# Air Emissions Reporting Rule

Response to Commentsii (This page intentionally left blank.)iii



## Contents

1 Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 1

1.1 Background

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 1

1.2 Commenters

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 1

1.3 Organization of this document

................................ ................................ ......................... 2

2 Administrative comments

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 2

3 Te chnical comments

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 2

3.1 Changes for lead (Pb) reporting threshold

................................ ................................ ....... 2

3.2 Changes for on

- road and nonroad sources to require model inputs and make emissions reporting optional

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 4

3.3 Changes for wildfires, prescribed burning, and agricultural fires

................................ .... 9

3.4 Removing the daily/seasonal emissions requirement and associated definition

............ 11

3.5 Removing data elements from Tables 2a, 2b, and 2c

................................ ..................... 15

3.6 Adding new emissions elements

................................ ................................ .................... 16

4 Miscellaneous comments and questions that are unrelated to the proposed changes

........... 191



### 1 Introduction

1.1 Background

On June 20, 2013, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or “we”) published proposed revisions to the Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) in the Federal Register. The proposed amendments would reduce burden for state, local, and tribal air agencies for emissions data reporting, improve consistency and clarity with other rules, and better reflect current inventory technologies and practices.

This document presents the EPA’s responses to public comments received on the proposed

revisions to the AERR

. All significant issues raised in timely public comments have been

addressed.



### 1.2 Commenters

The public comment period ended on August 19, 2013. We received comments from 11 commenters. This total counts each entity one time even if they submitted more than on e comment letter. A list of commenters and their affiliations is provided in the table below. Throughout this document, all commenters are referenced using the last four digits of the docket numbers. The actual docket numbers appear in the docket with the prefix of “ EPA

- HQ

- OAR

2004

- 0489

- ” in front of the numbers provided here.

Commenter Entity Docket

no. (last

4 digits) Jeffrey Stocum Oregon Department of Environmental Quality ( OR DEQ ) 0065

Stuart Clark Washington Department of Ecology ( WA DOE) 0066

William
O’Sullivan New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection ( NJ

DEP ) 0067

Richard Pirolli Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental

Protection ( CT DEEP ) 0068

Catharine

Fitzsimmons Iowa Department of Natural Resources ( IA DNR ) 0069

Kyre Moore Missouri Department of Natural Resources ( DNR ) 0070

Robert Sliwinski New York Department of Environmental Conservation ( NY

DEC ) 0071

Robert Finn RSR Corp (California ) 0072

Zac Covar Texas Commission on Environmental Quality ( CEQ ) 0073

Alice Edwards Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation ( AK

DEC ) 0074

Sheila Holman North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural

Resources ( NC DENR ) 00752



### 1.3 Organization of this document

After this introductory section, this document is divided into three sections as follows:

 Section 2

– administrative comments

 Section 3

– technical comments

 Section 4

– miscellaneous comments unrelated to the proposed changes to the rule



### 2 Administrative comments

Comment : One commenter (0073) noted that § 51.30 of the proposed rule stated that the first triennial inventory will be for the 2011 inventory, and that it is unreasonable to expect states to expend limited resources on a past inventory.

Response : The EPA agrees with the commenter that the states should not resend 2011 emissions. Since this action is a rule modification and not a new rule, however, the 2011 NEI year is still the first year for which the AERR applied. Thus, the date in the rule has not been changed, but the EPA is not expecting any further 2 011 data to be submitted. The first triennial inventory for which the revised AERR will apply is the 2014 inventory.

Comment : One commenter ( 0065) recommended that the EPA develop and adhere to a standardized process for the release of EPA

- generated data and documentation for state review for each triennial EI. They suggested that EPA provide “A concise schedule of what EPA data and documentation will be released and when, preferably by SCC

, ” “Documentation released concurrently with data

, ” “Data released in conformance with Table 2b to Appendix A of Subpart

A of the rule

, ” “Clarification on data release via EIS vs. EPA ftp site

, ” and “All information released for state review no later than six months prior to the submittal deadline

. ” The

commenter asked t he EPA to consider this comment as applying to both § 51.15 “What data does my state need to report to EPA?” and § 51.30 (2)(b)(1) “When does my State report which
emissions data to EPA?”.

Response : The comment is outside the scope of th e proposed rule chang es. We are not updating this rule with the type of information proposed by this comment. However, the EPA is

c onsidering these comments as the NEI staff work on the 2014 NEI planning, starting with

release of a draft schedule during calendar year 2014

.



### 3 Tec hnical comments

3.1 Changes for lead (Pb ) reporting threshold

Comment : Two commenters (0072 and 0075) stated support for the EPA’s proposed approach to lower the threshold for reporting lead emissions.

Response : The EPA appreciates the support for this proposed change to the AERR.

Comment : Two commenters (0070 and 0073) suggested alternative threshold limits for lead reporting that they believe are equivalent to the intent of the EPA proposal. One commenter3

(0070) indicated support for continuing the 5 ton per year potential to emit (PTE) threshold, or as an alternative, if the limit were lowered to 0.5 ton per year

, it should be based on actual

emissions rather than PTE.

Another commenter ( 0073 ) indicated that lowering the threshold using a 0.5 PTE threshold would place an unnecessary reporting burden on small emission sources and recommended an alternative of a 0.5 ton per year PTE threshold for lead nonattainment areas and a 0.5 ton per

year actual emissions threshold for all other areas :
The EPA should also change the proposed point source emissions inventory reporting threshold to 0.5 tpy potential lead emissions for areas designated nonattainment for lead and 0.5 tpy of actual lead emissions for all other areas to ensure that unne cessary nonattainment area reporting requirements are not placed on small emissions sources in areas that are not contributing to a violation of the NAAQS.

Response : The EPA agrees with the comments that requiring sources with the potential to emit

0.5 ton s while they actual ly only emit a small fraction of that value increases reporting burden without providing much benefit to the screening of sources which should be monitored per the lead ambient air monitoring regulation. As EPA indicated in the proposal, the intent was to align

the AERR with the lead ambient monitoring regulation, which refers to “...each non

- airport lead

source which emit s 0.5 or more tons per year...”. There is no mention of PTE in the lead ambient monitoring regulation, and we agree that the language there clearly refers to actual emissions.

With regard to the comment to use a lower reporting threshold in lead nonattainment areas, the EPA considers this unnecessary to achieve the goals of the Pb NAAQS. This is because most Pb

nonattainmen t areas are developed surrounding a single large source that is believed to cause the

nonattainment issue. Nonattainment areas are defined only after monitors have been installed and find ambient levels above the NAAQS, and those monitors are sited based o n source locations using actual emissions estimates. Thus, little

, if any

, advantage will be gained by requiring a lower potential

- to

- emit reporting threshold.

As a result of these comments, the EPA has changed the final rule to reflect a 0.5 ton per year actual emissions threshold rather than a 0.5 ton per year potential to emit threshold.

Comment : One commenter ( 0069 ) indicated support for EPA’s objective to “ allow the EPA to evaluate and provide proper oversight of the ambient monitoring network design finalized in the revised ambient air monitoring requirements

, ” but noted that they have four facilities with a lead PTE of over 0.5 tons, and that these four facilities have PTE values of less than half the AERR’s

PTE thresholds f

or all pollutants except l ead. This commenter requested that the EPA consider requiring only the lead emissions, rather than all pollutants as is required by the existing AERR, be reported for such facilities.

Response : The EPA appreciates the suggested alternative to reduce report ing burden while still meeting the stated objective. We have changed the final rule so that the lead reporting threshold is based on actual emissions, not PTE, and so the reporting requirement for the four facilities identified by the comment would not be applicable . We believe that almost all facilities with lead actual emissions greater than 0.5 tons per year will also have a PTE for one or more other AERR pollutants greater than those existing thresholds, and so those facilities would already be required

t o report all pollutants per the AERR as previously published in 2008

. Even where this may not4

be the case, we have kept the existing approach of requiring the reporting of all criteria pollutants and precursors when one pollutant exceeds the threshold.

Comment : One commenter (0067) agreed with lowering the threshold and stated that the threshold should be based on PTE, because the actual emissions can vary significantly from year to year and so would not provide a bright line determination of the requirement to r eport.

Response : The EPA recognizes the concern expressed regarding the variability of the actual emissions values. For all other pollutants covered by the AERR, the EPA had previously (in 2008) finalized the AERR to use PTE thresholds for that reason. Th e use of PTE thresholds also aligned the pollutant reporting thresholds with title V major source determinations. However, for lead we believe it is important to be consistent with and supportive of the needs for the lead ambient monitoring regulations, wh ich are based on actual emissions rather than PTE. Other comments on the proposed AERR revisions have noted that significant additional reporting burden would occur if using a PTE threshold.

The EPA also notes that states are free to set whatever threshol ds a state deems necessary for its reporting purposes, including setting a lower reporting threshold for the purposes of ensuring that a consistent set of sources are reported from one reporting period to the next. Likewise, the EPA can accept data submitt ed voluntarily for smaller sources reported using lower thresholds than

those that the AERR requires for point source reporting

.

Comment : One commenter (0071) cautioned the EPA about making the lowered threshold applicable for all sources. The commenter n oted that although various airport emissions activities are now being included by EPA in the point source portion of EPA’s inventory, these activities (aircraft, ground support equipment, and auxiliary power units) should not be subject to point

source rep orting requirements.

Response : The EPA agrees with the clarification offered by the commenter. The proposal to lower the point source reporting threshold for lead does not alter the existing regulatory definition of point sources, which already does not in clude mobile sources such as aircraft. Rather, the definition relies on the definition of major sources included in 40 CFR p art 70 and thus airports would only be subject to the reporting requirements to the extent that they meet the

definition in Part 70 and have emissions above the threshold s contained in this rule

. Furthermore,

the EPA’s choice to include its own estimates of aircraft emissions as point sources in the National Emissions Inventory (NEI) in support of the lead ambient monitoring needs does not

create a reporting requirement for the s tate and local agencies to do the same.



### 3.2 Changes for on

- road and nonroad sources to require model inputs and make emissions reporting optional

Comment : Six commenters (0065, 0067, 0070, 0071, 0074, and 0075) stated support for the EPA’s proposed approach to require model inputs for the on

- road and nonroad emissions models

for all states that use EPA

- developed models. In addition, commenter (0074) identified the resulting simplification that the proposed chang e made to state agency workflows. Commenter 0076 also suggested:5

The US EPA should also modify the Emission Inventory System (EIS) to enable states to submit control input tables to reflect mobile source emissions reductions from mandatory diesel retrofit programs and voluntary diesel reduction efforts, such as those funded by the Diesel Emissions Reductions Act (DERA) grants.

Response : The EPA appreciates the support for this prop osed change to the AERR. We agree that this change can simplify the workflow for state agencies who submit only model inputs.

With regard to the requested addition to EIS to permit submission of control input tables to

reflect mobile source emissions reduction s, MOVE S 2014 has been released

, and it includes

diesel retrofit d etail in the input tables for submittal to EIS. No EIS modification is necessary to

include this information.

Comment : One commenter ( 0073 ) disagrees with EPA’s proposed approach to require model inputs for the on

- road emissions model.

The TCEQ uses a h igher level of detail in the emissions inventory than the EPA uses. The TCEQ

- generated on

- road mobile source emissions estimates are based on hourly, link

level analyses. The TCEQ uses the Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) model in

rates

- mode and p ost

-

processes the emissions rates using utilities to generate these highly

detailed emissions inventories. These estimates are more accurate than the values the EPA would generate running MOVES in inventory

- mode.

Even if the EPA has the TCEQ model input parameters, the emissions estimates it generates would be different. The TCEQ could supply both emissions and model input parameter files. The national emissions inventory would have the TCEQ

- developed inventory, and the EPA could generate a set of plannin g inventories for its multi

- year analyses.

The EPA should revise the proposed reporting requirement to allow states the option of reporting model inputs or on

- road emissions.

Response : The EPA agrees with the commenter that using MOVES in rates

- mode and po st

processing the emissions is a more detailed approach than running MOVES in inventory

- mode

. For this reason, the EPA has already changed its NEI process (as demonstrated for the 2011 NEI)

to use MOVES with a rates

- mode and then post

- process these emissio ns rates to create emissions using hourly temperature data and other meteorological inputs. While the EPA’s approaches may be less detailed tha n the Texas approaches, the EPA still believes that t hey are sufficient for the purposes of the NEI , especially considering that the EPA continues to refine the approach in collaboration with air agencies

. While the detailed Texas approach may be needed for SIP development purposes, t he NEI does not need to match the detailed level of emissions used for

SIP s

. We als o note that Texas’ situation of using finely resolved modeling approaches is no different from that of many states with nonattainment areas, for which detailed approaches are used for state implementation plans, and no other state had this particular conce rn about providing the input formats needed for the NEI . In addition, some of those states supported the EPA’s proposal to require MOVES inputs

. Aside from noting that “the emissions estimates [EPA] generates would be different

, ” the commenter has provided no information as to the problems caused to the commenter by such

differences. O n the other hand, the EPA has a demonstrated problem obtaining future

- year6

emissions without the MOVES model inputs. While the EPA always seeks to have the best available data, given the other considerations necessary for consistent future

- year emissions, the EPA believes that requiring inputs is the best available approach to meet the a gency’s needs for implementation of the NAAQS, creating the NEI, and estimating associated future

- year emissions. As we noted in proposing these revisions, requiring inputs will improve the accuracy and timeliness of the EPA’s air quality planning efforts, provide the information necessary to use
the latest versions of the applicable models to generate the most accurate emissions outputs, and allow the EPA to generate consistent base year and future year emissions estimates, which are necessary for performing accurate benefits estimates for proposed rules (see 78 FR 371 67).

In addition, t he commenter asserts that it would be okay for the EPA to use Texas

- provided emissions data for the NEI and use the model inputs for EPA’s multi

- year analyses. The EPA disagrees that this approach is in our best interest, as any differences between data used in the

NEI and data used in our modeling work for a base year would lead to questions about why the

EPA uses two s ets of emissions for essentia l l y the same purpose. The EPA responds to hundreds of requests for national emissi ons summaries

, and a consistent emissions calculation approach has allowed us to more readily provide consistent responses to these needs . The EPA has worked diligently with the 2011 NEI cycle to keep a very high degree of consisten cy between the 2011

NEI and the modeling emissions , and we have found that this approach has provided numerous

benefits

. In addition to not needing to answer difficult consistency questions, another benefit has

been the increased engagement of many states in providing comme nts an d updates to the NEI

because the NEI data are b eing used for modeling and regulatory purposes.

Since the EPA needs to have emissions data that use consistent approaches betwe en base and

future years, and since the EPA has observed benefit s to having the NE I match the base year used for modeling as noted above , we have concluded that the proposed approach of requiring model inputs is the best approach fo r all states except California, which instead uses an EPA

approved model that uniquely supports California onroad mobile regulations and is thus required to report the emissions values resulting from that model . While there will certainly be differences

between state

- created emissions and EPA

- created emissions using the same inputs, the EPA intends to continue to work closely with states to minimize such differences, while still achieving

the benefits of having the model inputs and consistent approaches

. To further that effort, the final

rule allows states other than California to optionally report their emissions values data in addition to the required inputs.

While an alternative approach might have been to requir e states that provided emissions values data in lieu of inputs to also provide consistent future

- year emissions data , t he EPA believes that such an approach would result in a much larger in crease in burden over the burden that this commenter may experience based on the finalized AERR requirement . Furthermore, given that

the selection of years to use for EPA’s modeling is made under extremely short time frames, the EPA does not believe that it would be practical to have states attempt to meet EPA’s future

- year emissions needs.

Comment : One commenter (0073) additionally disagr ees with the EPA’s proposed approach to require model inputs fo r the nonroad emissions model.

Texas has invested a significant amount of resources to develop the TexN non

- road model,

which is based on the national NONROAD2008a model but uses Texas

- specifi c inputs and7

parameters based on surveys and studies. The input files used in the current Texas model are not compatible with the EPA

- required input files. Considerable time, money, and resources would be required to create the input files to meet this new proposed reporting requirement.

The “averaging” approach used by the EPA’s National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM) model to create appropriate input files would potentially result in less accurate emissions. The TCEQ uses the TexN model, which calculates emissions at a much finer level of detail

than NMIM.

Texas produces emissions inventories regularly for various planning purposes, such as state implementation plans (SIPs) and trends analyses. These inventories use more up

- to

date growth factors (based on economy.com data) rather than using the outdated growth factors used in [sic] NONROAD/NMIM model.

This commenter further stated that “The EPA should revise the proposed reporting requirement to allow states the option of reporting model inputs or non

- road emissions to ensure consistency

between state

- and EPA

- generated emissions inventories. ”

Response : The EPA disagrees with the commenter’s proposed approach to allow reporting of

emissions values , instead of inputs, to meet a state ’s reporting requirement f or the reasons

described below. In addition, we note that the final rules allows Texas to voluntarily submit

emissions values data , in addition to the required reporting of inputs, to ensure that the EPA has

the best available emissions data.

The EPA is finaliz ing the requirement that nonroad model inputs must be provided from all

states except California ( w hich has state

- specific nonroad source regulations that cannot be

modeled b y the EPA model(s)) . The reasons for this are as follows (1) the EPA has a demonstrated need for inputs with which it can create base

- year and future

- year emissions on a consistent basis, ( 2 ) despite the availability for the TexN model, the NONROAD and NMI M models are still valid models for Texas, ( 3 ) it is impractical for the EPA to allow all states to provide inputs to alternative models when there are EPA

- approved models available , and (4) the nonroad models developed by the EPA have ongoing evolution th at must be considered . Each of these reasons are described in greater detail in the four paragraphs that follow.

As described in the propos ed and final rule s , the EPA has a continuing need for mobile model inputs to estimate both base

- year (for the NEI) and future

- year emissions on a consistent basis. Without these inputs, the EPA cannot correctly assess base

- to

- future emissions changes for the various regulatory and cost

- benefit analyses that it is required to do. This is not only in the EPA’s interest but also in the interest of states that are also impacted by the regulations and whose state leaders want to better understand the impact of EPA regulations on their states. Thus, any solution considered by the EPA f or finalization must include model inputs.

The EPA considered whether it would make sense to require model inputs from the TexN model

for Texas. The EPA has dismissed this idea because the NONROAD and NMIM models are still valid models for Texas, even with the improvements in the TexN model claimed by the

commenter. Even if states voluntarily develop their own approaches, the EPA’s nonroad approach is still a valid approach in those states and inputs can be prepared. Thus, aside from the argument of the add itional resources that Texas would have to expend to develop nonroad model inputs, there is no reason that the EPA would not want inputs for its own models.8

Furthermore, allowing for the provision of model inputs for an alternative state

- based model

such a s TexN would open the door for other states to take the same approach for their own convenience if such nonroad model development were to expand to other states. It is impractical

for the EPA to finalize a rule that would essentially allow states to provid e data in any format for any nonroad model, especially when an EPA

- developed nonroad model exists that is acceptable to the EPA for these purposes. However, states including Texas believe that their emissions values from their own approaches are better tha n values that might be created by the EP A by using the inputs. In consideration of this fact, the final rule allows states to optionally submit those emissions values for use by the EPA, in addition to the required input data

. Finally, the EPA notes that its nonroad emissions approaches are evolving in several ways. The recently released MOVES 2014 now includes a capability to run the NONROAD model for the eventual purpose of replacing the NMIM. This new MOVES approach supports new nonro ad emissions input formats, which all states will eventually need to adopt for AERR and other purposes. Further, the EPA will make continued progress to improve and update nonroad source modeling through MOVES, eventually modernizing beyond the capabilitie s of the current TexN
system.

Comment : One commenter (0071) supports the EPA’s proposed requirement of mobile model inputs, and he further recommends that the EPA must continue to accept the volun t ary reporting

of emissions and caution states against an over

- reliance on EPA for inventories

. The Department further believes that EPA must continue to accept the voluntary reporting of

emissions. This will serve, when emissions are submitted, as a quality assurance step to

ident ify i f there are any discrepancies. Although EPA accepting State inputs is a progressive step, as it will hopefully help align S tate and EPA inputs and emissions, S tates must be cautioned that this may cause an over

- reliance on EPA by States for the ir Stat e Implementation Plans. The Department, therefore, believes that it is premature for EPA to

remove all mobile data reporting requirements. While the revisions clearly highlight the benefits from the switch to inputs over emissions in terms of resources and accuracy, there is no discussion on the potential resource repercussions to EP A to support state specific SIP inventories or what the impact will be on states that now rely on EPA to meet their inventory

needs.

Response : The commenter rightly acknowledges that state air agency capabilities for on

- road and nonroad mobile source emissions estimation are still important, particularly for the purposes of State Implemen tation Plan (SIP) inventories. As described in the propose d rule, the EPA intends to continue to allow the voluntary reporting of emissions of on

- road and nonroad mobile sources

. In regard to the comment that the EPA should caution states against an over

- reliance on the EPA for SIP purposes, the EPA believes that the SIP inventories require ments and associated guidance clearly describe the necessity of demonstrating sufficient inventory quality for SIP

purposes. Those efforts are independent of the requirements that air agencies provide data to the

EPA for the NEI

. States are still required to submit emissions to EPA as part of their SIP

submissions. In recently issued draft guidance for SIP inventories, the EPA acknowledges that the National Emissions Inventory (NEI) can be a starting point for inventories and ind icates that9

additional evaluation and improvement is expected to be done by states 1

. Furthermore, the SIP inventory requirements necessitate the public review of emissions approaches as well as the review by EPA regional offices, which the EPA believes will often result in emissions changes needed for ensuring the quality of SIP inventories.

Finally, the AERR is not an appropriate location to caution states on how to develop SIP inventories. Thus, the EPA disagrees that such a caution is warranted in th e AERR and has not

added such a caution in the final rule.

Comment : One commenter (0075) supports the EPA’s proposed requirement of mobile model inputs, and she further recommends that EPA provide several sets of guidelines and tools to air agencies t o facilitate this requirement. These are (1) updated MOVES and NMIM guidance, (2) documented quality assurance (QA) procedures and tools for checking these inputs, and (3) comprehensive MOVES modeling procedures that air agencies can use to generate emissi ons inventories to compare to EPA

- generated inventories. The commenter suggests that these are

needed to make sure that the EPA does not incorrectly augment the state

- supplied data or use

non

- transparent approaches that could result in drastically differen t emissions results at the county resolution.

Response : The EPA agrees with the commenter ’ s recommendations for additional guidelines and

tools . However the comment is outside the scope of the proposed changes to the AERR and will

not be addressed in this action

. We note that s eparately from the AERR, t he EPA is actively working to provide agencies tools and training to assist in creating and providing mobile model inputs in compliance with the AERR

. For example, the EPA will soon release MOVES2014,

which w ill replace previous MOVES versions and will incorporate the NONROAD model, ultimately making the need for NMIM obsolete. The EPA will release updated MOVES guidance with the MOVES2014 model release. Furthermore, the EPA has created and publicly

released QA tools for checking MOVES inputs both prior to submittal and as part of the submittal process . While the EPA does not plan to develop additional MOVES modeling procedures beyond the guidance, the EPA provides training, participates in workgroups developi ng MOVES modeling procedures, and EPA staff are available for answering questions and advising states about technical issues related to using MOVES. These efforts have helped and will continue to help the MOVES user community to build consensus on best pra ctices and improve emissions quality.



### 3.3 Changes for wildfires, prescribed burning, and agricultural fires

Comment : Several commenters ( 0065, 0066, 0070 , 0071, 0073, and 0074 ) support th e proposed

revision to eliminat e the requirement for reporting emissions from wildfires and prescribed fires.

Response : The EPA appreciates the support for this proposed change to the AERR.

1 Emissions Inventory guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations, Sections 2.4 and 4.3 ( http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eidocs/ eiguid /index.html ).10

Comment : One commenter (0067) supported the EPA’s proposed revision to eliminate the requirement for reporting fire emissions as long as the EPA continues to provide the option for states to submit their own emissions from wildfires and prescribed fires voluntarily and/or the option to submit state

- specific activity data.

Response : The commenter correctly acknowleges the EPA’s interest in collect ing state

- specific activity data for fires. The EPA agrees that collecting state

- specific activity data is important and

intend s to continue that practice. While submitting emissions data will still be allowed, the EPA expects to use those data primarily for QA purposes given the benefits of having a nationally

consistent method that r elies on local

- specific inputs.

Comment : One commenter (0066) supported the EPA’s proposed approach for fires , but also

recommend ed that both agricultural files and prescribed fires be reported and compiled as nonpoint sources, rather than allowing prescribed fires to be reported only as event (daily point)

sources.
EPA proposes prescribed fire be reported as events and agricultu ral fires as nonpoint

sources. The events format was created to accommodate the day

- specific emission details needed for the National Emissions Inventory to accurately reflect large

- sca le, short

- term
emission events. The nonpoint format is more general, consi sting of annual county

- level

emissions.

Since prescribed and agricultural fires may both be described as large

- scale short

- term emission events, we believe they should have similar reporting options. Both the events and nonpoint reporting forma ts should be available to both. Ideally, the event format would be used; however, all of the required information (e.g., fire date) is not available for all prescrib ed or agricultural fires in WA. Unless the nonpoint format is an option, these fires cannot be reported

. EPA uses satellite detection and other information to estimate f ire emissions in event format. EPA prefers states review and update the EPA

- generated estimates rather than submitting their own estimates. However, state information, even if not in the event f ormat, may still be important. In the 2011 triennial inventory, state and EPA information varied greatly, and more time is necessary to understand and reconcile the differences. We expect the process t o improve ov er time. Until then, we recommend allowing both the event and nonpoint formats for reporting prescribed fires to accommodate all state information.

Response : The EPA recognizes the commenter’s assertion that some prescribed fire emissions

could be missed using the EPA’s satellite detection approach

. However, the commenter fails to

address the additional challenges using a twofold event/nonpoint data approach would cause for

the EPA . Such an approach, if implemented over the entire country, would require the EPA to attempt to prevent double counted emissions across the event and nonpoint data categories for prescribed and agricultural burning. The commenter acknowledges the benefits of the event format and is not recommending it be eliminated, onl y that the nonpoint format also be allowed. Without more certainty in the data formats coming from states, considerable additional effort is required by the EPA to compile the inventory across two different and incompatible formats. Lastly, using the data with two different data structures provides problems to downstream modeling users of the data, such as preventing the use of day

- specific emissions when states11

choose to submit nonpoint emissions rather than work with the EPA to improve day

- specific

event emissions.

This comment also includes the addition of events for reporting of agricultural fires. The EPA disagrees with this comment because the lower emissions associated with agricultural fires do not necessitate having the fires as daily events.

S ince the EPA methods are used for a vast majority of states and result in a fairly complete accounting of both wild fire and prescribed fire emissions, we have concluded that this rule will keep all prescribed fires data in events format . While we acknowledge th e possibility of missed emissions as described by the commenter, we believe that this is a lesser problem that the challenges as described above associated with allowing two formats. In addition, allowing states to report prescribed fires in the nonpoint data category would reduce the use and benefits of the day

- specific emissions for prescribed fires, which is important for air quality modeling applications.

As part of the collaborative process for building the NEI, the EPA is able to receive prescribed

f ire data county totals as estimated by the states in an informal way. These data can be used by

the EPA to QA the emissions estimates that EPA generates using the satellite methods, which the EPA expects will increasingly rely on st ate

- submitted activity.



### 3.4 Removing the daily/seasonal emissions requirement and associated definition s

Comment : Two commenters (0070 and 0075) stated support for the EPA’s proposal to remove the requirements to submit daily and seasonal emissions from the AERR. One commenter (0075) noted that the current Ozone and Carbon Monoxide NAAQS Implementation Rules and the proposed changes to the NO X SIP Call would continue to require states to report those emissions on a specified format and on a schedule required by those rul es. The other commenter (0070)

also encouraged the EPA to consider the implications of removing the daily and seasonal emission requirements from the AERR, because the recently proposed ozone SIP requirements

rule relies on the ozone day reporting requirement included in the AERR finalized in 2008

. Response : The EPA appreciates the support for this proposed change to the AERR and notes the need to consider the implications on other related regulations. This latter point is addressed in the response to the next comment.

Comment : Four commenters (0067, 0068, 0071, and 0073) disagreed with the EPA’s proposal to remove the requirements to submit summer day emissions from the AERR. Some comments stated that the definitions in the AERR were referenced by the proposed ozone implementation rule and that removing them would be inconsi stent with that proposed rule. This reasoning formed most of the basis for the commenters; disagreement with the proposed changes.

The USEPA should not remove daily and seasonal emission def initions and guidance.

States use the definitions from AERR for their NEI and state implementation plan (SIP) inventories. The most recent proposed ozone implementation rule (78 FR 34178) references the AERR for the purpose of defining the relevant data el ement requirements for the emissions inventories for ozone (0067).

However, the requirement to submit daily and seasonal emissions values and the related definitions should be retained in the AERR rule. Deleting the daily and seasonal emissions12

reporting r equirement from the AERR rule, or including those elements only as a state

optional element, is not consistent with the inventory requirements of the proposed ozone implementation rule. Section 51.1115 of the ozone implementation rule proposal requires

sta tes to satisfy their inventory obligations using the ozone

- relevant data elements defined in the AERR rule. This requirement may not be adequately satisfied if seasonal and summer data emissions reporting requirements and related definitions are deleted fr om, or considered only optional, in the AERR (0068).

EPA’s removal of this requirement is also inconsistent with the current ozone SIP guidance that requires daily inventories (0071).

Although TCEQ supports the streamlining efforts of the EPA in regards to states’ requirements, the TCEQ recommends keeping the requirement to submit summer day emissions, ozone season emissions, and carbon monoxide (CO) winter work weekday

emissions (0073).

Response : The EPA acknowledges that the proposed ozone implementation rule currently refers to material in the AERR that we have proposed to remove . As described in the AERR proposal, the EPA does not believe that requiring summer day emissions as part of the submission for the

NEI is needed and these comments have not chang e the EPA’s view on this matter

.

B ecause the EPA is retaining the optional reporting of non

- annual (i.e., daily and seasonal) emissions to the EIS, states who use their NEI submissions to comply with ozone implementation requirements or for milestone year compliance purposes can continue to do so. Removing the requirement from the AERR reporting requirements does not pr event states from complying with other rules that require the submission of emissions. However, in light of these comments, we realize that contrary to our contention in the proposal that requirements to report

seasonal emissions in the AERR were already c ontained in the underlying SIP implementation

rules (see 78 FR 37167

- 68) , th e underlying ozone implementation rules do not contain the requirement to report summer day emissions (see generally 40 CFR 51.900

- 51 .918 ). The EPA

continues to believe it is not n ecessary to require these seasonal emissions as part of the submission for the NEI and that it makes more sense to define and require reporting of the emissions required for compliance with specific SIP implementation rules within those rules

themselves. W hile our proposed rule included a number of proposed changes to the NOx SIP Call regulations in 40 CFR 51.122 to address the proposed changes in the AERR (see response to comments below)

, we did not propose similar changes to the ozone implementation rules . In light of these comments and consistent with the fact that we did not propose to remove completely these SIP

- specific requirements

– only to remove unnecessary duplication in the

AERR

– we realize that changes to the ozone implementation rules at 40 C FR 51.900

- 51.918 are needed. Accordingly, the final AERR revision rule finalizes deletion of summer day emissions definitions and reporting requirements from the AERR provisions in 40 CFR Subpart A and

moves them to ozone reporting requirements in 40 CFR 5 1. 900 (definitions) and 51.915 (inventory requirements)

. We are making similar changes to address the NOx SIP Call requirements, as addressed in the response below. As for CO winter work weekday emissions, since a ll CO areas have been redesignated to maintenance areas a s of September 27, 2010, any requirements to specifically report those seasonal emissions will exist in the relevant maintenance plans

. In addition, we note that independent of any requirement to report such emission in the AERR, sec tion 175A of the13

CAA requires that states submit the information necessary to support their initial and subsequent maintenance plans, which would include relevant CO emissions data. As no comments identified specific CO

- related deficiencies, especially as related to CO regulations or maintenance plans that would be impacted by this revisions, there is no indication that similar changes to underlying regulations are needed to address winter work day emissions . We also note while these non

annual emissions are no longer required by the AERR, the final rule maintains the ability for air agencies to report such data to EPA voluntarily

, and such voluntary submissions will continue to support areas that would like to use those submissions to meet the requirements of other rules or plans.

With regard to potential conflicts between this rule and the changes contained in the proposed revised ozone implementation rul e , that rule is not yet finalized and the action we are taking here

does not create a confl ict with the current ozone implementation rule. As explained above, the EPA is proposing to move the summer day reporting requirements to the current ozone implementation rules (see generally 40 CFR 51.900

- 51.918). To the extent th e underlying ozon e rules change as part of the final revised ozone implementation rule , those changes will be

addressed in that rule.

Comment : Two commenter s (0067 and 0071) s uggested that rather than removing the ozone summer day or other requirements, the EPA should try to use this information to improve its modeling applications.

First and foremost, daily and seasonal emissions values are very important when trying to accurately depict the causes of ozone co ncentrations, especially on days with elevated levels. ... Annual emissions data do not accurately provide the information needed to analyze the impacts of peak emissions during the high electric demand hours, which generally coincide with high temperature a nd high ozone levels. New Jersey would support USEPA adding a new requirement for reporting the maximum daily emissions during the ozone season to more accurately depict the cause of ozone exceedances. (0067)

The Department disagrees with the proposed chan ges and believes EPA should continue to collect this data and should also start using the seasonal data from point sources. EPA uses this data to develop modeling inventories that they then use to establish NAAQS and control programs. Instead of relying on Spark [sic] Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions (SMOKE) to estimate seasonal emissions from various types of sources, EPA could use the actual reported data. EPA could and should use the collected data to verify and/or update

their estimations that went into the SMOKE model. The Department believes EPA needs to work with states to improve this data, not eliminate it. (0071)

Response : The EPA’s use of data in its modeling applications is outside the scope of the proposed changes to the AERR and will not be add ressed in this action

.

Comment : One commenter (0067) indicated that the NEI is u sed for NOx SIP call compliance

. Another commenter (0073) indicated that the AERR submissions can be used as a way to demonstrate milestone year compliance for ozone or CO nonattainment areas. Both commenters recommended that the EPA not remove the daily or seasonal reporting requirements for these

reasons.14

Some states rely on the NEI for compliance with the NOx SIP Call, which is a summer time program. When the Clean Air In terstate Rule (CAIR) replaced the NOx Budget Program, it was determined that the NOx Budget sources that were not subject to CAIR (EGUs < 25 MW and refineries) would comply with the NOx SIP Call through their reporting of ozone
season data to states’ emiss ion statement programs. The data from the emission statement programs are then submitted to USEPA in the NEI for compliance of the NOx SIP Call. By removing this requirement, states may no longer be in compliance with the NOx SIP Call, and possibly other p ast programs that rely on the NEI as a compliance tool (0067)

. The TCEQ supports leaving current requirements in place for states with ozone or CO nonattainment areas that specifically allow for the submission of summer day, ozone season, and CO winter wor k weekday emissions that could be used as a method for demonstrating milestone year compliance. (0073)

Response : Because the EPA is retaining the optional reporting of non

- annual (i.e., seasonal) emissions to the EIS, states who use their NEI submissions to comply with the NOx SIP call or for milestone year compliance purposes can continue to do so. Removing the requ irement from the AERR reporting requirements does not prevent states from complying with other rules that require the submission of emissions. However, in light of these comments, we realize that contrary to our contention in the proposal that requirements to report seasonal emissions in the

AERR were already contained in the underlying SIP implementation rules (see 78 FR 37167

- 68)

, the requirement to report the ozone season emissions of NO X and summer day emissions of NO X for NOx SIP Call purposes is not a lso contained in the underlying NOx SIP Call regulations (see generally 40 CFR 52.121

- 122). The EPA continues to believe it is not necessary to require these

seasonal NOx emissions as part of the submission for the NEI and that it makes more sense to

defin e and require reporting of the emissions required for compliance with specific SIP implementation rules within those rules themselves. While our proposed rule included a number of proposed changes to the NOx SIP Call regulations in 40 CFR 51.122 to address the proposed changes in the AERR, those changes did not include seasonal emissions reporting requirements. In light of these comments and consistent with the fact that we were not proposing to remove completely these SIP

- specific requirements

– only to remove unnecessary duplication in the

AERR

– we realize that additional changes to 40 CFR 51.122 are needed. Accordingly, the final

AERR revision rule finalizes deletion of ozone season emissions and summer day emissions definitions and reportin g requirements from the AERR provisions in 40 CFR Subpart A and moves them to the NOx SIP Call reporting r equirements in 40 CFR 51.122.

With regard to CO winter work weekday emissions, as noted above, since a ll CO areas have been redesignated to maintenance areas a s of September 27, 2010, there are no CO nonattainment areas and any requirements to report those emissions will exist in the relevant maintenance plans. As no comments identified CO

- related deficiencies, especially as related to

CO regulations or maintenance plans

, that would be impacted by this revisions, there is no indication that similar changes to underlying regulations are needed to address winter work day

emissions.

Comment : One commenter (0073) recommended that additional guidance is needed by the EPA in the absence of a requirement for submitting summer day emissions in the AERR.15

The current AERR states that development of summer day emissions for the AERR, reasonable further program (RFP) SIPs, and transportation conformi ty emissions inventories should be coordinated to allow for comparability . If the requirement for summer and winter daily inventories is removed from the AERR, the EPA should issue detailed guidance on the conditions that must be assumed for developing RFP and transportation conformity emission inventories.

Response : The EPA does not believe that the detailed guidance suggested by the commenter should be pa rt of the AERR requirements. Rather, the EPA believes that the appropriate location

for the specification of SIP implementation requirements is in the relevant SIP implementation rule (see comment responses above). We also note that the EPA has issued extensively revised

draft guidance for supporting ozone implementation issues

, which does provid e additional

information on RFP (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eidocs/eiguid/index.html) . Further, the EPA has always provided extensive guidance on transportation conformity, which continues to be available to indicate (more so than did the AERR) the r elevant issues the states must address when meeting transportation conformity requirements (see http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/)

.



### 3.5 Removing data elements from Tables 2a, 2b, and 2c

Comment : One commenter ( 0074 ) stated support for the EPA’s proposal to remove a number of data elements currently required in the AERR. Another commenter ( 0075 ) stated support for the removal or clarification of several specific data elements, but also suggested that the EPA consider maintaining the paramet ers related to start and end dates and other operating schedule parameters in order to reduce the assumptions that reported emissions occurred over the entire

year.

Response : The EPA appreciates the support for the proposed changes to reduce reporting burd en and clarify reporting requirements in the AERR. We also recognize the importance of using any available information on operating schedules and partial

- year operations when transforming the reported annual emissions values into hourly emissions estimates for atmo spheric modeling applications. However, the vast majority of sources operate on a fairly predictable pattern for the entire year, with only a small portion operating a partial year or with an unusual schedule. We encourage states to voluntarily re port the operating schedule data elements , including start and end dates, for those sources with atypical schedules or partial year operations rather than requiring the reporting of all of those data elements for all sources. The EPA will work to improve i ts temporal allocation of emissions to ensure those data fields can be used for modeling or other purposes.

Comment : One commenter ( 0071 ) disagreed with the proposal to remove data elements in conjunction with their disagreement to remove the requirements from the AERR that states report daily and seasonal emissions.

Response : The EPA believes that the data elements related to the daily and seasonal emissions should be removed from the AERR if the requirements to report those emissions are removed from the AERR. See response s to comments abov e.16



### 3.6 Adding new emissions elements

Comment : One commenter ( 0075) sup p or ts the addition of Aircraft En gine Type, Unit Type, and Release Point Apportionment Percent to the Facility Inventory data ele ments tables.

The EPA should consider distinguishing between Aircraft and Aircraft Engine Type data elements to reduce errors of omissions in emission estimates from these sources.

Response : The EPA appreciates the support for adding these data elements. However, the EPA disagrees that Aircraft and Engine type should be separate elements. The EPA currently uses a single data elemen t, Aircraft Engine Type (a combination of aircraft and engine type) in the Facility Inventory data elements to avoid additional complication and associated errors, but provides a detailed reporting code table of Aircraft Engine Type codes that includes the various potential combinations and defaults. Not all combinations of Aircraft and Engine Types are valid, and so the EPA prefers to use a single data field rather than have to deal with the numerous exceptions that would exist for invalid combinations if they were separate fields.

Comment : One commenter (0071) expressed concern about the addition of Aircraft Engine Type Code, Unit Type, and Release Point Apportionment Percentage to the Facility Inventory
data elements.

The Departmen t believes that by a dding these data elements to the subsequent requirement to report aircraft emissions by engine type it too heavy a burden fo r the States, which opt to report to undertake. Landing and take

- off data is gathered by the States from various sources for those facilities that report it. For the few airports that report, they typically report aircraft activity by aircraft type. This data is used as inputs into the FAA EDMS model to calculate the emissions. This change will require States to either do exhaustive research to determine the engine type for the aircraft or use the EDMS defaults built into the model. In addition, given that aircraft that fly in and out of most airports changes, how does EPA plan to address the fact that engine type would be at best a series of logical guesses and of little value, and therefore, an unnecessary requirement. Accordingly, the Department believes the current methodology should remain in place.

Response : The EPA believes that this commenter has mistaken the addition of these data

elements as a change to the types of sources that are already reported as point sources. The proposal to include these additional data elements does not alter the existing regulat ory definition of point sources, which already does not include mobile sources such as aircraft. Rather, the definition relies on the definition of major sources included in 40 CFR p art 70 and thus airports would only be subject to the reporting requiremen ts to the extent that they meet the definition in

Part 70 and have emissions above the thresholds contained in this rule. Furthermore, the EPA’s choice to include its own estimates of aircraft emissions as point sources in the National Emissions Inventory (NEI) in support of the lead ambient monitoring needs does not create a reporting requirement for the state and local agencies to do the same.

Furthermore, information is readily available from existing tools for use by states in estimating

emissions of la rge airports. The Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System ( EDMS ) is a tool developed by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration ( FAA ) that is used to estimate aircraft

exhaust . The tool requires landing and takeoff ( LTO ) data by aircraft and engine type as the model input activity

, and it outputs the resultant emissions by aircraft and engine type. Thus

,17

this detail is required to estimate emissions at all using a credible approach . As the commenter

states

, LTO data are typically reported by aircraft type only . When the associate engine is unknown, the EPA provides the default engine type to use as part of data provided to states for

consideration for the NEI . In addition, the EPA encourages agencies to prov ide improved LTO

data , when agencies believe they are different/more accurate than those in the national FAA

databases that EPA uses by default . Then, the E PA run s EDMS to calculate the emissions, avoiding duplicative efforts by states.

Comment : Two comm enters (0066 and 0073) did not support the requirement for using Shape Identifiers for some nonpoint categories because of additional resource burden for their states

. We do not support requiring Shape Identifiers for some nonpoint sources, and we believe this is a new information collection burden. For examp le, Puget S ound Maritime Air

For um sponsored a comprehensive and detailed marine inventory for 2011. We wante d to report this information to the Nationa l Emissions Inven tory, but could not because we did not have the emissions by EPA’ s pre defined shape files. In the end our contractor was able to work with EPA to perform the necessary allocation, but it required funding and therefore will not always be possible (0066)

. On the requirement to use shape formatting for locomotive and commercial marine vessel inventories. The TCEQ recommends continuing with the current file formatting. There are 11,418 rail line segments and 386 shipping segments that would have to be reported in Texas. The added level of detail would not justify the cost, time, and resources required to make the database change necessary to support this change (0073)

. Response : The EPA has adopted shape files as a means of geographically allocating rail and

commercial marine emissions to the specific location where the activity used to create the emissions estimate actually occurs , instead of across the whole country generally

. Cont rary to the

commenters ’ assertions, the EPA has minimized the resource bur den overall by provid ing agencies with a table of factors to easily allocate from county emissions to shapes, based on EPA estimates’ geographic allocations, if the actual shape is u nknown to the submitter

. The EPA also provides assistance by doing this allocation for agencies who want to submit county estimates, by preparing data files for them to submit and submitting for them if per mitted

, thereby eliminating the burden of preparin g shape

- file level data altogether . In addition, the EPA has and

will continue to improve the shapes available to accommodate any missing geography, where states can provide new or improved shapes. The EPA calculates emissions for these sectors

nationwide and allows states to review and accept EPA estimates in lieu of submitting.

Comment : One commenter (0074) requested clarifications on the need for operating statuses and

asked that the EPA populate the em issions operating type element. The commented indicated that the additional requirements would require them to make significant changes to their database and regulations, and that the EPA had not justified these changes sufficiently to justify the added effort to be made by the states.

For new point s ources or when a facility’s operational status changes, EPA proposes to add new operating statuses to the following: Facility Site Status, Release Point Status, and Unit Status. EPA further proposes to require reporting on the year in which any of these18

th ree items changes from “operating” to another status. It is unclear from the proposed rule language if EPA is proposing other statuses besides “permanently shut down” or “operating” statuses. ADEC requests that EPA clarify this point so that ADEC can fully evaluate and comment on the breadth of the impact and consequences to our workload.

EPA also proposes adding Emission Operating Type as a required data element for reporting emissions under 40 C.F.R. 51.30. Currently, EPA populates this data element in

it s point source emission inventory database. ADEC requests that EPA provide justification for why reporting agencies should be responsible for providing this data when EPA currently provides it within its own Emission Inventory system.

Therefore ADEC recomm ends that EPA reconsider the proposed changes to both the facility inventory and emissions operating type data elements. ADEC recommends that EPA limit the operating status list in the final rule to “operating” (for either continuous or intermittent operat ion) or “permanently shut down.” ADEC additionally recommends that EPA continue to populate the emissions operating type data field, rather than making it a mandatory state reporting element.

Response : In response to this comment, the EPA has further explained the need for the operating

statuses in this final rule

. The full list of the available operating statuses have been used in the EIS data system since its inception in 2008. The EPA also notes that the commenter may

continue to use on ly the “operating” and “permanently shutdown” statuses. Although there are additional operating statuses beyond the “operating” vs “permanently shutdown” statuses, there is no requirement that they be used. Those statuses were added at the request of other states as options to allow them to report their data in additional detail useful to them

. We did not propose and have not finalized a requirement that states use any of these additional facility operating statuses. The requirement is only that the state report an operating status for each facility. The purpose for the operating status is solely for EPA to see where emissions are expected to be reported or not by a state for a facility for a given year.

The commenter is incorrect in their assertion that the EPA currently populates the emission operating type element. This element distinguishes whether the state is reporting the “routine” emissions as opposed to “start

- up” or “shutdown” emissions. The EPA cannot know which type of emissions are being repor ted by the state and must rely on the state to indicate what they are reporting.

Comment : One commenter (0071) indicated that they were not in favor of the proposed changes to simplify reporting and provide consistency with the EIS data system structure an d terminology.

The Department is not in favor of the proposed changes. In conjunction with retaining the requirements to report daily and seasonal emissions, the Department believes that the corresponding tables in the AERR should remain unchanged to show what the frequency, type, and thresholds are for the required data elements.

Response : See responses above regarding the elimination of the requirements for reporting daily and seasonal emissions from this rule. The elimination of these requirements as wel l as the implementation of a re

- usable facility inventory framework for point emissions and some new terminology used in EIS suggested the need for revising the layout and the data element names used in the tables contained in the existing AERR. All of the information, including the reporting19

thresholds, type, and frequency of reporting, that was in the previous AERR tables is retained in the revised table layouts. It was necessary to revise the tables due to the proposed changes in required data elements a nd terminology. In addition, the use of a Facility Inventory in EIS means that many of the point data elements do not need to be submitted on either a 3

- year or an every

year schedule. Those elements only need to be submitted once, unless there is a change to that element. The existing AERR also contains the reporting thresholds for Type A sources in two separate places, and we wanted to eliminate that confusion.

Comment : One commenter (0073) recommended continuing the existing file formatting for the emissions calculation method, the emission factor, and five data elements for controls. The commenter additionally noted that these data elements are required by the AERR, bu t that the EIS Gateway does not generate any errors if this data is not included with the emissions inventory submission. The commenter further added that “Requiring additional data elements for EIS validation would impose additional resources strain and i mplementation costs on states. The TCEQ would like the EPA to address data consistency requirements between the AERR and the

EIS.

Response : The EPA's proposal does address the consistency of requirements between the AERR and the EIS data system. In develop ing the data system it became necessary to more explicitly separate some data elements and revise terminology in order to reduce ambiguities that would not allow the data system to function accurately. As a result, there were several data elements

which ha ve been required in the EIS data system since its inception that were not explicitly listed as required in the AERR. The EPA's proposal details each of these elements and the need for them. We do not believe that these elements require new information coll ection or that the more explicit and less ambiguous format of their reporting adds any significant burden. Finalization of EPA's proposal will result in all of the required EIS data system elements also being required explicitly by the AERR. However, as th e commenter notes, there are additional data elements required by the AERR, and which the EIS data system accepts and stores, but which the EIS Gateway does not presently generate any errors for if they are not included in the EIS submission. We agree with the commenter that requiring additional data elements for EIS validation would impose additional costs. While these elements are required to be submitted by the AERR, we have chosen to not use the EIS data system to determine compliance with these

rule re quirements . This allows EPA to accept as much correctly formatted and unambiguous data as the state provides without imposing additional costs. The data system does enforce the minimal requirements needed to insure that the accepted data are unambiguous an d can be properly and efficiently processed, stored, and distributed. It is not necessary for the data

collection system to only accept submissions that comply with all of the rule requirements.



### 4 Miscellaneous c omments and questions that are unrelated to the proposed changes

Comment : One commenter (0065) included a question about the use of shapefile identifiers, wanting more information on how to prevent double counting.

With the requirement of reporting CMV emissions through the use of shape identifier s, DEQ would like EPA to provide guidance, either in the rule of elsewhere, on the prevention of possible double

- count of the in

- transit emissions, associated with the shipping lane shape identifiers for the rivers that form boundaries between states. For example, vessels20

may call at both the Port of Portland (Oregon) and the Port of Vancouver (Washington) during the same trip. As such, in

- transit emission on the Columbia River for that vessel may be reported by both states equally on the adjacent shippin g lane identifiers, resulting

in double

- count of emissions.

Response : Shipping lane shape files do not cross counties or states. The shapes are divided along state boundaries, which usually results in splitting the river right up the center, near a

50/50 split (slightly off due to meandering river segments, etc.). As a result, our national allocation appropriately divides the emissions between the two states. The EPA expects state

provided emissions only be reported for shapes within the state boundaries, such that both Washington and Oregon would provide emission estimates only for the portion of the transit occurring within each states’ waters, thereby eliminating the risk of double

- counting.

Comment : Three commenters (0065, 0066, and 0067) provided sugg estions regarding the reporting schedule

. Commenters encouraged the EPA to revert back to the original 17 month schedule rather than having data due from air agencies 12 months after the end of the calendar year for which emissions will be reported.

Response : The comment is outside the scope of this proposed rule change. We are not reaching

conclusions with respect to changing the reporting schedule.

Comment : One commenter (0066) asked the EPA to change the reporting requirements to make throughput a nd emission factors optional rather than required fields. The commenter pointed out that in some cases, a simple emissions factor and throughput are not all that is used to calculate the emissions, and so it was not appropriate to provide a single throughp ut and emission factor. They gave the example:

Road dust emissions may be calculated monthly in order to account for differences in both traffic volume and precipitation but reported annual in the National Emissions Inventory. For these more complex or agg regated calculations, a single throughput value and emission factor are not appropriate. Also, these data elements may be confidential for some

sources.
Response : The comment is outside the scope of this proposed rule change. We are not reaching conclusions with respect to changing the requirements for throughput and emission factors. While the EPA agrees with the commenter about the difficulty of reporting these re quired fields in some cases. The EPA disagrees that the throughput or emission factor information can properly be claimed as confidential business information (CBI) by facilities reporting to state agencies. This information is “emissions data” required by the AERR and

, therefore

, cannot be protected as CBI under CAA § 114(c)

. The EPA expects the air agencies to use their best judgement in determining when the throughput and emission factors information can be provided. The EPA does not intend to penalize a ir agencies who do not provide this information. However, because this information is
often useful to EPA’s emissions projections and controls assessment efforts , the EPA requires these data to be provided when appropriate and available.21

Comment : Two commenter s (0069 and 0070 ) requested additional clarification unrelated to the proposed changes to the rule. One commenter (0069) asked for c larification, examples, and guidance to the additional text found after “Primary PM 2.5 ” and “Primary PM 10 ” in § 51. 15(a)(1)(vi) and § 51.15(a)(1)(vii): “as applicable, also report filterable and condensable
components

. ” The other commenter (0070) indicated about this same language that:

Though not proposed in this rulemaking, Missouri encourages EPA to consider clarifyi ng the required pollutant list in § 51.15(a)(1) regarding primary PM2.5 and primary PM10. ... There is no additional rule language provided in the AERR about which processes are expected to have filterable and condensable components. As such, the types of emi ssion sources/processes required to report these components can be changed from year to year at the EPA’s discretion. While we understand the wish to create flexibility, using guidance to describe the expectation for state inventory contents does not allow states the time or regulatory certainty to collect and quality

- assure the speciated components. Because there have been two triennial cycles of NEI work under the revised AERR, there should be enough information to determine the types of sources/processes where condensable and filterable emissions are expected.

Response : The guidance and examples requested by the first commenter are planned to be included in draft updated guidance related to State Implementation Plan development for the

PM 2.5 NAAQS. The information on condensable emissions in that guidance will be of a general nature, and so it also will be relevant to emissions reported in compliance with the AERR. The

commenter should refer to the updated draft (or final, when available) of the guidance titled

, “Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations

, ” which will be provided concurrent with the Proposed PM 2.5 Implementation Ru le and will be available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eidocs/eiguid/index.html

. While the second commenter requested that the EPA provide details regarding the source categories that must be reported with individual components, the EPA disagrees that t he rule is the appropriate place for this information. The same lack of detail could be said for every process/pollutant combination that could exist in an inventory, and putting all expectations about each pollutant from each source category would be impr actical and inflexible.

For all inventory cycles that have used the EIS, the EPA has provided air agencies with information regarding which SCCs have which PM 2.5 components in advance of their submissions of the data. This information is provided both in t he emission factors available from

the EPA from AP

- 42, the NEI programs nonpoint source emissions tools (e.g., for 2011 at ftp://ftp.epa.gov/EmisInventory/2011nei/doc/) , and from the NEI program’s PM calculator (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/tools/pm_calcul ator_condensibles.zip) . The air agencies would be in compliance with the AERR by using those resources to estimate and submit emissions. In the

case of AP

- 42 and the PM calculator information, this information is appropriate to provide to permitted sources to use in estimating their emissions. Finally, for the 2014 NEI cycle, the NEI program intends to provide a “preferred” set of emission factors for point sources, for improved data that have not yet been made available in AP

- 42 for various reasons.