## Docket Number EPA

–HQ

–OAR

–2009

–0491 

## Response to Comments on the Proposed Transport Rule: Federal Implementation Plans To Reduce Interstate Transport

of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (75 FR 45210; August 2, 2010) 

# Transport Rule Emissions Inventories Response to Comments

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air and Radiation Ju ly 20112

INTRODUCTION This document responds to comments on the proposed Transport Rule and supplements the Transport Rule Primary

Response to Comments (available in the docket). This document provides responses to significant public comments on emission inventories received in response to the United States Environmental Protection Agency ’s Notice of P roposed R ulemaking (NPR) : Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Interstate Air Quality Rule), issued August 2, 2010. In addition, comments on the October 27, 2010 Notice of Data Availability

(NODA) pertaining to Revisions to Emission Inventories in support of the rule are addressed. This document discusses emission inventories to model 2005 for the final Transport Rule along with inventories for sources other than electric generating units (EGUs) used to model 2012 and 2014. Summaries of responses to major comments that were repeated b y multiple commenters are provided in th is introduction, while specific comments are addressed in the main body of the document. EPA considered all comments received and made changes where appropriate. Where the submitted comments provided information that allowed EPA to identify and locate credible alternative data sources , EPA was able to incorpo rate updates from those alternative data sources into the emissions inventories or modeling process For more information on the details of the emissions modeling that was performed, see the Emission Inventory Final Rule Technical Support Document (TSD) for the Transport Rule. Comment: Commenters stated that EPA should use the latest available emission inventory data for its modeling. Organizations that commented on the use of the latest available emission inventories included: Mid - America Regional Council (MARC) Air Quality Forum [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2613] , Ameren Services Company [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2722] , In dian Builders Association [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2871 ] and Michigan Manufacturers Association [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2762] . Response: EPA con curs that the latest available inventory data should be used in its modeling. EPA used an enhanced version of the latest available National Emission Inventory (NEI) and related datasets at proposal , which were for the ye ar 2005. The next version of the N EI ( for 2008 ) had not ye t been compiled, quality assured, nor released at the time th at the modeling was performed. In response to specific inventory comments, EPA further augmented its 2005 and 2012/2014 projection inventory data for the final Transport R ule . Comment: Commenters stated that some point sources that were classified as non - EGUs in the proposal modeling were actuall y EGUs, resulting in double counting of emissions in future - ye ar modeling. The organizations that commented on EGU and non - EGU double - counted emissions included : Cleco Corporation [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2859.1 p.6 - 7] , L ouisville Gas and Electric Company (LG&E) and KY Utilities Company (KU) [ EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 3859], First Energy [ EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 3855], PPL [ EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 3852], Environmental Committee of the Ohio Utility Group (OUG) [ EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 3851], First Energy [ EPA HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 3844], Southern Company [ EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 3843], and AEP [ EPA HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 3840]. Respons e: EPA con curs that emissions from EGUs should be classified as such in the modeling inventories. EPA reviewed the assignment of EGUs and non - EGUs and reclassified EGU sources found to be in the non - EGU inventory into the 2005 EGU inventory to prevent double counting of future - ye ar emissions.3

Comment: Commenters stated that EPA did not properl y represent some point source emissions in base - ye ar and future - year inventories due to facility and unit closures, consent decrees, emission caps, control programs, and alternative emission estimates. The organizations that commented on the absence of consent decrees and control programs in the future inventories and on closures in the base and future ye ar inventories included : Alabama DEM [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2616], Arkansas DEQ [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2676], Delaware Department of Natural Resources & Environmental Control [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2980], Lafayette Utilities System [ EPA - HQ OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2983], ExxonMobil [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2 841], Indiana DEP [EPA - HQ OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2645], Indiana Power and Light [ EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2856], Lo uisiana Chemical Association [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 3865] and [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 3527], Louisiana DEQ [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2655], Maine DEP [ EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 3849], Michigan Manufacturers Association [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2762], New Hampshire DES [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 3854], New York State DEC [ EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2730], PPG Industries [ EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2763], RRIEnergy , Inc. [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0 491 - 3833], Southern Company

[EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 3843], Utility Air Regulatory

Group [EPA - HQ OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 3773], West Virginia DEP [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 3848], and Wisconsin Power and Light Company [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2844]. Response: EPA concurs that known relevant consent decrees, facility and unit closures, emission caps, and control programs should be incorporated into the modeling inventories. EPA reviewed the sources referenced in the individual comments and we did a comprehensive review of consent decrees issued between 2003 and 2010 regarding their impact on the base - year and future - year inventories. In cases where credible and quantifiable alternative data were available, EPA revised the emission inventories to incorporate additional facility and unit closures, consent decrees, emission caps, control programs, enforceable local controls, and alternative emission estimates. Comment: Commenters stated that EPA should include controls from the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (RICE NESHAP) in our modeling. Organizations that commented on the inclusion of the RI CE NESHAP includ ed , but were not limited to: Midwest Ozone Group [ EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2809 ], Texas Commission on Environmental Quality [ EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 3866 ] and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resourc es [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 3841] . Response: EPA concurs that controls from the RICE NESHAP should be included in the modeling inventories. EPA included reductions expected to be achieved by the RICE NESHAP across the United States in our final modeling of stationary non - EGU and nonpoint sources . Comment: In response to EPA’s request for comment on whether or not to incorporate emission reduction estimates sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) and PM 2.5 from the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and In stitutional Boilers and Process Heaters (75 FR 32006 ), also known as the “ Major Source Boiler Rule” and the “Boiler MACT” . A majority of c ommenters stated that emission reduction estimates should not be included until the rule was final ized . . Organizations that commented on whether to incorporate the Major Source Boiler Rule included the Indiana Department of Environmental Management [EPA HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 384 2], In stitute for Clean Air Companies [ EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 3 856], Massachusetts DEP [ EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 3861 ] , New York State DEC [ EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 3857] , and Wisconsin DNR [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 3841].4

Response: EPA concurs that emission reduction estimates from the NESHAP for Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters should not be included because the rule was not final at the time the modeling was performed. Thus, EPA did not incorporate emission reduction estimates from the NESHAP for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters (75 FR 3 2006) into the proposal or final modeling. Reductions from this rule would not have impacted the 2012 base case or downwind contribution modeling due to its implementation schedule, and onl y the 2014 emissions would have been affected. Comment: Commenters stated that EPA should use a publicly released version of MOVES for its final modeling , as opposed to the draft version used for the proposal modeling . The organizations that commented about using a draft version of MOVES for the modeling included : Lo uisiana Chemical Association [ EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 3527], Maryland Department of Environment [ EPA - HQ OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2788] and [ EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2639], Ozone Transport Commission [ EPA HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2737], New York DEC [ EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2730], an d Arkansas DEQ [ EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2676]. Response: EPA concurs that a publicly released version of MOVES should be used for the final modeling. Thus, EPA updated the final modeling to use data from the publicly released version of the MOVES 2010 model (released in December 2009) because the model became available in time for inclusion of its results in the final modeling. In the final Transport Rule modeling, EPA used MOVES 2010 state - month level emissions for all criteria pollutants and all modes (ev apo rative, exhaust, brake wear and tire wear) and allocated those emissions to counties according to state county NM IM emissions ratios. For California (the emissions for which are included to support the coarse modeling domain), the onroad mobile emissions data were derived from data provided b y the state. These data were augmented with MOVES 2010 outputs for NH 3 because data for that pollutant had not been provided. Comment: Commenters stated that emissions from commercial marine sources (a component of the nonroad emissions in the summaries that were provided for the NPR) were too high compared to past inventories and other sources of data . The organizations that commented about high nonroad emissions estimates , such as those for commercial marine vess els, included : Lo uisiana Chemical Association [ EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 3527], Lafayette Utilities System [ EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2983], Cleco Corporation [ EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2859], ExxonMobil [ EPA - HQ - OAR 2009 - 0491 - 2841], North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources [ EPA - HQ OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2767], PPG Industries [ EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2763], Northern Indiana Public Service Company [ EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2747], Duke Energy [ EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2689], and Lo uisiana Department of Environment al Quality [ EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2655]. Response: EPA concurs that the emissions from commercial marine sources allocated to the states were too high in the modeling for the proposed rule. EPA reviewed the approach used for commercial marine category 3 ( C3 ) emissions in the proposal. In the final modeling, instead of using the boundary

of 200 nautical miles from the coast as was used in the proposal, EPA adopted the Mineral Management Service state - federal water boundaries that assign state waters 3 - 10 nautical miles from the coast. This approach is consistent with the approach used in the 2005 and 2008 National Emission Inventories (NEI) . In addition, the C 3 commercial marine emissions were adjusted to reflect the Emissions Control Area proposal to the International Maritime Organization (EPA - 420 - F - 10 - 041, August 2010) control strategy ; reductions of NO X , VOC, and CO emissions for new C3 engines starting in 2011; and fuel sulfur limits that go into effect as earl y as 2010 and decrease SO 2 emissions.5

Comment: Commenters stated that EPA should include state fuel sulfur limits that take effect prior to the future ye ars that were modeled. The organizations that commented about the state sulfur rule estimates included: Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 3839], Maine Department of Environmental Protection (Maine DEP) [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 3849], and Duke Energy [ EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2689] . Response: EPA concurs that the fuel sulfur limits should be included in the modeling for stat es that had them “on - the - books” at the time the modeling was performed. EPA included quantifiable sulfur rule controls for those states that had implemented the rules by 2014 (New Jersey

and Maine). In other states where the rules had been define d but had not been implemented, the sulfur reductions were not included. RESPONSES TO SPECIFIC COMMENTS Organization: Alcoa Power Generating Inc. - Warrick Power Plant Organization Type: Utility Table IV.C - I represents 2005 base year data, but the TSD indicates that base year emissions are based on varying year data from 2007 - 2009, depending on whether or not ozone season emissions are considered. If EPA is going to use base year emissions other than 2005, it should amend Table IV .C - 1 to clearly

stat e the base ye ar conditions. [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 3648, p.2] Response : EPA disagrees with this comment. It appears that the commenter mistook a statement in the State Budgets TSD that address es ye ars 2007 - 2009 to instead be about the base ye ar (2005) inventory . The base ye ar EPA used for modeling is 2005, and correspondingl y data for that ye ar was shown in Table IV.C - 1. Organization: Ameren Services Company Organization Type: Utility A. Utilization of a more recent base year than 2005 is more appropriate EPA has used inventory

and meteorological data that is not representative of current conditions. Inventories and meteorology are available for 2008. Currently the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO) is performing modeling with both 2007 and 2008 emissions and meteorological data. In addition the Midwest Ozone Group has performed modeling (see comments submitted by

the Midwest Ozone Group, October I, 20 I0) that shows a totally different picture than that portrayed b y EPA's modeling. EPA's re liance on noncurrent data produces results that are not reflective of today ’s environment and should not be relied upon as the basis of such a far- reaching rule. EPA should redo its anal ys is with more recent and relevant data. [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2722.1, p.11] Ameren full y supports and endorses the comments submitted by the Utility

Air Regulatory

Group (UARG). Additionall y, Ameren offers the following comment. The point source emission files: “ptinv_ptnonipm_2012cr_xportfrac_cap2005v2_20nov2008_revised_0 8oct2010_v0_orl.txt” and “ptinv_ptnonipm_2014 cr_xportfrac_cap2005v2_20nov2008_revised_08oct2010_v0_orl.txt” contain the AmerenCIPs Quincy

Peaking Plant located in Illinois (Facility ID: 001825ABD) that was shut6

down in earl y 2008 (see attached letter from the Illinois EPA). This facility should be removed from the above emission files and other emission files that contain this facility for inventories after 2007. . [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 38 50.1, p. 2] Response : EPA disagrees with the comment that a more recent base year than 2005 should have been used. Base ye ar emissions inventories and modeling platforms for ye ars later than 2005 were not available for the whole Eastern US at the time that modeling for this rule was performed. There will alway s be a lag between the current year and the most recent emissions modeling platform that is available. The first draft of the 2008 NEI was not released until January 2011, and many

corrections and updates to this version are in progress during 2011 . Therefore, was not possible to use a 2007 - or 2008 - based modeling platform for the modeling for the final rule . EPA concurs with the comment that the specified facility should not have been included in the future ye ar invento ries. EPA has removed the facility from the 2012 and 2014 non - EGU inventories. Organization: Alabama Department of Environmental Management Organization Type: State/L ocal Air Agency For the major metropolitan area in the state, Birmingham, an incorrect inventory was used in the modeling. In 2009, ADEM submitted a SIP to EPA to address annual fine particle nonattainment. The emissions reductions required by that SIP are not reflected in the modeling for the transport rule. While this does not af

fect the EGUs per se, the inventory does contribute to the future year design values against which significance would be calculated. [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2616, p.2] R esponse : EPA con curs that updates to the Alabama non - EGU inventory were needed . EPA inco rporated data provided as follow - up to this comment by the Alabama DEM. These updates included facility closures before and after 2005, as well as updated unit - level emissions for NO X , SO 2 and PM in 2005. EPA incorporated this information in the final m odeling. Organization: Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality Organization Type: State/L ocal Air Agency ADEQ is concerned about EPA's use of a draft version of the Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator ('MOVES') to estimate emissions from gasoline - powered on - road mobile sources. For the Arkansas 2005 base case emissions inventory , on - road sector NOx emissions cal culated by draft MOVES are over 10,000 tons greater than the previous value calculated b y the National Mobile Inventory Model ('NMIM') for the 2005 National Emissions Inventory . This discrepancy may have affected EPA's anal ys is in determining Arkansas's co ntribution to other states' air quality as well as Arkansas's emissions budget. Emissions based on a draft model version are suspect and therefore any conclusions made from this data are likewise suspect. At the time the proposed Transport Rule was publish ed, the draft model version did not incorporate the comments and suggested revisions made during the public comment period for MOVES. The use of any draft protocol (i.e. draft MOVES) represents ambiguity that can affect policy

and exclude public input on f inal rules. All modeling software used in the proposed rule should have been conducted with a modeling s ys tem that has been finalized and vetted through the public participation process. [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2676.2, p. 2] ADEQ has found several errors in EPA's NOx emissions from stationary sources for the future years base case emissions inventories. Since 2005, one Arkansas facility has shut down and two other7

facilities have had substantial reductions in NOx emission limits, reducing the stationary sourc e NOx emissions by

approximately

2,600 tons for future years base case emissions inventory . This difference further illustrates the possible inadequacy of the emissions inventory used for ozone transport modeling for the Transport Rule. ADEQ suggests that EPA review the emissions inventory and contact ADEQ for additional information on Arkansas's NOx emissions. The attached Microsoft Excel file EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 0128 includes comments on individual NOx emission sources. This information reflects source specific shutdowns and changes in operation that have resulted in NOx emissions decreases. [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2676.2, p. 2] R esponses : MOVES: EPA concurs with the portion of the comment related to the use of a released version of MOVES . MOVES 2010 is used for future ye ar modeling . Additional controls: EPA does not concur with the portion of this comment that discusses SIP - related and BART controls . The BART controls referenced in the comment are not applicable to this effort. S pecificall y, no state SIP or BART controls impacting the nonEGU inventory were “on - the - books” and were thus not appropriate for EPA to incorporate in emissions and modeling for the final rule . In the final rule modeling EPA include d additional data provided b y AR DEQ , which re flected closures for several units and a facility and updated future - ye ar emissions at two cement kilns. Organization: Cleco Corporation Organization Type: Utility EPA must review and correct significant oversights in its emission inventories, which subs tantially overestimate anthropogenic emissions attributable to Louisiana. These emission issues are full y addressed in comments submitted by the Louisiana Chemical Association (“L CA”), and Cleco supports and incorporates those comments by reference here. In short, based on L CA’s anal ys is, the most significant overestimates appear to result from EPA’s use of new, non - peer reviewed methods for projecting marine vessel emissions. Among other things, those methods attribute to L ouisiana emissions from sources up to 200 nautical miles out into the Gulf of Mexico, despite the fact that the State’s jurisdiction extends only three miles from shore. Louisiana has a significant coastline, and the waters of the Gulf off of its coast have extraordinary amounts of marine traffic and oil and gas activities. Thus, such an error would dramatically overestimate emissions in L ouisiana. The State cannot control these sources’ emissions outside of its jurisdiction. EPA must correct this error. As described in LCA’s comments, EPA also appears to overestimate point source, motor vehicle and other nonroad emissions and fails to take into account numerous consent decrees. EPA must revise its emission inventories, reevaluate Louisiana’s impacts on downwind air quality , and adjust its findings accordingl y. [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2859.1 p.6 - 7] Response : EPA concurs with the portions of the comment suggesting that the C3 marine emissions are overestimated and that additional consent decrees need to be included. In the final rule, EPA inclu de d the final Emissions Control Area proposal to the International Maritime Organization new Class 3 engine standards and fuel sulfur limits (EPA - 420 - F - 10 - 421, August, 2010) for Commercial Marine Vessels. In addition, instead of using the 200 nautical mil e boundary for C3 emissions attributable to states used in the Proposal, EPA used the Mineral Management Service state - federal water boundaries that restrict state waters to approximately 3 - 10 miles from the coast. These two changes drasticall y reduce the amount of nonroad emissions attributable to coastal states. In addition, as described in the8

previous responses to the state of Louisiana, EPA has added numerous consent decrees and other emissions reductions that further decrease nonEGU point source emi ssions for the state. EPA also reclassified several facilities from the non - EGU po int sector into the EGU sector and therefore prevented the double - counting of EGU emissions for 2012 and 2014. EPA included 2005 certified inventory PM estimates for several facilities based on anal ys is of 2005 and 2008 NEI PM - filterable and PM - condensable emissions. EPA does not concur with the comment that EPA has overestimated motor vehicle onroad and other nonroad emissions in L ouisiana. This comment does not provide specific details about the asserted overestimates. EPA notes that the MOVES model does have higher NO X estimates than did the MOBILE6 approach used by L ouisiana and others in past inventories. However, this is not an overestimate but an improved estimate based on the latest and best available onroad mobile source research and methods. Organization: Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CTDEP) Organization Type: State/L ocal Air Agency EPA requests comment on their inclusion of revised 2012 and 2014 non - EGU point and nonpoint projected emissions to reflect controls required b y the New York SIP. CTDEP notes that similar controls are required b y Connecticut’s SIP, yet they have not been included in the 2 nd NODA. CTDEP recommends that control levels required b y Connecticut’s consumer products, architectural and industrial maintenance coatings, portable fuel containers, mobile equipment repair and refinishing, solvent metal cleaning, adhesiv es and sealants, and asphalt paving rules (see Attachment A) be included in the 2012 and 2014 non - EGU point and nonpoint projected emissions in the 2 nd NODA. [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 3839.1, p.2] In the attached spreadsheet CTDEP included heating oil sulfur limits for both distillate and residual oil. Response: EPA concurs with this comment and appreciates the detailed information made available to EPA to allow updated data to be include d in the modeling . EPA incorporated enforceable controls data provided by CT DEP. These updates included controls on VOC emissions from architectural and industrial maintenance coatings, consumer products, mobile equipment repair and refinishing, solvent metal cleaning, adhesives and sealants, and asphalt paving rules in the future years. EPA incorporated this information in the emissions used for the final modeling. EPA did not include CTDEP provided controls on portable fuel containers (PFCs), and sulfur fuel limits because they

were either not enforceable by the year 2014 , or in the case of PFCs, were already controlled by

the Mobile Source Air Toxics Rule (MSAT2), which EPA has included in its future - ye ar emissions projections. In a consistent manner, EPA did not include sulfur fuel controls in the 2012 or 2014 projectio ns for any state that had enforceable limits in place b y July 1, 2014. Organization: State of Delaware Department of Natural Resources & Environmental Control Organization Type: State/L ocal Air Agency Delaware's sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) and nitrogen oxides (NO X ) emissions are significantl y overstated in the proposed transport rule anal ys is. Delaware compared its 2005 Periodic Emissions Inventory (PEI) with EPA's 2005 emissions used in the proposed transport rule. Delaware then projected its 2005 PEI9

emission s to 2012, and compared them to the proposed transport rules 2012 Base Case emissions. The results, which are summarized in Table 1 and Table 2 below [See comment EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2980.1, p.2 for Tables 1&2], indicate that EPA's NOx and S02 emissions are inflated for 2005 and both NOx and S02 are significantly inflated in 2012. 1 [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2980.1, p. 2] Because EPA's 2005 and 2012 emissions inventories are inflated Delaware believes that EPA's modeling of 2012 base case emission over- states Delaware's contributions to downwind areas (i.e., over- estimated emissions inventories result in over - estimated contributions to downwind areas). [EPA HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2980.1, p. 3] Much of the inventory

differences are due to control measures Delaware h as implemented that are not reflected in the EPA analysis. 2 Delaware believes that once the EPA inventories are corrected, modeling will show that it is not necessary to subject Delaware to the transport rule. [EPA - HQ - OAR 2009 - 0491 - 2980.1, p. 3] Response : EPA concurs with the portion of the comment stating that the most recent credible emissions data for Delaware should be used. To address this comment, EPA reviewed data submitted by Delaware and used it in the final modeling. These data included update d emissions for several nonpoint sectors including commercial marine and fuel combustion, along with controls, updated emissions, and plant closures for point sources. These updates , along with updates for other states , were included in the final modeling. Note that the actions taken in response to this comment also address the follow - up comment submitted by Delaware DNR in response to the NODA on emissions inventories [ EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 3838]. Organization: Duke Energy Organization Type: Utility Comments Related Emission Inventories and Air Impacts Modeling Approach The state emission inventories developed for conducting the evaluation of significant impact must be confirmed for accuracy

by each affected state, and the modeling must be performed a gain if there are any significant changes in inventory that may have a bearing on the conclusion reached by EPA. The inventories are critical to the overall process for developing the Transport Rule, including the classification of states into Group 1 or 2 , whether a state is having a significant impact on downwind areas, and the degree of improvement at incremental control costs. In particular, the statewide SO 2 inventories for non - road sources appear to be very high for a number of states. (see Chapter 7, Table 7 - 2 of the June 10, 2010 EPA “Emissions Inventory” TSD report). For example, the non - road SO 2 inventory for North Carolina is shown as 52,897 tons in 2014 while the non - road emissions in neighboring Tennessee are only 173 tons. That is very

surprising considering the reductions in SO 2 emissions that have been achieved and are expected to occur as a result of clean diesel programs for road and non - road vehicles, locomotive, and marine vessels. It appears that inconsistent treatment for the inventory

related to Class 3 commercial marine vessels may be the key

factor since all of the states that show very

high SO 2 emissions are along the coast. The inventory and models need to be revised to account for the expected reductions related to regulatory programs that affect those vessels, as well as any other non - road sources where EPA may not have properl y accounted for the use of low sulfur fuel. [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2689.1, pp.62 - 63]10

Also, to the extent that emissions of ocean - going vessels are linked to mo deling of significant impacts for a state, it would be appropriate for EPA to parse out those impacts due to the location of the emissions (offshore and at the far edge of the state boundaries) and because those SO 2 emissions are outside of the control of the states and are already subject to federal rules to reduce emissions. To the extent that emissions from ocean - going vessels involved in interstate and international commerce may be contributing to significant impacts in non - attainment areas, it would be more appropriate to address those impacts through separate rulemaking rather than assign the contribution to specific states. [EPA HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2689.1, p.63] R esponse : EPA concurs that the commercial marine ocean going - vessel emissions apportioned to the states were too high in the proposal modeling . In the final modeling EPA used a revised boundary between state and federal waters that substantiall y reduces emissions in coastal areas. In addition, known regulatory

programs that are taking affect in future years were included in the final rule modeling. The details of these changes are provided as part of responses to other comments an d in the Introduction. Organization: Empire District Electric Company (Empire District) Organization Type: Utility The IPM data used as the base case to develop CATR is flawed due to the fact that it uses 2005 information which does not account for current pollution control equipment installed since 2005 as well as accurate projected emissions for 2012. Corrected data should be utilized in all modeling platforms that EPA used to develop the CATR including IPM, SMOKE, and CAMx modeling. Once all the modeling is completed revisions to CATR, if any , should be made and CATR revised. [EPA HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2659.1, p.3] Response : EPA disagrees with this comment. EPA solicited comments on the 2005 inventories used in the modeling and also on installed control devices as part of the rulemaking process. The future ye ar projections for 2012 and 2014 take into account known control devices installed after 2005 to the extent possible and many updates to this control information were incorporated as a result of comments on the proposal inventories . Organization: Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Air Protection Branch Organization Type: State/L ocal Air Agency The modeling performed by EPA for the Transport Rule did not consider many local controls required by states. These controls are documented in annual PM 2.5 attainment SIPs submitted by various states. These contro ls should be included in the 2012 modeling used to determine future year nonattainment/maintenance areas. For example, the EPA modeling projects Atlanta, GA to have a 2012 annual PM 2.5 design value of 16.01 ug/m3 and Birmingham, AL to have a 2012 annual PM 2.5 design value of 17.15 ug/m3. However, both these areas are implementing state controls in their annual PM 2.5 SIPs to bring those areas into attainment b y 2012. These controls must be accounted for in order to give an accurate projection of future attainment/maintenance. In addition, the model projects Birmingham, AL to have a 2012 daily PM 2.5 design value of 40.0 ug/m3. However, EPA just published a final determination that Birmingham has attained this standard (75 FR 57186). [EPA - HQ - OAR 2009 - 0491 - 2647. 1 p.5]11

Response: EPA concurs with the comment that EPA should make every effort to include known and planned future enforceable control information. Prior to proposal, EPA undertook an effort to review state SIPs and found very little usable information to include because in most cases, the information was too general to incorporate into our future - ye ar inventory projections. At proposal, EPA specificall y requested this ty pe of information be provided and provided a mechanism for commenters to provide su ch reductions using a spreadsheet . As a result, GA EPD provided data with facility /unit/SCC/pollutant regional Haze and local control - based emission reductions for SO 2 , NO X , and PM 2.5 . GA EPD also provided year 2001 and year 2005 unit and facility shutdo wns. EPA incorporated all of these specific data into the emissions inventories for 2005 and future years for final rule modeling . Organization: Indiana Department of Environmental Management Organization Type: State/L ocal Air Agency Indiana DEM provided specific information on non - EGU plant closures and controls [EPA - HQ - OAR 2009 - 0491 - 2645] Response: EPA concurs with the comments from Indiana DEM and removed the specified facilities from the 2005 and future year non - EGU inventories for the final modeling. Organization: Louisiana Chemical Association (L CA) Organization Type: Utility EPA Overestimated Louisiana Emissions in the Emissions Inventory . In addition to the above reasons for eliminating Louisiana from coverage under the Transport Rule/FIP, LCA believes that EPA significantl y overestimated NO X and SO 2 emissions in the 2005 emissions inventory used for this rulemaking which in turn caused an overestimation of projected impact. LCA has not had sufficient time to determine whether some of the overestimation was corrected in the IPM v. 4.10 runs, but preliminarily

believes that the problems with overestimation noted below have not been corrected. Thus, L CA believes that the projected Base Case emissions should be lower than the IPM v. 4. 10 projects. L CA will submit supplemental comments on the impact of use of IPM v. 4.10 on or before the October 15, 2010 deadline in the Notice of Data Availability . Thus, at present, LCA believes that EPA should correct these errors before making any final determinations in this docket. The EPA 2005 Louisiana emissions inventory for NO X is significantly

different from the 2005/2006 L ouisiana state wide emissions inventory used by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (prepared b y their consultant Environ International) for LDEQ’s modeling support for its request to redesignate the Baton Rouge Area to 8 - hour ozone attainment. EPA’s inventory of NO X exceeds the Louisiana inventory by 174,465 tpy.[EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 3527.1, p. 15; see pp. 15 - 24 f or extensive discussion of the 2005 emission inventory .] In addition to these comments, L CA incorporates the comments of Alpine Geophy sics noted on Exhibit 11. [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 3527.1, p. 24] Response : EPA concurs that some corrections to the invento ries used at proposal were warranted. EPA made extensive efforts to incorporate additional plant closures, consent decrees, and to reflect installed control devices into the final modeling. EPA adjusted Lo uisiana point and C3 commercial marine emissions u sing the best available information that was obtained as part of the rulemaking process. S everal facilities were reclassified from the non - EGU po int sector into the EGU sector and therefore12

prevented the double - counting of EGU emissions IPM for 2012 and 2014. EPA also included 2005 certified inventory

PM estimates for several facilities based on analy sis of 2005 and 2008 NEI PM filterable and PM - condensable emissions. Organization: State of L ouisiana/ Department of Environmental Quality Organization Type: State/L ocal Air Agency MODEL DISCREPANCIES/NOX As was stated earlier, Louisiana has reached attainment with the 1997 8 - hour ozone NAAQS and remains in attainment as of this writing. Louisiana is concerned that the proposed Transport Rule identifies East Baton Rouge Parish (specificall y the LSU site - AQS 220330003) as nonattainment for the 1997 8 - hour ozone NAAQS in both 2012 and 2014, and both with and without the implementation of the proposed Transport Rule. This would indicate that either the rule's NO X reduction unbalances the Baton Rouge area's ozone chemistry or the Transport Rule is based on outdated or incorrect data. Below is a comparison of the NO X inventory used for the Baton Rouge area attainment demonstration (containing NO X emissions for 2005 and 2006) and the proposed Transport Rule's NO X emissions from Table IV.C - 2. [See EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2655.1, p.3 for Table IV.C - 2; EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2655.1, p.3] The largest difference when looking at this data comparison is in the non - road emissions portion, specificall y the differences between the locomotive and marine emissions. The table below compares EPA's emissions breakdown to L ouisiana's modeled emissions breakdown. [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2655.1, p.3]. This proposed Transport Rule and the emissions inventory upon which it relies does not account for all of the consent decrees that affected the state of Louisiana. This error led to the addition of 7,000 tpy to the model. Louisiana's point source emission s inventory continues to show a downward trend, as is indicated in Attachment B. [See EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2655.1, p.24 for Attachment B; EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2655.1, p.3] The Baton Rouge attainment demonstration was performed following EPA guidance and us ing EPA approved methodology . The transport rule modeling uses a draft version of MOVES for mobile emissions, and the commercial marine Category 3 (C3) vessel emissions were augmented with gridded 2005 emissions from the previous modeling efforts for the r ule called 'Control of Emissions from New Marine Compression - Ignition Engines at or Above 30 Liters per C yl inder.' It is unclear as to how two EPA approved methods produce such different results for the same modeled year. The Transport Rule's 2014 base cas e NO X emissions of 565,049 tons are still greater than the emissions modeled by Louisiana for 2005. The Baton Rouge area has put over 25 years of effort into achieving the correct ratio of NO X and VOC in order to attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS and is very con cerned that incorrect model results, such as those used in the transport rule, could disrupt that ratio by removing too much NO X from the atmosphere and thereby causing the area to revert to its nonattainment status or trigger contingency . [EPA - HQ - OAR - 200 9 - 0491 - 2655.1, p.4]13

Response : The commenter claims that due to recent ozone data showing attainment in Baton Rouge, that Baton Rouge should not be considered a nonattainment or maintenance receptor. EPA disagrees with this portion of the comment. There are several reasons why recent monitoring data should not and cannot be used to determine the nonattainment and maintenance receptor status for consideration under the Transport Rule. Please see the preamble section V.C.2 for details. Louisiana’s request that the Baton Rouge area be redesignated to attainment will be addressed in a separate notice and comment rulemaking. EPA concurs with the portions of this comment related to the consent decrees . To address this issue , after a compreh ensive review, EPA added numerous cons ent decree emissions reduction to the set of consent decrees used at proposal . This resulted in significant reductions to NO X , SO 2 , and PM emissions in L ouisiana between the 2005 and future - ye ar inventories . Since thi s comment does not provide specific information, EPA relied on consent decrees documented by the EPA Office of Environmental Compliance Assurance and data provided by other commenters that included enough information to apply

to the 2005 base year inventory. EPA also updated our 2005 base point - source inventory to include revised certified LA inventory year 2005 estimates for SO 2 , NO X , and PM , as described in our response to a previous comment. Alternate data was not available for 2012 and 2014 base case emissions; however, EPA included consent decrees where possible . The resulting inventories show an additional downward trend in emissions in L ouisiana for the nonEGU inventory as described b y the commenter . EPA concurs with the parts of this comment con cerning emissions approaches used for the onroad mobile and commercial marine portions of the Louisiana inventory . The final modeling uses MOVES 2010 instead of the draft version of MOVES used in the proposal. In addition, EPA adjusted the Category 3 commercial marine emissions for Louisiana, along with those other states , by appl ying the Mineral Management Service dataset for state - federal water boundaries to associate onl y the emissions close to the coast ( approximately 3 - 10 miles ) , with the state. This method is consistent with past approaches used in developing the National Emission Inventory . In addition, EPA include d the final Emissions Control Area proposal to the International Maritime Organization new Class 3 engine standards and fuel sulfur limits (EPA - 420 - F - 10 - 421, August, 2010) for Commercial Marine Vessels. These two changes reduced the amount of nonroad emissions attributable to L ouisiana in the final modeling. Organization: Maine Department of Environmental Protection (Maine DEP) Organization Type: State/L ocal Air Agency Fuel sulfur content: In 2009, the Maine Legislature established sulfur content limits for certain fuels. The legislation established a statewide sulfur limit for distillate fuels of 50 ppm in 2016, and 15 ppm in 2018. This will not apply

to distillate fuel used for manufacturing purposes. For residual (#6) fuel oil, the statewide sulfur limit will be to 0.5% in 2018. In the Central Maine, Downeast, Aroostook County and Northwest Maine Air Quality Control Regions and the Metropolitan Portland Air Quality Control Region outside the Portland Peninsula the current residual oil sulfur limit is 2.0%. In the Portland Peninsula Air Quality

Control Region, the current residual fuel sulfur limit is 1.5%.14

The Maine DEP estimates that 5,567 tons of sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) were emitted by distillate fuel combustion in 2008, while 12,783 tons were emitted by residual fuel combustion. We estimate that the fuel sulfur limits will reduce distillate emissions to 1,623 tons in 2016 and to 48 tons in 2018. Residual fuel SO 2 emissions will be reduced to 4,880 tons in 2018. Point Source Inventory : The Maine DEP is submitting the following corrections to the NODA point source inventory in the Excel workbook provided by EPA: • Boralex Athens facility

closed July

10, 2009 • Maine Energy

Recovery

and Region al Waste Systems facilities are duplicated • McCain Foods

– Easton PointID 004 ceased operation November 9, 2009 • Wausau Paper Otis Mill ceased operation November 14, 2009 • Lincoln Paper and Tissue PointID 001 no longer exists; see PointID 002 Nonpoint Inventory : The Maine DEP has identified incorrect volatile organic compound emission estimates for two nonpoint source categories in the NODA inventory: Residential Woodstoves and Fireplaces (SCC 2104008000) and Stage 2 Gasoline Service Stations (SCC 25010 60100). We request that EPA utilize the estimates in the official 2005 National Emission Inventory , as currently available from EPA’s Emissions Inventory

S ys tem, for those two categories as shown below. [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 3849.1, p.1 - 2] Response: EPA concurs that the fuel sulfur limits should be included in the modeling for Maine. EPA included quantifiable sulfur rule controls in 2014 modeling for those states that had implemented the rules (New Jersey

and Maine) . EPA concurs with the portion of the comments on the point source inventory. EPA removed the above facilities from the future - ye ar inventories to reflect the closures reported b y Maine . EPA does not concur with the portion of the comments on the nonpoint inventory . EPA intends to use the b est available emissions data in every case. EPA has updated the Residential Woodstoves and Fireplaces emissions with improved activity data for 2005. EPA believes that these estimates are better than what is in the 2005 NEI, which are actually 2002 estim ates. EPA is using refueling emissions from MOVES to estimate Stage 2 Gasoline Service Stations in the base ye ar and future ye ar modeling. EPA believes that these estimates are better than what was in the 2005 NEI (based on MOBILE6), and that the updated emissions provide greater consistency between the base inventory and the future inventories. Organization: Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) Organization Type: State/L ocal Air Agency In developing the mobile source emissions for this platform EPA used the National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM) with MOBILE6 vehicle emission modeling software, and then applied post - processing to approximate the emissions for this sector that would have b een computed with EPA’s new mobile source model, the Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES). Maryland strongl y urges that for the final Transport Rule and certainl y for Transport II, EPA undertake modeling with updated mobile emissions based on MOVES, a s required for state SIPs, and not rel y on shortcuts for a significant and substantial proposal such as this aimed at reducing transport. This is particularly important because15

EPA is requiring the states to use MOVES for their upcoming SIP submissions, and because MOVES outputs both in terms of base emissions and projected reductions from measures are supposed to be much greater than those produced b y MOBILE6. [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2639.2, p.17] Response : EPA concurs that a released version of MOVES should be used for the final modeling . EPA used the released version MOVES 2010 (December, 2009) for the final rule modeling. EPA does not concur that unacceptable shortcuts were taken for the overall MOVES - b ased approach. A technicall y feasible approach for running MOVES 2010 at the county resolution for a regional - scale modeling effort was not available in time for use in this rule. EPA has concluded that the allocation of the final MOVES 2010 emission fro m the state - month resolution to the county level based on NMIM allocations was sufficient for the purpose of this rule. Subsequent EPA analy ses comparing the state month MOVES approach to a more refined county - based MOVES approach using more local - specifi c MOVES inputs has shown that the overall state - level emissions (relevant for contribution modeling for this rule) of NOx and VOC are not different enough to have affected the outcome of this rule. Given the unavailability

of a more refined approach in ti me for this rule, and given our subsequent analy se s, EPA has concluded that its approach of using the MOVES 2010 emissions and allocating from a state month resolution to counties was sufficient for supporting the contribution modeling of the final Transpo rt Rule. Organization: Michigan Manufacturers Association (MMA) Organization Type: Industry (non - utility) Using a current emission inventory , combined with current air quality data is certain to reduce the scope of reductions needed to meet the stated objectives of the proposed rule. EPA may even find that this rule is not necessary

to reach the stated air quality improvement objectives. [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2762.1, p.2] The modeling the EPA used to determine the Rule’s compliance requirements is out o f date and/or inaccurate on many counts. First, EPA begins with an emissions inventory from the year 2005. By doing so, EPA creates a modeling scenario that does not account for the real emissions reductions that have occurred through recent actions to compl y with the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), as well as consent orders that are on the books, within the 32 - state region. Neither does a 2005 emissions inventory take into account the permanent shutdown of major sources

– an issue that is very real to th e State of Michigan. These omissions have a demonstrated positive impact on ambient air quality, in Michigan and in downwind states. Nor does a 2005 emissions inventory take into account the permanent shutdown of many major sources

– an issue that is very real to the State of Michigan. These sources and their emissions are gone. The sum of all of these emissions reductions has a demonstrated positive impact on ambient air quality , in Michigan and in downwind states. [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2762.1, pp.2 - 3] R es ponse : EPA concurs with the portion of the comment that a current emission inventory should be used. EPA used the most recent inventory data available to us that has been quality assured. Numerous inventory updates impacting most major sectors were incorp orated in the final rulemaking emissions modeling platform. This comment does not include specific enough information here for any other changes to be incorporated into the final modeling effort.16

EPA does not concur with the part of the comment suggesting that 2005 emissions data were used to determine compliance requirements. All compliance - related anal ys is was performed using the 2012 model year, which allows EPA to include emissions reductions that have occurred since 2005. EPA concurs with the part of the comment that indicates all known [enforceable] emissions reductions should be taken into account in modeling done to determine downwind contributions and to assess compliance requirements . At proposal, EPA included many emissions reductions that re sulted between 2005 and 2012. As a result of the comments on the proposed rule, EPA has responded b y including significant additional emissions reductions not identified at proposal . The details for those additional emissions reductions are described in the responses to other commenters. Organization: Midwest Ozone Group Organization Type: Organization Specificall y, the CATR fails to consider the extensive amounts of controls installed after 2005, resulting in a large and erroneous over estimation of emissions reductions necessary to eliminate any significant contribution to downwind nonattainment of many states. EPA was well - aware when it proposed the CATR using onl y a 2005 EGU emissions inventory that significant new controls had been and were being installed on vast numbers of EGUs in response to the CAIR and other OTB requirements. Accordingly , MOG requests that EPA reanalyze the CATR using the most up to date source inventory

and air quality

data to confirm the results of its anal ys es. [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2809.1, pp.2 - 3] EPA failed to include other OTB controls in its future base case projections. EPA needs to clarify its conflicting statements on the cut - off date used for emission reduction requirements included in its anal ys is. EPA’s Federal Reg ister notice states that its base case includes “emissions reductions associated with the implementation of all federal rules promulgated b y December 2008,” 75 Fed. Reg. 45,210, 45,233/3; however, EPA’s PowerPoint overview presentation titled “Proposed Tra nsport Rule,” dated July

26, 2010, which is available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/airquality /transport/pdfs/TRPresentationfinal_7 - 26_webversion.pdf, states on slides 5, 17, and 18 that its analy sis “does reflect other federal and state requirements to reduce emissions contributing to ozone and fine particle pollution that were in place as of February

2009.” [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2809.1, p.5; for additional comments pertaining to EPA failed to include other OTB controls in its future base case pro jections, see pp.5 - 7] R esponse : See the preamble section V.C.2 for a response to the portion of the comment regarding how controls installed after 2005 are reflected in the final modeling. EPA concurs with the portion of the comment that some “on - the - books ” controls were not included in the proposal modeling. In preparation for the final rule modeling, EPA made extensive efforts to include Federal R

ules promulgated b y December 2010 along with consent decrees . The proposal modeling efforts did not incorporate rules promulgated between December 2008 and February 2009 because the modeling was being performed during that period . Organization: Louisiana Chemical Association (L CA) Organization Type: Utility17

EPA Failed to Include Enforceable Reductions in the Modeling Used to Project Future Impact. Failure to Include Consent Decrees. LCA believes that EPA has failed to include a number of federally enforceable New Source Review (“NSR”) and other federally enfo rceable consent decrees for non - EGUs in its IPM modeling efforts. This omission resulted in EPA greatl y overestimating both SO 2 and NO X emissions from L ouisiana and from Texas. Because EPA proposes to include L ouisiana in the TR/FIP based solel y on EPA’s m odeled projection that Louisiana will contribute only 0.34 ug/m3 PM2.5 in calendar ye ar 2012 at one monitor in Harris County, Texas, L CA believes that EPA should reevaluate L ouisiana’s inclusion in the Transport Rule and perform new modeling with these exc ess emission projections appropriatel y reduced. [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 3527.1, p. 24, see pp. 24 - 26 for extensive discussion of this issue.] R esponse : EPA concurs with the portion of the comment regarding consent decrees and made substantial efforts to include consent decrees in the final rule modeling. Many additional enforceable consent decrees were included as compared to the proposal modeling. However, EPA did not explicitly seek out consent decrees pertaining to the imp act of New Source Review. The commenter did not provide specific examples along those lines and therefore we relied on general publicl y available sources of information about consent decrees. New modeling was performed for the final rule that incorporate d all of the implemented emissions inventory updates. Organization: Louisville Gas and Electric Company (LG&E) and Kentucky

Utilities Company (KU) Organization Type: Utility 1. EPA’s non - EGU point source data include EGUs that are already included in EPA’s EGU data, thereb y double - counting the emissions from these sources. In EPA’s file named “ptinv_ptnonipm_2012cr_xportfrac_cap2005v2_20nov2008_revised_08oct2010_v0_orl.txt”: a) PlantID 211670001, Oris_Facility_Code 1355, Plant named KENTUCKYUT ILITIESCOMPANYEWBROWNSTAT contains 6 units (PointID’s 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11) that are EGU’s and are already correctly included in EPA’s NEEDS EGU data. The non - EGU data file includes NO x emissions for these units that are already included in the EGU data. These emissions are being double - counted. b) The facility

with FIPS number 21127, PlantID 40, and Plant named RiversideGeneratingCoLLC appears in the non - EGU data file with NOx emissio ns and also in the EGU data file. These emissions are being double - counted. Note: this plant is not owned b y or affiliated with L G&E or KU. c) Conversations with other electric utility companies indicates that there are other units whose emissions are being double - counted or that are improperl y categorized as EGU’s or non - EGU’s. [EPA HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 3859.1, p.2 - 3] Response: EPA concurs with the comment that these specific facilities were double - counted between the EGU and non - EGU inventories. The relev ant units from each plant were moved from the non EGU inventory

to the EGU inventory in 2005, thereby removing any double - counts caused when the 2005 data were projected to the future ye ar s . These facilities emissions are included only from the IPM model in the future year emissions cases . In addition to reviewing the specific facilities in th is18

comment, EPA addressed many other similar comments in the same way by confirming the double counted emissions and preventing those emissions from being double counted in the future year inventories. Furthermore, EPA performed a s ys tematic anal ys is of the EGU and non - EGU inventories to identify

and correct any

additional duplicates. Organization: Mid - America Regional Council (MARC) Air Quality Forum Organization Type: State/L ocal Air Agency It is also imperative that EPA use the latest available data and emissions inventories in order to reflect emission reduction projects already underway . [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2613.1, p.1] Response : EPA concurs with this comment. We have attempted to use the latest data and emissions inventories wherever quality assured data was available. However, this comment is not specific enough to merit particular changes. Organization: Midwest Ozone Group Organization Type: Organization Mobile Sources [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2809.1, p.7] (1) Category

3 (C3) commercial marine vessels. See Fed. Reg. at 45,244/1 - 2 (“Nonroad mobile emissions were created only with NMIM using a consistent approach as was used for 2005, but emissions were calculated using NMIM future - ye ar equipment population estimates and control programs for 2012 and 2014. Emissions from 2012 and 2015 were used for locomotives and category 1 and 2 (C1 and C2) commercial marine vessels, based on emissions published in OTAQ’s Lo comotive Marine Rule, Regulatory

Impact Assessment, Chapter 3. For category 3 (C3)commercial marine vessels, a coordination strategy of emissions reductions is ongoing that includes NOx, VOC, and CO reductions for new C3 engines as earl y as 2011 and fuel s ulfur limits that could go into affect as early as 2012. However, given the uncertainty about the timing for parts of these emissions reductions and the fact that the 2012 modeling was conducted well in advance of the December 2009 publication of the rule, we have not used the controlled emissions in modeling supporting this proposal.”). [EPA - HQ OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2809.1, p.7] (2) Final federal rulemakings after December 2008: See http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t2pfpr.html. [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2809.1, p.7] (a) L ight - Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Final Rule (75 Fed. Reg. 25,523, May 7, 2010). EPA itself recognizes that this final rule will provide co - benefits. Id. at 25,524. [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2809. 1, p.8] (b) Control of Emissions From New Marine Compression - Ignition Engines at or Above 30 Liters per Cylinder (75Fed. Reg. 22,954, April 30, 2010). EPA states this rule will reduce emissions of NOx, PM2.5, and SO2 and further states that “While a share of these emissions occur at sea, [EPA’s] air quality modeling results...show they have a significant impact on ambient air quality far inland.” Id. At 22,900/3. According to EPA, “in 2009, emissions from Category 3 engines account for about 10 percent of mob ile source emissions of...NOx, about 24 percent of mobile source diesel PM2.5 emissions..., and about 80 percent of mobile source emissions of...SOx. As we look into the future,19

however, emissions from Category 3 engines are expected to become an even more domin ant inventory source. This will be due to both emission reductions from other mobile sources as new emission controls go into effect and to the anticipated activity growth for ocean transportation. Without new controls, we anticipate the contribution of Category 3 engines to national emission inventories to increase to about 24 percent, 34 percent, and 93 percent of mobile source NOx, PM2.5, and S O x emissions, respectivel y in 2020, growing to 40 percent, 48percent, and 95 percent respectively in 2030.” Id. At 22,897/2 - 3. [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2809.1, p.8] (c) Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Changes to Renewable Fuel Standard Program (75 Fed. Reg. 14819, March 26, 2010). EPA states that as a result of this rule: “Ambient PM2.5 is likely to increase in are as associated with biofuel production and transport and decrease in other areas; for ozone, many

areas will experience increases and a few areas will see decreases.” Id. at 14,799/2. [EPA HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2809.1, p.8] (d) Average Fuel Economy Standards Passenger Cars and Light Trucks Model Year 2011 (74 Fed. Reg. 14,196, March 30, 2009). This will also provide co - benefits. Id. at 14,203. [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2809.1, p.8] R esponse : (1) C3 Marine Vessels: EPA reduced commercial marine emissions as described in the Introduction. These reductions come from two changes. First, EPA included emissions reductions from the final Emissions Control Area proposal to the International Maritime Organization new Class 3 (C3) engine standards and fuel sulfur limits (EPA - 420 - F - 10 - 421, August, 2010) for Commercial Marine Vessels. Second, EPA updated the use of a 200 nautical mile boundary

for C3 emissions attributable to states, replacing it with use of the Mineral Management Service state - federal water boundary dataset th at restricts state waters to approximately

3 - 10 miles from the coast. EPA concluded that this is a more reasonable assumption of the proportion of C3 marine emissions that can be attributed to the states ’ contribution to downwind nonattainment and is consistent with past approaches used in developing the National Emission Inventory . These two changes reduced the amount of nonroad emissions attributable to L ouisiana in the final modeling. (2) EPA concurs with the portion of the comment that some “on - the - books” controls from federal rulemakings were not included in the proposal modeling. In preparation for the final rule modeling, EPA made extensive efforts to include Federal Rules promulgated by December 2010 along with consent decrees . The proposal modeling efforts did not incorporate rules promulgated between December 2008 and February 2009 because the modeling was being performed during that period . The following rules were not reflected in the version of MOVES used for the final Transport Rule modeling because the rules have little impact on criteria air pollutants in 2012 or 2014: Li ght - Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Averag e Fuel Economy Standards, Average Fuel Economy Standards Passenger Cars and Light Trucks Model Year 2011 , and Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Changes to Renewable Fuel Standard Program . Organization: Minnesota Power (ALLETE) Organization Type: Utility20

Additionally , the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency had facilitated a Minnesota stakeholder process for addressing final Regional Haze (Clean Air Visibility Rule) requirements for targeted 2013 compliance with Reasonable Further Progress targets for Minne sota Class I Wilderness Areas. The MPCA Northeast Regional Emissions Abatement Program called for about a 30% reduction in Northeast Minnesota utility emissions that, coupled with other regional emission reductions (e.g. MERP and AREA), would satisfy Minn esota regional haze, reasonable further progress requirements on schedule. It is not clear in EPA’s Transport Rule, Technical Support Documents whether EPA gave consideration to Minnesota non - utility source emission reductions from this Minnesota visibility improvement initiative, but it does appear that EPA is incorrectl y associating the Minnesota emission reduction measures with CAIR compliance action even though the CAIR has been stayed for Minnesota implementation pending this Transport Rule finalizatio n. [ EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2809.1, p.4 ] The MPCA has submitted the Minnesota Regional Haze SIP to EPA for approval, but has not yet received confirmation that EPA has reviewed and approved the Northeast Minnesota emission reduction plan. However, Minnesot a utility sources have provided for the associated planned emission reductions at timing to meet the MPCA program regional haze targets, as cited in the Minnesota State Implementation Plan submitted to EPA. Still, those Minnesota emission reduction measures appear to have been acknowledged by EPA when they

suggest that States should be able to meet EPA’s Transport Rule proposed 2012 SO 2 and NO X budget emission limitations. [ EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2809.1, p.4 ] R esponse : EPA does not concur with including the emissions reductions cited in this comment. The regional haze SIP submittal cited in the comments (a “Northeast Minnesota 30% reduction”) are unenforceable targets for which the specific measures to achieve them are still under development in a collaborative process with the industry . Accordingl y, they are not enforceable requirements appropriate for inclusion in the final rule modeling. Further , the comment does not provide detailed information regarding the reduction targets. Organization: State of Mi ssouri Department of Natural Resources Organization Type: State/L ocal Air Agency Missouri found discrepancies in NO X and SO 2 emissions for some electric generating units (EGUs) in the 2005 base ye ar. For example, the New Madrid Power Plant, ORI S 2167, reported NO X emissions of 17,261 tons per ye ar in 2005, but a total of 32,255 tons per year was used in EPA's 2005 base year. Mi ssouri requests that EPA re - evaluate Missouri's contributions based on this and any other needed corrections. [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 3806, p.3] Response: EPA does not concur with this comment. The inventory for the proposal and final modeling include s the following emissions data for this plant Plant name = New Madrid Power Plant, state - county FIPS=29143, State Facility Id entifier=0004 . Facility totals for NO X : 11,794 tpy - 2008 MO Department of Natural Resources 11,793 tpy - 2008 EPA Clean Air Markets Division 32,255 tpy - 2005 (NEI) 32,240 tpy

– 2005 EPA Clean Air Markets Division 37,466 tpy

– 2002 (NEI)21

These data show that the 2005 emission data used in the modeling came from data reported b y the facility to the Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) . For SO2, we found 13,702 tons : 7,036 from unit #1 and 6,665 from unit #2. Further , the NOx emissions from the CAMD data show that the 2005 NOx emissions were 17,719 tons for unit 1 and 14,520 tons for unit 2 . Consequently , EPA has conclude d that the commenter is either reporting emissions after 2005 or is only considering one of the units at the facility

for which data are available. Therefore, no changes were made by EPA related to this plant for the final rule . Organiza tion: National Association of Clean of Air Agencies (NACAA) Organization Type: Other In our discussions with EPA on the proposal, EPA requested that NACAA review the emissions inventory information the agency

used in developing the proposed Transport Rule. Many of our members have concerns with the quality of the data or anal ys is and will be submitting comments separately to EPA to assist in promulgation of the final rule. We understand the challenging nature of the schedule in the specific circumstanc es of this rule, but we urge EPA in the future to provide NACAA and its members with its modeling assumptions, inventory and projections prior to proposal, to enhance the accuracy

of EPA’s technical information. [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2771.1, p.6] Response : The request by NACAA for earlier access to EPA data in future efforts is not a comment on the proposed Transport Rule. E PA acknowledges NACAA's interest and aims to work with NACAA and other stakeholders to get input and feedback on modeling assumptions , inventories, and other relevant information earl y in the rulemaking process as appropriate. Organization: New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services Organization Type: State/L ocal Air Agency We have reviewed the non - IP M point source and non - point source inventory data that was posted to the docket. Upon review of this data, we offer the following comments. A spreadsheet is attached which illustrates these comments. Permanent shutdowns: Groveto n Paperboard, Batesville Manufacturing, Churchill Coatings Hooksett, Graphic Packaging New NOx controls: Pinetree Power Tamworth, Bridgewater Power, Pinetree Power Bethlehem, Hemphill Power & Li ght General corrections: Keene State College, Bridgewater Power In addition, we would like to direct your attention to the emissions inventories that are being prepared for states in the mid - Atlantic and Northeast region for use in their SIPs for ozone and fine particulate matter. We feel that these are the most accurate and up to date inventories available for the region. Although the anal ys is years differ from those being addressed for the Transport Rule, we feel that they could serve as a valuable QA/QC resource for the work that you are doing. In particular, these inventories could potentially be used as a cross - check for source controls and shutdowns. [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 38 54] Response: EPA concurs with the New Hampshire DES comments. For the 2005 inventory , facilityspecific stack parameters were updated and a duplicate facility was removed. For the future inventories, EPA removed the closed facilities and applied the NOx controls to the specified facilities.22

Organization: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Organization Type: State/L ocal Air Agency The CAMx air quality

modeling is based on a 2005 modeling platform. The mobile source emissions for this platform were primarily developed with NMIM/MOBILE6 and some post processing approaches were applied to approximate the mobile source emissions that would have been computed with the MOVES model. Given the non - linear interactions between pollutants from various sources in the atmosphere, it is unclear if using this short cut may have affected the modeling results, in particular th e upwind - to - downwind linkages established by the CAMx/PSAT simulations. [EPA - HQ OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2730.1, p.10] EPA continues to manipulate the New York point source inventory by incorrectl y adding sources that either have gross emission errors, are no longer in operation or involve the shutdown of existing sources. a. For example, EPA has included a facility it calls I skilar Brick in Albany County . In fact, this facility is included twice (2 different emission points with the exact same emissions). DEC has never considered this facility , Powell and Minnock Brick, to be a point source and because of that has never submitted emissions data for the facility to EPA. Also, this facility quit making brick in 2001 and was demolished over the winter of 2007/2008. (see http://www.hudsonvalley ruins.org/alert/2008.html) b. The inventory

in the NODA say s that as of 12/31/2009 LAFARGE BUILDING MATERIAL S INC plant in Ravena, Albany County is closed. This is incorrect and we are at a loss to understand how EPA came to this un derstanding. EPA has included reductions from its proposed boiler MACT in future ye ar inventories. Since EPA has a history

of not completing rulemakings in a timely manner (even under court order), we question the wisdom of this decision. Like State measures, EPA shoul d only include those federal measures that have completed the regulatory process so that there is some reasonable assurance that the emission reductions from these programs will actually occur. By

including the proposed boiler MACT reductions, EPA could be underestimating the impact that an upwind state would have on downwind nonattainment areas. [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 3857] Response : EPA concurs with the comment that a released version of MOVES should be used for the final rule modeling. EPA used MOVES 20 10 in the modeling for the final rule. A further explanation about the adequacy

of the MOVES approach is provided in the response to the Maryland Department of the Environment . EPA concurs with the comment s on the I skilar Brick facility and The Lafarge Building Materials facility . For modeling used for the final Transport Rule, EPA has removed the I skilar Brick (a.k.a. Powel and Minnock Brick) facility from the 2005 inventory and the future year inventories. In addition, EPA has retained the Lafarge Buil ding Materials facility in the future inventory . EPA also concur s that the emissions reductions from the proposed boiler MACT NESHAP should not be included because the rule wa s still in proposal at the time of the final air quality modeling for the Transp ort Rule . Therefore, EPA did not include the boiler MACT controls in the emissions for the final modeling.23

Organization: North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Organization Type: State/L ocal Air Agency One of NCDAQ's major concerns is with the emissions inventories provided as part of the supporting technical analy sis. While the magnitude and percent contribution per source sector in the EPA inventories appear to be reasonable for most source sectors, certain sectors emissio ns show significant differences. For example, the non - road mobile emissions provided by EPA are significantl y higher for NO X and S O 2 as compared to NCDAQ's estimates. The non - road mobile S O 2 differences are particularly troubling, especially

in the future ye ars. While NCDAQ does not have emission inventories for the exact years of EPA's projections, we do have projections that bracket EPA's estimates. The latest NCDAQ non - road mobile S O 2 estimates for 2002 and 2009 are 7,693 tons and 1,892 tons, respectivel y. EPA's 2005 estimate is 42,743 tons - a clear outlier when compared to our estimates. The latest NCDAQ non - road mobile S O 2 estimate for 2018 is 905 tons, while EPA's 2020 estimate is 68,844 tons. EPA's non - road mobile S O 2 estimates increase from 2005, to 2014, to 2020, while NCDAQ's estimates decrease significantly with time from 2002, to 2009, to 2018. We have isolated the majority of the non - road mobile differences to the marine S O 2 emissions. However, NCDAQ has been unable to identify exactl y how the EPA non - road mobile emissions were developed in this exercise and requests additional documentation. In addition, for non - point (area) sources, EPA's NO X emissions estimates for North Carolina are 2 - 3 times lower as compared to NCDAQ estimates, while EPA's SO 2 emissions estimates for North Carolina are approximately 4 times higher. A more detailed emissions inventory comparison is provided in Attachment B. The NCDAQ is very

concerned about the differences in the non - road emissions and seeks to better understand these differences. If the EPA non - road emissions are found to be unreasonable, it significantl y alters the percent contribution of each source sector (the point source sector's SO 2 contribution is diminished) to the overall air quality concentrations predicted in the model. This, in turn, calls into question the overall modeling that supported the receptor identification anal ys is and the source contribution analy sis which gets at the root of the purpose of this proposal. [EPA - HQ OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2767.1 p.3 - 4] Response : EPA concurs that the nonroad emissions apportioned to states were too high in the proposal modeling. To address this EPA include d the final Emissions Control Area proposal to the International Maritime Organization new Class 3 engine standards and fuel sulfur limits (EPA - 420 - F 10 - 421, August, 2010) for Commercial Marine Vessels. In addition, instead of using the 200 nautical mile boundary

for C3 emissions attributable to s tates used in the Proposal, EPA used the Mineral Management Service state - federal water boundaries that restrict state waters to approximately 3 - 10 miles from the coast. These two changes drastically reduce the amount of nonroad emissions attributable to coastal states. EPA disagrees that the nonpoint emissions for North Carolina are inappropriate. EPA reviewed the nonpoint NO X emissions used in the proposal modeling for North Carolina and also requested appropriate alternative data . Some alternative data were provided, but quality assurance of the data raised questions about its usability . The data quality issues were discussed with NC DAQ staff and NC DAQ agreed that the original nonpoint data should be used for the final modeling.24

Organization: Omaha Public Power District Organization Type: Utility As with the SO 2 emissions issue described in Item 2, the nitrogen oxides (NO X) emissions for 'non point' Nebraska sources may be significantl y overstated by EPA, because approximately half the reported non - point NO X total in the 2005 baseline inventory is listed in the database as being associated with fossil fuel combustion in industrial, commercial and institutional coal boilers. If EPA made the same error as with S O 2 , then the indus trial/commercial/institutional boiler NO X emissions are being double - counted under the non - EOU category and the nonpoint category . [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2680.1, p. 2] Response : As a result of a review of the associate d data, EPA concurs with the assessment that EPA has overestimated industrial, commercial, and institutional (I CI) coal boilers in Nebraska. To address this comment, EPA replaced the non - point emissions for ICI boilers used at proposal with estimates from the latest available CENRAP 2002 inventory, resulting in 929 additional tons of NO X but 21,916 fewer tons of SO 2 . EPA investigated various data sources and determined that the CENRAP 2002 inventory was the best available data for use in this effort. The NO X emissions from coal and distillate oil actually

decreased over 4,000 tons but were more than offset by significantly

higher NO X from natural gas combustion of nearl y 5,000 tons. The net impact of replacing NEI nonpoint I CIfuel combustion estimates with the latest CENRAP data is a modest increase in NO X and large decrease in SO 2 . Note that the actions taken to address this comment also address a similar comment submitted by Nebraska Public Power District [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2711]. Organization: Ozone Transport Commission Organization Type: Organization In developing the mobile source emissions for this platform EPA used the National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM) with MOBILE6 vehicle emission modeling software, and then applied postprocessing to approximate the emissions for this sector that would have been computed with EPA’s new mobile source model, the Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulater (MOVES). While OTC supports EPA’s choice to use the NMIM and MOBILE6 models to meet the Court’s timeframe for developing the proposed Transport Rule, OTC strongl y urges that for the final Transport Rule and certainly for Transport 2, EPA undertake modeling with updated mobile emissions based on MOVES. This is particularly important because EPA is requiring the states to use MOVES for their upcoming SIP submissions, and because MOVES outputs both in terms of base emissions and projected reductions from measures are supposed to be much greater than those produced by MOBILE6. [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2737.1, pp. 7 - 8] Response : EPA concurs that a released vers ion of MOVES should be used for the final modeling . EPA used a draft version of MOVES combined with NMIM for the proposal modeling because that was the best available information at the time the modeling was performed. EPA used the released version of MOVES 2010 in the modeling for the final rule. Additional information associated with the approach used for the final Transport Rule and its degree of appropriateness is provided in the response to the Maryland Department of the Environment.25

Organization: P PG Industries, Inc. Organization Type: Industry (non - utility) Further, based on investigation to date, PPG believes that there could be significant errors in EPA’s emissions inventories and modeling and that EPA should remodel with corrected data to determine whether Louisiana emissions significantl y contribute to no nattainment with the 1997 8 - hr. ozone NAAQS in the Houston - Galveston - Brazoria (“HGB”) or Dallas - Ft. Worth (“DFW”) areas of Texas. The HGB area achieved attainment last year and continues in attainment this year. The DFW area design value has dropped to 86 ppb, and TCEQ has submitted an attainment demonstration that does not require further reductions from L ouisiana sources. Even under EPA’s overstated emissions inventories, EPA projects reductions of precursors of ozone from Louisiana to occur even without the Transport Rule. Considering the potential financial impact to PPG posed by EPA’s NOx allocation scheme, PPG should be given a reasonable opportunity to comment on the need for NOx reductions at all from L ouisiana sources under the interstate transport provisions of the Clean Air Act. [EPA - HQ OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 1926.1, p.2] Response : EPA concurs with the comment that the most up - to - date data should be used in modeling for the final rule. EPA requested, received and included updated emissions and local contro ls for the HGB and DFW non - EGU point source inventories from TCEQ, as well as updated L ouisiana ye ar 2005 certified emissions from the L ouisiana Chemical Association for several facilities. For Louisiana, we adjusted facilities where NO X or SO 2 in the cer tified emissions differed from the emissions used in the proposal modeling by

more than 10 tons annuall y, and adjust ed the PM 10 and PM 2.5 emissions accordingl y . Organization: RRIEnergy , Inc. Organization Type: Utility RRI provided a spreadsheet [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 38 33.1.xls ] indicating that a specific plant did not close. The intent was that the EPA include s these updates in their final modeling. Response: EPA concurs with the comment and did not shut down this facil ity for final rule processing. Organization: Southern Company Organization Type: Utility Southern Company

provided comments [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 38 43.1.pdf and EPA - HQ - OAR 2009 - 0491 - 2864 ] indicating that EPA should include local controls that have been implemented or are required b y other SIPS, such as the Alabama PM2.5 SIP for Birmingham, Alabama, which was submitted to EPA in March of 2009. EPA should include these and other corrections from local sources, especiall y combined with the necessary corrections sited b y Southern Company and others in comments on the Transport Rule and NODA1. Southern Company

believes that EPA should include the expected reductions that would occur from the f inal IB MACT. However, EPA should not include the reductions expected if the “rule were finalized as proposed.” EPA expects to finalize the IB MACT by January 16, 2011, a date well in advance of the expected Transport Rule.26

It appears that there are unit s in the non - IP M inventory that were also in the parsed IP M output files provided in the NODA1 (i.e., the emissions may be double counted). Response: EPA concurs with the comment and requested and implemented local controls where they were enforceable and detailed data were available in many states, including Alabama and Georgia. EPA concurs that ‘on - the - books’ enforceable state and local controls should be included in the modeling emissions inventories to the extent that credible data is available and the affected sources can be identified . EPA has included all EPA - approved and enforceable local controls, including some controls from SIPs. EPA concurs with the majority of commenters that emission reduction estimates from the NESHAP for Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters should not be included because the rule was not final at the time the modeling was performed. Thus, EPA did not incorporate emission reduction estimates from the NESHAP for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters (75 FR 32006) into the proposal or final modeling. Reductions from this rule would not have impacted the 2012 base case or downwind contribution modeling due to its implementation schedule, and only the 2014 emissions would have been affected. Finally , EPA reviewed the assignment of EGUs and non - EGUs and reclassified EGU sources found to be in the non - EGU inventory into the 2005 EGU inventory to prevent doub le counting of future ye ar emissions. EPA also deleted from the inventory all identified duplicate units and facilities. Organization: South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control Organization Type: State / L ocal Air Agency DHEC compared the emissions inventory data in the Transport Rule docket to data from the Association for Southeastern Integrated Planning (“ASIP”) and VISTAS, ASIP’s successor. ASIP and VI STAS are regional efforts, organized to develop SIP - quality technical dat a and information to support haze, ozone, and PM2.5 SIP submittals. One part of addressing these regional issues is investing significant resources into the development of robust emissions inventories that build on the deficiencies of federal inventories and models. The ASIP inventories to which we have compared the Transport Rule data are more refined, and thus when we compare the two, we lend more weight to the ASIP data. [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2677.1 p.12] DHEC’s first concern with emissions inventory dat a is that the 2012 Transport Rule emissions assumptions of SO 2 from the nonpoint sector in South Carolina, excluding fires, are 16,819 tons higher than nonpoint emissions, excluding fires, in the 2012 ASIP inventory . [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2677.1 p.12] In anal yz ing the detailed data by source, it appears that most of the differences we found were from industrial residual fuel combustion. The 2012 Transport Rule data also lists 16,527 tons of SO 2 from industrial residual fuel, while the 2012 ASIP inventory projects no emissions from this source. In the 2012 ASIP inventory , DHEC determined that all residual oil use in South Carolina was accounted for in our point source inventory , so there was no usage in the nonpoint inventory . DHEC also submitted zero tons fo r industrial residual oil for the area source inventory for the 2008 NEI. The 2012 Transport Rule inventory

should not include emissions from industrial residual oil use. The 2012 nonpoint emissions data, excluding fires, used for the Transport Rule are in flated. [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2677.1 p.12]27

DHEC’s second concern is that the 2012 Transport Rule nonroad data emissions assumptions of NO X and SO 2 are much higher than the 2012 ASIP inventory estimates. The 2012 Transport Rule nonroad NO X assumption is 1.6 times higher than the ASIP inventory and the SO 2 is 18 times higher. After much difficult anal ys is, it seems that the majority of the difference is coming from the commercial marine sector of the inventories. The commercial marine NO X emissions assumption in the 2012 Transport Rule is 33,905 tons, compared with the 7,666 tons in the ASIP inventory . The commercial marine SO 2 emissions assumption in the proposal is 22,520 tons, versus 996 tons in the ASIP inventory . We do not know exactly how the 2005/2012 Transport Rule commercial marine data was generated, but it seems questionable since it is so much higher than the 2012 ASIP value. [EPA - HQ OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2677.1 p.12] DHEC’s third concern is that much of the emissions inventory data in the docket is in almo st useless formats. Some of the data files are in a Linux format that required specialized database skills to convert to a useful Windows format. DHEC has spent much of the comment period researching simply how to open and format the data in the docket, taking away valuable time from the actual analysis of the data. [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2677.1 p.12] Response : EPA concurs with the portion of this comment raising concerns with the nonpoint fuel combustion and nonroad mobil e parts of the inventory in SC. In response to this comment, EPA evaluated the available information as described above in the comment, and concluded that the updated SC data (with no industrial residual oil combustion) developed b y VI STAS was a more credible source of data for the industri al residual fuel combustion. To address this, EPA removed the emissions from industrial residual fuel combustion from the South Carolina nonpoint inventory . Also, EPA updated the C3 marine portion of the nonroad emissions as described in response to several other comments. are substantiall y reduced due to the reallocation of C3 commercial marine vessel emissions into adjusted state - federal water boundaries. EPA does not concur with the comment on formats. The data were provided in modeling comma separated - value (CSV) format used b y emissions modeler s , which can be read b y Microsoft ® Wordpad® as well as other commonly available tools. We encourage all reviewers of EPA data to contact EPA in advance of the end of the comment period for assistance with data concerns, which did not happen in this case . EPA strive s to provide complete and accurate information for its regulatory efforts and will consider including additional summaries in the future. Organization: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Or ganization Type: State/L ocal Air Agency Additionally , the EPA failed to consider local controls that went into effect after 2005. Thus, the estimates for future base case NO X emissions from the non - electric generating utility (non - EGU) sector are substantiall y overestimated, particularl y for the Houston - Galveston - Brazoria (HGB) ozone nonattainment area, for whom the EPA assumes 19,000 tons per year (tp y) of NO X emissions present in the future base case that are not actuall y occurring. This significant error biases the results of the EPA's modeling against states that have made substantial NO X reductions after 2005. Please refer to further anal ys is in the 'Non - EGU Emissions Inventory and Local Control Programs' ·portion of our comments below. [EPA - HQ - OAR - 20 09 - 0491 - 2857.2, pp.2 - 3]28

Non - EGU Emissions Inventory and Local Control Programs The EPA did not consider local controls that went into effect after 2005 and the EPA's estimates for future base case NOx emissions from the non - EGU sector are substantiall y overestimated, particularly for the HGB ozone nonattainment area. [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2857.2, p.12] The EPA acknowledges (Emissions Inventory Technical Support Document, page 11, Docket ID No. EPA - HQ - O AR - 2009 - 0491 - 0050) that local controls that might have been necessary for areas to attain the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS annual standard, 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (24 - hour) standard, and the 1997 ozone NAAQS are not included in the future base case projections. The EPA's rationale for ignoring local controls post 2005 is that nonattainment areas for the 1997 PM2.5 and ozone standards were not announced until 2004 and 2005 respectivel y, and the corresponding state implementation plans were not due until 2007 and 2008. However , the EPA's rationale is flawed and while it may explain why such controls are not accounted for in the 2005 emissions inventory, it is not a rational justification for ignoring these local NOx controls in the future case, given that the EPA did not act to propose this rule in concert with designations for the 1997 PM2.5 and ozone standards. The EPA's failures are not a rational basis for creating additional flawed programs that would have significant costs to the nation's economy. • Areas such as the HGB area with a 2007 attainment date for the one - hour ozone NAAQS have had significant NOx reductions after 2005. • Controls for the 1997 eight - hour ozone NAAQS in some areas, such as the Dallas - Fort Worth eight - hour ozone nonattainment area, would have been p ut in place' after 2005 but before the future base case ye ars that EPA is using, in the Clean Air Transport Rule modeling. As the EPA acknowledges (75 FR 45329), the NOx Mass Emission Cap and Trade (MECT) program for the HGB area has been a very effective local control program that has resulted in substantial reductions in NOx emissions in the area. The MECT program is included in the Texas SIP and approved b y EPA. Significant reductions in NOx emissions from the non - EGU sector in the HGB area have occurre d post 2005 as a result of the MECT program. Based on review of the non - EGU comment spreadsheet provided b y the EPA in the Docket (Document ID No. EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 0128) and matching approximately 60 of the facilities which the EPA identifies as "key f acilities" in the HGB area with the TCEQ 2008 emissions inventory data, the TCEQ calculates that the EPA is overestimating NOx emissions in the HGB area non - EGU sector b y at least 70 percent. For these facilities alone, this equates to more than 19,000 tp y of NOx emissions that the EPA's models assume to be present in the future base case that are not actually occurring. The TCEQ cannot assess the full extent that NOx emissions in the HGB area are over- estimated Rule because the EPA did not provide a full inventory of the non - EGU facilities. This significant error in the predicted future NOx emissions biases the results of the EPA's modeling against states that have made substantial NOx reductions after 2005 as part of SIP activities. [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2857.2, p.12 - 13] The spreadsheet (Document ID No. EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 0128) that the EPA requests states use to make comments regarding local controls is incomplete and only includes those sources that the EPA determined to be "key

facilities" based on their· reporting more than 100 tpy of NOx, S02, or PM. Since the EPA admits that it does not have adequate knowledge of the local control programs, it should not predetermine those facilities that are key to the implementation of the local controls. Further more, comprehensive local control measures such as the MECT program in the HGB area cannot be properly represented in the spreadsheet due to the EPA's arbitrary criteria for selecting facilities. The MECT program applies to major sources with a potential to emit 25 tpy of NOx from applicable units and to29

minor sources with an uncontrolled design capacity to emit of 10 tp y, many of which are not included inEPA's spreadsheet. [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2857.2, p.13 - 14] Given the time constraints that the EPA has imposed on states for providing information on local controls, the TCEQ can only provide summary

information regarding the EPA - approved SIP control measures that resulted in reductions after 2005 . [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 04 91 - 2857.2, pp.14 - 15] • Modeling the MECT program cap is the most accurate and reliable method for modeling NOx emissions for the HGB area. The estimated ·NOx emission cap for the MECT' program in the HGB area modeled in the recent attainment demonstration SIP 'revision for the 1997 eight - hour ozone NAAQS is approximately 44,000 tpy

and includes the EGU sector. The nonMECT point source NOx emissions in the HGB area were estimated to be approximately 6,850 tp y in the 2006 base case emissions inventory . This information is available on page B - I05 of Appendix B of the adopted HGB attainment demonstration SIP reVlszon at:http://VlTWW.tceq.state.tx. us/implementation/air /sip/HGB eight hour .html. The EPA - approved rules implementing the NOxMECTprogram include: o Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapter 101, Subchapter H, Division 3, §§101.350

- 101.363; o 30 TAC Chapter 117, Subchapter B, Division 3, §§117.300 - 356; o 30 TAC Chapter 117, Subchapter C, Division 3, §§117.1200 - 1256; and o 30 TAC Chapter 117, Subchapt er D, Division 1, §§117·2000 - 2045. • The TCEQ cement kiln NOx control rules for cement kilns outside the DFW 1997 eight - hour ozone non attainment area were implemented in 2005 and earlier. Therefore, any NOx reductions resulting from these earlier rules w ould be accounted for the 2005 base case emissions inventory

used by the EPA. The more recent cement kiln rules for the DFW 2007 attainment demonstration for the 1997 eight - :hour ozone NAAQS were adopted in 2007 and implemented in 2009. The DFW cement kiln rules were implemented as mandatory ozone season (March through October) NOx emission source caps (30 - day rolling average) for all 10 cement kilns in Ellis County . The source cap for each company is calculated based on NOx emission factors for the type of cement kiln and historical clinker production rates from 2003, 2004, and 2005. The EPA - approved rules implementing the DFW cement kiln rules and the site - specific NOx source caps are as follows: o 30 TAC Chapter 117, Subchapter E, Division 2, §§117·3100 - 3145; o Ash Grove Texas L .P. (EPA FIPS / Plant ID: 48139/2) Source Cap: 4.4 tons per day (tpd); o Holcim Texas L .P. (EPA FIPS / Plant ID: 48139/22) Source Cap: 5.3 tpd; ando TXI Operations L.P. (EPA PIPS / Plant ID: 48139/9) Source Cap: 7.9 tpd. • The TCE Q adopted three other non - EGU NOx control rules during the DFW 2007 attainment demonstration SIP revision that are also approved by the EPA and included in the Texas SIP. These rules implemented stringent NOx emission control requirements for a wide range of commercial, industrial, and institutional sources in the DFW 1997 eight - hour ozone nonattainment area as well as numerous stationary gas - fired internal combustion engines in 33 attainment counties east and southeast of the DFW area. The implementation dates for these rules were March 2009 and March 2010. The TCEQ cannot integrate the expected control l evels from these rules into the EPA's non - EGU spreadsheet given the limited time provided in the comment period. Additionally, two of the rules apply to st ationary

internal combustion engines at sources that may be in the area source inventory rather than the point source inventory and cannot be a accounted for in EPA's spreadsheet. These TCEQ rules include: o 30 TAC Chapter 117, Subchapter B, Division 4, §§ 117·400 - 456;30 o 30 TAC Chapter 117, Subchapter D, Division 2, §§117.2100 - 2145; and o 30 TAC Chapter 117, Subchapter E, Division 4, §§117 - 3300 - 3345. The technical support document spreadsheet regarding reductions resulting from federal measures such as the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for reciprocating internal combustion engines (TR_EI _NODA_relevant_CoSTpackets_and_inventories.xls) that the EPA has posted on its ftp site for this NODA appears to indicate that the EPA is crediting NOX reductions from the NESHAP regulation in 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 63, Subpart ZZZZ as part of the Transport Rule modeling. The TCEQ does not dispute that the installation of nonselective catal ytic reduction (NSCR) sy stems on st ationary rich - burn engines to meet the hazardous air pollutant (HAP) limits in the final rule will also result in NOX reductions. As noted by the EPA in the document provided with the NODA and the Federal Register publication (75 FR 51578) for the final rule of Subpart ZZZZ, these NOX reductions are co - benefits of the control technology potentiall y installed to meet the enforceable limits in Subpart ZZZZ and are not enforceable under federal rule. However, in the EPA's technical support document for the Transport Rule emissions inventories, the EPA indicates that for local SIP controls to be included in the final rule: "1) the SIPs must be approved and made available, and 2) the control measures and technologies are provided in such a way that they can be applied to our inventories (e.g., control efficiencies or emission reductions matched to specific NEI facilities, units, and/o r source category codes (SCCs)) ." The TCEQ objects to the EPA holding itself to far less stringent requirements than states are bein g expected to meet for the EPA to acknowledge local controls after 2005 for purposes of the Transport Rule. As discussed in the comments submitted by the TCEQ during the original Transport Rule comment period, the TCEQ has implemented control strategies that have resulted in significant NOX reductions in Texas. Among these TCEQ rules are enforceable NOX emission specifications for stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines that went into effect after 2005 that are approved b y the EPA (December 3 , 2 00 8, 75 FR 73562) as part of the Texas SIP and were also included in the Texas Transport SIP, which was acknowledged as received by the EPA on May

6, 2 00 8, but on which the EPA has not yet taken action . The following is a summary of the gas - fired statio nary reciprocating internal combustion NOX rules that the EPA approved in 2 00 8.

 For the Dallas - Fort Worth (D F W) Eight - Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area (Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, and Tarrant Counties), the NOX emission specifications for stationary gas - fired engines rated 5o horsepower (hp) and larger are between 0.50 and 0.70 grams per horsepower- hour (g/hp - hr), depending on the fuel ty pe and burn type (rich or lean). These emission standards appl y to existing and new engines both major and minor sources in the DFW Eight - Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area and are found in 3o TAC Chapter 117, §117.410(b)(4) and §117.2110(a)(1) .  For the East Texas Combustion Rule counties (Anderson, Brazos, Burleson, Camp, Cass, Cherokee, Franklin, Freestone, Gregg, Grimes, Harrison, Henderson, Hill, Hopkins, Hunt, L ee, Leon, Li mestone, Madison, Marion, Morris, Nacogdoches, Navarro, Panola, Rains, Robertson, Rusk, Shelby, Smith, Titus, Upshur, Van Zandt, and Wood Counties), the NOX emission sp ecifications for stationary rich - burn gas - fire d engines are 0.50 g/hp - hr for rich - burn engines equal to or greater than 500 hp (0.60 g/hp - hr for landfill gas - fired engines) and l.0 g/hp - hr for rich - burn engines between 240 hp and 500 hp . These emission st andards apply to existing and new engines at both major and minor sources in these 33 East Texas counties and are found in 30 TA C Chapter 117, §ii7.3310(a)(1) [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 3866 p4 - 5].31

The EPA's projected emissions data for drilling rigs in Texas do not agree with the projected emissions data for 2012 and 2014 from the 2009 study , Drilling Rig Emission Inventory for the State of Texas, conducted b y Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG), which is the basis of the original 2005 emissions data that the TC EQ provided to the EPA. The EPA should provide a clear explanation of, and the basis for, the assumptions that were used to grow or control the emissions data that the TCEQ provided on oil and gas drilling rig emissions. Without such explanation in the pu blic docket available for public comment, the TCEQ cannot properl y evaluate and comment on the discrepancy between the EPA's projected emissions data and the results of the ERG study . The EPA should either explain the methodology

used to project the drilling rig emissions data to 2012 and 2014 or use the projected emissions data from the ERG study that the TCEQ used to provide the original emissions data. [EPA HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 3866 p5] Response: EPA concurs that ‘on - the - books’ enforceable state and local c ontrols should be included in the modeling emissions inventories to the extent that credible data is available and the affected sources can be identified . EPA has included all EPA - approved and enforceable local controls that could be identified and quantif

ied. This includes controls from SIPs. EPA worked with TCEQ staff to identify potential updates to the Texas emissions projections in response to comments on the proposed Transport Rule. As a result of this interaction , EPA applied HGB local NO X control information for non - EGU point sources controlled by the HGB Mass Emission Cap and Trade (MECT) program provided b y TCEQ . These controls were applied to ye ar 2012 and year 2014 projected inventories. EPA also included the emissions reductions fro m the enforceable cement and RI CE NESHAP controls including NO X control information at Dallas - Fort Worth (DFW) cement kilns in 2012. EPA incorporated the year 2012 and 2014 oil and gas emissions data for drilling rigs from the ERG study to match TCEQ estimates for this sector. EPA also considered other reductions cited b y TCEQ , and reviewed the Texas Administrative Code to identify any reductions identified with adequate specificity to be included in EPA inventories. EPA determined that the code did not provide sufficient detail to provide a basis for EPA to adjust its inventories. EPA worked with TCEQ staff to obtain additional detail so that the reductions could be applied to EPA inventories as appropriate. EPA did not receive detailed information ass ociated with all of the regulations cited in the comment ; however, EPA incorporated all reductions that could be identified with adequate specificity. In addition to posting the full modeling inventories, EPA provided a spreadsheet workbook of “key facili ties” and “key

units ” so that stakeholders could provide comments on implemented local controls and on shutdown facilities and units. The “key facilities” workbook only included sources above 100tpy of NOx, PM, or SO2 to keep it to a tractable size and to focus reviewers’ efforts on larger sources. The “Commenter instructions” sheet of the workbook instructed that commenters were not restricted to providing comments on the included facilities, and that commenters could add additional facilities or units a s needed. The provided modeling inventories were described in the Emission Inventory Technical Support Document. Thus, EPA disagrees with TCEQs suggestion that EPA did not provide the entire inventory and that it improperly

limited comments to only certain sources. EPA has incorporated comments on sources of all sizes and ty pes in the final modeling where detailed comments have been provided.32

Organization: Utility Air Regulatory

Group Organization Type: Utility UARG provided comments [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 3 773 . pdf and EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2756 . pdf ] that EPA failed to account for local emission controls [...] in its future base case projections. EPA must consider the effects of local controls on its modeling and on air quality and attainment and interference with maintenance of the NAAQS. Response: EPA concurs that known relevant consent decrees, facility and unit closures, emission caps, and control programs should be incorporated into the modeling inventories. EPA reviewed all point so urces referenced in the individual comments and we did a comprehensive review of consent decrees issued between 2003 and 2010 regarding their impact on the base - ye ar and future - ye ar inventories. In cases where credible and quantifiable alternative data were available, EPA revised the emission inventories to incorporate additional facility and unit closures, consent decrees, emission caps, control programs, enforceable local controls, and alternative emission estimates. Organization: West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection Organization Type: State/L ocal Air Agency West Virginia DEP provided a spreadsheet [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 3848.2.xlsx] with plant closures, adjustments, and future projections with the intent that the EPA include these updates in their final modeling. Response: EPA concurs with this comment. EPA incorporated the data provided by the West Virginia DEP into the 2012 and 2014 emissions inventories used for the final modeling . These updates included facility closures between 2005 and 2010, as well as updated unit - level emissions for NO X , SO 2 and PM for the future years. Organization: Wisconsin Power and Light Company Organization Type: Utility WPLreinforces that EPA must apply sound science in evaluating downwind impacts required to reduce transport and resulting environmental benefits. This requires maintaining updated emissions inventories for all economic sectors including both stationary sources and mobile sources . Furthermore, it requires the consideration of recently promulgated final rules and consent orders applicable to these sources. EPA's models for the proposed CATR must provide credit for these reduced S O 2 and NOX emissions from other economic sectors by 2012 that will also result in improved air quality. WPL believes that EPA's models have not full y accounted for these factors and placed greater burden on the utility sector than will be necessary to achieve and maintain National Ambient Air Quality

Standards (NAAQS). [EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0491 - 2844. 1 p.4] Response : EPA concurs that up - to - date emission inventories should be used in the final modeling. EPA used the latest available estimates for mobile sources based on MOVES 2010 in the final modeling and made extensive efforts to include final rules a nd as many

consent orders as could be quantified into the final modeling. EPA used the best available emissions data available for the modeling at the time the modeling was done.