[Federal Register: June 25, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 123)]
[Notices]
[Page 36066]
[DOCID:fr25jn08-67]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. CP06-5-009]

Empire Pipeline Inc.; Notice of Application

June 17, 2008.
    Take notice that on June 10, 2008, Empire Pipeline, Inc. (EPI),
6363 Main Street, Williamsville, New York 14221, filed in Docket No.
CP06-5-009, an application under section 7of the Natural Gas Act (NGA),
to amend its certificate of public convenience and necessity issued by
the Commission on December 21, 2006. EPI requests authorization to
amend its certificate to make a minor route realignment in the Town of
Farmington, Ontario County, New York, between mileposts 3.8 and 4.8, in
the vicinity of the New York State Thruway. The application is on file
with the Commission and open to public inspection. This filing may also
be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three
digits, in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this petition should be directed to David
W. Reitz, Attorney for Empire Pipeline, Inc., 6363 Main Street,
Williamsville, NY 14221, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the below listed comment date, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    Motions to intervene, protests and comments may be filed
electronically via the internet in lieu of paper; see, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.
    Comment Date: July 8, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-14286 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Date:		May 2012

Subject:	Teleconference with The Fertilizer Institute on March 15, 2012
		Nitric Acid NSPS Review
      EPA Contract No. EP-D-11-084; Work Assignment No. 0-01
        RTI Project No. 0213199.000.001

From:			Melissa Icenhour

To:			Nathan Topham
        OAQPS/SPPD/MMG (D243-02)
        U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
      Research Triangle Park, NC  27711

A meeting was held on March 15, 2012 to discuss the comments submitted by The Fertilizer Institute (TFI) in reference to the review of the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Nitric Acid plants (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Ga). The meeting attendees included:

      EPA
      Chuck French, OAQPS, SPPD, Metals and Inorganic Chemicals Group
      Nathan Topham, OAQPS, SPPD, Metals and Inorganic Chemicals Group
      Bill Neuffer, OAQPS, SPPD, Metals and Inorganic Chemicals Group
      Nathan Frank, Region V
      Scott Jordan, OGC
      Steve Fruh, OAQPS, SPPD

      The Fertilizer Institute (TFI)
	Bill Herz
	Chris Leason (Gallagher and Kennedy)

      EPA Support Contractor:
      Melissa Icenhour, RTI International

Purpose:
The purpose of the meeting was to allow TFI representatives to elaborate on the comments they submitted for the proposed rule and to ask clarifying questions to the EPA.

Discussion:
Mr. Leason began his presentation by thanking EPA for meeting with TFI and reiterating TFI's support for the following aspects of the proposed nitric acid NSPS (Part 60, Subpart Ga): The decision not to regulate nitrous oxide; the addition of Method 320 and Method 7E for emissions testing; and the deletion of the opacity standard.

Then Mr. Leason posed three questions to EPA:
      1) What is the timeframe for the final rule?
      2) What is the OMB review timeframe?
      3) Is EPA optimistic about meeting the May 14, 2012 publication date?

EPA answered that the final rule package is being sent to OMB as soon as possible and EPA representatives indicated that the Agency will meet the May 14, 2012 court-ordered deadline for signature of the final rule.

Mr. Leason noted that there are four main comment areas that TFI would like to revisit:
      1) Representativeness of Test Plants
      2) Assumption that there are no modified or reconstructed nitric acid plants
      3) Costs
      4) Subcategorization

Mr. Leason noted that Section 111 of the Clean Air Act requires that the standard be achievable, meaning that EPA must demonstrate that the selected test plants are representative of the industry based on consideration of the range of relevant variables that may affect emissions from different plants. Mr. Leason stated that some of the relevant variables in the industry include:
      1) Is the plant operating under single or dual pressure?
      2) Is the plant using extended absorption?
      3) How old is the plant?
      4) Is the plant operating under low or medium pressures?

EPA representatives asked for more discussion of extended absorption. Mr. Herz noted that the definition may vary among plants so they deferred answering until he could get input from other nitric acid plants represented by TFI.

According to Mr. Leason, PCS Geismar Plant 5 and El Dorado are not representative because these plants are two of the largest in the industry, they both possess extended absorption, and their absorption towers are much larger than typical absorption towers.
Not every plant employs extended absorption, nor is able to extend the towers in a cost effective manner. Also, PCS Geismar Plant 5 uses a steam heater and El Dorado has access to unlimited steam from a co-located chemical manufacturing plant to ensure that the SCR units at each plant are at peak operation during startups to limit NOX emissions.
Mr. Leason stated that neither of these situations which limit NOX emissions during startup is typical at most nitric acid production facilities.

While Mr. Leason noted that newer plants should have lower emissions, he indicated that other analyses indicated that this is not always true.

EPA noted that the test plants are extremely good performers and that PCS Geismar Plant 5 and El Dorado are newer plants. However, the EPA noted that the third test plant, Agrium North Bend, was constructed in 1964 as a single pressure plant which did not originally employ extended absorption. The plant was retrofitted with a second absorption tower in the 1970s and with an SCR in 2007 and also uses hydrogen peroxide addition to limit NOX emissions during certain times of the year. The plant has been improved over time and the NOX CEMS data demonstrate that this plant can meet the proposed standard.

Mr. Leason responded with the fact that although all three test plants have SCR to reduce
NOX emissions, they also have extended absorption and hydrogen peroxide addition (Agrium North Bend) and that all of these technologies work in concert to reduce NOX.
Thus, based on these test plants, it is not proper for EPA to only identify SCR as the best system of emission reduction (BSER) for nitric acid plants; rather, EPA's reliance on these plants means that SCR, extended absorption and hydrogen peroxide addition (in combination) are BSER.

EPA asked if the issue was that older facilities cannot meet the proposed standard without additional costs or that older facilities cannot meet the proposed standard at all?

Mr. Leason responded that both situations could occur but that the answer is case-specific. Mr. Leason also noted that older plants have single span monitors which are used to measure NOX emissions up to 500 ppm and, as a result, that EPA's data used to establish the proposed standard does not accurately account for startup, shutdown and malfunction emissions (since emissions during these events are much higher). EPA noted that the Agrium North Bend plant uses a dual span NOX monitor and can measure emissions higher than 500 ppm.

EPA noted that small nitric acid plants that currently employ no controls for NOX are in the minority and that most nitric acid plants have extended absorption.

Mr. Leason questioned the exclusion of PCS Geismar Train 3 from the analyses because its emissions average 2.55 lb NOX/ton acid. EPA noted that the train was excluded because it employs a low pressure SCR that is not optimally located for better performance. EPA noted that EPA staff discussed this SCR with the manager of the PCS Geismar plant, who stated that the plant could meet 0.60 lb NOX/ton acid if the SCR was relocated after the expander.

Mr. Leason noted that there may be cases where placing the SCR after the expander is not possible, due to space constraints. EPA answered that enlarging the SCR or increasing the ammonia injection rate would have the same effect as relocating the existing SCR.

Mr. Herz stated that the agency has not shown that the standard has been accurately assessed. EPA noted that the data from Agrium North Bend shows the true performance of the nitric acid plant after a retrofit and thus demonstrates the achievability of the proposed standard. Mr. Leason again noted that the Agrium North Bend facility not only uses SCR, but also extended absorption and hydrogen peroxide addition.

Mr. Leason referenced a number of nitric acid plants that have been permitted at 0.60 lb NOX/ton acid on a 365 day rolling emission rate, which is significantly different than the 0.50 lb NOX/ton acid on a 30 day rolling emission rate that the EPA proposed. These plants are owned by Rentech, Terra Industries, and a new US Nitrogen plant in Greene County, Tennessee.

EPA noted that the plants owned by Terra Industries are still in the process of upgrading and the Rentech plant was completed last month, and the US Nitrogen plant is not yet operational. Therefore, data are not available from these facilities for analysis that would impact the decision regarding achievability of the standard.

Mr. Leason noted another nitric acid plant in Georgia that had been modified or reconstructed in 2002 and 2007 and had thus become subject to the Nitric Acid NSPS. The EPA representatives requested more information on this plant. Mr. Leason promised to get more information and report back to EPA.

Mr. Leason stated that the costs assessed at proposal are not accurate. He referenced the costs for flow monitors and dual span monitors as being incorrect and stated that control costs for modified sources would need to be included.

EPA noted that TFI's cost comments on the proposed rule are being considered.

Mr. Leason asked that three subcategories be considered for the nitric acid NSPS:
      1) 	New plants;
      2) 	Existing plants with NSCR control that undergo a modification or reconstruction;
      3) 	Existing plants without NSCR control that undergo a modification or reconstruction.

EPA asked if this approach (setting separate standards for modified sources) had been used in other rulemakings. Mr. Leason referred to Section 111 and achievability. Mr. Leason also stated that it is more difficult for a plant to meet a lower limit if the plant has
NSCR control and undergoes a modification or reconstruction. Mr. Leason and Mr. Herz recommended that EPA look at the recently-established 0.60 lb NOX/ton acid on a 365 day rolling average standard set forth in consent decrees and a January 2012 permit for a
US Nitrogen plant as BACT and evaluate whether it should form the basis for the NSPS.

Mr. Leason noted that NSPS is the statutory floor and cannot, by definition, be lower than BACT.

In closing, Mr. Leason restated that there should be a bifurcation of the NOX standard in order for modified or reconstructed sources to comply, and costs for modified or reconstructed sources and installation of dual span NOX monitors must be included in the cost analyses.

He also stated that the EPA should have used CEMS data from all nitric acid plants. He noted that the Greenhouse Gas Mandatory Reporting Rule (GHGMRR) reported 68% of nitric acid plants have NOX CEMS, yet EPA only relied on data from five nitric acid plants that have CEMS monitors (three SCR plants and two NSCR plants).

Ms. Icenhour noted that the information for the GHGMRR was gathered through permits and that no CEMS data were gathered under that rulemaking.

Conclusion:
Mr. Leason and Mr. Herz thanked the EPA representatives for meeting with them and giving them the opportunity to present additional data.

TFI stated that they would gather the following information and provide said information to the EPA as soon as possible:

   * TFI will clarify the definition of extended absorption for purposes of this rulemaking.
   * TFI will clarify their reasoning that modifications of nitric acid plants using NSCR control should be treated differently than modifications of nitric acid plants without NSCR control, with respect to the level of the standard.
   * TFI will determine whether modifications occurred at a nitric acid plant in Georgia during 2002 and 2007.
   * TFI will supply long term CEMS data for other nitric acid plants that have been modified to illustrate that the proposed NOX standard is not achievable.


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 56 (Wednesday, March 23, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 16408]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6773]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice Announcing Preliminary Permit Drawing

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XXXVII..  Project No. 13738-000.
FFP Missouri 6, LLC..............  Project No. 13761-000.
Solia 1 Hydroelectric, LLC.......  Project No. 13770-000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has received three preliminary permit applications
deemed filed on May 18, 2010, at 8:30 a.m.,\1\ for proposed projects to
be located at the Army Corps of Engineers' Emsworth Back Channel Dam on
the Ohio River, in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. The applications
were filed by Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XXXVII for Project No. 13738,
FFP Missouri 6, LLC, for Project No. 13761, and Solia 1 Hydroelectric,
LLC for Project No. 13770.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Under the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, any
document received after regular business hours is considered filed
at 8:30 a.m. on the next regular business day. 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(2)
(2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 24, 2011, at 10 a.m. (eastern time), the Secretary of the
Commission, or her designee, will conduct a random drawing to determine
the filing priority of the applicants identified in this notice. The
Commission will select among competing permit applications as provided
in section 4.37 of its regulations.\2\ The priority established by this
drawing will be used to determine which applicant, among those with
identical filing times, will be considered to have the first-filed
application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 18 CFR 4.37 (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The drawing is open to the public and will be held in room 2C, the
Commission Meeting Room, located at 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC
20426. A subsequent notice will be issued by the Secretary announcing
the results of the drawing.

    Dated: March 15, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-6773 Filed 3-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 225 (Wednesday, November 23, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71610-71611]
[FR Doc No: 2022-25590]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 5867-054]

Alice Falls Hydro, LLC; Notice Soliciting Scoping Comments

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New Major License.
    b. Project No.: 5867-054.
    c. Date filed: September 29, 2021.
    d. Applicant: Alice Falls Hydro, LLC (Alice Falls Hydro).
    e. Name of Project: Alice Falls Hydroelectric Project (Alice Falls
Project or project).
    f. Location: The existing project is located on the Ausable River
in the Town of Chesterfield, Clinton and Essex Counties, New York. The
project does not occupy federal land.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Jody Smet, Vice President, Regulatory
Affairs, Eagle Creek Renewable Energy, LLC, 7315 Wisconsin Avenue,
Suite 1100W, Bethesda, Maryland 20814;<PHONE_NUMBER> or
[email protected].
    i. FERC Contact: Chris Millard at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email at
[email protected].
    j. Deadline for filing scoping comments: December 17, 2022.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure provide
that if a deadline falls on a Saturday, Sunday, holiday, or other
day when the Commission is closed for business, the deadline does
not end until the close of business on the next business day. 18 CFR
385.2007(a)(2). Because the 30-day deadline falls on a Saturday
(i.e., December 17, 2022), the deadline is extended until the close
of business on Monday, December 19, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
scoping comments using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy via
U. S. Postal Service to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC
20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852. All filings must
clearly identify the project name and docket number on the first page:
Alice Falls Hydroelectric Project (P-5867-054).
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency.
    k. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    l. The project consists of: (1) a stone masonry dam, 88 feet long
and 63 feet high; (2) a 110-foot-long section of rock ledge adjacent to
the dam with 2.5-foot-high pipe-supported flashboards; (3) a reservoir
with a surface area of 4.8 acres at the normal water surface elevation
of 350 feet; \2\ (4) a 110-foot-wide, 150-foot-long intake structure
with a 41-foot-wide by 14-foot-high trash rack opening and fitted with
a trash rack with 1-inch clear bar spacing; (5) a divided, 45-foot-
long, reinforced concrete penstock, where the Unit 1 penstock is 18
feet wide by 12 feet high and the Unit 2 penstock is 10 feet wide by 12
feet high; (6) a powerhouse, approximately 34 feet wide and 26 feet
long, containing two turbine-generator units of 1.5 megawatts (Unit 1)
and 0.6 megawatt (Unit 2); (7) a substation, 51 feet wide and 88 feet
long; (8) a 745-foot-long, 5-kilovolt (kV) buried generator lead and a
700-foot-long, 46-kV buried transmission line; and (9) appurtenant
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Elevation data are presented using the National Geodetic
Vertical Datum of 1929.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The project is operated in a run-of-river mode, whereby outflow
from the project approximates inflow. Project operation occurs remotely
in an automatic control mode using a

headpond level sensor and two sensors behind the project trash racks to
maintain the reservoir elevation at about 350 feet. Normal operation
occurs up to 358.5 feet, at which point project operation ceases and
all inflow is spilled.\3\ The minimum and maximum hydraulic capacities
of the project are 400 cfs and 840 cfs, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Reservoir elevations greater than 358.5 feet present a risk
of damage to project structures due to an inability to safely remove
debris, thus requiring project shutdown.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A continuous minimum flow of 25 cfs or inflow, whichever is less,
is released over the spillway flashboards to Alice Falls year-round. An
additional 125-cfs aesthetic flow (for a total flow of 150 cfs over
Alice Falls), or inflow, whichever is less, is released daily from 8:00
a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, from May 20 to September 8
when public recreation access is provided. A seasonal conveyance flow
of 20 cfs or inflow, whichever is less, is continuously passed through
the fish bypass facility from April 1 through November 30. When inflow
to the reservoir is less than the scheduled combined minimum flow,
Alice Falls Hydro releases 20 cfs from the fish bypass facility and any
remaining flow is released over the spillway to Alice Falls.
    m. In addition to publishing the full text of this notice in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this notice, as well
as other documents in the proceeding (e.g., scoping document) via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last
three digits, in the docket number field to access the document (P-
5867). For assistance, contact FERC at [email protected] or
call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    n. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    o. Scoping Process:
    Commission staff will prepare either an environmental assessment
(EA) or an environmental impact statement (EIS) that describes and
evaluates the probable effects, if any, of the licensee's proposed
action and alternatives. The EA or EIS will consider environmental
impacts and reasonable alternatives to the proposed action. The
Commission's scoping process will help determine the required level of
analysis and satisfy the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
scoping requirements, irrespective of whether the Commission prepares
an EA or an EIS. At this time, we do not anticipate holding on-site
scoping meetings. Instead, we are soliciting written comments and
suggestions on the preliminary list of issues and alternatives to be
addressed in the NEPA document, as described in scoping document 1
(SD1), issued November 17, 2022.
    Copies of SD1 outlining the subject areas to be addressed in the
NEPA document were distributed to the parties on the Commission's
mailing list and the applicant's distribution list. Copies of SD1 may
be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call 1-866-
208-3676 or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 17, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-25590 Filed 11-22-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


May 1, 2014

TO: DOCKET EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0185

FROM:  Carol Bohnenkamp

SUBJECT:  Review of the Modeling for the Attainment Demonstration for the Proposed Rulemaking Action on the South Coast 2012 AQMP for the One Hour Ozone Standard

A. CAA and Regulatory Requirements for 1-Hour Ozone Air Quality Modeling and EPA Guidance

For any ozone nonattainment area classified as serious or above, section 182(c)(2)(A) of the CAA specifically requires the State to submit a modeled attainment demonstration based on a photochemical grid modeling evaluation or any other analytical method determined by the Administrator to be at least as effective as photochemical modeling. The following guidance documents describe the criteria that an air quality model and its application should meet to qualify for use in an ozone attainment demonstration.

   * Appendix W to 40 CFR part 51, as interpreted in EPA guidance. See, e.g., Guideline for Regulatory Application of the Urban Airshed Model, EPA-450/4-91-013 (July 1991);
   * "Guidance on Use of Modeled Results to Demonstrate Attainment of the Ozone NAAQS," EPA-454/B-95-007 (June 1996);
   * "Guidance for the 1-hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas that Rely on Weight-of-Evidence for Attainment Demonstrations, Mid-Course Review Guidance"(March 28, 2002);
   * "Guidance for Improving Weight-of-Evidence Through Identification of Additional Emission Reduction Not Modeled (November 1999);
   * "Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Air Quality Goals in Attainment Demonstrations for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze," April 2007.

These documents describe the components of the attainment demonstration, explain how the modeling and other analyses should be conducted, and provide overall guidance on the technical analyses for attainment demonstrations.

As with any predictive tool, inherent uncertainties are associated with photochemical grid modeling. EPA's guidance recognizes these limitations and provides recommended approaches for considering other analytical evidence to help assess whether attainment of the NAAQS is likely. This process is called a weight of evidence (WOE) analysis. EPA's modeling guidance (updated in 1996, 1999, and 2002) discusses various WOE analyses. The guidance recommends that all attainment demonstrations include supplemental analyses beyond the recommended modeling. These supplemental analyses provide additional information such as data analyses, and emissions and air quality trends, which would help strengthen the conclusion based on the photochemical grid modeling.

B. 1-Hour Attainment Demonstration Modeling and Weight of Evidence in the South Coast 2012 AQMP

1. Modeling Approaches for the SCAQMD Attainment Demonstration

a.  Photochemical Grid Model.

The model selected for the Final 2012 AQMP 1 - hour ozone attainment demonstration was developed using the U.S. EPA supported Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) (version 4.7) air quality modeling platform with Statewide Air Pollution Research Center-99 (SAPRC99) chemistry, and the Weather Research and Forecasting Model (WRF) (version 3.3) meteorological fields. The modeling system (including the photochemical model, meteorological inputs, and chemical mechanism) is consistent with the previous advice of outside peer reviewers. CMAQ is a state-of-the-art air quality model that can simulate ozone and PM2.5 concentrations together in a "one-atmosphere" approach for attainment demonstrations.

Table 1: Summary of Final 2012 AQMP 1-hour Ozone Model Selection and Modeling Protocol Final 2012 AQMP 1-Hour Ozone Modeling Protocol

Ozone

Dispersion Platform:  CMAQ
Chemistry:  SAPRC99

Domain/ Coordinates

Expanded SCOS97
Meteorology, Emissions and Model application:  Lambert Conformal
Grid:  4 Km X 4 Km

Ozone: 18 layers

Emissions Inventories
   *    2008 Base year
   *    Day-Specific Emissions
   *    Shipping emissions split into 2 layers
   *    EMFAC2011
         o 3- modules
         o Modified DTIM
   *    Adjustments to fugitive PM2.5 Paved road U.S. EPA with CA modifications
   *    Day-Specific Biogenic emissions
   *    Revised Mexican emissions profile

Meteorology
   *    WRF initialized with NCEP data with FDDA

Air Quality Model Performance
      *    Assess model performance based on both 1-hour statistics: Normalized  gross bias
      Normalized gross error
      Peak prediction accuracy
   *    60 ppb threshold (both indices)
   *    49 Cell averaging

2008 Base Year Simulations
      June  -  August 2008
      92 days of simulations evaluated
      Peak Episode 6/18-6/21
Future Year Projections --  Deterministic Approach /Tiered RRF Approach
   *    2022

b. Episode Selection.
The attainment demonstration modeling focuses on 92 days of ozone air quality observed during June through August of the base year 2008. Overall, the 92 day period provides a robust description of the 2008 ozone meteorological season. During this period, there were 16 days with measured daily 1-hour maximum ozone concentrations of 125 ppb or higher at the Crestline monitoring site which is the monitoring site with the maximum number of exceedances.  Seven well defined multi-day ozone episodes occurred in the Basin. When assessed for a normalized meteorological ozone episode potential using a regression based weighting covering 30-years of data (1998-2010), the June 18-22, 2008 period was ranked in the 99th percentile. This episode contained the top four daily Basin ozone maximum concentrations for 2008 and was selected as the focus of the attainment demonstration.

c. Model Performance.
Model performance was evaluated in three zones in the South Coast Basin: the San Fernando Valley; the eastern San Gabriel, Riverside and San Bernardino Valleys; and Los Angeles and Orange County.

Figure 1: Model Performance Zones in the South Coast Basin:

      3). the San Fernando Valley;
      4). the eastern San Gabriel, Riverside and San Bernardino Valleys; and
      5). Los Angeles and Orange County.

Normalized Gross Bias, Normalized Gross Error, and Peak Prediction Accuracy were determined for each area.

Normalized Gross Bias <  +   15 Paired in space and time
Normalized Gross Error <   35 Paired in space (+2 grid cells) and time
Peak Prediction Accuracy < +   20 Unpaired in space and time

Although not a requirement for determining acceptable model performance, the performance statistics were compared to the EPA performance goals presented in guidance documents.

Table 2: June 18-22, 2008 Base Year 1-Hour Average Ozone Performance
  (Bold type indicates meeting statistical performance criteria).

 Date
                                               Zone 3

                                    Observed
                                      (ppb)
                                   Predicted
                                      (ppb)
                                    Unpaired
                                      Peak
                                      Ratio
                                   Normalized
                                   Bias* (ppb)
                                   Normalized
                                   Error* (ppb)
 618
                                        87
                                        93
   1.07
                                        -17
                                         25
 619
                                        95
                                       109
   1.15
                                         4
                                         18
 620
                                       111
                                        99
   0.89
                                        -10
                                         19
 621
                                       122
                                       107
   0.87
                                        -19
                                         20
 622
                                       123
                                        92
   0.75
                                        -29
                                         29

 Date
                                               Zone 4

                                    Observed
                                      (ppb)
                                   Predicted
                                      (ppb)
                                    Unpaired
                                      Peak
                                      Ratio
                                   Normalized
                                   Bias* (ppb)
                                   Normalized
                                   Error* (ppb)
 618
                                       162
                                       123
   0.76
                                        -17
                                         20
 619
                                       152
                                       136
   0.90
                                         -1
                                         18
 620
                                       176
                                       129
   0.73
                                        -12
                                         16
 621
                                       156
                                       150
   0.96
                                         -1
                                         18
 622
                                       123
                                       134
   1.09
                                         10
                                         21

 Date
                                               Zone 5

                                    Observed
                                      (ppb)
                                   Predicted
                                      (ppb)
                                    Unpaired
                                      Peak
                                      Ratio
                                   Normalized
                                   Bias* (ppb)
                                   Normalized
                                   Error* (ppb)
 618
                                       118
                                       107
   0.91
                                         0
                                         22
 619
                                       110
                                       111
   1.01
                                         11
                                         15
 620
                                       114
                                       106
   0.93
                                         0
                                         13
 621
                                       107
                                       115
   1.07
                                         4
                                         12
 622
                                       107
                                       121
   1.13
                                         13
                                         19

 Date
                                               Zone 3

                                    Observed
                                      (ppb)
                                   Predicted
                                      (ppb)
                                    Unpaired
                                      Peak
                                      Ratio
                                   Normalized
                                   Bias* (ppb)
                                   Normalized
                                   Error* (ppb)
 618
                                        87
                                        93
   1.07
                                        -17
                                         25
 619
                                        95
                                       109
   1.15
                                         4
                                         18
 620
                                       111
                                        99
   0.89
                                        -10
                                         19
 621
                                       122
                                       107
   0.87
                                        -19
                                         20
 622
                                       123
                                        92
   0.75
                                        -29
                                         29

 Date
                                               Zone 4

                                    Observed
                                      (ppb)
                                   Predicted
                                      (ppb)
                                    Unpaired
                                      Peak
                                      Ratio
                                   Normalized
                                   Bias* (ppb)
                                   Normalized
                                   Error* (ppb)
 618
                                       162
                                       123
   0.76
                                        -17
                                         20
 619
                                       152
                                       136
   0.90
                                         -1
                                         18
 620
                                       176
                                       129
   0.73
                                        -12
                                         16
 621
                                       156
                                       150
   0.96
                                         -1
                                         18
 622
                                       123
                                       134
   1.09
                                         10
                                         21

 Date
                                               Zone 5

                                    Observed
                                      (ppb)
                                   Predicted
                                      (ppb)
                                    Unpaired
                                      Peak
                                      Ratio
                                   Normalized
                                   Bias* (ppb)
                                   Normalized
                                   Error* (ppb)
 618
                                       118
                                       107
   0.91
                                         0
                                         22
 619
                                       110
                                       111
   1.01
                                         11
                                         15
 620
                                       114
                                       106
   0.93
                                         0
                                         13
 621
                                       107
                                       115
   1.07
                                         4
                                         12
 622
                                       107
                                       121
   1.13
                                         13
                                         19

*Normalized bias and normalized error calculated for hours where observations > 60 ppb

The performance goals for Normalized Gross Error and Peak Prediction Accuracy were met in the eastern San Gabriel, Riverside and San Bernardino Valleys. The statistic for bias (Normalized Gross Bias) tends to be negative, indicating that the model tends to slightly under-predict ozone. Both June 18th and June 20th failed to meet the model acceptance criteria for the unpaired peak analysis. As a result, the attainment demonstration focused on the June 19th and 21st, days with observed peak concentrations that closely matched the design values. Based on their analysis, South Coast concludes and EPA agrees that model performance is acceptable for this application.

2. Results of SCAQMD Modeling

Photochemical model simulations were conducted for the base year 2008 emissions, and future-year 2022 baseline and controlled emissions. The ozone attainment demonstration was based on the deterministic approach outlined in the "Guidance on Use of Modeled Results to Demonstrate Attainment of the Ozone NAAQS," EPA-454/B-95-007 (June 1996.) In addition, the weight of evidence analysis uses the model in a relative sense, using the relative response factor (RRF) technique described in the "Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Air Quality Goals in Attainment Demonstrations for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze," April 2007.

a. Modeled Attainment

The model predicted a maximum 1-hour ozone concentration for 2022 of 125 ppb (0.125 ppm) on June 19th at Pasadena. All other predicted concentrations during the five day episode are projected to be below a concentration of 0.12 ppm. The results of the attainment demonstration for 2022 indicate that, allowing for one day per year above the standard, the federal 1-hour ozone standard would be attained by 2022 at all monitors with the controlled emissions inventory. The attainment targets (410 tpd VOC and 150 tpd NOx) are based on both short-term and long-term control measures. With controls in place, it is expected that all stations in the South Coast ozone nonattainment area will meet the federal 1 -hour ozone standard in calendar year 2022.

b. Weight of Evidence Analysis

Relative reduction factor

The weight of evidence analysis for the ozone attainment demonstration relies on the use of site- specific relative response factors (RRFs) being applied to the 2008 weighted design values. The RRFs are determined from the future year controlled and the 2008 base year simulations. The results of the relative response factor analysis supports the deterministic attainment demonstration and the level of emission reductions needed for attainment.

The second element of the weight of evidence discussion utilizes the tiered RRF approach to determine station specific future year design concentrations based on base year 2008 emissions and 2022 controlled emissions.  The proposed methodology tiers the concentration threshold for accepting a simulation station day based on three criteria for evaluation: (1) the base year daily maximum concentration absolute prediction error (calculated for a station per episode day) must be 20 percent or less; (2) the observed station concentration must be within 25 percent of the design value; and (3) a minimum of four station specific days simulated must meet the error at the set concentration threshold for the RRF to be calculated. The 20 percent error criteria is the same level used in the 8-hour ozone analysis and the four day minimum was iteratively determined to provide a measure of robustness to the RRF calculation. Basically, the four day criteria represented a balance between an analysis based on a higher error criteria with potentially more days included at a higher concentration threshold vs. a limited set of better simulated station days with lower prediction error. Table VII-5-9 lists the impacted stations and the threshold concentration used for the RRF calculation. Also listed in Table VII-5-9 are the base year average percentage prediction bias and error for those days included in the future year projection. Overall, the base year tendency is towards under prediction.

Air Quality Data Trends

The most recent ambient air quality data that we have reviewed indicate that the area is on track to attain the 1-hour ozone standard by 2022.  The 1-hour ozone design value has decreased from 23.4 expected exceedence days 2000-2002 to 5.5 expected exceedence days in 2010-2012. The peak 1-hour concentration has decreased from 0.169 ppb in 2002 to 0.147 ppb in 2012.  The peak levels have decreased at all monitors throughout the South Coast Basin.

Figure 3:  South Coast Air Basin One hour Ozone Trends from 1990 to 2013  -  at Maximum Monitoring Site.

Figure 4:  South Coast Air Basin One hour Ozone Trends from 1990 to 2013  -  at All Monitors.

c. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Conclusion on the Modeling Demonstration

Our evaluation of the air quality modeling analyses and supporting information provided in the South Coast 2012 AQMP addressing 1-hour ozone indicate that the South Coast area will attain the 1-hour ozone standard by its attainment year of 2022. The appropriate episode days that represent days conducive to ozone formation in the South Coast Air Basin were selected.  The modeling platform, including photochemical model, domain, number of vertical layers, and initial and boundary conditions most appropriate for the South Coast Air Basin, and other factors are appropriate.  Finally, the performance of the selected modeling platform on each of the modeled episode days meets the performance criteria specified in EPA guidance. The modeling predicts attainment at all of the twenty ozone monitoring stations.

In addition to the attainment demonstration provided in the South Coast 2012AQMP, we have considered supplemental technical information, including ambient air quality monitoring data, which was not available at the time the attainment modeling was performed by SCAQMD. The modeling shows significant reductions in ozone from the base period.

References:

Appendix VII, Air Quality Management Plan, 1-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration, February 2013, South Coast Air Quality Management District.

Guideline for Regulatory Application of the Urban Airshed Model, EPA-450/4-91-013 (July 1991).

Guidance on Use of Modeled Results to Demonstrate Attainment of the Ozone NAAQS, EPA-454/B-95-007 (June 1996).

Guidance for the 1-hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas that Rely on Weight-of-Evidence for Attainment Demonstrations, Mid-Course Review Guidance (March 28, 2002).

Guidance for Improving Weight-of-Evidence Through Identification of Additional Emission Reduction Not Modeled (November 99).


[Federal Register: February 29, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 41)]
[CORRECTIONS]
[Page 11192]
[DOCID:fr29fe08-151]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0976; FRL-8526-8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Ohio; Oxides of Nitrogen Budget Trading Program

Correction

    In rule document E8-2506 beginning on page 8197 in the issue of
Wednesday, February 13, 2008, make the following correction:
    On page 8200, in the third column, under heading Subpart KK--Ohio,
in amendatory instruction 2., in the second line, ``(c)(141)'' should
read ``(c)(142)''.

[FR Doc. Z8-2506 Filed 2-28-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 132 (Monday, July 11, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 40598]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17191]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2010-1053; Airspace Docket No. 10-ASW-15]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Campbellton, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E airspace for Campbellton, TX,
to accommodate new Area Navigation (RNAV) Standard Instrument Approach
Procedures at 74 Ranch Airport. The FAA is taking this action to
enhance the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rule (IFR)
operations at the airport.

DATES: Effective date: 0901 UTC, October 20, 2011. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR Part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone (817) 321-
7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On April 12, 2011, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking to establish Class E airspace for
Campbellton, TX, creating controlled airspace at 74 Ranch Airport (76
FR 20280) Docket No. FAA-2010-1053. Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on
the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Class E airspace
designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9U dated
August 18, 2010, and effective September 15, 2010, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface for new standard instrument approach procedures at 74
Ranch Airport, Campbellton, TX. This action is necessary for the safety
and management of IFR operations at the airport.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, section 106, describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
subtitle VII, part A, subpart I, section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it establishes controlled airspace for 74 Ranch Airport,
Campbellton, TX.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9U, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15,
2010, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ASW TX E5 Campbellton, TX [New]

74 Ranch Airport, TX
    (Lat. 28[deg]41'06'' N., long. 98[deg]22'58'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.3-mile radius of 74 Ranch Airport, and within 4 miles
each side of the 324[deg] bearing from the airport extending from
the 6.3-mile radius of the airport to 10.1 miles northwest of the
airport, and within 4 miles each side of the 144[deg] bearing from
the airport extending from the 6.3-mile radius of the airport to 9.6
miles southeast of the airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on June 16, 2011.
Walter L. Tweedy,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2011-17191 Filed 7-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD DRIVE

ANN ARBOR, MI  48105-2498

									     OFFICE OF

									AIR AND RADIATION

8/7/15

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Test Procedure Review with Cummins, Volvo, Navistar, Paccar,
Eaton and Allison

FROM: James Sanchez

TO:  Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards
for Medium- and

Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles - Phase 2 - Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827

This memo documents communication on August 7th, 2015 between
representatives of Cummins, Navistar, Paccar, Eaton, Allison, and EPA to
discuss heavy-duty test procedures proposed in the Phase 2 greenhouse
gas and fuel efficiency standards for heavy-duty vehicles notice of
proposed rulemaking.

Participants:

Cummins – Jackie Yeager, Manik Narula

Eaton – Erik Dykes

EPA – Houshun Zhang

Navistar – David Gardner, Cortney Guzlas

PACCAR – Dan Kieffer

Allison – Jeff Shultz, Laverne Spears

Discussion and follow-up items (with owner's name in bold):

“Hybrid” concept of alt map + ss map

EPA’s objective with combining the two mapping approaches is to
decrease test burden.

Discussed whether vocational would need more steady state points than
tractor.  Testing of ISB+Allison TX, gasoline engine may answer.

Discussed whether number of cycle average points could be reduced.
Risk of reducing interpolation accuracy.  Also being looked at by SwRI.

Industry group comments

Might depend on where EMA ends up

Invite Volvo and Daimler to join these calls – Jackie

EMA questions on cycle average map

How to define generic vehicle configurations – any need to normalize
cycle work as has been done in engine speed space?

Can two different vehicle configs give same cycle work and N/V but
different CO2?

Look in existing simulations from James – Manik

Any insight from testing (past or planned)?

Other

Next GEM release will be around August 18

Road grade changes – intent is to keep cycle time the same