Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 149 / Tuesday, August 4, 2015 / Notices 46271 

2 (15 U.S.C. 717c). 

3 (15 U.S.C. 717f). 

4 18 CFR 260.9(d). 

5The Commission defines burden as the total 

time, effort, or financial resources expended by 

persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 

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. 

6The estimates for cost per response are derived 

using the following formula: Average Burden Hours 

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. 

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) 

Submittal of Original Email/Fax ............... 22 2 44 1 

$72 

44 

$3,168 

72 

Submittal of Damage Report ................... 22 2 44 0.25 

$18 

11 

$198 

18 

Submittal of DOT Incident Report ........... 22 1 22 0.25 

$18 

5.5 

$99 

18 

Total .................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 60.5 

$3,465 

108 

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 

of automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

Dated: July 29, 2015. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2015–19058 Filed 8–3–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
46272 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 149 / Tuesday, August 4, 2015 / Notices 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is providing notice that 

interstate ozone transport modeling and 

associated data and methods are 

available for public review and 

comment. These data and methods will 

be used to inform a rulemaking proposal 

that the EPA is developing and expects 

to release later this year to address 

interstate ozone transport for the 2008 

ozone national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS). This notice also 

meets the EPA’s expressed intent to 

update the air quality modeling data 

that were released on January 22, 2015, 

and to share the updated data with 

states and other stakeholders. The 

information available includes: (1) 

Emission inventories for 2011 and 2017, 

supporting data used to develop those 

emission inventories, methods and data 

used to process emission inventories 

into a form that can be used for air 

quality modeling; and (2) base year 2011 

and projected 2017 ozone 

concentrations and projected 2017 

ozone state contribution data at 

individual ozone monitoring sites based 

on air quality modeling, supporting data 

including 2009–2013 base period and 

2017 projected ozone design values, and 

methods used to process air quality 

model outputs to calculate 2017 ozone 

concentrations and contributions at 

individual monitoring sites. A docket 

has been established to facilitate public 

review of the data and to track 

comments. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 23, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2015–0500, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: (202)566–9744. Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015– 

0500. 

• Mail: EPA Docket Center, WJC West 

Building, Attention Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2015–0500, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. 

Please include a total of 2 copies. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, WJC West Building, 

1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 

3334, Washington, DC 20004, Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015– 

0500. Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Docket’s normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015– 

0500. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. Clearly mark the part or all of 

the information that you claim to be 

CBI. For CBI information on a disk or 

CD–ROM that you mail to the EPA 

docket office, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. Information so 

marked will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. 

The www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means the EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to the EPA without 

going through www.regulations.gov, 

your email address will be 

automatically captured and included as 

part of the comment that is placed in the 

public docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, the EPA recommends that 

you include your name and other 

contact information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If the EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

the EPA may not be able to consider 

your comment. Electronic files should 

avoid the use of special characters, any 

form of encryption, and be free of any 

defects or viruses. 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

1. Identify the notification by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

2. Explain your comments, why you 

agree or disagree; suggest alternatives 

and substitute data that reflect your 

requested changes. 

3. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

4. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

5. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

6. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

For additional information about the 

EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http://

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air and Radiation Docket and 

Information Center, EPA/DC, WJC West 

Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the Air Docket is (202) 566– 

1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions on the emissions data and on 

how to submit comments on the 

emissions data and related 

methodologies, contact Alison Eyth, Air 

Quality Assessment Division, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

C339–02, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709; 

telephone number: (919)541–2478; fax 

number: (919)541–1903; email: 

eyth.alison@epa.gov. For questions on 

the air quality modeling and ozone 

contributions and how to submit 

comments on the air quality modeling 

data and related methodologies, contact 

Norm Possiel, Air Quality Assessment 

Division, Environmental Protection 

Agency, C439–01, 109 T.W. Alexander 

Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 

27709; telephone number: (919)541– 

5692; fax number: (919)541–0044; 

email: possiel.norm@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On January 22, 2015, the EPA issued 

a memo and preliminary air quality 

modeling data that would help states as 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 149 / Tuesday, August 4, 2015 / Notices 46273 

1Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, 

Information on the Interstate Transport ‘‘Good 

Neighbor’’ Provision for the 2008 Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) under 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), January 22, 2015, 

available at http://www.epa.gov/airtransport/Good

NeighborProvision2008NAAQS.pdf. 

2 80 FR 12264, 12268 (Mar. 6, 2015); 40 CFR 

51.1103. 

3The December 3, 2014, draft ozone, fine 

particulate matter and regional haze SIP modeling 

guidance is available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/

scram/guidance/guide/Draft_O3–PM–RH_

Modeling_Guidance-2014.pdf. 

4The air quality design value for a site is the 3- 

year average annual fourth-highest daily maximum 

8-hour average ozone concentration. 

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 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
46274 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 149 / Tuesday, August 4, 2015 / Notices 

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. 

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] 

Monitor ID State County 

2009–2013 average design 

value 

2009–2013 

maximum design value 

2017 average 

design value 

2017 maximum 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 149 / Tuesday, August 4, 2015 / Notices 46275 

TABLE 1—2009–2013 AND 2017 AVERAGE AND MAXIMUM DESIGN VALUES AT PROJECTED NONATTAINMENT SITES IN THE

EAST (TOP) AND WEST (BOTTOM)—Continued 

[Units are ppb] 

Monitor ID State County 

2009–2013 average design 

value 

2009–2013 

maximum design value 

2017 average 

design value 

2017 maximum design 

value 

60650004 .......... California ........................... Riverside ........................... 85.0 85.0 82.3 82.3 

60650012 .......... California ........................... Riverside ........................... 97.3 99.0 93.5 95.1 

60651016 .......... California ........................... Riverside ........................... 100.7 101.0 95.7 96.0 

60652002 .......... California ........................... Riverside ........................... 84.3 85.0 79.8 80.5 

60655001 .......... California ........................... Riverside ........................... 92.3 93.0 87.6 88.2 

60656001 .......... California ........................... Riverside ........................... 94.0 98.0 88.1 91.9 

60658001 .......... California ........................... Riverside ........................... 97.0 98.0 93.3 94.3 

60658005 .......... California ........................... Riverside ........................... 92.7 94.0 89.2 90.4 

60659001 .......... California ........................... Riverside ........................... 88.3 91.0 82.7 85.2 

60670012 .......... California ........................... Sacramento ....................... 93.3 95.0 85.7 87.3 

60675003 .......... California ........................... Sacramento ....................... 86.3 88.0 80.5 82.0 

60710005 .......... California ........................... San Bernardino ................. 105.0 107.0 103.6 105.6 

60710012 .......... California ........................... San Bernardino ................. 95.0 97.0 91.8 93.8 

60710306 .......... California ........................... San Bernardino ................. 83.7 85.0 81.2 82.4 

60711004 .......... California ........................... San Bernardino ................. 96.7 98.0 94.3 95.6 

60712002 .......... California ........................... San Bernardino ................. 101.0 103.0 99.5 101.5 

60714001 .......... California ........................... San Bernardino ................. 94.3 97.0 92.3 95.0 

60714003 .......... California ........................... San Bernardino ................. 105.0 107.0 101.8 103.8 

60719002 .......... California ........................... San Bernardino ................. 92.3 94.0 88.0 89.6 

60719004 .......... California ........................... San Bernardino ................. 98.7 99.0 95.7 96.0 

60731006 .......... California ........................... San Diego ......................... 81.0 82.0 76.6 77.6 

60990006 .......... California ........................... Stanislaus .......................... 87.0 88.0 83.0 83.9 

61070006 .......... California ........................... Tulare ................................ 81.7 85.0 77.0 80.1 

61070009 .......... California ........................... Tulare ................................ 94.7 96.0 87.3 88.5 

61072002 .......... California ........................... Tulare ................................ 85.0 88.0 78.6 81.4 

61072010 .......... California ........................... Tulare ................................ 89.0 90.0 82.7 83.6 

61112002 .......... California ........................... Ventura .............................. 81.0 83.0 78.3 80.2 

80350004 .......... Colorado ............................ Douglas ............................. 80.7 83.0 76.0 78.1 

80590006 .......... Colorado ............................ Jefferson ........................... 80.3 83.0 76.3 78.8 

TABLE 2—2009–2013 AND 2017 AVERAGE AND MAXIMUM DESIGN VALUES AT PROJECTED MAINTENANCE-ONLY SITES IN

THE EAST (TOP) AND WEST (BOTTOM) 

[Units are ppb] 

Monitor ID State County 

2009–2013 average design 

value 

2009–2013 

maximum design value 

2017 average 

design value 

2017 maximum 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
46276 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 149 / Tuesday, August 4, 2015 / Notices 

7As part of this technique, ozone formed from 

reactions between biogenic VOC and NOX with 

anthropogenic NOX and VOC are assigned to the 

anthropogenic emissions. 

8Contributions 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. 

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 State County 

2009–2013 average design 

value 

2009–2013 

maximum design value 

2017 average 

design value 

2017 maximum design 

value 

60670006 .......... California ........................... Sacramento ....................... 78.7 81.0 74.0 76.1 

60773005 .......... California ........................... San Joaquin ...................... 79.0 80.0 75.9 76.8 

80050002 .......... Colorado ............................ Arapahoe ........................... 76.7 79.0 74.4 76.6 

80590011 .......... Colorado ............................ Jefferson ........................... 78.7 82.0 75.8 78.9 

B. Quantification of Interstate Ozone 

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 

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] 

Upwind state 

Largest contribution to a 2017 

nonattainment site 

in downwind 

states 

Largest contribution to a 2017 

maintenance-only 

site in 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 149 / Tuesday, August 4, 2015 / Notices 46277 

TABLE 3—LARGEST OZONE CONTRIBUTIONS FROM EACH STATE TO DOWNWIND 2017 PROJECTED NONATTAINMENT AND

TO 2017 PROJECTED MAINTENANCE-ONLY SITES—Continued 

[Units are ppb] 

Upwind state 

Largest contribution to a 2017 

nonattainment site 

in downwind 

states 

Largest contribution to a 2017 

maintenance-only 

site in downwind 

states 

Illinois ........................................................................................................................................................... 17.48 23.17 

Indiana ......................................................................................................................................................... 7.15 14.95 

Iowa ............................................................................................................................................................. 0.61 0.85 

Kansas ......................................................................................................................................................... 0.80 1.03 

Kentucky ...................................................................................................................................................... 11.17 2.14 

Louisiana ...................................................................................................................................................... 3.81 4.23 

Maine ........................................................................................................................................................... 0.00 0.08 

Maryland ...................................................................................................................................................... 2.39 7.11 

Massachusetts ............................................................................................................................................. 0.10 0.37 

Michigan ....................................................................................................................................................... 2.69 1.79 

Minnesota .................................................................................................................................................... 0.40 0.47 

Mississippi .................................................................................................................................................... 0.78 1.48 

Missouri ........................................................................................................................................................ 1.63 3.69 

Montana ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.15 0.17 

Nebraska ...................................................................................................................................................... 0.51 0.36 

Nevada ......................................................................................................................................................... 0.84 0.73 

New Hampshire ........................................................................................................................................... 0.02 0.07 

New Jersey .................................................................................................................................................. 12.38 11.48 

New Mexico ................................................................................................................................................. 1.05 0.54 

New York ..................................................................................................................................................... 16.96 17.21 

North Carolina .............................................................................................................................................. 0.55 0.93 

North Dakota ................................................................................................................................................ 0.14 0.28 

Ohio ............................................................................................................................................................. 3.99 7.92 

Oklahoma ..................................................................................................................................................... 1.70 2.46 

Oregon ......................................................................................................................................................... 0.65 0.65 

Pennsylvania ................................................................................................................................................ 13.51 15.93 

Rhode Island ................................................................................................................................................ 0.02 0.08 

South Carolina ............................................................................................................................................. 0.19 0.21 

South Dakota ............................................................................................................................................... 0.08 0.12 

Tennessee ................................................................................................................................................... 1.67 0.90 

Texas ........................................................................................................................................................... 2.44 2.95 

Utah ............................................................................................................................................................. 1.59 1.66 

Vermont ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.01 0.05 

Virginia ......................................................................................................................................................... 5.29 4.70 

Washington .................................................................................................................................................. 0.22 0.09 

West Virginia ................................................................................................................................................ 2.99 3.11 

Wisconsin ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.56 2.59 

Wyoming ...................................................................................................................................................... 1.22 1.22 

In CSAPR, the EPA used a 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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. 

A. Instructions for Submitting Emissions 

Comments and Alternative Emissions 

Data 

The EPA can most effectively use 

comments on emissions data that 

provide specific alternative values to 

those in the EPA data sets, and for 

which accompanying documentation 

supports the alternative values. 

Commenters should provide the 

alternative data at a level of detail 

appropriate to the data set into which it 

will be incorporated, thereby including 

all key fields needed to substitute the 

old data with the new. For example, any 

data provided as an alternative to the 

EPA’s point source emissions data 

should include all key fields used to 

identify point source data such as 

facility, unit, release point, process, and 

pollutant, along with alternative 

emissions values. If a commenter were 

to provide a new set of county total 

emissions as an alternative to detailed 

point source emissions data, the EPA 

would not be able to use that new data. 

Commenters should also include 

documentation that describes methods 

for development of any alternative 

values and relevant references 

supporting the alternative approach. 

Any alternative emission inventory or 

ancillary data provided should be 

compatible with the formats used by the 

Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel 

Emissions (SMOKE) modeling system 

version 3.6.5, which is used by the EPA 

to process emission inventories into a 

format that can be used for air quality 

modeling. Formats are defined in the 

SMOKE Version 3.6.5 User’s Manual 

available from http://

www.cmascenter.org/smoke/. Only the 

rows of data that have changed from 

those provided by the EPA should be 

included in the alternative data sets. 

Alternative data that are not an input to 

SMOKE, such as model input databases 

for mobile source models, should be 

provided in a format in which it could 

be directly input to the model. 

Commenters wishing to comment on 

inventory projection methods should 

submit to the docket comments that 

describe an alternative approach to the 

existing methods, along with 

documentation describing why that 

method is an improvement over the 

existing method. 

B. Emissions Information Available for 

Public Comment 

The released data include emission 

inventories that represent projected 

emissions into the atmosphere of 

criteria and some hazardous air 

pollutants in the years 2011 and 2017, 

additional ancillary data files that are 

used to convert the NEI emissions into 

a form that can be used for air quality 

modeling, and methods used to prepare 

the air quality model inputs and to 

develop projections of emissions for the 

year 2017. The platform includes 

emission inventories for sources at 

specific locations called point sources; 

emissions from fire events; and 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, 

along with changes in activity for the 

sector, are considered when possible. 

Documentation of the methods used for 

each sector is provided in the TSD 

Preparation of Emissions Inventories for 

the Version 6.2, 2011 Emissions 

Modeling Platform, which can be found 

in the docket for this notice. 

Emission projections for EGUs for 

2017 were developed using the 

Integrated Planning Model (IPM). The 

National Electric Energy Data System 

(NEEDS) database contains the 

generation unit records used for the 

model plants that represent existing and 

planned/committed units in EPA 

modeling applications of IPM. The 

NEEDS database includes basic 

geographic, operating, air emissions, 

and other data on these generating units 

and is updated for the EPA’s version 

5.14 power sector modeling platform. 

The EGU emission projections included 

in this data release are reported in an air 

quality modeling-ready flat file taken 

from the EPA Base Case v.5.14, 

developed using IPM. The 2017 EGU 

emission projections in the flat file 

format, the corresponding NEEDS 

database, and user guides and 

documentation are available in the 

docket for this notice, and at http://

www.epa.gov/powersectormodeling. 

To project future emissions from 

onroad and nonroad mobile sources, the 

EPA uses the Motor Vehicle Emissions 

Simulator (MOVES) and the National 

Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM), 

respectively. Development of the future 

year onroad and nonroad emissions 

requires a substantial amount of lead 

time and resources. The EPA had 

already prepared the emissions 

projections for 2018 when the 

attainment deadline for Moderate 

nonattainment areas was revised to July 

2018 in the 2008 Ozone SIP 

Requirements Rule, as discussed above, 

effectively requiring the agency to adjust 

its projection year to 2017. Thus, for 

purposes of this NODA, the EPA 

calculated the 2017 emissions from 

mobile sources using post-modeling 

adjustments to 2018 emissions, but the 

agency anticipates that it will directly 

generate the mobile source emissions for 

2017 that will be used in the air quality 

modeling for the final rule to address 

interstate transport for the 2008 ozone 

standard. The EPA obtained 2018 

projections by running the MOVES and 

NMIM models using year-specific 

information about fuel mixtures, activity 

data, and the impacts of national and 

state-level rules and control programs. 

The input databases and future year 

activity data for onroad mobile sources 

are provided with the 2011v6.2 platform 

available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 149 / Tuesday, August 4, 2015 / Notices 46279 

chief/emch/index.html#2011. The 2018 

onroad and nonroad mobile source 

emissions were adjusted for 2017 using 

factors derived from national scale runs 

of MOVES and NMIM, respectively. 

For non-EGU point and nonpoint 

sources, projections of 2017 emissions 

were developed by starting with the 

2011 emissions inventories and 

applying adjustments that represent the 

impact of national, state, and local rules 

coming into effect in the years 2012 

through 2017, along with the impacts of 

planned shutdowns, the construction of 

new plants, specific information 

provided by states, and specific legal 

obligations resolving alleged 

environmental violations, such as 

consent decrees. Changes in activity are 

considered for sectors such as oil and 

gas, residential wood combustion, 

cement kilns, livestock, aircraft, 

commercial marine vessels and 

locomotives. Data files that include 

factors that represent the changes are 

provided, along with summaries that 

quantify the emission changes resulting 

from the projections at a state and 

national level. 

The provided data include relevant 

emissions inventories for neighboring 

countries used in our modeling, 

specifically the 2010 emissions 

inventories for Canada and the 2008 and 

2018 emissions inventories for Mexico. 

Canadian emissions for a future year 

were not available. 

Ancillary data files used to allocate 

annual emissions to the hourly, gridded 

emissions of chemical species used by 

the air quality model are also provided. 

The types of ancillary data files include 

temporal profiles that allocate annual 

and monthly emissions down to days 

and hours, spatial surrogates that 

allocate county-level emissions onto the 

grid cells used by the AQM, and 

speciation profiles that allocate the 

pollutants in the NEI to the chemical 

species used by the air quality model. In 

addition, there are temporal, spatial, 

and speciation cross-reference files that 

map the emission sources in the 

emission inventories to the appropriate 

profiles based on their location, 

emissions source classification code 

(SCC), and, in some cases, the specific 

facility or unit. With the exception of 

some speciation profiles and temporal 

profiles for EGUs and mobile sources, 

the same ancillary data files are used to 

prepare the 2011 and 2017 emissions 

inventories for air quality modeling. 

Information related to this section is 

located in the docket. However, as 

mentioned above, some of the emissions 

data files are too large to be directly 

uploaded into the electronic docket 

and/or are not in formats accepted by 

that docket. Therefore, the information 

placed in the electronic docket, 

associated detailed data, and summaries 

to help with interpretation of the data 

are available for public review with the 

2011v6.2 platform available on the 

Emissions Modeling Clearinghouse on 

the EPA’s Web site at http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/

index.html#2011. Requests for 

electronic copies of pre-merged, 

intermediate and air quality 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 

state and county are provided to aid in 

the review of emissions values. 

• Model inputs and activity data used 

to develop mobile source emission 

inventories. The EPA requests comment 

on the mobile source model input data 

used to develop the projected future 

mobile source emission inventories. 

These include both the databases used 

to create emission factors and the 

vehicle miles traveled and vehicle 

population activity data used to 

compute the emissions. Of particular 

interest are county total vehicle miles 

traveled, the mixture of vehicle types in 

2017, hoteling hours of combination 

long-haul trucks, and changes to the 

inspection and maintenance programs. 

Alternative activity data should be 

provided in the SMOKE FF10 activity 

data format. 

• Projection data and methods. The 

EPA seeks comment on the data used to 

project point and nonpoint source 

emissions from 2011 to 2017, and on the 

methods and assumptions used to 

implement the projections. In this 

context, nonpoint source emissions are 

inclusive of commercial marine vessel, 

railroad, oil and gas, and other nonpoint 

emissions. In particular, the EPA seeks 

comment on its assumptions regarding 

the manner in which specific consent 

decrees and state- or locality-specific 

control programs will be implemented. 

• Existing control techniques. The 

emission inventories include 

information on emissions control 

techniques listed in terms of control 

codes submitted to the EIS. These are 

listed in the CONTROL_IDS and 

CONTROL_MEASURES columns in the 

emission inventory flat files, with levels 

of reduction in the ANN_PCT_RED 

column. Projection of non-EGU point 

source emissions to future years is 

dependent on this information. The EPA 

seeks comment on whether data on 

existing controls given in the inventory 

flat files are incomplete or erroneous. 

The flat files must be consulted for 

details of control techniques by 

pollutant. 

• Emissions modeling methods. The 

EPA is using SMOKE version 3.6.5 to 

prepare data for air quality modeling. 

The EPA requests comment on the 

methods by which SMOKE is used to 

develop air quality model-ready 

emissions, as illustrated in the scripts 

provided with the modeling platform 

and as described in the TSD Preparation 

of Emissions Inventories for the Version 

6.2, 2011 Emissions Modeling Platform, 

available with the 2011v6.2 platform at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/

index.html#2011. 

• Temporal allocation. Annual 

emission inventories must be allocated 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
46280 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 149 / Tuesday, August 4, 2015 / 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 

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 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of availability. 

SUMMARY: 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: 

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 

electronically through the United States 

government online source for Federal 

regulations at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

3. Internet access. Copies of the 

supporting documents are available at 

http://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 http:// 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES