
California ....................................................................... 2.03 New Hampshire ............................................................ 0.02
Colorado ....................................................................... 0.25 New Jersey ................................................................... 8.65
Connecticut ................................................................... 0.36 New Mexico .................................................................. 0.41
Delaware ....................................................................... 0.38 New York ...................................................................... 15.36
District of Columbia ...................................................... 0.08 North Carolina .............................................................. 0.43
Florida ........................................................................... 0.22 North Dakota ................................................................ 0.13
Georgia ......................................................................... 0.31 Ohio .............................................................................. 3.82
Idaho ............................................................................. 0.16 Oklahoma ..................................................................... 1.30
Illinois ............................................................................ 21.69 Oregon .......................................................................... 0.17
Indiana .......................................................................... 6.45 Pennsylvania ................................................................ 6.39
Iowa .............................................................................. 0.60 Rhode Island ................................................................ 0.02
Kansas .......................................................................... 0.64 South Carolina .............................................................. 0.15
Kentucky ....................................................................... 1.07 South Dakota ................................................................ 0.06
Louisiana ...................................................................... 3.37 Tennessee .................................................................... 0.69
Maine ............................................................................ 0.00 Texas ............................................................................ 2.49
Maryland ....................................................................... 2.20 Utah .............................................................................. 1.32
Massachusetts .............................................................. 0.11 Vermont ........................................................................ 0.01
Michigan ....................................................................... 1.76 Virginia .......................................................................... 2.03
Minnesota ..................................................................... 0.34 Washington ................................................................... 0.11
Mississippi .................................................................... 0.65 West Virginia ................................................................ 0.92
Missouri ........................................................................ 2.98 Wisconsin ..................................................................... 1.94
Wyoming ....................................................................... 0.92
In CSAPR and the CSAPR Update, the that receptor in step 2 of the CSAPR states may not be a considerable portion
EPA used a contribution screening framework for purposes of further of the ozone concentration at the
threshold of 1 percent of the NAAQS to analysis in step 3 to determine whether downwind receptor, the EPA and states
identify upwind states that may and what emissions from the upwind have considered, and could continue to
significantly contribute to downwind state contribute significantly to consider, other factors to evaluate those
nonattainment and/or maintenance downwind nonattainment and interfere states’ planning obligation pursuant to
problems and which warrant further with maintenance of the NAAQS at the the Good Neighbor provision.17
analysis to determine if emissions downwind receptors. For the 2015 However, where the collective
reductions might be required from each ozone NAAQS, the value of a 1 percent contribution of emissions from one or
state to address the downwind air threshold would be 0.70 ppb. The more upwind states is responsible for a
quality problem. The EPA determined individual upwind state to downwind considerable portion of the downwind
that 1 percent was an appropriate receptor ‘‘linkages’’ and contributions air quality problem, the CSAPR
threshold to use in the analysis for those based on a 0.70 ppb threshold are framework treats a contribution from an
rulemakings because there were identified in the AQM TSD for this individual state at or above 1 percent of
important, even if relatively small, notice. the NAAQS as significant, and this
contributions to identified The EPA notes that, when applying reasoning applies regardless of where
nonattainment and maintenance the CSAPR framework, an upwind the receptor is geographically located.
receptors from multiple upwind states state’s linkage to a downwind receptor III. Analytic Information Available for
mainly in the eastern U.S. The agency alone does not determine whether the Public Comment
has historically found that the 1 percent state significantly contributes to
threshold is appropriate for identifying nonattainment or interferes with The EPA has placed key information
interstate transport linkages for states maintenance of a NAAQS to a related to the air quality model
collectively contributing to downwind downwind state. While the 1 percent applications into the electronic docket
ozone nonattainment or maintenance screening threshold has been for this notice. This information
problems because that threshold traditionally applied to evaluate upwind includes the AQM TSD, an Excel file
captures a high percentage of the total state linkages in eastern states where which contains the 2009–2013 base
pollution transport affecting downwind such collective contribution was period and 2023 projected average and
receptors. identified, the EPA noted in the CSAPR maximum ozone design values at
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Based on the approach used in Update that, as to western states, there individual monitoring sites and the
CSAPR and the CSAPR Update, upwind may be geographically specific factors to
states that contribute ozone in amounts consider in determining whether the 1 17 See, e.g., 81 FR 31513 (May 19, 2016)
at or above the 1 percent of the NAAQS percent screening threshold is (approving Arizona Good Neighbor SIP addressing
2008 ozone NAAQS based on determination that
threshold to a particular downwind appropriate. For certain receptors, upwind states would not collectively contribute to
nonattainment or maintenance receptor where the collective contribution of a considerable portion of the downwind air quality
would be considered to be ‘‘linked’’ to emissions from one or more upwind problem).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 Jan 05, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06JAN1.SGM 06JAN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_1737/page/8.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2017 / Notices 1741
ozone contributions to individual FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION Dated: January 4, 2017.
monitoring sites from anthropogenic Dale L. Aultman,
emissions in each state and from the Farm Credit Administration Board; Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board.
other individual categories included in Sunshine Act; Regular Meeting [FR Doc. 2017–00131 Filed 1–4–17; 11:15 am]
the source apportionment modeling. BILLING CODE 6705–01–P
Also in the docket for this notice are a AGENCY: Farm Credit Administration.
number of emission summaries by SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given,
sector, state, county, source pursuant to the Government in the
classification code, month, unit, day, Sunshine Act, of the regular meeting of FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
and control program. In addition, the the Farm Credit Administration Board
raw emission inventory files, ancillary (Board). Change in Bank Control Notices;
data, and scripts used to develop the air Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or
quality model-ready emissions which DATE AND TIME: The regular meeting of Bank Holding Company
are not in a format accepted by the the Board will be held at the offices of
the Farm Credit Administration in The notificants listed below have
electronic docket are available from the applied under the Change in Bank
Air Emissions Modeling Web site for the McLean, Virginia, on January 12, 2017,
from 9:00 a.m. until such time as the Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and
Version 6.3 Platform at https:// § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12
www.epa.gov/air-emissions-modeling/ Board concludes its business.
CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank
2011-version-63-platform. Electronic FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dale or bank holding company. The factors
copies of the emissions and non- L. Aultman, Secretary to the Farm that are considered in acting on the
emissions air quality modeling input Credit Administration Board, (703) 883– notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of
files, the CAMx v6.32 model code and 4009, TTY (703) 883–4056. the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
run scripts, and the air quality modeling ADDRESSES: Farm Credit The notices are available for
output files from the 2011 and 2023 air Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, immediate inspection at the Federal
quality modeling performed for the 2015 McLean, Virginia 22102–5090. Submit Reserve Bank indicated. The notices
NAAQS ozone transport assessment can attendance requests via email to also will be available for inspection at
be obtained by contacting Norm Possiel VisitorRequest@FCA.gov. See the offices of the Board of Governors.
at possiel.norm@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for further Interested persons may express their
The EPA is requesting comment on
information about attendance requests. views in writing to the Reserve Bank
the components of the 2011 air quality
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Parts of indicated for that notice or to the offices
modeling platform, the methods for
this meeting of the Board will be open of the Board of Governors. Comments
projecting 2023 ozone design value
to the public (limited space available), must be received not later than January
concentrations and the methods for
and parts will be closed to the public. 24, 2017.
calculating ozone contributions. The
Please send an email to A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
EPA is also seeking comment on the
VisitorRequest@FCA.gov at least 24 (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice
methods used to project emissions to
hours before the meeting. In your email President) 230 South LaSalle Street,
future years, where 2023 is an example
include: Name, postal address, entity Chicago, Illinois 60690–1414:
of such a year. Specifically, comments
you are representing (if applicable), and 1. Paul James Sentry, Verona,
are requested regarding new datasets,
telephone number. You will receive an Wisconsin; to acquire more than 25
impacts of existing and planned federal,
email confirmation from us. Please be percent of Deerfield Financial
state, and local control programs on
prepared to show a photo identification Corporation, Madison, Wisconsin, and
emissions, and new methods that could
when you arrive. If you need assistance thereby indirectly control Bank of
be used to prepare more representative
for accessibility reasons, or if you have Deerfield, Deerfield, Wisconsin.
emissions projections. That is, EPA is
any questions, contact Dale L. Aultman, B. Federal Reserve Bank of
seeking comments on the projection
Secretary to the Farm Credit Minneapolis (Jacquelyn K. Brunmeier,
approach and data sets that are
Administration Board, at (703) 883– Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin
potentially useful for computing
4009. The matters to be considered at Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota
projected emissions. Commenters
the meeting are: 55480–0291:
wishing to comment on inventory
1. Timothy Schneider, individually
projection methods should submit to the Open Session and as trustee of the Timothy Schneider
docket comments that describe an
A. Approval of Minutes Irrevocable Trust (‘‘Trust’’), both in
alternative approach to the existing
Adams, Minnesota; to acquire more than
methods, along with documentation • December 8, 2016
10 percent of Adams Bancshares, Inc.,
describing why that method is an B. New Business and thereby indirectly control United
improvement over the existing method. • Draft Third Amended and Restated Farmers State Bank, both in Adams,
Summaries of the base and projected Market Access Agreement to be Minnesota.
future year emission inventories are entered into by the Farm Credit C. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas
provided in the docket to aid in the System Banks and the Federal Farm City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice
review of these data. As indicated Credit Banks Funding Corporation President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas
above, the comment period for this
C. Reports City, Missouri 64198–0001:
notice is 90 days from the date of
• Auditor’s Report on FCA FY 2016/ 1. Clay Muegge and Chad Muegge,
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
publication in the Federal Register.
2015 Financial Statements both of Lamont, Oklahoma; to retain
Dated: December 28, 2016. shares of State Exchange Bancshares,
Stephen Page, Closed Session* Inc., and thereby indirectly retain shares
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and • Executive Meeting with Auditors of State Exchange Bank, both of Lamont,
Standards. Oklahoma; and for approval as members
[FR Doc. 2017–00058 Filed 1–5–17; 8:45 am] * Session Closed-Exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. of the Muegge Family Group that
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Section 552b(c)(2). controls State Exchange Bancshares, Inc.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 Jan 05, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06JAN1.SGM 06JAN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_1737/page/9.svg)
Document Created: 2017-01-06 01:30:06
Document Modified: 2017-01-06 01:30:06
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Notice of data availability (NODA); request for public comment. | |
| Dates | Comments must be received on or before 90 days after publication in the Federal Register. | |
| Contact | For questions on the emissions data and on how to submit comments on the emissions-related projection methodologies, contact Alison Eyth, Air Quality Assessment Division, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail code: 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 preliminary 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, Mail code: 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 Citation | 82 FR 1733 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR