[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 149 (Tuesday, August 4, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46271-46280]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18878]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0500; FRL-9931-68-OAR]


Notice of Availability of the Environmental Protection Agency's 
Updated Ozone Transport Modeling Data for the 2008 Ozone National 
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of data availability (NODA); request for public comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 46272]]

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is providing notice 
that interstate ozone transport modeling and associated data and 
methods are available for public review and comment. These data and 
methods will be used to inform a rulemaking proposal that the EPA is 
developing and expects to release later this year to address interstate 
ozone transport for the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality 
standards (NAAQS). This notice also meets the EPA's expressed intent to 
update the air quality modeling data that were released on January 22, 
2015, and to share the updated data with states and other stakeholders. 
The information available includes: (1) Emission inventories for 2011 
and 2017, supporting data used to develop those emission inventories, 
methods and data used to process emission inventories into a form that 
can be used for air quality modeling; and (2) base year 2011 and 
projected 2017 ozone concentrations and projected 2017 ozone state 
contribution data at individual ozone monitoring sites based on air 
quality modeling, supporting data including 2009-2013 base period and 
2017 projected ozone design values, and methods used to process air 
quality model outputs to calculate 2017 ozone concentrations and 
contributions at individual monitoring sites. A docket has been 
established to facilitate public review of the data and to track 
comments.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 23, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2015-0500, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: (202)566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2015-0500.
     Mail: EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Attention 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0500, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 
20460. Please include a total of 2 copies.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, WJC 
West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 3334, Washington, DC 
20004, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0500. Such deliveries 
are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and 
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed 
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2015-0500. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be 
included in the public docket without change and may be made available 
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you 
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov 
or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you 
claim to be CBI. For CBI information on a disk or CD-ROM that you mail 
to the EPA docket office, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI 
and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific 
information that is claimed as CBI. Information so marked will not be 
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 
2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes 
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain 
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the 
public docket.
    The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, 
which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information 
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email 
comment directly to the EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, 
your email address will be automatically captured and included as part 
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available 
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA 
recommends that you include your name and other contact information in 
the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the 
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot 
contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your 
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, 
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    When submitting comments, remember to:
    1. Identify the notification by docket number and other identifying 
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    2. Explain your comments, why you agree or disagree; suggest 
alternatives and substitute data that reflect your requested changes.
    3. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information 
and/or data that you used.
    4. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and 
suggest alternatives.
    5. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of 
profanity or personal threats.
    6. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline 
identified.
    For additional information about the EPA's public docket, visit the 
EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket 
and Information Center, EPA/DC, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open 
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 
566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-
1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions on the emissions data 
and on how to submit comments on the emissions data and related 
methodologies, contact Alison Eyth, Air Quality Assessment Division, 
Environmental Protection Agency, C339-02, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, 
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709; telephone number: (919)541-2478; fax 
number: (919)541-1903; email: [email protected]. For questions on the 
air quality modeling and ozone contributions and how to submit comments 
on the air quality modeling data and related methodologies, contact 
Norm Possiel, Air Quality Assessment Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, C439-01, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 
27709; telephone number: (919)541-5692; fax number: (919)541-0044; 
email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On January 22, 2015, the EPA issued a memo and preliminary air 
quality modeling data that would help states as

[[Page 46273]]

they develop State Implementation Plans to address cross-state 
transport of air pollution under the ``Good Neighbor'' Provision of the 
Clean Air Act (CAA), section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), as it pertains to the 
2008 ozone NAAQS.\1\ That information included the EPA's preliminary 
air quality modeling data that applies the Cross-State Air Pollution 
Rule (CSAPR--76 FR 48208) approach to contribution projections for the 
year 2018 for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Specifically, the EPA 
provided data identifying ozone monitoring sites that are projected to 
be nonattainment or have maintenance problems for the 2008 ozone NAAQS 
in 2018. The EPA also provided the projected contribution estimates 
from 2018 anthropogenic oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and 
volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions in each state to ozone 
concentrations at each of these sites. The year 2018 was used as the 
analytic year for the preliminary modeling because at the onset of the 
modeling assessment, that year aligned with the December 2018 
attainment date for Moderate ozone nonattainment areas. However, 
subsequent to the completion of the 2018 modeling, the EPA issued the 
final 2008 Ozone NAAQS SIP Requirements Rule,\2\ which revised the 
attainment deadline for ozone nonattainment areas currently designated 
as Moderate for the 2008 ozone NAAQS to July 2018. The EPA established 
this deadline in the 2015 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule after previously 
establishing a deadline of December 31, 2018, that was vacated by the 
DC Circuit in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA. In order to 
demonstrate attainment by the revised attainment deadline, the 
demonstration would have to be based on design values calculated using 
2015 through 2017 ozone season data, since the July 2018 deadline does 
not afford a full ozone season of measured data. Therefore, the EPA has 
adopted 2017 as the analytic year for the updated ozone transport 
modeling information being released as part of this NODA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Information on the 
Interstate Transport ``Good Neighbor'' Provision for the 2008 Ozone 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) under CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), January 22, 2015, available at http://www.epa.gov/airtransport/GoodNeighborProvision2008NAAQS.pdf.
    \2\ 80 FR 12264, 12268 (Mar. 6, 2015); 40 CFR 51.1103.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2011 and 2018 emissions inventory data used for the preliminary 
air quality modeling were released for public review on November 27, 
2013 (78 FR 70935), and January 14, 2014 (79 FR 2437), respectively. 
Based in part on comments received from the public review process, the 
EPA updated the 2011 emissions inventory data, developed emissions 
inventory data for 2017, and used these data in air quality modeling to 
develop updated projections of future year ozone concentrations and 
contributions.
    In the January 22, 2015 memo, the EPA expressed its intent to 
update the preliminary air quality modeling data and to share the 
updated data with states and other stakeholders. This notice meets this 
intent. Additionally, the EPA, together with its state partners, is 
assessing the next steps to address interstate air pollution transport 
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS under the CAA. The EPA recognizes its backstop 
role to develop and promulgate federal implementation plans, as 
appropriate. We are planning to take this action, if necessary, by 
issuing a proposal for a federal rule later this year. This notice 
provides an opportunity to review and comment on the agency's ozone 
transport modeling data that EPA intends to use in this forthcoming 
proposal.

II. Air Quality Modeling Data and Methodologies

    Using the updated emissions inventories, the EPA performed 
photochemical air quality modeling to project ozone concentrations at 
air quality monitoring sites to 2017, and to estimate state-by-state 
contributions to those 2017 concentrations. We then used the air 
quality modeling results to identify nonattainment or maintenance sites 
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 2017, consistent with the CSAPR approach to 
identify such sites. We used the contribution information to quantify 
projected interstate contributions from emissions in each upwind state 
to ozone concentrations at each of the projected 2017 nonattainment and 
maintenance sites in downwind states.
    The EPA's air quality modeling used the updated version of the 
2011-based air quality modeling platform. This platform includes 
emissions for the 2011 base year and a 2017 future base case as well as 
meteorology for 2011. The 2011 meteorology was used in air quality 
model simulations for both 2011 and 2017. The 2011 and 2017 emissions 
data are described in more detail in Section III.
    The EPA used the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions 
(CAMx version 6.11) for modeling the 2011 base year and 2017 future 
base case emissions scenarios to identify sites with projected 
nonattainment and maintenance problems in 2017. The air quality model 
runs were performed for a modeling domain that covers the 48 states in 
the contiguous U.S. along with adjacent portions of Canada and Mexico. 
The spatial resolution (i.e., grid size) for this modeling domain is 12 
km x 12 km. The 2011 and 2017 scenarios were both modeled for the full 
year with 2011 meteorology. The meteorological data used as input to 
the air quality modeling was obtained from an annual simulation of 
version 3.4 of the Weather Research Forecast Model (WRF) for 2011. The 
initial and boundary concentration inputs to the air quality modeling 
were derived from an annual simulation of the Goddard Earth Observing 
System global chemical transport model (GEOS-Chem). The CAMx 
predictions for 2011 were compared to corresponding measurements as 
part of a model performance evaluation. Information on the development 
of the 2011 meteorological and initial and boundary concentration 
inputs to the CAMx simulations and the model performance evaluation 
methodologies and results are described in the ``Updated Air Quality 
Modeling Technical Support Document'' (AQM TSD) for the 2008 Ozone 
NAAQS Interstate Transport Assessment, which is available in the docket 
for this notice. Also in this docket is a report on the performance 
evaluation for the annual 2011 WRF meteorological model simulation.

A. Identification of Projected 2017 Nonattainment and Maintenance Sites

    The ozone predictions from the 2011 and 2017 CAMx model runs were 
used to project measured ozone design values to 2017 following the 
approach described in the EPA's draft guidance for attainment 
demonstration modeling.\3\ We selected 2011 as the base year to reflect 
the most recent National Emissions Inventory (NEI). In addition, the 
meteorological conditions during the summer of 2011 were generally 
conducive for ozone formation across much of the U.S., particularly the 
eastern U.S. We selected 2017 as the projected analysis year to 
coincide with the attainment date for Moderate nonattainment areas 
under the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The draft attainment modeling guidance 
recommends using 5-year weighted average ambient design values \4\ 
centered on the base year as the starting point for projecting design 
values to the future. Because 2011 is the

[[Page 46274]]

base year of emissions, we started with the average ambient 8-hour 
ozone design values for the period 2009 through 2013 (i.e., the average 
of design values for 2009-2011, 2010-2012, and 2011-2013). The 5-year 
weighted average ambient design value at each site was projected to 
2017 using model-predicted Relative Response Factors (RRFs) \5\ that 
were calculated based on procedures described in the draft attainment 
demonstration modeling guidance. The 2017 projected average ozone 
design values were evaluated to identify those sites with design values 
that exceed the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\6\ Consistent with the approach used 
in CSAPR, those sites with 2017 average design values that exceed the 
NAAQS are projected to be in nonattainment in 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The December 3, 2014, draft ozone, fine particulate matter 
and regional haze SIP modeling guidance is available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/Draft_O3-PM-RH_Modeling_Guidance-2014.pdf.
    \4\ The air quality design value for a site is the 3-year 
average annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone 
concentration.
    \5\ In brief, the RRF for a particular location is the ratio of 
the 2017 ozone model prediction to the 2011 ozone model prediction. 
The RRFs were calculated using model outputs for the May through 
September period.
    \6\ In determining compliance with the NAAQS, ozone design 
values are truncated to integer values. For example, a design value 
of 75.9 ppb is truncated to 75 ppb which is attainment. In this 
manner, design values at or above 76.0 ppb are considered 
nonattainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, we followed the CSAPR approach to identify sites 
with projected maintenance problems in 2017. As part of the approach 
for identifying sites with projected future maintenance problems, the 
highest (i.e., maximum) ambient design value from the 2011-centered 5-
year period (i.e., the maximum of design values from 2009-2011, 2010-
2012, and 2011-2013) was projected to 2017 for each site using the 
site-specific RRFs. Following the CSAPR approach, monitoring sites with 
a maximum design value that exceeds the NAAQS, even if the average 
design value is below the NAAQS, are projected to have a maintenance 
problem in 2017. In this regard, nonattainment sites are also 
maintenance sites because the maximum design value at nonattainment 
sites is always greater than or equal to the 5-year weighted average. 
Monitoring sites with a 2017 average design value below the NAAQS, but 
with a maximum design value that exceeds the NAAQS, are considered 
maintenance-only sites. These sites are projected to have a maintenance 
problem, but not a nonattainment problem in 2017.
    The base period ambient and projected 2017 average and maximum 
design values at individual nonattainment sites and maintenance-only 
sites are provided in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.

           Table 1--2009-2013 and 2017 Average and Maximum Design Values at Projected Nonattainment Sites in the East (Top) and West (Bottom)
                                                                     [Units are ppb]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             2009-2013       2009-2013
           Monitor ID                        State                      County            average design  maximum design   2017 average    2017 maximum
                                                                                               value           value       design value    design value
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
90013007........................  Connecticut...............  Fairfield.................            84.3            89.0            77.1            81.4
90019003........................  Connecticut...............  Fairfield.................            83.7            87.0            78.0            81.1
90099002........................  Connecticut...............  New Haven.................            85.7            89.0            77.2            80.2
240251001.......................  Maryland..................  Harford...................            90.0            93.0            81.3            84.0
360850067.......................  New York..................  Richmond..................            81.3            83.0            76.3            77.8
361030002.......................  New York..................  Suffolk...................            83.3            85.0            79.2            80.8
390610006.......................  Ohio......................  Hamilton..................            82.0            85.0            76.3            79.1
480391004.......................  Texas.....................  Brazoria..................            88.0            89.0            81.4            82.3
481210034.......................  Texas.....................  Denton....................            84.3            87.0            76.9            79.4
482011034.......................  Texas.....................  Harris....................            81.0            82.0            76.8            77.8
482011039.......................  Texas.....................  Harris....................            82.0            84.0            78.2            80.2
484392003.......................  Texas.....................  Tarrant...................            87.3            90.0            79.6            82.1
484393009.......................  Texas.....................  Tarrant...................            86.0            86.0            78.6            78.6
551170006.......................  Wisconsin.................  Sheboygan.................            84.3            87.0            77.0            79.4
 
60190007........................  California................  Fresno....................            94.7            95.0            89.0            89.3
60190011........................  California................  Fresno....................            93.0            96.0            87.6            90.4
60190242........................  California................  Fresno....................            91.7            95.0            87.1            90.3
60194001........................  California................  Fresno....................            90.7            92.0            84.2            85.4
60195001........................  California................  Fresno....................            97.0            99.0            90.6            92.5
60251003........................  California................  Imperial..................            81.0            82.0            79.3            80.3
60290007........................  California................  Kern......................            91.7            96.0            86.2            90.2
60290008........................  California................  Kern......................            86.3            88.0            80.6            82.2
60290011........................  California................  Kern......................            80.0            81.0            76.2            77.1
60290014........................  California................  Kern......................            87.7            89.0            82.8            84.0
60290232........................  California................  Kern......................            87.3            89.0            82.2            83.8
60295002........................  California................  Kern......................            90.0            91.0            84.5            85.5
60296001........................  California................  Kern......................            84.3            86.0            79.7            81.3
60311004........................  California................  Kings.....................            87.0            90.0            81.1            83.9
60370002........................  California................  Los Angeles...............            80.0            82.0            79.0            81.0
60370016........................  California................  Los Angeles...............            94.0            97.0            92.8            95.8
60371002........................  California................  Los Angeles...............            80.0            81.0            77.1            78.1
60371201........................  California................  Los Angeles...............            90.0            90.0            87.9            87.9
60371701........................  California................  Los Angeles...............            84.0            85.0            82.2            83.2
60372005........................  California................  Los Angeles...............            79.5            82.0            78.1            80.6
60376012........................  California................  Los Angeles...............            97.3            99.0            94.5            96.2
60379033........................  California................  Los Angeles...............            90.0            91.0            86.0            86.9
60392010........................  California................  Madera....................            85.0            86.0            79.8            80.8
60470003........................  California................  Merced....................            82.7            84.0            78.1            79.3
60610006........................  California................  Placer....................            84.0            86.0            78.2            80.0

[[Page 46275]]

 
60650004........................  California................  Riverside.................            85.0            85.0            82.3            82.3
60650012........................  California................  Riverside.................            97.3            99.0            93.5            95.1
60651016........................  California................  Riverside.................           100.7           101.0            95.7            96.0
60652002........................  California................  Riverside.................            84.3            85.0            79.8            80.5
60655001........................  California................  Riverside.................            92.3            93.0            87.6            88.2
60656001........................  California................  Riverside.................            94.0            98.0            88.1            91.9
60658001........................  California................  Riverside.................            97.0            98.0            93.3            94.3
60658005........................  California................  Riverside.................            92.7            94.0            89.2            90.4
60659001........................  California................  Riverside.................            88.3            91.0            82.7            85.2
60670012........................  California................  Sacramento................            93.3            95.0            85.7            87.3
60675003........................  California................  Sacramento................            86.3            88.0            80.5            82.0
60710005........................  California................  San Bernardino............           105.0           107.0           103.6           105.6
60710012........................  California................  San Bernardino............            95.0            97.0            91.8            93.8
60710306........................  California................  San Bernardino............            83.7            85.0            81.2            82.4
60711004........................  California................  San Bernardino............            96.7            98.0            94.3            95.6
60712002........................  California................  San Bernardino............           101.0           103.0            99.5           101.5
60714001........................  California................  San Bernardino............            94.3            97.0            92.3            95.0
60714003........................  California................  San Bernardino............           105.0           107.0           101.8           103.8
60719002........................  California................  San Bernardino............            92.3            94.0            88.0            89.6
60719004........................  California................  San Bernardino............            98.7            99.0            95.7            96.0
60731006........................  California................  San Diego.................            81.0            82.0            76.6            77.6
60990006........................  California................  Stanislaus................            87.0            88.0            83.0            83.9
61070006........................  California................  Tulare....................            81.7            85.0            77.0            80.1
61070009........................  California................  Tulare....................            94.7            96.0            87.3            88.5
61072002........................  California................  Tulare....................            85.0            88.0            78.6            81.4
61072010........................  California................  Tulare....................            89.0            90.0            82.7            83.6
61112002........................  California................  Ventura...................            81.0            83.0            78.3            80.2
80350004........................  Colorado..................  Douglas...................            80.7            83.0            76.0            78.1
80590006........................  Colorado..................  Jefferson.................            80.3            83.0            76.3            78.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


          Table 2--2009-2013 and 2017 Average and Maximum Design Values at Projected Maintenance-Only Sites in the East (Top) and West (Bottom)
                                                                     [Units are ppb]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             2009-2013       2009-2013
           Monitor ID                        State                      County            average design  maximum design   2017 average    2017 maximum
                                                                                               value           value       design value    design value
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
90010017........................  Connecticut...............  Fairfield.................            80.3            83.0            75.8            78.4
211110067.......................  Kentucky..................  Jefferson.................            82.0            85.0            75.8            78.6
211850004.......................  Kentucky..................  Oldham....................            82.0            86.0            73.7            77.3
240053001.......................  Maryland..................  Baltimore.................            80.7            84.0            73.2            76.2
260050003.......................  Michigan..................  Allegan...................            82.7            86.0            75.5            78.5
261630019.......................  Michigan..................  Wayne.....................            78.7            81.0            74.0            76.2
340071001.......................  New Jersey................  Camden....................            82.7            87.0            74.2            78.1
340150002.......................  New Jersey................  Gloucester................            84.3            87.0            75.1            77.5
340230011.......................  New Jersey................  Middlesex.................            81.3            85.0            73.0            76.3
340290006.......................  New Jersey................  Ocean.....................            82.0            85.0            73.9            76.6
360810124.......................  New York..................  Queens....................            78.0            80.0            75.7            77.6
420031005.......................  Pennsylvania..............  Allegheny.................            80.7            82.0            75.3            76.5
421010024.......................  Pennsylvania..............  Philadelphia..............            83.3            87.0            75.1            78.4
480850005.......................  Texas.....................  Collin....................            82.7            84.0            74.9            76.0
481130069.......................  Texas.....................  Dallas....................            79.7            84.0            74.0            78.0
481130075.......................  Texas.....................  Dallas....................            82.0            83.0            75.8            76.7
481211032.......................  Texas.....................  Denton....................            82.7            84.0            75.1            76.3
482010024.......................  Texas.....................  Harris....................            80.3            83.0            75.9            78.5
482010026.......................  Texas.....................  Harris....................            77.3            80.0            73.5            76.1
482010055.......................  Texas.....................  Harris....................            81.3            83.0            75.4            77.0
482011050.......................  Texas.....................  Harris....................            78.3            80.0            74.6            76.2
484390075.......................  Texas.....................  Tarrant...................            82.0            83.0            75.5            76.4
484393011.......................  Texas.....................  Tarrant...................            80.7            83.0            74.5            76.6
 
40131004........................  Arizona...................  Maricopa..................            79.7            81.0            75.0            76.2
60170020........................  California................  El Dorado.................            82.7            84.0            75.1            76.3
60390004........................  California................  Madera....................            79.3            81.0            75.3            76.9
60610003........................  California................  Placer....................            83.0            85.0            75.4            77.2

[[Page 46276]]

 
60670006........................  California................  Sacramento................            78.7            81.0            74.0            76.1
60773005........................  California................  San Joaquin...............            79.0            80.0            75.9            76.8
80050002........................  Colorado..................  Arapahoe..................            76.7            79.0            74.4            76.6
80590011........................  Colorado..................  Jefferson.................            78.7            82.0            75.8            78.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Quantification of Interstate Ozone Contributions

    The EPA performed nationwide, state-level ozone source 
apportionment modeling using the CAMx Ozone Source Apportionment 
Technology/Anthropogenic Precursor Culpability Analysis (OSAT/APCA) 
technique \7\ to quantify the contribution of 2017 base case 
NOX and VOC emissions from all sources in each state to 
projected 2017 ozone concentrations at each air quality monitoring 
site. In the source apportionment model run, we tracked the ozone 
formed from each of the following contribution categories (i.e., 
``tags''):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ As part of this technique, ozone formed from reactions 
between biogenic VOC and NOX with anthropogenic 
NOX and VOC are assigned to the anthropogenic emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     States--anthropogenic NOX and VOC emissions 
from each state tracked individually (emissions from all anthropogenic 
sectors in a given state were combined);
     Biogenics--biogenic NOX and VOC emissions 
domain-wide (i.e., not by state);
     Boundary Concentrations--concentrations transported into 
the modeling domain;
     Tribes--the emissions from those tribal lands for which we 
have point source inventory data in the 2011 NEI (we did not model the 
contributions from individual tribes);
     Canada and Mexico--anthropogenic emissions from sources in 
the portions of Canada and Mexico included in the modeling domain (we 
did not model the contributions from Canada and Mexico separately);
     Fires--combined emissions from wild and prescribed fires; 
and
     Offshore--combined emissions from offshore marine vessels 
and offshore drilling platforms.
    The CAMx OSAT/APCA model run was performed for the period May 1 
through September 30 using the 2017 future base case emissions and 2011 
meteorology for this time period. The hourly contributions \8\ from 
each tag were processed to obtain the 8-hour average contributions 
corresponding to the time period of the 8-hour daily maximum 
concentration on each day in the 2017 model simulation. This step was 
performed for those model grid cells containing monitoring sites in 
order to obtain 8-hour average contributions for each day at the 
location of each site. The model-predicted contributions were then 
applied in a relative sense to quantify the contributions to the 2017 
average design value at each site. Additional details on the source 
apportionment modeling and the procedures for calculating contributions 
can be found in the AQM TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Contributions from anthropogenic emissions under 
``NOX-limited'' and ``VOC-limited'' chemical regimes were 
combined to obtain the net contribution from NOX and VOC 
anthropogenic emissions in each state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The average contribution metric is intended to provide a reasonable 
representation of the contribution from individual states to the 
projected 2017 design value, based on modeled transport patterns and 
other meteorological conditions generally associated with modeled high 
ozone concentrations in the vicinity of the monitoring site. An average 
contribution metric constructed in this manner is beneficial since the 
magnitude of the contributions is directly related to the magnitude of 
the design value at each site.
    The resulting 2017 contributions from each tag to each monitoring 
site are provided in the AQM TSD. The largest contributions from each 
state to projected 2017 downwind nonattainment sites and to projected 
downwind maintenance-only sites are provided in Table 3.

  Table 3--Largest Ozone Contributions From Each State to Downwind 2017
  Projected Nonattainment and to 2017 Projected Maintenance-Only Sites
                             [Units are ppb]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Largest
                                    contribution to a       Largest
                                           2017        contribution to a
           Upwind state               nonattainment    2017 maintenance-
                                     site in downwind     only site in
                                          states        downwind states
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama...........................               0.79               1.28
Arizona...........................               1.78               0.41
Arkansas..........................               1.24               2.15
California........................               1.75               3.44
Colorado..........................               0.36               0.34
Connecticut.......................               0.46               0.41
Delaware..........................               0.68               2.23
District of Columbia..............               0.73               0.64
Florida...........................               0.57               0.72
Georgia...........................               0.58               0.56
Idaho.............................               0.23               0.35

[[Page 46277]]

 
Illinois..........................              17.48              23.17
Indiana...........................               7.15              14.95
Iowa..............................               0.61               0.85
Kansas............................               0.80               1.03
Kentucky..........................              11.17               2.14
Louisiana.........................               3.81               4.23
Maine.............................               0.00               0.08
Maryland..........................               2.39               7.11
Massachusetts.....................               0.10               0.37
Michigan..........................               2.69               1.79
Minnesota.........................               0.40               0.47
Mississippi.......................               0.78               1.48
Missouri..........................               1.63               3.69
Montana...........................               0.15               0.17
Nebraska..........................               0.51               0.36
Nevada............................               0.84               0.73
New Hampshire.....................               0.02               0.07
New Jersey........................              12.38              11.48
New Mexico........................               1.05               0.54
New York..........................              16.96              17.21
North Carolina....................               0.55               0.93
North Dakota......................               0.14               0.28
Ohio..............................               3.99               7.92
Oklahoma..........................               1.70               2.46
Oregon............................               0.65               0.65
Pennsylvania......................              13.51              15.93
Rhode Island......................               0.02               0.08
South Carolina....................               0.19               0.21
South Dakota......................               0.08               0.12
Tennessee.........................               1.67               0.90
Texas.............................               2.44               2.95
Utah..............................               1.59               1.66
Vermont...........................               0.01               0.05
Virginia..........................               5.29               4.70
Washington........................               0.22               0.09
West Virginia.....................               2.99               3.11
Wisconsin.........................               0.56               2.59
Wyoming...........................               1.22               1.22
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In CSAPR, the EPA used a contribution screening threshold of 1 
percent of the NAAQS to identify upwind states in the eastern U.S. that 
may significantly contribute to downwind nonattainment and/or 
maintenance problems and which warrant further analysis. The EPA will 
take comment on the appropriate threshold to be applied for purposes of 
the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the upcoming rulemaking proposal to address 
interstate ozone transport for that standard. The EPA is not proposing 
or taking comment on this threshold as part of this NODA.

C. Air Quality Modeling Information Available for Public Comment

    The EPA is requesting comment on the components of the 2011 air 
quality modeling platform, the air quality model applications and model 
performance evaluation, and the projected 2017 ozone design value 
concentrations and contribution data. The EPA is also seeking comment 
on the methodology for calculating contributions at individual 
monitoring sites. The EPA encourages all states and sources to review 
and comment on the information provided in this NODA.
    The EPA has placed key information related to the air quality 
modeling into the electronic docket for this notice (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-
0500) which is available at www.regulations.gov. This includes the AQM 
TSD, an Excel file which contains the 2009-2013 base period and 2017 
projected average and maximum ozone design values at individual 
monitoring sites, and an Excel file with the ozone contributions from 
each state and all other source tags to each monitoring site. However, 
the air quality modeling input and output data files are too large to 
be directly uploaded into the electronic docket and/or are not in 
formats accepted by that docket. These air quality modeling files have 
been placed on a data drive in the docket office. Electronic copies of 
the non-emissions air quality modeling input files and the air quality 
modeling output files can also be obtained prior to the end of the 
comment period by contacting Norm Possiel at [email protected]. A 
detailed description of the 2011 and 2017 emissions data and procedures 
for accessing and commenting on these data are provided below.

III. Emissions Data and Methodologies

    The EPA is requesting comment on the updated 2011 and 2017 emission

[[Page 46278]]

inventories; supporting ancillary files used to allocate emissions 
temporally, spatially, and by emissions species; and on the emissions 
modeling methods used to develop the emission inventories, including 
but not restricted to, the activity data, model input databases, and 
the projection, control, and closure data used to develop projected 
2017 emissions. Summaries of the emission inventories are provided to 
aid in the review of the data, but comments are sought on the actual 
inventories, model inputs, data, and methods used to develop the 
projected emissions.

A. Instructions for Submitting Emissions Comments and Alternative 
Emissions Data

    The EPA can most effectively use comments on emissions data that 
provide specific alternative values to those in the EPA data sets, and 
for which accompanying documentation supports the alternative values. 
Commenters should provide the alternative data at a level of detail 
appropriate to the data set into which it will be incorporated, thereby 
including all key fields needed to substitute the old data with the 
new. For example, any data provided as an alternative to the EPA's 
point source emissions data should include all key fields used to 
identify point source data such as facility, unit, release point, 
process, and pollutant, along with alternative emissions values. If a 
commenter were to provide a new set of county total emissions as an 
alternative to detailed point source emissions data, the EPA would not 
be able to use that new data. Commenters should also include 
documentation that describes methods for development of any alternative 
values and relevant references supporting the alternative approach.
    Any alternative emission inventory or ancillary data provided 
should be compatible with the formats used by the Sparse Matrix 
Operator Kernel Emissions (SMOKE) modeling system version 3.6.5, which 
is used by the EPA to process emission inventories into a format that 
can be used for air quality modeling. Formats are defined in the SMOKE 
Version 3.6.5 User's Manual available from http://www.cmascenter.org/smoke/. Only the rows of data that have changed from those provided by 
the EPA should be included in the alternative data sets. Alternative 
data that are not an input to SMOKE, such as model input databases for 
mobile source models, should be provided in a format in which it could 
be directly input to the model.
    Commenters wishing to comment on inventory projection methods 
should submit to the docket comments that describe an alternative 
approach to the existing methods, along with documentation describing 
why that method is an improvement over the existing method.

B. Emissions Information Available for Public Comment

    The released data include emission inventories that represent 
projected emissions into the atmosphere of criteria and some hazardous 
air pollutants in the years 2011 and 2017, additional ancillary data 
files that are used to convert the NEI emissions into a form that can 
be used for air quality modeling, and methods used to prepare the air 
quality model inputs and to develop projections of emissions for the 
year 2017. The platform includes emission inventories for sources at 
specific locations called point sources; emissions from fire events; 
and county-level emissions of onroad mobile sources, nonroad mobile 
sources, and nonpoint stationary sources.
    The provided emission inventories are split into categories called 
modeling sectors. For example, facility-specific point emission sources 
are split into electric generating units (EGUs), oil and gas point 
sources, and other point sources. Nonpoint emission sources are split 
into agricultural ammonia sources, area fugitive dust sources, non-
Category 3 commercial marine and locomotive sources, residential wood 
sources, oil and gas nonpoint sources, agricultural burning sources, 
and other nonpoint sources. Additional modeling sectors are onroad and 
nonroad mobile sources, Category 3 commercial marine sources, and 
emissions from wild and prescribed fires.
    The emission inventories for the future year of 2017 have been 
developed using projection methods that are specific to the type of 
emission source. Future emissions are projected from the 2011 base case 
either by running models to estimate future year emissions from 
specific types of emission sources (i.e., EGUs, and onroad and nonroad 
mobile sources), or for other types of sources by adjusting the base 
year emissions according to the best estimate of changes expected to 
occur in the intervening years (i.e., non-EGU point and nonpoint 
sources).
    For some sectors, the same emissions are used in the base and 
future years, such as biogenic emissions, wild and prescribed fire 
emissions, and Canadian emissions. For all other sectors, rules and 
specific legal obligations that go into effect in the intervening 
years, along with changes in activity for the sector, are considered 
when possible. Documentation of the methods used for each sector is 
provided in the TSD Preparation of Emissions Inventories for the 
Version 6.2, 2011 Emissions Modeling Platform, which can be found in 
the docket for this notice.
    Emission projections for EGUs for 2017 were developed using the 
Integrated Planning Model (IPM). The National Electric Energy Data 
System (NEEDS) database contains the generation unit records used for 
the model plants that represent existing and planned/committed units in 
EPA modeling applications of IPM. The NEEDS database includes basic 
geographic, operating, air emissions, and other data on these 
generating units and is updated for the EPA's version 5.14 power sector 
modeling platform. The EGU emission projections included in this data 
release are reported in an air quality modeling-ready flat file taken 
from the EPA Base Case v.5.14, developed using IPM. The 2017 EGU 
emission projections in the flat file format, the corresponding NEEDS 
database, and user guides and documentation are available in the docket 
for this notice, and at http://www.epa.gov/powersectormodeling.
    To project future emissions from onroad and nonroad mobile sources, 
the EPA uses the Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) and the 
National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM), respectively. Development of 
the future year onroad and nonroad emissions requires a substantial 
amount of lead time and resources. The EPA had already prepared the 
emissions projections for 2018 when the attainment deadline for 
Moderate nonattainment areas was revised to July 2018 in the 2008 Ozone 
SIP Requirements Rule, as discussed above, effectively requiring the 
agency to adjust its projection year to 2017. Thus, for purposes of 
this NODA, the EPA calculated the 2017 emissions from mobile sources 
using post-modeling adjustments to 2018 emissions, but the agency 
anticipates that it will directly generate the mobile source emissions 
for 2017 that will be used in the air quality modeling for the final 
rule to address interstate transport for the 2008 ozone standard. The 
EPA obtained 2018 projections by running the MOVES and NMIM models 
using year-specific information about fuel mixtures, activity data, and 
the impacts of national and state-level rules and control programs. The 
input databases and future year activity data for onroad mobile sources 
are provided with the 2011v6.2 platform available at http://
www.epa.gov/ttn/

[[Page 46279]]

chief/emch/index.html#2011. The 2018 onroad and nonroad mobile source 
emissions were adjusted for 2017 using factors derived from national 
scale runs of MOVES and NMIM, respectively.
    For non-EGU point and nonpoint sources, projections of 2017 
emissions were developed by starting with the 2011 emissions 
inventories and applying adjustments that represent the impact of 
national, state, and local rules coming into effect in the years 2012 
through 2017, along with the impacts of planned shutdowns, the 
construction of new plants, specific information provided by states, 
and specific legal obligations resolving alleged environmental 
violations, such as consent decrees. Changes in activity are considered 
for sectors such as oil and gas, residential wood combustion, cement 
kilns, livestock, aircraft, commercial marine vessels and locomotives. 
Data files that include factors that represent the changes are 
provided, along with summaries that quantify the emission changes 
resulting from the projections at a state and national level.
    The provided data include relevant emissions inventories for 
neighboring countries used in our modeling, specifically the 2010 
emissions inventories for Canada and the 2008 and 2018 emissions 
inventories for Mexico. Canadian emissions for a future year were not 
available.
    Ancillary data files used to allocate annual emissions to the 
hourly, gridded emissions of chemical species used by the air quality 
model are also provided. The types of ancillary data files include 
temporal profiles that allocate annual and monthly emissions down to 
days and hours, spatial surrogates that allocate county-level emissions 
onto the grid cells used by the AQM, and speciation profiles that 
allocate the pollutants in the NEI to the chemical species used by the 
air quality model. In addition, there are temporal, spatial, and 
speciation cross-reference files that map the emission sources in the 
emission inventories to the appropriate profiles based on their 
location, emissions source classification code (SCC), and, in some 
cases, the specific facility or unit. With the exception of some 
speciation profiles and temporal profiles for EGUs and mobile sources, 
the same ancillary data files are used to prepare the 2011 and 2017 
emissions inventories for air quality modeling.
    Information related to this section is located in the docket. 
However, as mentioned above, some of the emissions data files are too 
large to be directly uploaded into the electronic docket and/or are not 
in formats accepted by that docket. Therefore, the information placed 
in the electronic docket, associated detailed data, and summaries to 
help with interpretation of the data are available for public review 
with the 2011v6.2 platform available on the Emissions Modeling 
Clearinghouse on the EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/index.html#2011. Requests for electronic copies of pre-merged, 
intermediate and air quality model-ready emissions files for input to 
air quality modeling can be obtained by contacting Alison Eyth at 
[email protected].
    The emissions inventories, along with many of the ancillary files, 
are provided in the form of flat files that can be input to SMOKE. Flat 
files are comma-separated values-style text files with columns and rows 
that can be loaded into spreadsheet or database software. The columns 
of interest in the emission inventory files are specified in each 
subsection below. The EPA specifically requests comment on the 
following components of the provided emissions modeling inventories and 
ancillary files:
     Emissions values and supporting data for EGUs. The EPA 
requests comment on the IPM version 5.14 input assumptions, NEEDS 
database, 2018 unit-level parsed files because 2017 parsed files are 
not available, 2017 flat file inputs and outputs (including 
modifications to the IPM 2018 Base Case to inform 2017 NOX 
emissions), temporal profiles use to allocate seasonal emissions to 
hours, and cross references and matching between IPM and NEI.
     Emission values for non-EGU sources. The EPA requests 
comment on the criteria air pollutant projected 2017 emissions in the 
modeling inventories, such as NOX, VOC, sulfur dioxide, 
particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers, particulate matter less 
than 10 micrometers, and ammonia, with a focus on the ozone precursors 
NOX and VOC. The EPA will also accept comments on 2017 
projections of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), as they are included in 
the outputs of models used to develop 2017 emission projections. 
However, HAPs are not the focus of this effort. The annual emissions 
values are located in the ANN_VALUE column of emission inventory files 
in the Flat File 2010 (FF10) format. Some emission inventories (e.g., 
nonroad) may also have values filled in to the monthly value columns 
(e.g., JAN_VALUE, FEB_VALUE, . . ., DEC_VALUE). The EPA requests 
comment on both the annual and monthly emissions values, where 
applicable. Summaries of emissions by state and county are provided to 
aid in the review of emissions values.
     Model inputs and activity data used to develop mobile 
source emission inventories. The EPA requests comment on the mobile 
source model input data used to develop the projected future mobile 
source emission inventories. These include both the databases used to 
create emission factors and the vehicle miles traveled and vehicle 
population activity data used to compute the emissions. Of particular 
interest are county total vehicle miles traveled, the mixture of 
vehicle types in 2017, hoteling hours of combination long-haul trucks, 
and changes to the inspection and maintenance programs. Alternative 
activity data should be provided in the SMOKE FF10 activity data 
format.
     Projection data and methods. The EPA seeks comment on the 
data used to project point and nonpoint source emissions from 2011 to 
2017, and on the methods and assumptions used to implement the 
projections. In this context, nonpoint source emissions are inclusive 
of commercial marine vessel, railroad, oil and gas, and other nonpoint 
emissions. In particular, the EPA seeks comment on its assumptions 
regarding the manner in which specific consent decrees and state- or 
locality-specific control programs will be implemented.
     Existing control techniques. The emission inventories 
include information on emissions control techniques listed in terms of 
control codes submitted to the EIS. These are listed in the CONTROL_IDS 
and CONTROL_MEASURES columns in the emission inventory flat files, with 
levels of reduction in the ANN_PCT_RED column. Projection of non-EGU 
point source emissions to future years is dependent on this 
information. The EPA seeks comment on whether data on existing controls 
given in the inventory flat files are incomplete or erroneous. The flat 
files must be consulted for details of control techniques by pollutant.
     Emissions modeling methods. The EPA is using SMOKE version 
3.6.5 to prepare data for air quality modeling. The EPA requests 
comment on the methods by which SMOKE is used to develop air quality 
model-ready emissions, as illustrated in the scripts provided with the 
modeling platform and as described in the TSD Preparation of Emissions 
Inventories for the Version 6.2, 2011 Emissions Modeling Platform, 
available with the 2011v6.2 platform at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/index.html#2011.
     Temporal allocation. Annual emission inventories must be 
allocated

[[Page 46280]]

to hourly values prior to air quality modeling. This may be done with 
temporal profiles in several steps, such as annual-to-month, month-to-
day, and day-to-hour. The exact method used depends on the type of 
emissions being processed. The EPA seeks comment on the allocation of 
the emission inventories to month, day, and hour for all types of 
emission processes. In particular, the EPA seeks information that could 
help improve the temporal allocation in 2017 of emissions from EGUs, 
nonroad mobile sources, residential wood combustion sources, and the 
temporal allocation of vehicle miles traveled needed to model onroad 
mobile sources. The EPA seeks local- and region-specific data that can 
be used to improve the temporal allocation of emissions data.
     Spatial surrogates. Spatial surrogates are used to 
allocate county-level emissions to the grid cells used for air quality 
modeling. The EPA requests comment on the spatial surrogates used to 
spatially allocate the 2011 and 2017 emissions. The same spatial 
surrogates are used in the base and future years.
     Chemical speciation. Prior to air quality modeling, the 
pollutants in the emission inventories must be converted into the 
chemical species used by the air quality model using speciation 
profiles. The speciation profiles provided are consistent with version 
4.4 of the SPECIATE database. The EPA requests comment on the provided 
speciation profiles, as well as any information that could help improve 
the speciation of oil and gas emissions in both the eastern and western 
U.S. in 2017. Oil and gas speciation information, along with VOC to TOG 
adjustment factors that are used to compute methane emissions, would be 
of the most use at the county or oil/gas basin level of detail and also 
for each distinct process at oil and gas drilling/production facilities 
(e.g., glycol dehydrators).
    To aid in the interpretation of the provided data files and how 
they relate to the aspects of the data on which the EPA is requesting 
comment, the EPA has provided a summary document in the docket that 
describes in more detail the provided data and summary files.

    Dated: July 23, 2015.
Stephen D. Page,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2015-18878 Filed 8-3-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P