Notice of Availability of the Environmental Protection Agency's Updated Ozone Transport Modeling Data for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), 46271-46280 [2015-18878]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
46271
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 149 / Tuesday, August 4, 2015 / Notices
the potential for serious delivery
problems on the pipeline’s own system
or the pipeline grid.
Filings (in accordance with the
provisions of section 4(d) of the NGA) 2
must contain information necessary to
advise the Commission when a change
in service has occurred. Section 7(d) of
the NGA 3 authorizes the Commission to
issue a temporary certificate in cases of
emergency to assure maintenance of
adequate service or to serve particular
customers, without notice or hearing.
Respondents to the FERC–576 are
encouraged to submit the reports by
email to pipelineoutage@ferc.gov but
also have the option of faxing the
reports to the Director of the Division of
Pipeline Certificates. 18 CFR 260.9(b)
requires that a report of service
interruption or damage to natural gas
facilities state: (1) The location of the
service interruption or damage to
natural gas pipeline or storage facilities;
(2) The nature of any damage to pipeline
or storage facilities; (3) Specific
identification of the facilities damaged;
(4) The time the service interruption or
damage to the facilities occurred; (5)
The customers affected by the service
interruption or damage to the facilities;
(6) Emergency actions taken to maintain
service; and (7) Company contact and
telephone number. The Commission
may contact pipelines reporting damage
or other pipelines to determine
availability of supply, and if necessary,
authorize transportation or construction
of facilities to alleviate constraints in
response to these reports.
A report required by 18 CFR
260.9(a)(1)(i) of damage to natural gas
facilities resulting in loss of pipeline
throughput or storage deliverability
shall be reported to the Director of the
Commission’s Division of Pipeline
Certificates at the earliest feasible time
when pipeline throughput or storage
deliverability has been restored.
In any instance in which an incident
or damage report involving
jurisdictional natural gas facilities is
required by Department of
Transportation (DOT) reporting
requirements under the Natural Gas
Pipeline Safety Act of 1968, a copy of
such report shall be submitted to the
Director of the Commission’s Division of
Pipeline Certificates, within 30 days of
the reportable incident.4
If the Commission failed to collect
these data, it would lose the ability to
monitor and evaluate transactions,
operations, and reliability of interstate
pipelines and perform its regulatory
functions. These reports are kept by the
Commission Staff as non-public
information and are not made part of the
public record.
Type of Respondents: Natural gas
companies.
Estimate of Annual Burden 5: The
Commission estimates the annual public
reporting burden for the information
collection as:
FERC–576—REPORT OF SERVICE INTERRUPTIONS
Number of
respondents
Annual
number
of
responses
per
respondent
Total
number of
responses
Average
burden & cost
per
response 6
Total annual
burden hours
&
total
annual cost
Cost per
respondent
($)
(1)
(2)
(1) * (2) = (3)
(4)
(3) * (4) = (5)
(5) ÷ (1)
22
2
44
Submittal of Damage Report ...................
22
2
44
Submittal of DOT Incident Report ...........
22
1
22
Total ..................................................
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Submittal of Original Email/Fax ...............
........................
........................
........................
Comments: Comments are invited on:
(1) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
Commission, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
(2) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate
of the burden and cost of the collection
of information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility
and clarity of the information collection;
and (4) ways to minimize the burden of
the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including the use
2 (15
U.S.C. 717c).
U.S.C. 717f).
4 18 CFR 260.9(d).
5 The Commission defines burden as the total
time, effort, or financial resources expended by
persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
3 (15
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:45 Aug 03, 2015
Jkt 235001
1
$72
0.25
$18
0.25
$18
44
$3,168
11
$198
5.5
$99
72
18
........................
60.5
$3,465
108
18
of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
Dated: July 29, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0500; FRL–9931–68–
OAR]
[FR Doc. 2015–19058 Filed 8–3–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
Notice of Availability of the
Environmental Protection Agency’s
Updated Ozone Transport Modeling
Data for the 2008 Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of data availability
(NODA); request for public comment.
AGENCY:
provide information to or for a Federal agency. For
further explanation of what is included in the
information collection burden, reference 5 Code of
Federal Regulations 1320.3.
6 The estimates for cost per response are derived
using the following formula: Average Burden Hours
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
per Response * $72.00 per Hour = Average Cost per
Response. The hourly cost figure comes from the
FERC average salary ($149,489/year). Commission
staff believes the FERC average salary to be
representative wage for industry respondents.
E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM
04AUN1
46272
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 149 / Tuesday, August 4, 2015 / Notices
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is providing notice that
interstate ozone transport modeling and
associated data and methods are
available for public review and
comment. These data and methods will
be used to inform a rulemaking proposal
that the EPA is developing and expects
to release later this year to address
interstate ozone transport for the 2008
ozone national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS). This notice also
meets the EPA’s expressed intent to
update the air quality modeling data
that were released on January 22, 2015,
and to share the updated data with
states and other stakeholders. The
information available includes: (1)
Emission inventories for 2011 and 2017,
supporting data used to develop those
emission inventories, methods and data
used to process emission inventories
into a form that can be used for air
quality modeling; and (2) base year 2011
and projected 2017 ozone
concentrations and projected 2017
ozone state contribution data at
individual ozone monitoring sites based
on air quality modeling, supporting data
including 2009–2013 base period and
2017 projected ozone design values, and
methods used to process air quality
model outputs to calculate 2017 ozone
concentrations and contributions at
individual monitoring sites. A docket
has been established to facilitate public
review of the data and to track
comments.
SUMMARY:
Comments must be received on
or before September 23, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2015–0500, by one of the
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
• Fax: (202)566–9744. Attention
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–
0500.
• Mail: EPA Docket Center, WJC West
Building, Attention Docket ID No. EPA–
HQ–OAR–2015–0500, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Please include a total of 2 copies.
• Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, WJC West Building,
1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Room
3334, Washington, DC 20004, Attention
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–
0500. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Docket’s normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
DATES:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:45 Aug 03, 2015
Jkt 235001
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–
0500. The EPA’s policy is that all
comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and
may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through www.regulations.gov
or email. Clearly mark the part or all of
the information that you claim to be
CBI. For CBI information on a disk or
CD–ROM that you mail to the EPA
docket office, mark the outside of the
disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then
identify electronically within the disk or
CD–ROM the specific information that
is claimed as CBI. Information so
marked will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that
includes information claimed as CBI, a
copy of the comment that does not
contain the information claimed as CBI
must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is
an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means the EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless
you provide it in the body of your
comment. If you send an email
comment directly to the EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov,
your email address will be
automatically captured and included as
part of the comment that is placed in the
public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, the EPA recommends that
you include your name and other
contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD–ROM
you submit. If the EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification,
the EPA may not be able to consider
your comment. Electronic files should
avoid the use of special characters, any
form of encryption, and be free of any
defects or viruses.
When submitting comments,
remember to:
1. Identify the notification by docket
number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal
Register date and page number).
2. Explain your comments, why you
agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute data that reflect your
requested changes.
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 https://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the www.regulations.gov
index. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available
either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center, EPA/DC, WJC West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566–1744, and the telephone
number for the Air Docket is (202) 566–
1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
questions on the emissions data and on
how to submit comments on the
emissions data and related
methodologies, contact Alison Eyth, Air
Quality Assessment Division,
Environmental Protection Agency,
C339–02, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709;
telephone number: (919)541–2478; fax
number: (919)541–1903; email:
eyth.alison@epa.gov. For questions on
the air quality modeling and ozone
contributions and how to submit
comments on the air quality modeling
data and related methodologies, contact
Norm Possiel, Air Quality Assessment
Division, Environmental Protection
Agency, C439–01, 109 T.W. Alexander
Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC
27709; telephone number: (919)541–
5692; fax number: (919)541–0044;
email: possiel.norm@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On January 22, 2015, the EPA issued
a memo and preliminary air quality
modeling data that would help states as
E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM
04AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 149 / Tuesday, August 4, 2015 / Notices
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
they develop State Implementation
Plans to address cross-state transport of
air pollution under the ‘‘Good
Neighbor’’ Provision of the Clean Air
Act (CAA), section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), as
it pertains to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.1
That information included the EPA’s
preliminary air quality modeling data
that applies the Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule (CSAPR—76 FR 48208)
approach to contribution projections for
the year 2018 for the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. Specifically, the EPA provided
data identifying ozone monitoring sites
that are projected to be nonattainment
or have maintenance problems for the
2008 ozone NAAQS in 2018. The EPA
also provided the projected contribution
estimates from 2018 anthropogenic
oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and volatile
organic compound (VOC) emissions in
each state to ozone concentrations at
each of these sites. The year 2018 was
used as the analytic year for the
preliminary modeling because at the
onset of the modeling assessment, that
year aligned with the December 2018
attainment date for Moderate ozone
nonattainment areas. However,
subsequent to the completion of the
2018 modeling, the EPA issued the final
2008 Ozone NAAQS SIP Requirements
Rule,2 which revised the attainment
deadline for ozone nonattainment areas
currently designated as Moderate for the
2008 ozone NAAQS to July 2018. The
EPA established this deadline in the
2015 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule after
previously establishing a deadline of
December 31, 2018, that was vacated by
the DC Circuit in Natural Resources
Defense Council v. EPA. In order to
demonstrate attainment by the revised
attainment deadline, the demonstration
would have to be based on design
values calculated using 2015 through
2017 ozone season data, since the July
2018 deadline does not afford a full
ozone season of measured data.
Therefore, the EPA has adopted 2017 as
the analytic year for the updated ozone
transport modeling information being
released as part of this NODA.
The 2011 and 2018 emissions
inventory data used for the preliminary
air quality modeling were released for
public review on November 27, 2013 (78
FR 70935), and January 14, 2014 (79 FR
2437), respectively. Based in part on
comments received from the public
1 Memorandum from Stephen D. Page,
Information on the Interstate Transport ‘‘Good
Neighbor’’ Provision for the 2008 Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) under
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), January 22, 2015,
available at https://www.epa.gov/airtransport/Good
NeighborProvision2008NAAQS.pdf.
2 80 FR 12264, 12268 (Mar. 6, 2015); 40 CFR
51.1103.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:45 Aug 03, 2015
Jkt 235001
review process, the EPA updated the
2011 emissions inventory data,
developed emissions inventory data for
2017, and used these data in air quality
modeling to develop updated
projections of future year ozone
concentrations and contributions.
In the January 22, 2015 memo, the
EPA expressed its intent to update the
preliminary air quality modeling data
and to share the updated data with
states and other stakeholders. This
notice meets this intent. Additionally,
the EPA, together with its state partners,
is assessing the next steps to address
interstate air pollution transport for the
2008 ozone NAAQS under the CAA.
The EPA recognizes its backstop role to
develop and promulgate federal
implementation plans, as appropriate.
We are planning to take this action, if
necessary, by issuing a proposal for a
federal rule later this year. This notice
provides an opportunity to review and
comment on the agency’s ozone
transport modeling data that EPA
intends to use in this forthcoming
proposal.
II. Air Quality Modeling Data and
Methodologies
Using the updated emissions
inventories, the EPA performed
photochemical air quality modeling to
project ozone concentrations at air
quality monitoring sites to 2017, and to
estimate state-by-state contributions to
those 2017 concentrations. We then
used the air quality modeling results to
identify nonattainment or maintenance
sites for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in
2017, consistent with the CSAPR
approach to identify such sites. We used
the contribution information to quantify
projected interstate contributions from
emissions in each upwind state to ozone
concentrations at each of the projected
2017 nonattainment and maintenance
sites in downwind states.
The EPA’s air quality modeling used
the updated version of the 2011-based
air quality modeling platform. This
platform includes emissions for the
2011 base year and a 2017 future base
case as well as meteorology for 2011.
The 2011 meteorology was used in air
quality model simulations for both 2011
and 2017. The 2011 and 2017 emissions
data are described in more detail in
Section III.
The EPA used the Comprehensive Air
Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx
version 6.11) for modeling the 2011 base
year and 2017 future base case
emissions scenarios to identify sites
with projected nonattainment and
maintenance problems in 2017. The air
quality model runs were performed for
a modeling domain that covers the 48
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
46273
states in the contiguous U.S. along with
adjacent portions of Canada and
Mexico. The spatial resolution (i.e., grid
size) for this modeling domain is 12 km
x 12 km. The 2011 and 2017 scenarios
were both modeled for the full year with
2011 meteorology. The meteorological
data used as input to the air quality
modeling was obtained from an annual
simulation of version 3.4 of the Weather
Research Forecast Model (WRF) for
2011. The initial and boundary
concentration inputs to the air quality
modeling were derived from an annual
simulation of the Goddard Earth
Observing System global chemical
transport model (GEOS-Chem). The
CAMx predictions for 2011 were
compared to corresponding
measurements as part of a model
performance evaluation. Information on
the development of the 2011
meteorological and initial and boundary
concentration inputs to the CAMx
simulations and the model performance
evaluation methodologies and results
are described in the ‘‘Updated Air
Quality Modeling Technical Support
Document’’ (AQM TSD) for the 2008
Ozone NAAQS Interstate Transport
Assessment, which is available in the
docket for this notice. Also in this
docket is a report on the performance
evaluation for the annual 2011 WRF
meteorological model simulation.
A. Identification of Projected 2017
Nonattainment and Maintenance Sites
The ozone predictions from the 2011
and 2017 CAMx model runs were used
to project measured ozone design values
to 2017 following the approach
described in the EPA’s draft guidance
for attainment demonstration
modeling.3 We selected 2011 as the base
year to reflect the most recent National
Emissions Inventory (NEI). In addition,
the meteorological conditions during
the summer of 2011 were generally
conducive for ozone formation across
much of the U.S., particularly the
eastern U.S. We selected 2017 as the
projected analysis year to coincide with
the attainment date for Moderate
nonattainment areas under the 2008
ozone NAAQS. The draft attainment
modeling guidance recommends using
5-year weighted average ambient design
values 4 centered on the base year as the
starting point for projecting design
values to the future. Because 2011 is the
3 The December 3, 2014, draft ozone, fine
particulate matter and regional haze SIP modeling
guidance is available at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/
scram/guidance/guide/Draft_O3–PM–RH_
Modeling_Guidance-2014.pdf.
4 The air quality design value for a site is the 3year average annual fourth-highest daily maximum
8-hour average ozone concentration.
E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM
04AUN1
46274
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 149 / Tuesday, August 4, 2015 / Notices
base year of emissions, we started with
the average ambient 8-hour ozone
design values for the period 2009
through 2013 (i.e., the average of design
values for 2009–2011, 2010–2012, and
2011–2013). The 5-year weighted
average ambient design value at each
site was projected to 2017 using modelpredicted Relative Response Factors
(RRFs) 5 that were calculated based on
procedures described in the draft
attainment demonstration modeling
guidance. The 2017 projected average
ozone design values were evaluated to
identify those sites with design values
that exceed the 2008 ozone NAAQS.6
Consistent with the approach used in
CSAPR, those sites with 2017 average
design values that exceed the NAAQS
are projected to be in nonattainment in
2017.
As noted above, we followed the
CSAPR approach to identify sites with
projected maintenance problems in
2017. As part of the approach for
identifying sites with projected future
maintenance problems, the highest (i.e.,
maximum) ambient design value from
the 2011-centered 5-year period (i.e., the
maximum of design values from 2009–
2011, 2010–2012, and 2011–2013) was
projected to 2017 for each site using the
site-specific RRFs. Following the
CSAPR approach, monitoring sites with
a maximum design value that exceeds
the NAAQS, even if the average design
value is below the NAAQS, are
projected to have a maintenance
problem in 2017. In this regard,
nonattainment sites are also
maintenance sites because the
maximum design value at
nonattainment sites is always greater
than or equal to the 5-year weighted
average. Monitoring sites with a 2017
average design value below the NAAQS,
but with a maximum design value that
exceeds the NAAQS, are considered
maintenance-only sites. These sites are
projected to have a maintenance
problem, but not a nonattainment
problem in 2017.
The base period ambient and
projected 2017 average and maximum
design values at individual
nonattainment sites and maintenanceonly sites are provided in Tables 1 and
2, respectively.
TABLE 1—2009–2013 AND 2017 AVERAGE AND MAXIMUM DESIGN VALUES AT PROJECTED NONATTAINMENT SITES IN THE
EAST (TOP) AND WEST (BOTTOM)
[Units are ppb]
2009–2013 average design
value
2009–2013
maximum design value
2017 average
design value
Fairfield .............................
Fairfield .............................
New Haven .......................
Harford ..............................
Richmond ..........................
Suffolk ...............................
Hamilton ............................
Brazoria .............................
Denton ...............................
Harris .................................
Harris .................................
Tarrant ...............................
Tarrant ...............................
Sheboygan ........................
84.3
83.7
85.7
90.0
81.3
83.3
82.0
88.0
84.3
81.0
82.0
87.3
86.0
84.3
89.0
87.0
89.0
93.0
83.0
85.0
85.0
89.0
87.0
82.0
84.0
90.0
86.0
87.0
77.1
78.0
77.2
81.3
76.3
79.2
76.3
81.4
76.9
76.8
78.2
79.6
78.6
77.0
81.4
81.1
80.2
84.0
77.8
80.8
79.1
82.3
79.4
77.8
80.2
82.1
78.6
79.4
Fresno ...............................
Fresno ...............................
Fresno ...............................
Fresno ...............................
Fresno ...............................
Imperial .............................
Kern ...................................
Kern ...................................
Kern ...................................
Kern ...................................
Kern ...................................
Kern ...................................
Kern ...................................
Kings .................................
Los Angeles ......................
Los Angeles ......................
Los Angeles ......................
Los Angeles ......................
Los Angeles ......................
Los Angeles ......................
Los Angeles ......................
Los Angeles ......................
Madera ..............................
Merced ..............................
Placer ................................
94.7
93.0
91.7
90.7
97.0
81.0
91.7
86.3
80.0
87.7
87.3
90.0
84.3
87.0
80.0
94.0
80.0
90.0
84.0
79.5
97.3
90.0
85.0
82.7
84.0
95.0
96.0
95.0
92.0
99.0
82.0
96.0
88.0
81.0
89.0
89.0
91.0
86.0
90.0
82.0
97.0
81.0
90.0
85.0
82.0
99.0
91.0
86.0
84.0
86.0
89.0
87.6
87.1
84.2
90.6
79.3
86.2
80.6
76.2
82.8
82.2
84.5
79.7
81.1
79.0
92.8
77.1
87.9
82.2
78.1
94.5
86.0
79.8
78.1
78.2
89.3
90.4
90.3
85.4
92.5
80.3
90.2
82.2
77.1
84.0
83.8
85.5
81.3
83.9
81.0
95.8
78.1
87.9
83.2
80.6
96.2
86.9
80.8
79.3
80.0
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Monitor ID
State
County
90013007 ..........
90019003 ..........
90099002 ..........
240251001 ........
360850067 ........
361030002 ........
390610006 ........
480391004 ........
481210034 ........
482011034 ........
482011039 ........
484392003 ........
484393009 ........
551170006 ........
.
60190007 ..........
60190011 ..........
60190242 ..........
60194001 ..........
60195001 ..........
60251003 ..........
60290007 ..........
60290008 ..........
60290011 ..........
60290014 ..........
60290232 ..........
60295002 ..........
60296001 ..........
60311004 ..........
60370002 ..........
60370016 ..........
60371002 ..........
60371201 ..........
60371701 ..........
60372005 ..........
60376012 ..........
60379033 ..........
60392010 ..........
60470003 ..........
60610006 ..........
Connecticut .......................
Connecticut .......................
Connecticut .......................
Maryland ...........................
New York ..........................
New York ..........................
Ohio ...................................
Texas ................................
Texas ................................
Texas ................................
Texas ................................
Texas ................................
Texas ................................
Wisconsin ..........................
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
...........................
...........................
...........................
...........................
...........................
...........................
...........................
...........................
...........................
...........................
...........................
...........................
...........................
...........................
...........................
...........................
...........................
...........................
...........................
...........................
...........................
...........................
...........................
...........................
...........................
5 In brief, the RRF for a particular location is the
ratio of the 2017 ozone model prediction to the
2011 ozone model prediction. The RRFs were
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:45 Aug 03, 2015
Jkt 235001
calculated using model outputs for the May through
September period.
6 In determining compliance with the NAAQS,
ozone design values are truncated to integer values.
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2017 maximum design
value
For example, a design value of 75.9 ppb is truncated
to 75 ppb which is attainment. In this manner,
design values at or above 76.0 ppb are considered
nonattainment.
E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM
04AUN1
46275
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 149 / Tuesday, August 4, 2015 / Notices
TABLE 1—2009–2013 AND 2017 AVERAGE AND MAXIMUM DESIGN VALUES AT PROJECTED NONATTAINMENT SITES IN THE
EAST (TOP) AND WEST (BOTTOM)—Continued
[Units are ppb]
Monitor ID
60650004
60650012
60651016
60652002
60655001
60656001
60658001
60658005
60659001
60670012
60675003
60710005
60710012
60710306
60711004
60712002
60714001
60714003
60719002
60719004
60731006
60990006
61070006
61070009
61072002
61072010
61112002
80350004
80590006
2009–2013 average design
value
State
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
County
California ...........................
California ...........................
California ...........................
California ...........................
California ...........................
California ...........................
California ...........................
California ...........................
California ...........................
California ...........................
California ...........................
California ...........................
California ...........................
California ...........................
California ...........................
California ...........................
California ...........................
California ...........................
California ...........................
California ...........................
California ...........................
California ...........................
California ...........................
California ...........................
California ...........................
California ...........................
California ...........................
Colorado ............................
Colorado ............................
2009–2013
maximum design value
2017 average
design value
85.0
97.3
100.7
84.3
92.3
94.0
97.0
92.7
88.3
93.3
86.3
105.0
95.0
83.7
96.7
101.0
94.3
105.0
92.3
98.7
81.0
87.0
81.7
94.7
85.0
89.0
81.0
80.7
80.3
85.0
99.0
101.0
85.0
93.0
98.0
98.0
94.0
91.0
95.0
88.0
107.0
97.0
85.0
98.0
103.0
97.0
107.0
94.0
99.0
82.0
88.0
85.0
96.0
88.0
90.0
83.0
83.0
83.0
82.3
93.5
95.7
79.8
87.6
88.1
93.3
89.2
82.7
85.7
80.5
103.6
91.8
81.2
94.3
99.5
92.3
101.8
88.0
95.7
76.6
83.0
77.0
87.3
78.6
82.7
78.3
76.0
76.3
Riverside ...........................
Riverside ...........................
Riverside ...........................
Riverside ...........................
Riverside ...........................
Riverside ...........................
Riverside ...........................
Riverside ...........................
Riverside ...........................
Sacramento .......................
Sacramento .......................
San Bernardino .................
San Bernardino .................
San Bernardino .................
San Bernardino .................
San Bernardino .................
San Bernardino .................
San Bernardino .................
San Bernardino .................
San Bernardino .................
San Diego .........................
Stanislaus ..........................
Tulare ................................
Tulare ................................
Tulare ................................
Tulare ................................
Ventura ..............................
Douglas .............................
Jefferson ...........................
2017 maximum design
value
82.3
95.1
96.0
80.5
88.2
91.9
94.3
90.4
85.2
87.3
82.0
105.6
93.8
82.4
95.6
101.5
95.0
103.8
89.6
96.0
77.6
83.9
80.1
88.5
81.4
83.6
80.2
78.1
78.8
TABLE 2—2009–2013 AND 2017 AVERAGE AND MAXIMUM DESIGN VALUES AT PROJECTED MAINTENANCE-ONLY SITES IN
THE EAST (TOP) AND WEST (BOTTOM)
[Units are ppb]
2009–2013 average design
value
2009–2013
maximum design value
2017 average
design value
Fairfield .............................
Jefferson ...........................
Oldham ..............................
Baltimore ...........................
Allegan ..............................
Wayne ...............................
Camden .............................
Gloucester .........................
Middlesex ..........................
Ocean ................................
Queens ..............................
Allegheny ..........................
Philadelphia .......................
Collin .................................
Dallas ................................
Dallas ................................
Denton ...............................
Harris .................................
Harris .................................
Harris .................................
Harris .................................
Tarrant ...............................
Tarrant ...............................
80.3
82.0
82.0
80.7
82.7
78.7
82.7
84.3
81.3
82.0
78.0
80.7
83.3
82.7
79.7
82.0
82.7
80.3
77.3
81.3
78.3
82.0
80.7
83.0
85.0
86.0
84.0
86.0
81.0
87.0
87.0
85.0
85.0
80.0
82.0
87.0
84.0
84.0
83.0
84.0
83.0
80.0
83.0
80.0
83.0
83.0
75.8
75.8
73.7
73.2
75.5
74.0
74.2
75.1
73.0
73.9
75.7
75.3
75.1
74.9
74.0
75.8
75.1
75.9
73.5
75.4
74.6
75.5
74.5
78.4
78.6
77.3
76.2
78.5
76.2
78.1
77.5
76.3
76.6
77.6
76.5
78.4
76.0
78.0
76.7
76.3
78.5
76.1
77.0
76.2
76.4
76.6
Maricopa ...........................
El Dorado ..........................
Madera ..............................
Placer ................................
79.7
82.7
79.3
83.0
81.0
84.0
81.0
85.0
75.0
75.1
75.3
75.4
76.2
76.3
76.9
77.2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Monitor ID
State
County
90010017 ..........
211110067 ........
211850004 ........
240053001 ........
260050003 ........
261630019 ........
340071001 ........
340150002 ........
340230011 ........
340290006 ........
360810124 ........
420031005 ........
421010024 ........
480850005 ........
481130069 ........
481130075 ........
481211032 ........
482010024 ........
482010026 ........
482010055 ........
482011050 ........
484390075 ........
484393011 ........
Connecticut .......................
Kentucky ...........................
Kentucky ...........................
Maryland ...........................
Michigan ............................
Michigan ............................
New Jersey .......................
New Jersey .......................
New Jersey .......................
New Jersey .......................
New York ..........................
Pennsylvania .....................
Pennsylvania .....................
Texas ................................
Texas ................................
Texas ................................
Texas ................................
Texas ................................
Texas ................................
Texas ................................
Texas ................................
Texas ................................
Texas ................................
40131004
60170020
60390004
60610003
Arizona ..............................
California ...........................
California ...........................
California ...........................
..........
..........
..........
..........
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:45 Aug 03, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM
04AUN1
2017 maximum design
value
46276
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 149 / Tuesday, August 4, 2015 / Notices
TABLE 2—2009–2013 AND 2017 AVERAGE AND MAXIMUM DESIGN VALUES AT PROJECTED MAINTENANCE-ONLY SITES IN
THE EAST (TOP) AND WEST (BOTTOM)—Continued
[Units are ppb]
Monitor ID
60670006
60773005
80050002
80590011
2009–2013 average design
value
State
..........
..........
..........
..........
County
California ...........................
California ...........................
Colorado ............................
Colorado ............................
2009–2013
maximum design value
2017 average
design value
78.7
79.0
76.7
78.7
81.0
80.0
79.0
82.0
74.0
75.9
74.4
75.8
Sacramento .......................
San Joaquin ......................
Arapahoe ...........................
Jefferson ...........................
B. Quantification of Interstate Ozone
Contributions
The EPA performed nationwide, statelevel ozone source apportionment
modeling using the CAMx Ozone
Source Apportionment Technology/
Anthropogenic Precursor Culpability
Analysis (OSAT/APCA) technique 7 to
quantify the contribution of 2017 base
case NOX and VOC emissions from all
sources in each state to projected 2017
ozone concentrations at each air quality
monitoring site. In the source
apportionment model run, we tracked
the ozone formed from each of the
following contribution categories (i.e.,
‘‘tags’’):
• States—anthropogenic NOX and
VOC emissions from each state tracked
individually (emissions from all
anthropogenic sectors in a given state
were combined);
• Biogenics—biogenic NOX and VOC
emissions domain-wide (i.e., not by
state);
• Boundary Concentrations—
concentrations transported into the
modeling domain;
• Tribes—the emissions from those
tribal lands for which we have point
source inventory data in the 2011 NEI
(we did not model the contributions
from individual tribes);
• Canada and Mexico—
anthropogenic emissions from sources
in the portions of Canada and Mexico
included in the modeling domain (we
did not model the contributions from
Canada and Mexico separately);
• Fires—combined emissions from
wild and prescribed fires; and
• Offshore—combined emissions
from offshore marine vessels and
offshore drilling platforms.
The CAMx OSAT/APCA model run
was performed for the period May 1
through September 30 using the 2017
future base case emissions and 2011
meteorology for this time period. The
hourly contributions 8 from each tag
were processed to obtain the 8-hour
average contributions corresponding to
the time period of the 8-hour daily
maximum concentration on each day in
the 2017 model simulation. This step
was performed for those model grid
cells containing monitoring sites in
order to obtain 8-hour average
contributions for each day at the
location of each site. The modelpredicted contributions were then
2017 maximum design
value
76.1
76.8
76.6
78.9
applied in a relative sense to quantify
the contributions to the 2017 average
design value at each site. Additional
details on the source apportionment
modeling and the procedures for
calculating contributions can be found
in the AQM TSD.
The average contribution metric is
intended to provide a reasonable
representation of the contribution from
individual states to the projected 2017
design value, based on modeled
transport patterns and other
meteorological conditions generally
associated with modeled high ozone
concentrations in the vicinity of the
monitoring site. An average contribution
metric constructed in this manner is
beneficial since the magnitude of the
contributions is directly related to the
magnitude of the design value at each
site.
The resulting 2017 contributions from
each tag to each monitoring site are
provided in the AQM TSD. The largest
contributions from each state to
projected 2017 downwind
nonattainment sites and to projected
downwind maintenance-only sites are
provided in Table 3.
TABLE 3—LARGEST OZONE CONTRIBUTIONS FROM EACH STATE TO DOWNWIND 2017 PROJECTED NONATTAINMENT AND
TO 2017 PROJECTED MAINTENANCE-ONLY SITES
[Units are ppb]
Largest contribution to a 2017
nonattainment site
in downwind
states
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Upwind state
Largest contribution to a 2017
maintenance-only
site in downwind
states
0.79
1.78
1.24
1.75
0.36
0.46
0.68
0.73
0.57
0.58
0.23
1.28
0.41
2.15
3.44
0.34
0.41
2.23
0.64
0.72
0.56
0.35
Alabama .......................................................................................................................................................
Arizona .........................................................................................................................................................
Arkansas ......................................................................................................................................................
California ......................................................................................................................................................
Colorado ......................................................................................................................................................
Connecticut ..................................................................................................................................................
Delaware ......................................................................................................................................................
District of Columbia .....................................................................................................................................
Florida ..........................................................................................................................................................
Georgia ........................................................................................................................................................
Idaho ............................................................................................................................................................
7 As part of this technique, ozone formed from
reactions between biogenic VOC and NOX with
anthropogenic NOX and VOC are assigned to the
anthropogenic emissions.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:45 Aug 03, 2015
Jkt 235001
8 Contributions from anthropogenic emissions
under ‘‘NOX-limited’’ and ‘‘VOC-limited’’ chemical
regimes were combined to obtain the net
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
contribution from NOX and VOC anthropogenic
emissions in each state.
E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM
04AUN1
46277
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 149 / Tuesday, August 4, 2015 / Notices
TABLE 3—LARGEST OZONE CONTRIBUTIONS FROM EACH STATE TO DOWNWIND 2017 PROJECTED NONATTAINMENT AND
TO 2017 PROJECTED MAINTENANCE-ONLY SITES—Continued
[Units are ppb]
Largest contribution to a 2017
nonattainment site
in downwind
states
Upwind state
Largest contribution to a 2017
maintenance-only
site in downwind
states
17.48
7.15
0.61
0.80
11.17
3.81
0.00
2.39
0.10
2.69
0.40
0.78
1.63
0.15
0.51
0.84
0.02
12.38
1.05
16.96
0.55
0.14
3.99
1.70
0.65
13.51
0.02
0.19
0.08
1.67
2.44
1.59
0.01
5.29
0.22
2.99
0.56
1.22
23.17
14.95
0.85
1.03
2.14
4.23
0.08
7.11
0.37
1.79
0.47
1.48
3.69
0.17
0.36
0.73
0.07
11.48
0.54
17.21
0.93
0.28
7.92
2.46
0.65
15.93
0.08
0.21
0.12
0.90
2.95
1.66
0.05
4.70
0.09
3.11
2.59
1.22
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Illinois ...........................................................................................................................................................
Indiana .........................................................................................................................................................
Iowa .............................................................................................................................................................
Kansas .........................................................................................................................................................
Kentucky ......................................................................................................................................................
Louisiana ......................................................................................................................................................
Maine ...........................................................................................................................................................
Maryland ......................................................................................................................................................
Massachusetts .............................................................................................................................................
Michigan .......................................................................................................................................................
Minnesota ....................................................................................................................................................
Mississippi ....................................................................................................................................................
Missouri ........................................................................................................................................................
Montana .......................................................................................................................................................
Nebraska ......................................................................................................................................................
Nevada .........................................................................................................................................................
New Hampshire ...........................................................................................................................................
New Jersey ..................................................................................................................................................
New Mexico .................................................................................................................................................
New York .....................................................................................................................................................
North Carolina ..............................................................................................................................................
North Dakota ................................................................................................................................................
Ohio .............................................................................................................................................................
Oklahoma .....................................................................................................................................................
Oregon .........................................................................................................................................................
Pennsylvania ................................................................................................................................................
Rhode Island ................................................................................................................................................
South Carolina .............................................................................................................................................
South Dakota ...............................................................................................................................................
Tennessee ...................................................................................................................................................
Texas ...........................................................................................................................................................
Utah .............................................................................................................................................................
Vermont .......................................................................................................................................................
Virginia .........................................................................................................................................................
Washington ..................................................................................................................................................
West Virginia ................................................................................................................................................
Wisconsin .....................................................................................................................................................
Wyoming ......................................................................................................................................................
In CSAPR, the EPA used a
contribution screening threshold of 1
percent of the NAAQS to identify
upwind states in the eastern U.S. that
may significantly contribute to
downwind nonattainment and/or
maintenance problems and which
warrant further analysis. The EPA will
take comment on the appropriate
threshold to be applied for purposes of
the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the
upcoming rulemaking proposal to
address interstate ozone transport for
that standard. The EPA is not proposing
or taking comment on this threshold as
part of this NODA.
C. Air Quality Modeling Information
Available for Public Comment
The EPA is requesting comment on
the components of the 2011 air quality
modeling platform, the air quality
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:45 Aug 03, 2015
Jkt 235001
model applications and model
performance evaluation, and the
projected 2017 ozone design value
concentrations and contribution data.
The EPA is also seeking comment on the
methodology for calculating
contributions at individual monitoring
sites. The EPA encourages all states and
sources to review and comment on the
information provided in this NODA.
The EPA has placed key information
related to the air quality modeling into
the electronic docket for this notice
(EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0500) which is
available at www.regulations.gov. This
includes the AQM TSD, an Excel file
which contains the 2009–2013 base
period and 2017 projected average and
maximum ozone design values at
individual monitoring sites, and an
Excel file with the ozone contributions
from each state and all other source tags
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
to each monitoring site. However, the
air quality modeling input and output
data files are too large to be directly
uploaded into the electronic docket
and/or are not in formats accepted by
that docket. These air quality modeling
files have been placed on a data drive
in the docket office. Electronic copies of
the non-emissions air quality modeling
input files and the air quality modeling
output files can also be obtained prior
to the end of the comment period by
contacting Norm Possiel at
possiel.norm@epa.gov. A detailed
description of the 2011 and 2017
emissions data and procedures for
accessing and commenting on these data
are provided below.
III. Emissions Data and Methodologies
The EPA is requesting comment on
the updated 2011 and 2017 emission
E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM
04AUN1
46278
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 149 / Tuesday, August 4, 2015 / Notices
inventories; supporting ancillary files
used to allocate emissions temporally,
spatially, and by emissions species; and
on the emissions modeling methods
used to develop the emission
inventories, including but not restricted
to, the activity data, model input
databases, and the projection, control,
and closure data used to develop
projected 2017 emissions. Summaries of
the emission inventories are provided to
aid in the review of the data, but
comments are sought on the actual
inventories, model inputs, data, and
methods used to develop the projected
emissions.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
A. Instructions for Submitting Emissions
Comments and Alternative Emissions
Data
The EPA can most effectively use
comments on emissions data that
provide specific alternative values to
those in the EPA data sets, and for
which accompanying documentation
supports the alternative values.
Commenters should provide the
alternative data at a level of detail
appropriate to the data set into which it
will be incorporated, thereby including
all key fields needed to substitute the
old data with the new. For example, any
data provided as an alternative to the
EPA’s point source emissions data
should include all key fields used to
identify point source data such as
facility, unit, release point, process, and
pollutant, along with alternative
emissions values. If a commenter were
to provide a new set of county total
emissions as an alternative to detailed
point source emissions data, the EPA
would not be able to use that new data.
Commenters should also include
documentation that describes methods
for development of any alternative
values and relevant references
supporting the alternative approach.
Any alternative emission inventory or
ancillary data provided should be
compatible with the formats used by the
Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel
Emissions (SMOKE) modeling system
version 3.6.5, which is used by the EPA
to process emission inventories into a
format that can be used for air quality
modeling. Formats are defined in the
SMOKE Version 3.6.5 User’s Manual
available from https://
www.cmascenter.org/smoke/. Only the
rows of data that have changed from
those provided by the EPA should be
included in the alternative data sets.
Alternative data that are not an input to
SMOKE, such as model input databases
for mobile source models, should be
provided in a format in which it could
be directly input to the model.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:45 Aug 03, 2015
Jkt 235001
Commenters wishing to comment on
inventory projection methods should
submit to the docket comments that
describe an alternative approach to the
existing methods, along with
documentation describing why that
method is an improvement over the
existing method.
B. Emissions Information Available for
Public Comment
The released data include emission
inventories that represent projected
emissions into the atmosphere of
criteria and some hazardous air
pollutants in the years 2011 and 2017,
additional ancillary data files that are
used to convert the NEI emissions into
a form that can be used for air quality
modeling, and methods used to prepare
the air quality model inputs and to
develop projections of emissions for the
year 2017. The platform includes
emission inventories for sources at
specific locations called point sources;
emissions from fire events; and countylevel emissions of onroad mobile
sources, nonroad mobile sources, and
nonpoint stationary sources.
The provided emission inventories
are split into categories called modeling
sectors. For example, facility-specific
point emission sources are split into
electric generating units (EGUs), oil and
gas point sources, and other point
sources. Nonpoint emission sources are
split into agricultural ammonia sources,
area fugitive dust sources, non-Category
3 commercial marine and locomotive
sources, residential wood sources, oil
and gas nonpoint sources, agricultural
burning sources, and other nonpoint
sources. Additional modeling sectors
are onroad and nonroad mobile sources,
Category 3 commercial marine sources,
and emissions from wild and prescribed
fires.
The emission inventories for the
future year of 2017 have been developed
using projection methods that are
specific to the type of emission source.
Future emissions are projected from the
2011 base case either by running models
to estimate future year emissions from
specific types of emission sources (i.e.,
EGUs, and onroad and nonroad mobile
sources), or for other types of sources by
adjusting the base year emissions
according to the best estimate of
changes expected to occur in the
intervening years (i.e., non-EGU point
and nonpoint sources).
For some sectors, the same emissions
are used in the base and future years,
such as biogenic emissions, wild and
prescribed fire emissions, and Canadian
emissions. For all other sectors, rules
and specific legal obligations that go
into effect in the intervening years,
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
along with changes in activity for the
sector, are considered when possible.
Documentation of the methods used for
each sector is provided in the TSD
Preparation of Emissions Inventories for
the Version 6.2, 2011 Emissions
Modeling Platform, which can be found
in the docket for this notice.
Emission projections for EGUs for
2017 were developed using the
Integrated Planning Model (IPM). The
National Electric Energy Data System
(NEEDS) database contains the
generation unit records used for the
model plants that represent existing and
planned/committed units in EPA
modeling applications of IPM. The
NEEDS database includes basic
geographic, operating, air emissions,
and other data on these generating units
and is updated for the EPA’s version
5.14 power sector modeling platform.
The EGU emission projections included
in this data release are reported in an air
quality modeling-ready flat file taken
from the EPA Base Case v.5.14,
developed using IPM. The 2017 EGU
emission projections in the flat file
format, the corresponding NEEDS
database, and user guides and
documentation are available in the
docket for this notice, and at https://
www.epa.gov/powersectormodeling.
To project future emissions from
onroad and nonroad mobile sources, the
EPA uses the Motor Vehicle Emissions
Simulator (MOVES) and the National
Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM),
respectively. Development of the future
year onroad and nonroad emissions
requires a substantial amount of lead
time and resources. The EPA had
already prepared the emissions
projections for 2018 when the
attainment deadline for Moderate
nonattainment areas was revised to July
2018 in the 2008 Ozone SIP
Requirements Rule, as discussed above,
effectively requiring the agency to adjust
its projection year to 2017. Thus, for
purposes of this NODA, the EPA
calculated the 2017 emissions from
mobile sources using post-modeling
adjustments to 2018 emissions, but the
agency anticipates that it will directly
generate the mobile source emissions for
2017 that will be used in the air quality
modeling for the final rule to address
interstate transport for the 2008 ozone
standard. The EPA obtained 2018
projections by running the MOVES and
NMIM models using year-specific
information about fuel mixtures, activity
data, and the impacts of national and
state-level rules and control programs.
The input databases and future year
activity data for onroad mobile sources
are provided with the 2011v6.2 platform
available at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/
E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM
04AUN1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 149 / Tuesday, August 4, 2015 / Notices
chief/emch/#2011. The 2018
onroad and nonroad mobile source
emissions were adjusted for 2017 using
factors derived from national scale runs
of MOVES and NMIM, respectively.
For non-EGU point and nonpoint
sources, projections of 2017 emissions
were developed by starting with the
2011 emissions inventories and
applying adjustments that represent the
impact of national, state, and local rules
coming into effect in the years 2012
through 2017, along with the impacts of
planned shutdowns, the construction of
new plants, specific information
provided by states, and specific legal
obligations resolving alleged
environmental violations, such as
consent decrees. Changes in activity are
considered for sectors such as oil and
gas, residential wood combustion,
cement kilns, livestock, aircraft,
commercial marine vessels and
locomotives. Data files that include
factors that represent the changes are
provided, along with summaries that
quantify the emission changes resulting
from the projections at a state and
national level.
The provided data include relevant
emissions inventories for neighboring
countries used in our modeling,
specifically the 2010 emissions
inventories for Canada and the 2008 and
2018 emissions inventories for Mexico.
Canadian emissions for a future year
were not available.
Ancillary data files used to allocate
annual emissions to the hourly, gridded
emissions of chemical species used by
the air quality model are also provided.
The types of ancillary data files include
temporal profiles that allocate annual
and monthly emissions down to days
and hours, spatial surrogates that
allocate county-level emissions onto the
grid cells used by the AQM, and
speciation profiles that allocate the
pollutants in the NEI to the chemical
species used by the air quality model. In
addition, there are temporal, spatial,
and speciation cross-reference files that
map the emission sources in the
emission inventories to the appropriate
profiles based on their location,
emissions source classification code
(SCC), and, in some cases, the specific
facility or unit. With the exception of
some speciation profiles and temporal
profiles for EGUs and mobile sources,
the same ancillary data files are used to
prepare the 2011 and 2017 emissions
inventories for air quality modeling.
Information related to this section is
located in the docket. However, as
mentioned above, some of the emissions
data files are too large to be directly
uploaded into the electronic docket
and/or are not in formats accepted by
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:45 Aug 03, 2015
Jkt 235001
that docket. Therefore, the information
placed in the electronic docket,
associated detailed data, and summaries
to help with interpretation of the data
are available for public review with the
2011v6.2 platform available on the
Emissions Modeling Clearinghouse on
the EPA’s Web site at https://
www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/
index.html#2011. Requests for
electronic copies of pre-merged,
intermediate and air quality modelready emissions files for input to air
quality modeling can be obtained by
contacting Alison Eyth at eyth.alison@
epa.gov.
The emissions inventories, along with
many of the ancillary files, are provided
in the form of flat files that can be input
to SMOKE. Flat files are commaseparated values-style text files with
columns and rows that can be loaded
into spreadsheet or database software.
The columns of interest in the emission
inventory files are specified in each
subsection below. The EPA specifically
requests comment on the following
components of the provided emissions
modeling inventories and ancillary files:
• Emissions values and supporting
data for EGUs. The EPA requests
comment on the IPM version 5.14 input
assumptions, NEEDS database, 2018
unit-level parsed files because 2017
parsed files are not available, 2017 flat
file inputs and outputs (including
modifications to the IPM 2018 Base Case
to inform 2017 NOX emissions),
temporal profiles use to allocate
seasonal emissions to hours, and cross
references and matching between IPM
and NEI.
• Emission values for non-EGU
sources. The EPA requests comment on
the criteria air pollutant projected 2017
emissions in the modeling inventories,
such as NOX, VOC, sulfur dioxide,
particulate matter less than 2.5
micrometers, particulate matter less
than 10 micrometers, and ammonia,
with a focus on the ozone precursors
NOX and VOC. The EPA will also accept
comments on 2017 projections of
hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), as they
are included in the outputs of models
used to develop 2017 emission
projections. However, HAPs are not the
focus of this effort. The annual
emissions values are located in the
ANN_VALUE column of emission
inventory files in the Flat File 2010
(FF10) format. Some emission
inventories (e.g., nonroad) may also
have values filled in to the monthly
value columns (e.g., JAN_VALUE, FEB_
VALUE, . . ., DEC_VALUE). The EPA
requests comment on both the annual
and monthly emissions values, where
applicable. Summaries of emissions by
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
46279
state and county are provided to aid in
the review of emissions values.
• Model inputs and activity data used
to develop mobile source emission
inventories. The EPA requests comment
on the mobile source model input data
used to develop the projected future
mobile source emission inventories.
These include both the databases used
to create emission factors and the
vehicle miles traveled and vehicle
population activity data used to
compute the emissions. Of particular
interest are county total vehicle miles
traveled, the mixture of vehicle types in
2017, hoteling hours of combination
long-haul trucks, and changes to the
inspection and maintenance programs.
Alternative activity data should be
provided in the SMOKE FF10 activity
data format.
• Projection data and methods. The
EPA seeks comment on the data used to
project point and nonpoint source
emissions from 2011 to 2017, and on the
methods and assumptions used to
implement the projections. In this
context, nonpoint source emissions are
inclusive of commercial marine vessel,
railroad, oil and gas, and other nonpoint
emissions. In particular, the EPA seeks
comment on its assumptions regarding
the manner in which specific consent
decrees and state- or locality-specific
control programs will be implemented.
• Existing control techniques. The
emission inventories include
information on emissions control
techniques listed in terms of control
codes submitted to the EIS. These are
listed in the CONTROL_IDS and
CONTROL_MEASURES columns in the
emission inventory flat files, with levels
of reduction in the ANN_PCT_RED
column. Projection of non-EGU point
source emissions to future years is
dependent on this information. The EPA
seeks comment on whether data on
existing controls given in the inventory
flat files are incomplete or erroneous.
The flat files must be consulted for
details of control techniques by
pollutant.
• Emissions modeling methods. The
EPA is using SMOKE version 3.6.5 to
prepare data for air quality modeling.
The EPA requests comment on the
methods by which SMOKE is used to
develop air quality model-ready
emissions, as illustrated in the scripts
provided with the modeling platform
and as described in the TSD Preparation
of Emissions Inventories for the Version
6.2, 2011 Emissions Modeling Platform,
available with the 2011v6.2 platform at
https://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/
index.html#2011.
• Temporal allocation. Annual
emission inventories must be allocated
E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM
04AUN1
46280
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 149 / Tuesday, August 4, 2015 / Notices
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
to hourly values prior to air quality
modeling. This may be done with
temporal profiles in several steps, such
as annual-to-month, month-to-day, and
day-to-hour. The exact method used
depends on the type of emissions being
processed. The EPA seeks comment on
the allocation of the emission
inventories to month, day, and hour for
all types of emission processes. In
particular, the EPA seeks information
that could help improve the temporal
allocation in 2017 of emissions from
EGUs, nonroad mobile sources,
residential wood combustion sources,
and the temporal allocation of vehicle
miles traveled needed to model onroad
mobile sources. The EPA seeks localand region-specific data that can be
used to improve the temporal allocation
of emissions data.
• Spatial surrogates. Spatial
surrogates are used to allocate countylevel emissions to the grid cells used for
air quality modeling. The EPA requests
comment on the spatial surrogates used
to spatially allocate the 2011 and 2017
emissions. The same spatial surrogates
are used in the base and future years.
• Chemical speciation. Prior to air
quality modeling, the pollutants in the
emission inventories must be converted
into the chemical species used by the air
quality model using speciation profiles.
The speciation profiles provided are
consistent with version 4.4 of the
SPECIATE database. The EPA requests
comment on the provided speciation
profiles, as well as any information that
could help improve the speciation of oil
and gas emissions in both the eastern
and western U.S. in 2017. Oil and gas
speciation information, along with VOC
to TOG adjustment factors that are used
to compute methane emissions, would
be of the most use at the county or oil/
gas basin level of detail and also for
each distinct process at oil and gas
drilling/production facilities (e.g., glycol
dehydrators).
To aid in the interpretation of the
provided data files and how they relate
to the aspects of the data on which the
EPA is requesting comment, the EPA
has provided a summary document in
the docket that describes in more detail
the provided data and summary files.
Dated: July 23, 2015.
Stephen D. Page,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards.
[FR Doc. 2015–18878 Filed 8–3–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:45 Aug 03, 2015
Jkt 235001
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[EPA–HQ–OW–2014–0170; FRL—9931–67–
OW]
RIN 2040–ZA24
Final 2014 Effluent Guidelines Program
Plan and 2014 Annual Effluent
Guidelines Review Report
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of availability.
AGENCY:
This notice announces the
availability of the Environmental
Protection Agency’s (EPA) Final 2014
Effluent Guidelines Program Plan and
EPA’s 2014 Annual Effluent Guidelines
Review Report. Section 304(m) of the
Clean Water Act requires EPA to
biennially publish a plan for new and
revised effluent guidelines, after public
notice and comment. The Plan identifies
any new or existing industrial categories
selected for effluent guidelines and
provides a schedule. EPA typically
publishes a preliminary plan upon
which the public is invited to comment,
and then publishes a final plan
thereafter. EPA published the
Preliminary 2014 Plan on September 16,
2014, and received public comment on
it.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
William F. Swietlik, Engineering and
Analysis Division, Office of Water,
4303T, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW., Washington, DC., 20460;
telephone number: (202) 566–1129; fax
number: (202) 566–1053; email address:
swietlik.william@epa.gov
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
I. General Information
A. Supporting Documents—Key
documents providing additional
information about EPA’s 2014 annual
review and the Final 2014 Plan include
the 2014 Effluent Guidelines Review
Report and the Final 2014 Effluent
Guidelines Program Plan.
B. How can I get copies of these
documents and other related
information?
1. Docket. EPA has established official
public dockets for these actions under
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2014–
0170. The official public docket is the
collection of materials that is available
for public viewing at the Water Docket
in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC)
EPA West, Room 3334,
1301Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
2. Electronic Access. You can access
this Federal Register document
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
electronically through the United States
government online source for Federal
regulations at https://
www.regulations.gov.
3. Internet access. Copies of the
supporting documents are available at
https://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/
lawsguidance/cwa/304m/index.cfm
II. How Is This Document Organized?
The outline of this notice follows.
A. Legal Authority
B. Summary of the Final 2014 Effluent
Guidelines Program Plan
A. Legal Authority
This notice is published under the
authority of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1251,
et seq., and in particular sections 301(d),
304(b), 304(g), 304(m), 306, 307(b) and
308 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 1311(d),
1314(b), 1314(g), 1314(m), 1316,
1317(b), and 1318.
B. Summary of the Final 2014 Effluent
Guidelines Program Plan
EPA prepared the Final 2014 Effluent
Guidelines Program Plan (the Plan)
pursuant to Clean Water Act section
304(m). The Plan provides a summary of
EPA’s review of effluent guidelines and
pretreatment standards, consistent with
CWA sections 301(d), 304(b), 304(g),
304(m), and 307(b). It includes EPA’s
evaluation of indirect discharge
categories that do not have categorical
pretreatment standards for the purpose
of identifying potential new categories
for which pretreatment standards under
CWA section 307(b) might be warranted.
From these reviews, the Plan identifies
any new or existing industrial categories
selected for effluent guidelines, and
provides a schedule. In addition, the
Plan presents any new or existing
categories of industry selected for
further review and analysis. The Final
2014 Plan and the 2014 Annual Review
Report can be found at https://
water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/
cwa/304m/index.cfm
Dated: July 24, 2015.
Kenneth J. Kopocis,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water.
[FR Doc. 2015–18877 Filed 8–3–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM
04AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 149 (Tuesday, August 4, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46271-46280]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18878]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0500; FRL-9931-68-OAR]
Notice of Availability of the Environmental Protection Agency's
Updated Ozone Transport Modeling Data for the 2008 Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of data availability (NODA); request for public comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 46272]]
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is providing notice
that interstate ozone transport modeling and associated data and
methods are available for public review and comment. These data and
methods will be used to inform a rulemaking proposal that the EPA is
developing and expects to release later this year to address interstate
ozone transport for the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS). This notice also meets the EPA's expressed intent to
update the air quality modeling data that were released on January 22,
2015, and to share the updated data with states and other stakeholders.
The information available includes: (1) Emission inventories for 2011
and 2017, supporting data used to develop those emission inventories,
methods and data used to process emission inventories into a form that
can be used for air quality modeling; and (2) base year 2011 and
projected 2017 ozone concentrations and projected 2017 ozone state
contribution data at individual ozone monitoring sites based on air
quality modeling, supporting data including 2009-2013 base period and
2017 projected ozone design values, and methods used to process air
quality model outputs to calculate 2017 ozone concentrations and
contributions at individual monitoring sites. A docket has been
established to facilitate public review of the data and to track
comments.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 23, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2015-0500, by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
Fax: (202)566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2015-0500.
Mail: EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Attention
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0500, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460. Please include a total of 2 copies.
Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, WJC
West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 3334, Washington, DC
20004, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0500. Such deliveries
are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2015-0500. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov
or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you
claim to be CBI. For CBI information on a disk or CD-ROM that you mail
to the EPA docket office, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI
and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific
information that is claimed as CBI. Information so marked will not be
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part
2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to the EPA without going through www.regulations.gov,
your email address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA
recommends that you include your name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
When submitting comments, remember to:
1. Identify the notification by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
2. Explain your comments, why you agree or disagree; suggest
alternatives and substitute data that reflect your requested changes.
3. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
4. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
5. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
6. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.
For additional information about the EPA's public docket, visit the
EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket
and Information Center, EPA/DC, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-
1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions on the emissions data
and on how to submit comments on the emissions data and related
methodologies, contact Alison Eyth, Air Quality Assessment Division,
Environmental Protection Agency, C339-02, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709; telephone number: (919)541-2478; fax
number: (919)541-1903; email: eyth.alison@epa.gov. For questions on the
air quality modeling and ozone contributions and how to submit comments
on the air quality modeling data and related methodologies, contact
Norm Possiel, Air Quality Assessment Division, Environmental Protection
Agency, C439-01, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC
27709; telephone number: (919)541-5692; fax number: (919)541-0044;
email: possiel.norm@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On January 22, 2015, the EPA issued a memo and preliminary air
quality modeling data that would help states as
[[Page 46273]]
they develop State Implementation Plans to address cross-state
transport of air pollution under the ``Good Neighbor'' Provision of the
Clean Air Act (CAA), section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), as it pertains to the
2008 ozone NAAQS.\1\ That information included the EPA's preliminary
air quality modeling data that applies the Cross-State Air Pollution
Rule (CSAPR--76 FR 48208) approach to contribution projections for the
year 2018 for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Specifically, the EPA
provided data identifying ozone monitoring sites that are projected to
be nonattainment or have maintenance problems for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
in 2018. The EPA also provided the projected contribution estimates
from 2018 anthropogenic oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and
volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions in each state to ozone
concentrations at each of these sites. The year 2018 was used as the
analytic year for the preliminary modeling because at the onset of the
modeling assessment, that year aligned with the December 2018
attainment date for Moderate ozone nonattainment areas. However,
subsequent to the completion of the 2018 modeling, the EPA issued the
final 2008 Ozone NAAQS SIP Requirements Rule,\2\ which revised the
attainment deadline for ozone nonattainment areas currently designated
as Moderate for the 2008 ozone NAAQS to July 2018. The EPA established
this deadline in the 2015 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule after previously
establishing a deadline of December 31, 2018, that was vacated by the
DC Circuit in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA. In order to
demonstrate attainment by the revised attainment deadline, the
demonstration would have to be based on design values calculated using
2015 through 2017 ozone season data, since the July 2018 deadline does
not afford a full ozone season of measured data. Therefore, the EPA has
adopted 2017 as the analytic year for the updated ozone transport
modeling information being released as part of this NODA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Information on the
Interstate Transport ``Good Neighbor'' Provision for the 2008 Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), January 22, 2015, available at https://www.epa.gov/airtransport/GoodNeighborProvision2008NAAQS.pdf.
\2\ 80 FR 12264, 12268 (Mar. 6, 2015); 40 CFR 51.1103.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2011 and 2018 emissions inventory data used for the preliminary
air quality modeling were released for public review on November 27,
2013 (78 FR 70935), and January 14, 2014 (79 FR 2437), respectively.
Based in part on comments received from the public review process, the
EPA updated the 2011 emissions inventory data, developed emissions
inventory data for 2017, and used these data in air quality modeling to
develop updated projections of future year ozone concentrations and
contributions.
In the January 22, 2015 memo, the EPA expressed its intent to
update the preliminary air quality modeling data and to share the
updated data with states and other stakeholders. This notice meets this
intent. Additionally, the EPA, together with its state partners, is
assessing the next steps to address interstate air pollution transport
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS under the CAA. The EPA recognizes its backstop
role to develop and promulgate federal implementation plans, as
appropriate. We are planning to take this action, if necessary, by
issuing a proposal for a federal rule later this year. This notice
provides an opportunity to review and comment on the agency's ozone
transport modeling data that EPA intends to use in this forthcoming
proposal.
II. Air Quality Modeling Data and Methodologies
Using the updated emissions inventories, the EPA performed
photochemical air quality modeling to project ozone concentrations at
air quality monitoring sites to 2017, and to estimate state-by-state
contributions to those 2017 concentrations. We then used the air
quality modeling results to identify nonattainment or maintenance sites
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 2017, consistent with the CSAPR approach to
identify such sites. We used the contribution information to quantify
projected interstate contributions from emissions in each upwind state
to ozone concentrations at each of the projected 2017 nonattainment and
maintenance sites in downwind states.
The EPA's air quality modeling used the updated version of the
2011-based air quality modeling platform. This platform includes
emissions for the 2011 base year and a 2017 future base case as well as
meteorology for 2011. The 2011 meteorology was used in air quality
model simulations for both 2011 and 2017. The 2011 and 2017 emissions
data are described in more detail in Section III.
The EPA used the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions
(CAMx version 6.11) for modeling the 2011 base year and 2017 future
base case emissions scenarios to identify sites with projected
nonattainment and maintenance problems in 2017. The air quality model
runs were performed for a modeling domain that covers the 48 states in
the contiguous U.S. along with adjacent portions of Canada and Mexico.
The spatial resolution (i.e., grid size) for this modeling domain is 12
km x 12 km. The 2011 and 2017 scenarios were both modeled for the full
year with 2011 meteorology. The meteorological data used as input to
the air quality modeling was obtained from an annual simulation of
version 3.4 of the Weather Research Forecast Model (WRF) for 2011. The
initial and boundary concentration inputs to the air quality modeling
were derived from an annual simulation of the Goddard Earth Observing
System global chemical transport model (GEOS-Chem). The CAMx
predictions for 2011 were compared to corresponding measurements as
part of a model performance evaluation. Information on the development
of the 2011 meteorological and initial and boundary concentration
inputs to the CAMx simulations and the model performance evaluation
methodologies and results are described in the ``Updated Air Quality
Modeling Technical Support Document'' (AQM TSD) for the 2008 Ozone
NAAQS Interstate Transport Assessment, which is available in the docket
for this notice. Also in this docket is a report on the performance
evaluation for the annual 2011 WRF meteorological model simulation.
A. Identification of Projected 2017 Nonattainment and Maintenance Sites
The ozone predictions from the 2011 and 2017 CAMx model runs were
used to project measured ozone design values to 2017 following the
approach described in the EPA's draft guidance for attainment
demonstration modeling.\3\ We selected 2011 as the base year to reflect
the most recent National Emissions Inventory (NEI). In addition, the
meteorological conditions during the summer of 2011 were generally
conducive for ozone formation across much of the U.S., particularly the
eastern U.S. We selected 2017 as the projected analysis year to
coincide with the attainment date for Moderate nonattainment areas
under the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The draft attainment modeling guidance
recommends using 5-year weighted average ambient design values \4\
centered on the base year as the starting point for projecting design
values to the future. Because 2011 is the
[[Page 46274]]
base year of emissions, we started with the average ambient 8-hour
ozone design values for the period 2009 through 2013 (i.e., the average
of design values for 2009-2011, 2010-2012, and 2011-2013). The 5-year
weighted average ambient design value at each site was projected to
2017 using model-predicted Relative Response Factors (RRFs) \5\ that
were calculated based on procedures described in the draft attainment
demonstration modeling guidance. The 2017 projected average ozone
design values were evaluated to identify those sites with design values
that exceed the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\6\ Consistent with the approach used
in CSAPR, those sites with 2017 average design values that exceed the
NAAQS are projected to be in nonattainment in 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The December 3, 2014, draft ozone, fine particulate matter
and regional haze SIP modeling guidance is available at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/Draft_O3-PM-RH_Modeling_Guidance-2014.pdf.
\4\ The air quality design value for a site is the 3-year
average annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone
concentration.
\5\ In brief, the RRF for a particular location is the ratio of
the 2017 ozone model prediction to the 2011 ozone model prediction.
The RRFs were calculated using model outputs for the May through
September period.
\6\ In determining compliance with the NAAQS, ozone design
values are truncated to integer values. For example, a design value
of 75.9 ppb is truncated to 75 ppb which is attainment. In this
manner, design values at or above 76.0 ppb are considered
nonattainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above, we followed the CSAPR approach to identify sites
with projected maintenance problems in 2017. As part of the approach
for identifying sites with projected future maintenance problems, the
highest (i.e., maximum) ambient design value from the 2011-centered 5-
year period (i.e., the maximum of design values from 2009-2011, 2010-
2012, and 2011-2013) was projected to 2017 for each site using the
site-specific RRFs. Following the CSAPR approach, monitoring sites with
a maximum design value that exceeds the NAAQS, even if the average
design value is below the NAAQS, are projected to have a maintenance
problem in 2017. In this regard, nonattainment sites are also
maintenance sites because the maximum design value at nonattainment
sites is always greater than or equal to the 5-year weighted average.
Monitoring sites with a 2017 average design value below the NAAQS, but
with a maximum design value that exceeds the NAAQS, are considered
maintenance-only sites. These sites are projected to have a maintenance
problem, but not a nonattainment problem in 2017.
The base period ambient and projected 2017 average and maximum
design values at individual nonattainment sites and maintenance-only
sites are provided in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.
Table 1--2009-2013 and 2017 Average and Maximum Design Values at Projected Nonattainment Sites in the East (Top) and West (Bottom)
[Units are ppb]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009-2013 2009-2013
Monitor ID State County average design maximum design 2017 average 2017 maximum
value value design value design value
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
90013007........................ Connecticut............... Fairfield................. 84.3 89.0 77.1 81.4
90019003........................ Connecticut............... Fairfield................. 83.7 87.0 78.0 81.1
90099002........................ Connecticut............... New Haven................. 85.7 89.0 77.2 80.2
240251001....................... Maryland.................. Harford................... 90.0 93.0 81.3 84.0
360850067....................... New York.................. Richmond.................. 81.3 83.0 76.3 77.8
361030002....................... New York.................. Suffolk................... 83.3 85.0 79.2 80.8
390610006....................... Ohio...................... Hamilton.................. 82.0 85.0 76.3 79.1
480391004....................... Texas..................... Brazoria.................. 88.0 89.0 81.4 82.3
481210034....................... Texas..................... Denton.................... 84.3 87.0 76.9 79.4
482011034....................... Texas..................... Harris.................... 81.0 82.0 76.8 77.8
482011039....................... Texas..................... Harris.................... 82.0 84.0 78.2 80.2
484392003....................... Texas..................... Tarrant................... 87.3 90.0 79.6 82.1
484393009....................... Texas..................... Tarrant................... 86.0 86.0 78.6 78.6
551170006....................... Wisconsin................. Sheboygan................. 84.3 87.0 77.0 79.4
60190007........................ California................ Fresno.................... 94.7 95.0 89.0 89.3
60190011........................ California................ Fresno.................... 93.0 96.0 87.6 90.4
60190242........................ California................ Fresno.................... 91.7 95.0 87.1 90.3
60194001........................ California................ Fresno.................... 90.7 92.0 84.2 85.4
60195001........................ California................ Fresno.................... 97.0 99.0 90.6 92.5
60251003........................ California................ Imperial.................. 81.0 82.0 79.3 80.3
60290007........................ California................ Kern...................... 91.7 96.0 86.2 90.2
60290008........................ California................ Kern...................... 86.3 88.0 80.6 82.2
60290011........................ California................ Kern...................... 80.0 81.0 76.2 77.1
60290014........................ California................ Kern...................... 87.7 89.0 82.8 84.0
60290232........................ California................ Kern...................... 87.3 89.0 82.2 83.8
60295002........................ California................ Kern...................... 90.0 91.0 84.5 85.5
60296001........................ California................ Kern...................... 84.3 86.0 79.7 81.3
60311004........................ California................ Kings..................... 87.0 90.0 81.1 83.9
60370002........................ California................ Los Angeles............... 80.0 82.0 79.0 81.0
60370016........................ California................ Los Angeles............... 94.0 97.0 92.8 95.8
60371002........................ California................ Los Angeles............... 80.0 81.0 77.1 78.1
60371201........................ California................ Los Angeles............... 90.0 90.0 87.9 87.9
60371701........................ California................ Los Angeles............... 84.0 85.0 82.2 83.2
60372005........................ California................ Los Angeles............... 79.5 82.0 78.1 80.6
60376012........................ California................ Los Angeles............... 97.3 99.0 94.5 96.2
60379033........................ California................ Los Angeles............... 90.0 91.0 86.0 86.9
60392010........................ California................ Madera.................... 85.0 86.0 79.8 80.8
60470003........................ California................ Merced.................... 82.7 84.0 78.1 79.3
60610006........................ California................ Placer.................... 84.0 86.0 78.2 80.0
[[Page 46275]]
60650004........................ California................ Riverside................. 85.0 85.0 82.3 82.3
60650012........................ California................ Riverside................. 97.3 99.0 93.5 95.1
60651016........................ California................ Riverside................. 100.7 101.0 95.7 96.0
60652002........................ California................ Riverside................. 84.3 85.0 79.8 80.5
60655001........................ California................ Riverside................. 92.3 93.0 87.6 88.2
60656001........................ California................ Riverside................. 94.0 98.0 88.1 91.9
60658001........................ California................ Riverside................. 97.0 98.0 93.3 94.3
60658005........................ California................ Riverside................. 92.7 94.0 89.2 90.4
60659001........................ California................ Riverside................. 88.3 91.0 82.7 85.2
60670012........................ California................ Sacramento................ 93.3 95.0 85.7 87.3
60675003........................ California................ Sacramento................ 86.3 88.0 80.5 82.0
60710005........................ California................ San Bernardino............ 105.0 107.0 103.6 105.6
60710012........................ California................ San Bernardino............ 95.0 97.0 91.8 93.8
60710306........................ California................ San Bernardino............ 83.7 85.0 81.2 82.4
60711004........................ California................ San Bernardino............ 96.7 98.0 94.3 95.6
60712002........................ California................ San Bernardino............ 101.0 103.0 99.5 101.5
60714001........................ California................ San Bernardino............ 94.3 97.0 92.3 95.0
60714003........................ California................ San Bernardino............ 105.0 107.0 101.8 103.8
60719002........................ California................ San Bernardino............ 92.3 94.0 88.0 89.6
60719004........................ California................ San Bernardino............ 98.7 99.0 95.7 96.0
60731006........................ California................ San Diego................. 81.0 82.0 76.6 77.6
60990006........................ California................ Stanislaus................ 87.0 88.0 83.0 83.9
61070006........................ California................ Tulare.................... 81.7 85.0 77.0 80.1
61070009........................ California................ Tulare.................... 94.7 96.0 87.3 88.5
61072002........................ California................ Tulare.................... 85.0 88.0 78.6 81.4
61072010........................ California................ Tulare.................... 89.0 90.0 82.7 83.6
61112002........................ California................ Ventura................... 81.0 83.0 78.3 80.2
80350004........................ Colorado.................. Douglas................... 80.7 83.0 76.0 78.1
80590006........................ Colorado.................. Jefferson................. 80.3 83.0 76.3 78.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--2009-2013 and 2017 Average and Maximum Design Values at Projected Maintenance-Only Sites in the East (Top) and West (Bottom)
[Units are ppb]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009-2013 2009-2013
Monitor ID State County average design maximum design 2017 average 2017 maximum
value value design value design value
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
90010017........................ Connecticut............... Fairfield................. 80.3 83.0 75.8 78.4
211110067....................... Kentucky.................. Jefferson................. 82.0 85.0 75.8 78.6
211850004....................... Kentucky.................. Oldham.................... 82.0 86.0 73.7 77.3
240053001....................... Maryland.................. Baltimore................. 80.7 84.0 73.2 76.2
260050003....................... Michigan.................. Allegan................... 82.7 86.0 75.5 78.5
261630019....................... Michigan.................. Wayne..................... 78.7 81.0 74.0 76.2
340071001....................... New Jersey................ Camden.................... 82.7 87.0 74.2 78.1
340150002....................... New Jersey................ Gloucester................ 84.3 87.0 75.1 77.5
340230011....................... New Jersey................ Middlesex................. 81.3 85.0 73.0 76.3
340290006....................... New Jersey................ Ocean..................... 82.0 85.0 73.9 76.6
360810124....................... New York.................. Queens.................... 78.0 80.0 75.7 77.6
420031005....................... Pennsylvania.............. Allegheny................. 80.7 82.0 75.3 76.5
421010024....................... Pennsylvania.............. Philadelphia.............. 83.3 87.0 75.1 78.4
480850005....................... Texas..................... Collin.................... 82.7 84.0 74.9 76.0
481130069....................... Texas..................... Dallas.................... 79.7 84.0 74.0 78.0
481130075....................... Texas..................... Dallas.................... 82.0 83.0 75.8 76.7
481211032....................... Texas..................... Denton.................... 82.7 84.0 75.1 76.3
482010024....................... Texas..................... Harris.................... 80.3 83.0 75.9 78.5
482010026....................... Texas..................... Harris.................... 77.3 80.0 73.5 76.1
482010055....................... Texas..................... Harris.................... 81.3 83.0 75.4 77.0
482011050....................... Texas..................... Harris.................... 78.3 80.0 74.6 76.2
484390075....................... Texas..................... Tarrant................... 82.0 83.0 75.5 76.4
484393011....................... Texas..................... Tarrant................... 80.7 83.0 74.5 76.6
40131004........................ Arizona................... Maricopa.................. 79.7 81.0 75.0 76.2
60170020........................ California................ El Dorado................. 82.7 84.0 75.1 76.3
60390004........................ California................ Madera.................... 79.3 81.0 75.3 76.9
60610003........................ California................ Placer.................... 83.0 85.0 75.4 77.2
[[Page 46276]]
60670006........................ California................ Sacramento................ 78.7 81.0 74.0 76.1
60773005........................ California................ San Joaquin............... 79.0 80.0 75.9 76.8
80050002........................ Colorado.................. Arapahoe.................. 76.7 79.0 74.4 76.6
80590011........................ Colorado.................. Jefferson................. 78.7 82.0 75.8 78.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Quantification of Interstate Ozone Contributions
The EPA performed nationwide, state-level ozone source
apportionment modeling using the CAMx Ozone Source Apportionment
Technology/Anthropogenic Precursor Culpability Analysis (OSAT/APCA)
technique \7\ to quantify the contribution of 2017 base case
NOX and VOC emissions from all sources in each state to
projected 2017 ozone concentrations at each air quality monitoring
site. In the source apportionment model run, we tracked the ozone
formed from each of the following contribution categories (i.e.,
``tags''):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ As part of this technique, ozone formed from reactions
between biogenic VOC and NOX with anthropogenic
NOX and VOC are assigned to the anthropogenic emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States--anthropogenic NOX and VOC emissions
from each state tracked individually (emissions from all anthropogenic
sectors in a given state were combined);
Biogenics--biogenic NOX and VOC emissions
domain-wide (i.e., not by state);
Boundary Concentrations--concentrations transported into
the modeling domain;
Tribes--the emissions from those tribal lands for which we
have point source inventory data in the 2011 NEI (we did not model the
contributions from individual tribes);
Canada and Mexico--anthropogenic emissions from sources in
the portions of Canada and Mexico included in the modeling domain (we
did not model the contributions from Canada and Mexico separately);
Fires--combined emissions from wild and prescribed fires;
and
Offshore--combined emissions from offshore marine vessels
and offshore drilling platforms.
The CAMx OSAT/APCA model run was performed for the period May 1
through September 30 using the 2017 future base case emissions and 2011
meteorology for this time period. The hourly contributions \8\ from
each tag were processed to obtain the 8-hour average contributions
corresponding to the time period of the 8-hour daily maximum
concentration on each day in the 2017 model simulation. This step was
performed for those model grid cells containing monitoring sites in
order to obtain 8-hour average contributions for each day at the
location of each site. The model-predicted contributions were then
applied in a relative sense to quantify the contributions to the 2017
average design value at each site. Additional details on the source
apportionment modeling and the procedures for calculating contributions
can be found in the AQM TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Contributions from anthropogenic emissions under
``NOX-limited'' and ``VOC-limited'' chemical regimes were
combined to obtain the net contribution from NOX and VOC
anthropogenic emissions in each state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The average contribution metric is intended to provide a reasonable
representation of the contribution from individual states to the
projected 2017 design value, based on modeled transport patterns and
other meteorological conditions generally associated with modeled high
ozone concentrations in the vicinity of the monitoring site. An average
contribution metric constructed in this manner is beneficial since the
magnitude of the contributions is directly related to the magnitude of
the design value at each site.
The resulting 2017 contributions from each tag to each monitoring
site are provided in the AQM TSD. The largest contributions from each
state to projected 2017 downwind nonattainment sites and to projected
downwind maintenance-only sites are provided in Table 3.
Table 3--Largest Ozone Contributions From Each State to Downwind 2017
Projected Nonattainment and to 2017 Projected Maintenance-Only Sites
[Units are ppb]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Largest
contribution to a Largest
2017 contribution to a
Upwind state nonattainment 2017 maintenance-
site in downwind only site in
states downwind states
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama........................... 0.79 1.28
Arizona........................... 1.78 0.41
Arkansas.......................... 1.24 2.15
California........................ 1.75 3.44
Colorado.......................... 0.36 0.34
Connecticut....................... 0.46 0.41
Delaware.......................... 0.68 2.23
District of Columbia.............. 0.73 0.64
Florida........................... 0.57 0.72
Georgia........................... 0.58 0.56
Idaho............................. 0.23 0.35
[[Page 46277]]
Illinois.......................... 17.48 23.17
Indiana........................... 7.15 14.95
Iowa.............................. 0.61 0.85
Kansas............................ 0.80 1.03
Kentucky.......................... 11.17 2.14
Louisiana......................... 3.81 4.23
Maine............................. 0.00 0.08
Maryland.......................... 2.39 7.11
Massachusetts..................... 0.10 0.37
Michigan.......................... 2.69 1.79
Minnesota......................... 0.40 0.47
Mississippi....................... 0.78 1.48
Missouri.......................... 1.63 3.69
Montana........................... 0.15 0.17
Nebraska.......................... 0.51 0.36
Nevada............................ 0.84 0.73
New Hampshire..................... 0.02 0.07
New Jersey........................ 12.38 11.48
New Mexico........................ 1.05 0.54
New York.......................... 16.96 17.21
North Carolina.................... 0.55 0.93
North Dakota...................... 0.14 0.28
Ohio.............................. 3.99 7.92
Oklahoma.......................... 1.70 2.46
Oregon............................ 0.65 0.65
Pennsylvania...................... 13.51 15.93
Rhode Island...................... 0.02 0.08
South Carolina.................... 0.19 0.21
South Dakota...................... 0.08 0.12
Tennessee......................... 1.67 0.90
Texas............................. 2.44 2.95
Utah.............................. 1.59 1.66
Vermont........................... 0.01 0.05
Virginia.......................... 5.29 4.70
Washington........................ 0.22 0.09
West Virginia..................... 2.99 3.11
Wisconsin......................... 0.56 2.59
Wyoming........................... 1.22 1.22
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In CSAPR, the EPA used a contribution screening threshold of 1
percent of the NAAQS to identify upwind states in the eastern U.S. that
may significantly contribute to downwind nonattainment and/or
maintenance problems and which warrant further analysis. The EPA will
take comment on the appropriate threshold to be applied for purposes of
the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the upcoming rulemaking proposal to address
interstate ozone transport for that standard. The EPA is not proposing
or taking comment on this threshold as part of this NODA.
C. Air Quality Modeling Information Available for Public Comment
The EPA is requesting comment on the components of the 2011 air
quality modeling platform, the air quality model applications and model
performance evaluation, and the projected 2017 ozone design value
concentrations and contribution data. The EPA is also seeking comment
on the methodology for calculating contributions at individual
monitoring sites. The EPA encourages all states and sources to review
and comment on the information provided in this NODA.
The EPA has placed key information related to the air quality
modeling into the electronic docket for this notice (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-
0500) which is available at www.regulations.gov. This includes the AQM
TSD, an Excel file which contains the 2009-2013 base period and 2017
projected average and maximum ozone design values at individual
monitoring sites, and an Excel file with the ozone contributions from
each state and all other source tags to each monitoring site. However,
the air quality modeling input and output data files are too large to
be directly uploaded into the electronic docket and/or are not in
formats accepted by that docket. These air quality modeling files have
been placed on a data drive in the docket office. Electronic copies of
the non-emissions air quality modeling input files and the air quality
modeling output files can also be obtained prior to the end of the
comment period by contacting Norm Possiel at possiel.norm@epa.gov. A
detailed description of the 2011 and 2017 emissions data and procedures
for accessing and commenting on these data are provided below.
III. Emissions Data and Methodologies
The EPA is requesting comment on the updated 2011 and 2017 emission
[[Page 46278]]
inventories; supporting ancillary files used to allocate emissions
temporally, spatially, and by emissions species; and on the emissions
modeling methods used to develop the emission inventories, including
but not restricted to, the activity data, model input databases, and
the projection, control, and closure data used to develop projected
2017 emissions. Summaries of the emission inventories are provided to
aid in the review of the data, but comments are sought on the actual
inventories, model inputs, data, and methods used to develop the
projected emissions.
A. Instructions for Submitting Emissions Comments and Alternative
Emissions Data
The EPA can most effectively use comments on emissions data that
provide specific alternative values to those in the EPA data sets, and
for which accompanying documentation supports the alternative values.
Commenters should provide the alternative data at a level of detail
appropriate to the data set into which it will be incorporated, thereby
including all key fields needed to substitute the old data with the
new. For example, any data provided as an alternative to the EPA's
point source emissions data should include all key fields used to
identify point source data such as facility, unit, release point,
process, and pollutant, along with alternative emissions values. If a
commenter were to provide a new set of county total emissions as an
alternative to detailed point source emissions data, the EPA would not
be able to use that new data. Commenters should also include
documentation that describes methods for development of any alternative
values and relevant references supporting the alternative approach.
Any alternative emission inventory or ancillary data provided
should be compatible with the formats used by the Sparse Matrix
Operator Kernel Emissions (SMOKE) modeling system version 3.6.5, which
is used by the EPA to process emission inventories into a format that
can be used for air quality modeling. Formats are defined in the SMOKE
Version 3.6.5 User's Manual available from https://www.cmascenter.org/smoke/. Only the rows of data that have changed from those provided by
the EPA should be included in the alternative data sets. Alternative
data that are not an input to SMOKE, such as model input databases for
mobile source models, should be provided in a format in which it could
be directly input to the model.
Commenters wishing to comment on inventory projection methods
should submit to the docket comments that describe an alternative
approach to the existing methods, along with documentation describing
why that method is an improvement over the existing method.
B. Emissions Information Available for Public Comment
The released data include emission inventories that represent
projected emissions into the atmosphere of criteria and some hazardous
air pollutants in the years 2011 and 2017, additional ancillary data
files that are used to convert the NEI emissions into a form that can
be used for air quality modeling, and methods used to prepare the air
quality model inputs and to develop projections of emissions for the
year 2017. The platform includes emission inventories for sources at
specific locations called point sources; emissions from fire events;
and county-level emissions of onroad mobile sources, nonroad mobile
sources, and nonpoint stationary sources.
The provided emission inventories are split into categories called
modeling sectors. For example, facility-specific point emission sources
are split into electric generating units (EGUs), oil and gas point
sources, and other point sources. Nonpoint emission sources are split
into agricultural ammonia sources, area fugitive dust sources, non-
Category 3 commercial marine and locomotive sources, residential wood
sources, oil and gas nonpoint sources, agricultural burning sources,
and other nonpoint sources. Additional modeling sectors are onroad and
nonroad mobile sources, Category 3 commercial marine sources, and
emissions from wild and prescribed fires.
The emission inventories for the future year of 2017 have been
developed using projection methods that are specific to the type of
emission source. Future emissions are projected from the 2011 base case
either by running models to estimate future year emissions from
specific types of emission sources (i.e., EGUs, and onroad and nonroad
mobile sources), or for other types of sources by adjusting the base
year emissions according to the best estimate of changes expected to
occur in the intervening years (i.e., non-EGU point and nonpoint
sources).
For some sectors, the same emissions are used in the base and
future years, such as biogenic emissions, wild and prescribed fire
emissions, and Canadian emissions. For all other sectors, rules and
specific legal obligations that go into effect in the intervening
years, along with changes in activity for the sector, are considered
when possible. Documentation of the methods used for each sector is
provided in the TSD Preparation of Emissions Inventories for the
Version 6.2, 2011 Emissions Modeling Platform, which can be found in
the docket for this notice.
Emission projections for EGUs for 2017 were developed using the
Integrated Planning Model (IPM). The National Electric Energy Data
System (NEEDS) database contains the generation unit records used for
the model plants that represent existing and planned/committed units in
EPA modeling applications of IPM. The NEEDS database includes basic
geographic, operating, air emissions, and other data on these
generating units and is updated for the EPA's version 5.14 power sector
modeling platform. The EGU emission projections included in this data
release are reported in an air quality modeling-ready flat file taken
from the EPA Base Case v.5.14, developed using IPM. The 2017 EGU
emission projections in the flat file format, the corresponding NEEDS
database, and user guides and documentation are available in the docket
for this notice, and at https://www.epa.gov/powersectormodeling.
To project future emissions from onroad and nonroad mobile sources,
the EPA uses the Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) and the
National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM), respectively. Development of
the future year onroad and nonroad emissions requires a substantial
amount of lead time and resources. The EPA had already prepared the
emissions projections for 2018 when the attainment deadline for
Moderate nonattainment areas was revised to July 2018 in the 2008 Ozone
SIP Requirements Rule, as discussed above, effectively requiring the
agency to adjust its projection year to 2017. Thus, for purposes of
this NODA, the EPA calculated the 2017 emissions from mobile sources
using post-modeling adjustments to 2018 emissions, but the agency
anticipates that it will directly generate the mobile source emissions
for 2017 that will be used in the air quality modeling for the final
rule to address interstate transport for the 2008 ozone standard. The
EPA obtained 2018 projections by running the MOVES and NMIM models
using year-specific information about fuel mixtures, activity data, and
the impacts of national and state-level rules and control programs. The
input databases and future year activity data for onroad mobile sources
are provided with the 2011v6.2 platform available at https://
www.epa.gov/ttn/
[[Page 46279]]
chief/emch/#2011. The 2018 onroad and nonroad mobile source
emissions were adjusted for 2017 using factors derived from national
scale runs of MOVES and NMIM, respectively.
For non-EGU point and nonpoint sources, projections of 2017
emissions were developed by starting with the 2011 emissions
inventories and applying adjustments that represent the impact of
national, state, and local rules coming into effect in the years 2012
through 2017, along with the impacts of planned shutdowns, the
construction of new plants, specific information provided by states,
and specific legal obligations resolving alleged environmental
violations, such as consent decrees. Changes in activity are considered
for sectors such as oil and gas, residential wood combustion, cement
kilns, livestock, aircraft, commercial marine vessels and locomotives.
Data files that include factors that represent the changes are
provided, along with summaries that quantify the emission changes
resulting from the projections at a state and national level.
The provided data include relevant emissions inventories for
neighboring countries used in our modeling, specifically the 2010
emissions inventories for Canada and the 2008 and 2018 emissions
inventories for Mexico. Canadian emissions for a future year were not
available.
Ancillary data files used to allocate annual emissions to the
hourly, gridded emissions of chemical species used by the air quality
model are also provided. The types of ancillary data files include
temporal profiles that allocate annual and monthly emissions down to
days and hours, spatial surrogates that allocate county-level emissions
onto the grid cells used by the AQM, and speciation profiles that
allocate the pollutants in the NEI to the chemical species used by the
air quality model. In addition, there are temporal, spatial, and
speciation cross-reference files that map the emission sources in the
emission inventories to the appropriate profiles based on their
location, emissions source classification code (SCC), and, in some
cases, the specific facility or unit. With the exception of some
speciation profiles and temporal profiles for EGUs and mobile sources,
the same ancillary data files are used to prepare the 2011 and 2017
emissions inventories for air quality modeling.
Information related to this section is located in the docket.
However, as mentioned above, some of the emissions data files are too
large to be directly uploaded into the electronic docket and/or are not
in formats accepted by that docket. Therefore, the information placed
in the electronic docket, associated detailed data, and summaries to
help with interpretation of the data are available for public review
with the 2011v6.2 platform available on the Emissions Modeling
Clearinghouse on the EPA's Web site at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/#2011. Requests for electronic copies of pre-merged,
intermediate and air quality model-ready emissions files for input to
air quality modeling can be obtained by contacting Alison Eyth at
eyth.alison@epa.gov.
The emissions inventories, along with many of the ancillary files,
are provided in the form of flat files that can be input to SMOKE. Flat
files are comma-separated values-style text files with columns and rows
that can be loaded into spreadsheet or database software. The columns
of interest in the emission inventory files are specified in each
subsection below. The EPA specifically requests comment on the
following components of the provided emissions modeling inventories and
ancillary files:
Emissions values and supporting data for EGUs. The EPA
requests comment on the IPM version 5.14 input assumptions, NEEDS
database, 2018 unit-level parsed files because 2017 parsed files are
not available, 2017 flat file inputs and outputs (including
modifications to the IPM 2018 Base Case to inform 2017 NOX
emissions), temporal profiles use to allocate seasonal emissions to
hours, and cross references and matching between IPM and NEI.
Emission values for non-EGU sources. The EPA requests
comment on the criteria air pollutant projected 2017 emissions in the
modeling inventories, such as NOX, VOC, sulfur dioxide,
particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers, particulate matter less
than 10 micrometers, and ammonia, with a focus on the ozone precursors
NOX and VOC. The EPA will also accept comments on 2017
projections of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), as they are included in
the outputs of models used to develop 2017 emission projections.
However, HAPs are not the focus of this effort. The annual emissions
values are located in the ANN_VALUE column of emission inventory files
in the Flat File 2010 (FF10) format. Some emission inventories (e.g.,
nonroad) may also have values filled in to the monthly value columns
(e.g., JAN_VALUE, FEB_VALUE, . . ., DEC_VALUE). The EPA requests
comment on both the annual and monthly emissions values, where
applicable. Summaries of emissions by state and county are provided to
aid in the review of emissions values.
Model inputs and activity data used to develop mobile
source emission inventories. The EPA requests comment on the mobile
source model input data used to develop the projected future mobile
source emission inventories. These include both the databases used to
create emission factors and the vehicle miles traveled and vehicle
population activity data used to compute the emissions. Of particular
interest are county total vehicle miles traveled, the mixture of
vehicle types in 2017, hoteling hours of combination long-haul trucks,
and changes to the inspection and maintenance programs. Alternative
activity data should be provided in the SMOKE FF10 activity data
format.
Projection data and methods. The EPA seeks comment on the
data used to project point and nonpoint source emissions from 2011 to
2017, and on the methods and assumptions used to implement the
projections. In this context, nonpoint source emissions are inclusive
of commercial marine vessel, railroad, oil and gas, and other nonpoint
emissions. In particular, the EPA seeks comment on its assumptions
regarding the manner in which specific consent decrees and state- or
locality-specific control programs will be implemented.
Existing control techniques. The emission inventories
include information on emissions control techniques listed in terms of
control codes submitted to the EIS. These are listed in the CONTROL_IDS
and CONTROL_MEASURES columns in the emission inventory flat files, with
levels of reduction in the ANN_PCT_RED column. Projection of non-EGU
point source emissions to future years is dependent on this
information. The EPA seeks comment on whether data on existing controls
given in the inventory flat files are incomplete or erroneous. The flat
files must be consulted for details of control techniques by pollutant.
Emissions modeling methods. The EPA is using SMOKE version
3.6.5 to prepare data for air quality modeling. The EPA requests
comment on the methods by which SMOKE is used to develop air quality
model-ready emissions, as illustrated in the scripts provided with the
modeling platform and as described in the TSD Preparation of Emissions
Inventories for the Version 6.2, 2011 Emissions Modeling Platform,
available with the 2011v6.2 platform at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/#2011.
Temporal allocation. Annual emission inventories must be
allocated
[[Page 46280]]
to hourly values prior to air quality modeling. This may be done with
temporal profiles in several steps, such as annual-to-month, month-to-
day, and day-to-hour. The exact method used depends on the type of
emissions being processed. The EPA seeks comment on the allocation of
the emission inventories to month, day, and hour for all types of
emission processes. In particular, the EPA seeks information that could
help improve the temporal allocation in 2017 of emissions from EGUs,
nonroad mobile sources, residential wood combustion sources, and the
temporal allocation of vehicle miles traveled needed to model onroad
mobile sources. The EPA seeks local- and region-specific data that can
be used to improve the temporal allocation of emissions data.
Spatial surrogates. Spatial surrogates are used to
allocate county-level emissions to the grid cells used for air quality
modeling. The EPA requests comment on the spatial surrogates used to
spatially allocate the 2011 and 2017 emissions. The same spatial
surrogates are used in the base and future years.
Chemical speciation. Prior to air quality modeling, the
pollutants in the emission inventories must be converted into the
chemical species used by the air quality model using speciation
profiles. The speciation profiles provided are consistent with version
4.4 of the SPECIATE database. The EPA requests comment on the provided
speciation profiles, as well as any information that could help improve
the speciation of oil and gas emissions in both the eastern and western
U.S. in 2017. Oil and gas speciation information, along with VOC to TOG
adjustment factors that are used to compute methane emissions, would be
of the most use at the county or oil/gas basin level of detail and also
for each distinct process at oil and gas drilling/production facilities
(e.g., glycol dehydrators).
To aid in the interpretation of the provided data files and how
they relate to the aspects of the data on which the EPA is requesting
comment, the EPA has provided a summary document in the docket that
describes in more detail the provided data and summary files.
Dated: July 23, 2015.
Stephen D. Page,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2015-18878 Filed 8-3-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
