[Federal Register: May 8, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 88)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 21578-21588]
[DOCID:fr08my09-16]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R02-OAR-2008-0497, FRL-8901-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Jersey
Ozone Attainment Demonstration

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing action
on the ozone attainment demonstration portion of a comprehensive State
Implementation Plan revision submitted by New Jersey to meet Clean Air
Act requirements for attaining the 8-hour ozone national ambient air
quality standard. EPA is proposing to disapprove New Jersey's
demonstration of attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 8, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket Number EPA-R02-
OAR-2008-0497, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
     Mail: Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866.
     Hand Delivery: Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional
Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to
4:30 excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket No. EPA-R02-OAR-2008-
0497. 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 e-mail.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov
your e-mail 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, 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 EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters or any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about 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 http://
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 http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental
Protection Agency, Region II Office, Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway,
25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. EPA requests, if at all
possible, that you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You
may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4
p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Kelly<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Air
Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What Action Is EPA Proposing?
II. Background Information
    A. History and Time Frame for the State's Attainment
Demonstration SIP
    B. Moderate Area Requirements
    C. Clean Air Act Requirement for Multi-State Ozone Nonattainment
Areas
III. What Was Included in New Jersey's SIP Submittals?
IV. EPA's Review and Technical Information
    A. Attainment Demonstration
    1. What Are the Components of a Modeled Attainment
Demonstration?
    2. What Were the Results of the State's Weight of Evidence
Analysis?
    a. EPA Requirements for the Weight of Evidence Analysis
    b. State's Weight of Evidence Argument and EPA's Evaluation
    c. Summary of Weight of Evidence Discussion
    3. What Is EPA's Evaluation?
V. What Are the Consequences of a Disapproved SIP?
    A. What Are the Act's Provisions for Sanctions?
    B. What Federal Implementation Plan Provisions Apply if a State
Fails to Submit an Approvable Plan?
    C. What Are the Ramifications Regarding Conformity?
VI. What Are EPA's Conclusions?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Action is EPA Proposing?

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed New Jersey's
comprehensive State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for attaining
the 0.08 ppm 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS
or standard) \1\ in the State of New Jersey's moderate nonattainment
areas along with other related Clean Air Act (Act) requirements
necessary to insure attainment of the standard. The EPA is proposing to
disapprove New Jersey's 8-hour ozone attainment demonstration because
the EPA has determined that the photochemical modeling does not
demonstrate attainment and the weight of evidence analysis that New
Jersey uses to support the attainment demonstration does not provide

sufficient evidence to provide confidence that the two nonattainment
areas located in New Jersey will attain the NAAQS by the June 2010
deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Unless otherwise specifically noted in the action,
references to the 8-hour ozone standard are to the 0.08 ppm ozone
standard promulgated in 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's analysis and findings are discussed in this proposed
rulemaking and a more detailed discussion is contained in the Technical
Support Document for this Proposal which is available on line at
www.regulations.gov, Docket number EPA-R02-OAR-2008-0497.

II. Background Information

A. History and Time Frame for the State's Attainment Demonstration SIP

    In 1997, EPA revised the health-based NAAQS for ozone, setting it
at 0.08 parts per million (ppm) averaged over an 8-hour time frame. EPA
set the 8-hour ozone standard based on scientific evidence
demonstrating that ozone causes adverse health effects at lower ozone
concentrations and over longer periods of time than was understood when
the pre-existing 1-hour ozone standard was set. EPA determined that the
8-hour standard would be more protective of human health, especially
with regard to children and adults who are active outdoors, and
individuals with a pre-existing respiratory disease, such as asthma.
    On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23951), EPA finalized its attainment/
nonattainment designations for areas across the country with respect to
the 8-hour ozone standard. These actions became effective on June 15,
2004. In addition, EPA promulgated its Phase 1 Rule for implementation
of the 8-hour standard, which provided how areas designated
nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standard would be classified (April
30, 2004 (69 FR 23951)). The entire state of New Jersey is classified
as being in nonattainment, divided between two 8-hour ozone moderate
nonattainment areas it shares with other states, the New York-Northern
New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area, and the
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE nonattainment area.
The New Jersey portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island,
NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area consists of the following New Jersey
counties: Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Hunterdon, Middlesex, Monmouth,
Morris, Passaic, Somerset, Sussex, Union and Warren. The New Jersey
portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE
nonattainment area consists of the following New Jersey counties:
Atlantic, Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Gloucester, Mercer,
Ocean and Salem.
    These designations triggered the Act's requirements under section
182(b) for moderate nonattainment areas, including a requirement to
submit an attainment demonstration. EPA's Phase 2 8-hour ozone
implementation rule, published on November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612)
(Phase 2 Rule) specifies that states must submit attainment
demonstrations for their nonattainment areas to the EPA by no later
than three years from the effective date of designation, that is, by
June 15, 2007. 40 CFR 51.908(a)

B. Moderate Area Requirements

    On November 29, 2005, EPA published the Phase 2 Implementation rule
which addresses the control obligations that apply to areas designated
nonattainment for the 8-hour NAAQS. Among other things, the Phase 1 and
Phase 2 Rules outline the SIP requirements and deadlines for various
requirements in areas designated as moderate nonattainment. For such
areas modeling and attainment demonstrations with projection year
emission inventories were due by June 15, 2007, along with reasonable
further progress plans, reasonably available control measures, motor
vehicle emissions budgets and contingency measures (40 CFR 51.908(a),
and (c) 59.910, 59.912). This action addresses New Jersey's
demonstration of attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard, which for
moderate areas is to be attained by the ozone season before the
attainment date of June 2010. In order to demonstrate attainment by
June 2010, the area must adopt and implement all controls necessary for
attainment by the beginning of the 2009 ozone season and demonstrate
that the level of the standard will be met during the 2009 ozone
season.

C. Clean Air Act Requirement for Multi-State Ozone Nonattainment Areas

    Section 182(j) of the Clean Air Act requires each state within a
multi-state ozone nonattainment area to specifically use photochemical
grid modeling and take all reasonable steps to coordinate,
substantively and procedurally, the revisions and implementation of
State implementation plans applicable to the nonattainment area
concerned. Under this subsection of the Clean Air Act, EPA may not
approve any SIP revision for a State that fails to comply with these
requirements.

III. What Was Included in New Jersey's SIP Submittals?

    After completing the appropriate public notice and comment
procedures, New Jersey made a submittal in order to address the Act's
8-hour ozone attainment requirements identified in Section II.A.2. On
October 29, 2007, New Jersey submitted a comprehensive 8-hour ozone SIP
for the New Jersey portions of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long
Island, NY-NJ-CT and the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-
MD-DE nonattainment areas. It included attainment demonstrations,
reasonable further progress (RFP) plans for 2008 and 2009, reasonably
available control measures analyses for both areas, contingency
measures, on-road motor vehicle emission budgets, and general
conformity emission budgets for McGuire Air Force Base and Lakehurst
Naval Air Station. This SIP revision was subject to notice and comment
by the public and the State addressed the comments received on the
proposed SIPs before adopting the plans and submitting them for EPA
review and approval into the SIP.
    Only the attainment demonstration is evaluated in this proposal.
EPA has evaluated and proposed action on the other portions of New
Jersey's SIP in a separate Federal Register action. See 74 FR 2945,
January 16, 2009.

IV. EPA's Review and Technical Information

A. Attainment Demonstration

1. What Are the Components of a Modeled Attainment Demonstration?
    Section 110(a)(2)(k) of the Clean Air Act requires states to
prepare air quality modeling to demonstrate how they will meet ambient
air quality standards. EPA determined that states must use
photochemical grid modeling, or any other analytical method determined
by the Administrator to be at least as effective, to demonstrate
attainment of the ozone health-based standard in areas classified as
`moderate' or above, and to do so by the required attainment date. See
40 CFR 51.908(c). In 40 CFR 51.903, EPA specified how areas would be
classified with regard to the 8-hour ozone standard set by EPA in 1997.
EPA followed these procedures and classified the Philadelphia-
Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD and New York-Northern New Jersey-
Long Island, NY-NJ-CT ozone nonattainment areas as moderate (69 FR
23858). Since the attainment date is June 2010 for moderate areas,
these areas must achieve emission reductions by the beginning of the
ozone season of 2009 in order for ozone concentrations to be reduced
and meet the level of the standard during the last complete ozone
season before the 2010 deadline. See 40 CFR 51.908(d).

    EPA's photochemical modeling guidance is found at Guidance on the
Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air
Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze, EPA-454/B-07-002,
April 2007. The photochemical modeling guidance is divided into two
parts. One part describes how to use a photochemical grid model for
ozone to assess whether an area will come into attainment of the air
quality standard. A second part describes how the user should perform
supplemental analyses, using various analytical methods, to determine
if the model overpredicts, underpredicts, or accurately predicts the
air quality improvement projected to occur by the attainment date. The
guidance indicates that states should review these supplemental
analyses, in combination with the modeling analysis, in a ``weight of
evidence'' assessment to determine whether each area is likely to
achieve timely attainment.
    New Jersey's SIP submittal (also referred to as the New Jersey SIP)
addresses each of the elements of a modeling attainment demonstration.
The submittal explains how on warm, sunny days, winds at the surface
and aloft move emissions from sources of ozone-forming chemicals within
and outside New Jersey to create high ozone concentrations in New
Jersey. In addition, it indicates that emissions from large combustion
sources are transported eastward by upper level winds to the east
coast, adding to the ozone formed locally.
    The Ozone Transport Commission's (OTC's) Modeling Committee
developed a protocol for modeling the ozone problem in the northeastern
United States. The OTC Modeling Committee coordinated preparing and
running the photochemical grid model. It chose the Community Multi-
scale Air Quality Model (CMAQ) as the photochemical grid model of
choice. EPA concurs that this model is appropriate for modeling the
formation and distribution of ozone. The model domain covered almost
all of the eastern United States, with a high-resolution grid covering
the states in the northeast ozone transport region, including New
Jersey.
    The OTC Modeling Committee used weather data for the entire 2002
ozone season in the CMAQ. 2002 was the base year for the attainment
plans and the year of the emission inventory used in the base year
modeling. Using a full ozone season covers many different weather
conditions when ozone episodes occur and exceeds EPA's recommendations
for episode selection. The OTC Modeling Committee used a Mesoscale
Meteorological model, version five (MM5), a weather forecast model
developed by Pennsylvania State University and the National Center for
Atmospheric Research for the weather conditions used by the
photochemical grid model. Details about how the states used the MM5
model are in Appendix D4 of New Jersey's SIP submittal.
    States across the eastern United States provided emissions
information from their sources to be used in the model. The Mid
Atlantic Regional Air Management Association (MARAMA) collected and
quality assured the states' emissions data and processed these data for
the photochemical grid model to use. The states also included the
control measures that were already adopted as well as the control
measures that the state was committing to adopt from a list of ``Beyond
On the Way'' (BOTW) control measures. The lists of control measures
provided by the states to be included in the modeling are summarized in
Table 1. Emissions data for the model from outside the Northeast was
obtained from other regional planning organizations. States provided
projected emissions for 2009 that account for emission changes due to
regulations the states plan to implement by the beginning of the 2009
ozone season, as well as expected growth. The modeling uses these
emissions to calculate ozone concentrations for the attainment ozone
season of 2009.

                                                                          Table 1--Ozone Transport Region-Wide Modeling Assumptions for the 2009 BOTW Model Run
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                ICI boilers--area sources                  ICI boilers--non-EGU point sources
                                                              Consumer  PFC 2005/   Asphalt   Adhesives ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------   Cement     Glass     Asphalt
                                                              products     2009      paving       &      < 25 mmBtu/    25-50      50-100    < 25 mmBtu/    25-50      50-100      100-250   >250 mmBtu/   kilns     furnaces    plants
                                                             2005/2009                         sealants      hr       mmBtu/hr    mmBtu/hr       hr       mmBtu/hr    mmBtu/hr    mmBtu/hr       hr
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY NAA:
    Connecticut............................................         X          X          X          X           X           X           X           X           X           X           X   ..........  .........  .........         X
    New Jersey.............................................         X          X          X          X   ..........          X           X           X   ..........  ..........          X   ..........  .........  .........  .........
    New York...............................................         X          X          X          X           X           X           X           X           X           X           X   ..........         X          X          X
Phila. NAA:
    Delaware...............................................         X          X   .........         X   ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........          X   ..........  .........  .........  .........
    Maryland...............................................         X          X          X          X   ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........          X   ..........         X          X   .........
    New Jersey.............................................         X          X          X          X   ..........          X           X           X   ..........  ..........          X   ..........  .........  .........  .........
    Pennsylvania...........................................         X          X   .........         X   ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  .........         X   .........
Other States:
    Maine..................................................         X          X   .........         X   ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........         X   .........  .........
    New Hampshire..........................................         X          X          X   .........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........          X           X           X   ..........  .........  .........  .........
    Vermont................................................  .........  .........  .........  .........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  .........  .........  .........
    Massachusetts..........................................         X   .........         X          X   ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  .........         X   .........
    Rhode Island...........................................         X          X          X          X   ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  .........  .........  .........
    DC.....................................................         X          X          X          X   ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  .........  .........         X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Source: MACTEC. Development of Emission Projections for 2009, 2012, and 2018 for NonEGU Point, Area, and Nonroad Sources in the MANE-VU Region, Final TSD. Prepared for the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association by MACTEC
  Federal Programs, Inc., February 28, 2007.

    The states that share nonattainment areas with New Jersey have
chosen to adopt different sets of control strategies, as shown in Table
1. This Table does not include additional measures that New Jersey has
labeled as ``quantifiable additional measures'' and ``unquantifiable
additional measures.'' These additional measures, that New Jersey's SIP
submittal indicates are necessary to show attainment of the ozone
standard, were not included in the photochemical grid modeling. Some,
but not all, of New Jersey's neighboring states are planning to
implement these additional measures.
    The performance of the CMAQ photochemical grid model in predicting
ozone, and the chemicals that form ozone, met EPA's guidelines for
model performance. The model outputs are generally consistent with the
day-to-day patterns of observed data, with low bias and error. The OTC
Modeling Committee noted that the modeling system tends to overpredict
low concentrations and slightly underpredict peak concentrations. EPA
concurs with New Jersey's assessment that the model was properly set
up, met all EPA performance requirements and was appropriate for use in
New Jersey's nonattainment areas.
    For the attainment analysis, the states used the results from the
photochemical

grid model in a relative sense, as recommended by EPA's photochemical
modeling guidance, by calculating the difference between ozone
predicted by the photochemical grid model in 2002 and ozone predicted
using the emission controls New Jersey and other states planned to have
in place by 2009.\2\ To meet EPA's attainment test, when the difference
in ozone from 2002 to 2009 is applied to the baseline air quality data
centered in the base year of 2002, the resulting 2009 prediction must
be that ozone is less than 85 parts per billion (ppb) at all monitoring
stations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This action refers to the modeling predicting ozone in 2009
as a surrogate for attaining with the three-year design value, and
is not a literal prediction for the 2009 ozone season. Since the
attainment date is June 2010 for New Jersey's areas, these areas
must achieve emission reductions by the beginning of the ozone
season of 2009 in order for ozone concentrations to be reduced, and
meet the level of the standard, during the last complete ozone
season before the 2010 deadline. (See 40 CFR 51.908(d).)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, the basic photochemical grid modeling used by New
Jersey in its SIP submittal meets EPA's guidelines and, when used with
the methods recommended in EPA's modeling guidance, is acceptable to
EPA. When New Jersey applies EPA's methods to its data, using the
photochemical grid model that includes the modeled emission reduction
strategies prepared by New Jersey and the OTC states, it predicts that
ozone levels in the attainment year would be 92 ppb in the
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD and 90 ppb in the
New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT ozone nonattainment
areas. Thus, the photochemical model predicts New Jersey will not reach
the 84 ppb concentration level that marks attainment of the ozone
standard by the 2009 ozone season.
2. What Were the Results of the State's Weight of Evidence Analysis?
a. EPA Requirements for the Weight of Evidence Analysis
    EPA's photochemical modeling guidance strongly recommends states
complement the photochemical air quality modeling in situations where
modeling predicts the area to be close to (within several parts per
billion of) the ozone standard. While this is not the case in New
Jersey where photochemical modeling predicts levels significantly
greater than the ozone standard, New Jersey nevertheless chose to
perform additional analyses to determine if attainment could be
demonstrated. EPA can accept results of additional analyses to be used
in a weight of evidence determination to show that attainment is likely
in spite of photochemical modeling predictions to the contrary.
However, the greater the difference between the ozone standard and the
photochemical modeling predictions, the more compelling the additional
evidence produced by these additional analyses needs to be. EPA notes
in its guidance that if the concentration predicted by the
photochemical model is 88 ppb or higher, it is far less likely that the
more qualitative arguments made in a weight of evidence determination
can be sufficiently convincing to conclude that the ozone standard will
be attained. In New Jersey's case, the photochemical model predictions
of 92 ppb in the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD and
90 ppb in the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT ozone
nonattainment areas exceed 88 ppb. Thus the evidence needed to show
that these areas will actually attain the ozone standard, despite the
model's predictions, must be very compelling for EPA to approve these
attainment demonstrations.
b. State's Weight of Evidence Argument and EPA's Evaluation
    The photochemical modeling results, used in accordance with EPA's
guidelines, predict that New Jersey's nonattainment areas will not
attain by a wide margin by the 2009 ozone season. New Jersey's SIP
submittal uses alternatives to the EPA guideline methods to adjust for
perceived flaws in the photochemical grid model and estimate the ozone
reductions that may be produced by additional measures not included in
the model. New Jersey supports their alternatives using data and
scientific research to make the case that its nonattainment areas could
attain the ozone standard by the 2009 ozone season.
    EPA has carefully reviewed New Jersey's attainment demonstration
including these supplementary data and research studies. EPA attempted
to determine if the additional information provided by New Jersey is an
acceptable supplement to the photochemical grid modeling and can be
approved by EPA to meet the Clean Air Act requirement as ``* * * any
other analytical method determined * * * to be at least as effective''
to supplement the photochemical grid modeling (40 CFR 51.908). EPA has
evaluated the information provided by the State and other information
relevant to whether or not New Jersey's ozone nonattainment areas will
attain the ozone standard by 2009 and concludes that this information
does not demonstrate that New Jersey will attain the ozone standard by
2009. We discuss the details of New Jersey's analyses and EPA's
conclusions in the sections that follow.
    New Jersey's weight of evidence assessment considers two approaches
to ``adjust'' the photochemical model predictions in 2009. One approach
predicts that neither of the two nonattainment areas in which New
Jersey is located will attain the standard in 2009 based on modeling
alone. The second approach predicts the New York-Northern New Jersey-
Long Island, NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area could attain the standard in
2009 based on adjusted photochemical modeling predictions. New Jersey's
SIP submittal, Table ES.1 (summarized in Table 2), provides the results
of New Jersey's analyses of attainment of the ozone standard. The
submittal summarizes New Jersey's attainment demonstration in these
words: ``Table ES.1 presents the results for the two controlling
monitors in the multi-state nonattainment areas associated with New
Jersey. The results indicated that it is plausible for both areas to
reach attainment by June 15, 2010.'' EPA draws attention to this
statement since New Jersey's technical analysis does not assert that
attainment is likely or that attainment is certain within some set of
parameters.

                                                                Table 2--2009 Ozone Design Values Predicted in the New Jersey SIP
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Alternative baseline and                                         Effect of emissions
    Site name, county and state        Photochemical grid modeling    maximum  reduction (approach       Adjusted for transport       quantified but not modeled   Estimated effect of emissions
                                                 result                            1)                         (approach 2)                       \1\                     not quantified \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stratford, Fairfield Co., CT \3\...  90 ppb........................  83 ppb........................  85 ppb.......................  -0.2 to -2 ppb...............  -1 to -3 ppb.
Colliers Mills, Ocean Co., NJ \4\..  92 ppb........................  86 ppb........................  85 ppb.......................  -0.3 to -4 ppb...............  -1 to -3 ppb.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Attainment of the ozone standard is 84 ppb or less.

\1\ From New Jersey SIP submittal, Table 5.11 and Section <IP_ADDRESS>.
\2\ From New Jersey SIP submittal, Section 5.4.5.
\3\ New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area.
\4\ Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD nonattainment area.

    In the case of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-
MD and New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT nonattainment
areas, represented in Table 2 by the Colliers Mills and Stratford
monitoring sites, respectively, New Jersey notes that attainment is
``plausible'' if the modeled results are adjusted and if New Jersey
accounts for the effects of implementing additional measures not
considered in the photochemical modeling. While New Jersey's SIP
submittal states it expects to implement these additional measures, New
Jersey notes that they are not part of New Jersey's attainment
demonstration SIP.
    As noted previously, the second approach to adjusting the
photochemical modeling predictions, which relies on adjustments to the
base line data and amount of reduction predicted by the modeling,
predicts 2009 concentrations to be less than the 85 ppb ozone standard
only in the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT New York
City ozone nonattainment area. See the results for the Stratford, CT
receptor in Table 2. For the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-
NJ-DE-MD area, neither approach to adjusting the photochemical modeling
demonstrates attainment. See the results for the Colliers Mills, NJ
receptor in Table 2. New Jersey relies on additional emission control
measures to argue that the NAAQS will be attained in 2009 in both of
its nonattainment areas. New Jersey estimates these additional measures
could reduce concentrations by anywhere from 1 ppb to 5 ppb at Colliers
Mills and from less than 1 ppb to 2 ppb at Stratford. EPA's evaluation
of these additional measures is discussed later in this action.
    New Jersey's attainment demonstration relies on all of the
following to demonstrate attainment by 2009 in both of its
nonattainment areas:
    (1) New Jersey uses an alternative to the modeling guidance method
that provides a 2002 starting point closer to attainment and a larger
ozone reduction than the modeling average,
    (2) New Jersey includes specified attainment measures which are not
yet implemented, but committed to in its SIP submittal, and
    (3) New Jersey relies on the benefits from additional measures
without specifically including them in the attainment demonstration.
    Even if these adjustments and assumptions are acceptable, the
additional measures not included in the modeling show attainment only
with the upper limit of the estimated benefits.
    The next step is to evaluate each of these assumptions in New
Jersey's SIP submittal to determine if they help demonstrate that
attainment by 2009 is likely.
    Table 2 includes the 2009 predicted ozone concentrations from the
photochemical grid modeling. Applying the methods recommended in EPA's
modeling guideline to the output from the photochemical grid model
results in predictions of ozone in 2009 to be 92 ppb for the
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD and 90 ppb for the
New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT areas. The modeled
concentrations in 2009 are significantly above the 84 ppb concentration
used as the benchmark for attaining the ozone air quality standard. As
previously noted, EPA does not rule out the use of alternative methods
even when the photochemical grid modeling results demonstrate the areas
are far from attaining the standard, but EPA's modeling guidance notes
that more qualitative results are less likely to support a conclusion
differing from the outcome of the modeled attainment test. The guidance
notes that, in most cases, considerable amounts of precursor control
(e.g., 20-25 percent or more) would be needed to lower projected ozone
design values even by 3 ppb.
 New Jersey's Adjustments to Modeled Results--Overview
    New Jersey used several different methods to calculate the ozone
for the attainment year, based on 2009's emissions--methods that
differed from EPA's modeling guidance. In the first approach, New
Jersey used alternative methods of calculating the base starting point
design value and the amount of reduction predicted by the model.
Combined, these two adjustments predict an attainment year ozone
concentration of 86 ppb in the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City,
PA-NJ-DE-MD nonattainment area and 83 ppb in the New York-Northern New
Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area, therefore attaining
the standard only in the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-
NJ-CT nonattainment area.
    The second approach used the results of scientific research to
adjust the ozone concentration predicted by photochemical grid
modeling. This approach predicts attainment year ozone concentrations
of 85 ppb in both the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-
MD and the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT
nonattainment areas. Using this approach, attainment is not reached
without additional measures in either of New Jersey's nonattainment
areas.
 New Jersey's Adjustments to Modeled Results--First Approach,
Part 1
    One of New Jersey's methods for adjusting the modeled results uses
alternative ways of calculating the base air quality value for 2002.
New Jersey's SIP submittal uses a straight five-year average of the
fourth-highest design value from 2000 to 2004. EPA's modeling guidance
recommends using an average of the three years of design value centered
on 2002, which creates a weighted five-year average. While New Jersey's
SIP submittal notes that EPA's method of providing a weighted average
baseline value weights the base year of 2002 more heavily than other
years, EPA intended this, so that the resulting value was influenced
the most by the ozone data from the base year of the emission
inventory. There are other ways of calculating a baseline value that
the State did not use. For example, for the peak ozone site of the
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD nonattainment area
at Colliers Mills:

    The EPA guideline method baseline is 105.7 ppb \3\;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The 2002 base air quality value for the modeling base year
is 106 ppb in New Jersey's SIP submittal. EPA's guideline method
results in a value of 105.7 ppb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    the New Jersey alternative baseline is 104 ppb;
    the 2002 design value is 112 ppb; and
    the 2003 designation design value, centered on 2002, is 106 ppb.

    Various methods could result in 2002's base year ozone of two ppb
lower than the modeling guidance method (New Jersey's five year average
centered on 2002) or as much as 7 ppb higher than the guidance method
(single design value from 2002). New Jersey relies on the lower end of
the range of possible results, and this brings the modeling result
closer to attainment. In addition,

the straight five-year average method used by New Jersey, while
centered on 2002, is skewed by giving 2004 as much influence as other
years. The ozone data from 2004 includes the effects of reductions made
between the base year 2002 and the attainment year of 2009, when major
reduction in nitrogen oxides (NOX) occurred and are
accounted for in the photochemical grid modeling. Specifically, EPA's
NOX SIP Call and NOX Budget Trading Program
produced significant reductions before the 2004 ozone season. The
summer of 2004 was also a cooler than normal summer, possibly biasing
the base value further downward toward attainment. In an unweighted
five-year average, 2004 has as much influence on the result as each of
the other four years, so it provides a significant bias toward
attainment. Selecting only a method that is lower than the recommended
method is not a balanced use of the weight of evidence analysis. In
this case, there are equally plausible alternatives that produce higher
values. EPA does not find New Jersey's selected method of adjusting the
base design value to be sufficiently justified and cannot accept it as
a supplemental method of demonstrating attainment.
 New Jersey's Adjustments to Modeled Results--First Approach,
Part 2
    In order to predict an ozone design value for the attainment year,
2009, it is important to know how much ozone will decrease from the
base year to the attainment year. The modeling predicts ozone in 2002
and 2009 using each year's emissions and taking the difference between
them. EPA's modeling guidance suggests using the average percent change
in ozone at grid cells around a monitoring site.
    For the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD
nonattainment area the percent reduction in ozone between 2002 and 2009
was 9.5 percent at the peak monitor and varied across monitoring sites
from 6.1 percent to 12.2 percent. New Jersey's SIP submittal uses the
greatest reduction from all of the monitoring sites instead of using
the site-specific value for each of the monitoring sites. Using the
largest reduction from any site in the entire area may not be any more
correct than using the least reduction from any site in the entire
area. New Jersey's alternative method is not acceptable in the weight
of evidence analysis because other methods can produce equally
plausible changes in ozone that result in higher 2009 predicted ozone
concentrations than New Jersey's alternative method. EPA does not find
New Jersey's selection of this adjustment sufficiently justified and
cannot accept it as a supplemental method of demonstrating attainment.
 New Jersey's Adjustments to Modeled Results--Second Approach--
The Sensitivity of the Photochemical Grid Model to Changes in Emissions
That Cause Ozone
    New Jersey's SIP submittal includes analyses as to whether the
photochemical grid model provides for too little ozone reduction for
the emissions reductions used in the photochemical grid modeling
(particularly long-range transport of ozone and ozone-forming chemical
compounds). New Jersey makes the case that, if the model does not
properly account for transport, future ozone would be lower than
predicted by the photochemical grid model. Therefore, New Jersey
proposes adjusting the modeling results downward by 5 ppb to 7 ppb.
Thus, New Jersey projects 2009 ozone of 85 ppb in both the
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD and New York-
Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT nonattainment areas.
    New Jersey's analysis relies on other studies that suggest the
model underpredicts ozone transported aloft and which, if corrected,
would result in lower predictions in the future. For example, New
Jersey cites ambient data from sites that are strongly affected by
transported ozone to support the proposition that the model may have a
slight bias toward overprediction of the 2009 attainment year ozone.
Some aircraft vertical soundings from 2002 show that modeled ozone is
less than predicted by the model. This is important in the
photochemical grid model since ozone is transported aloft from areas
with high emissions of ozone-forming compounds--areas where large
reductions in emissions are expected due to EPA's NOX SIP
Call and NOX Budget Trading Program. New Jersey is concerned
that the change in ozone from these areas may also be underpredicted.
However, the same document also notes that ozone formed along the
surface from local sources may be underestimated. EPA is concerned that
New Jersey's SIP does not adequately allow for the possibility that the
model is giving too much credit to these surface layer ozone
reductions, which should be accounted for in New Jersey's submittal, if
it desires to adjust the modeling results for a possible lack of credit
from distant emission sources.
    New Jersey's SIP submittal cites research on ozone concentrations
during an electrical blackout in the recent past that suggests the
model underpredicts the amount of ozone reduction that actually
occurred during the electrical blackout. During the blackout, measured
ozone in rural areas west of New Jersey was lower because some power
plants and some other major sources of ozone-forming compounds were
shut down. A study cited by New Jersey used a photochemical grid model
to estimate the effect of the blackout by calculating the change in
ozone with and without the sources that were shutdown during the
blackout. Another study compared ozone on the blackout day with a past
high ozone day with more typical emissions but with similar weather and
wind patterns to the blackout day. New Jersey's concern was that the
modeled change was less than the change in ozone between the more
typical day and the blackout day. New Jersey concludes from this that
the model is not responsive enough to reductions in transported
emissions. However, no two days are the same and comparing two
particular ozone episodes is never exact. The emissions of precursors
that produce ozone and the meteorological patterns on the day of and
the days preceding the blackout will never occur the same way twice.
Another study that EPA finds persuasive shows that the ``typical'' day
had winds coming from areas that were not the ones most affected by the
blackout. So, EPA believes the comparison of the typical and blackout
days is not convincing because the blackout and typical days have ozone
precursors arriving from different areas. Also, these studies cited by
New Jersey did not look at the effect of the blackout on air quality in
the urban nonattainment areas like those in New Jersey. EPA concludes
that while the blackout study provides some information as to the
effectiveness of reducing emissions on ozone air quality, the blackout
day and the more typical day used for comparison have ozone precursors
from different areas and does not demonstrate that the model is not
responsive enough to changes in ozone precursor emissions.
    After careful review of these studies, EPA has found significant
uncertainties in the SIP submittal's technical analysis and therefore
does not accept New Jersey's conclusion that the modeling system
underpredicts changes in ozone as emissions change. Arguments in New
Jersey's SIP submittal that the model may not give full credit for
emission reductions are supported by limited modeling work. The states
have not tested their hypothesis with their own modeling. There are
other studies and ambient data that suggest contradictory

conclusions. EPA believes any additional ozone reductions beyond the
photochemical modeling are likely to be far less than the 5 to 7 ppb
claimed in the New Jersey SIP submittal. Therefore, EPA concludes that
New Jersey's adjustments to the photochemical grid modeling results are
not supported by the information provided.
 New Jersey's Adjustments to Modeled Results--Evidence of
Improvement Based on Air Quality Through 2006
    New Jersey points out that measured design values in the
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD and New York-
Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT areas in 2006 were close to
the concentrations predicted by the photochemical grid model for 2009.
With the passage of time since New Jersey submitted its SIP revision,
EPA can use more recent air quality data to evaluate New Jersey's
comparison of the modeled results to actual air quality. These more
recent measurements, data from 2007 and preliminary air quality data
from 2008, are significantly higher than the ozone standards. For
example, when measured air quality data for 2007 are included, the
design value remains the same or increases in New Jersey's ozone
nonattainment areas. Ozone design values appear to be moving more
slowly toward attainment from 2006 to 2008 because the design values in
2006 were biased low by the cooler-than-normal summer of 2004 and more
recent design values are more indicative of typical air quality in New
Jersey's nonattainment areas.
    The observed 2007 design values are well above the values predicted
by the photochemical grid modeling (using the EPA guideline
methodology). These data contradict the argument that the modeling
system is overpredicting ozone in the attainment year. Note that EPA is
relying on air quality data only as a supporting argument for EPA's
determination, discussed earlier, that New Jersey's nonattainment areas
will not attain the ozone standard by the 2009 ozone season. Later in
this action, EPA reviews the effect of more recent measured ozone data
on the proposition that emission reductions expected in 2008 and 2009
will be enough to reduce ozone to attainment levels by 2009.
 Accounting for Additional Emission Reduction Measures Not in
Modeled Results
    New Jersey's weight of evidence analysis also attempts to quantify
some emission reductions not included in the modeling. There are two
kinds of additional reductions that were not included in the
photochemical grid modeling: reductions that New Jersey can quantify
and other reductions that are harder to quantify. The most effective
way to predict changes in ozone is through air quality modeling;
however, New Jersey did not perform additional modeling runs including
these additional measures. The New Jersey weight of evidence analysis
includes an attempt to project the effect of these measures. For the
additional emission reductions New Jersey describes as
``quantifiable,'' New Jersey extrapolates data from modeling discussed
in its SIP submittal. For the additional emission reductions New Jersey
describes as ``unquantifiable,'' New Jersey uses previously modeled
sensitivity studies of mobile source controls to estimate the impact of
these unquantified emission reductions on air quality. Numerically, for
the quantifiable measures, New Jersey uses extrapolation of the
photochemical modeling results to predict that additional measures will
reduce ozone by 0.3 to 4 ppb in the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic
City, PA-NJ-DE-MD area and 0.2 to 2 ppb in the New York-Northern New
Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT area.
    New Jersey's SIP submission indicates if the projected impact of
these two sets of measures is combined and their peak effects occurred
at the peak monitoring location, these additional measures could reduce
2009 ozone by 1 to 7 ppb for the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City,
PA-NJ-DE-MD area and 1 to 5 ppb for the New York-Northern New Jersey-
Long Island, NY-NJ-CT area. The photochemical grid modeling predicted
modeled air quality for 2009 to be above the standard by 8 ppb in
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD and above the
standard by 6 ppb in New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-
CT. Even assuming these additional measures produced the largest amount
of benefits estimated by New Jersey (which we believe would not be the
appropriate level to consider) New Jersey's nonattainment areas are
predicted not to attain the standard.
    For measures New Jersey classifies as ``non-quantifiable,'' its SIP
submittal notes that when the State of Maryland modeled reduced auto
emissions from decreased auto use due to telecommute programs,
reductions similar to those measures proposed by New Jersey as
unquantifiable, modeled ozone decreased by 1 to 3 ppb. EPA notes that
Maryland modeled a forty percent reduction in mobile source emissions
for the State's telecommute strategy. Maryland modeled the emission
reductions that would occur if forty percent of all drivers decided not
to drive to work on high ozone days; the model predicted ozone would be
reduced by 1 to 3 ppb.
    The additional strategies proposed by New Jersey, both the
quantifiable and the unquantifiable are not large enough to reduce
emissions by the equivalent of a forty percent reduction in motor
vehicle use. Consequently, there is no supporting information that New
Jersey's additional measures will reduce ozone by more than a few parts
per billion (and more likely, less), and certainly not by the 5 ppb to
7 ppb suggested by adding together the upper end of the estimates
provided in New Jersey's SIP submittal.
    New Jersey's attainment demonstration predicts attainment only if
EPA accepts the upper range of these emission reductions not included
in the modeling, plus adjustments to the model results. EPA does not
find sufficient support for either of these alternative analyses.
    While New Jersey has committed to adopt these additional measures
(see page 5-47 of the New Jersey SIP submittal, Table 5.11 ``Additional
Quantifiable Measures Not Included in the 2009 BOTW Modeling), New
Jersey has specifically not included these measures as part of its
attainment demonstration. Additionally, some of these measures are
being used to meet the contingency requirement should a nonattainment
area not attain by its attainment date. The State cannot rely on the
measures both for purposes of its attainment demonstration and for
contingency measures as contingency measures must be measures in
addition to those relied on to demonstrate attainment. Furthermore, in
order for a control measure's benefit to be creditable towards
attainment, the measures must be enforceable by the state and EPA and
included in the federally enforceable SIP. EPA allows for a limited
exception for voluntary measures, but New Jersey's additional measures,
even if they were included as part of New Jersey's attainment
demonstration, exceed the level of reductions that EPA would consider
for voluntary measures. Therefore, these measures cannot be relied upon
to make-up the difference between the modeling projection and
attainment.
 EPA's Analysis of the Impact of the Most Recent Air Quality
Data on Assertions of Attainment by 2009
    New Jersey did not have the 2007 air quality data when it submitted
its ozone attainment SIP revision. The 2006 design value (based on
2004-2006 data)

included air quality data from the cool summer of 2004 that had sharply
lower levels of ozone. Ozone data from 2007 appears to be more in line
with recent ozone seasons and not like the lower ozone concentrations
recorded during the cooler summer of 2004. While ozone concentrations
have decreased substantially since 2002 even when the 2004 data are
excluded, the use of data including the summer of 2004 leads to an
overly optimistic assessment of the 2004 to 2006 ozone concentrations
used in New Jersey's evaluation of the trend toward attainment.
    EPA is concerned that the additional measures included in New
Jersey's SIP submittal (but not relied on as part of the attainment
demonstration by New Jersey) and other measures implemented between now
and the 2009 ozone season will not be enough to reduce ozone from its
2007 levels of 93 ppb in both of New Jersey's nonattainment areas to
the 84 ppb ozone standard in 2009. Ozone levels have decreased in the
past five years, but would need to decrease another fifty percent or
more over the 2007 and 2008 ozone seasons to reach attainment in 2009.
    EPA estimates that the programs New Jersey says it will implement
between 2007 and 2009 could reduce emissions by an additional 7 to 10
percent of nitrogen oxides and 6 to 7 percent of volatile organic
compound emissions. This is less than half of the reductions that
occurred between 2002 and 2007. Also, improvements in ozone air quality
in the past five years were also assisted by reduced regional emissions
from EPA's NOX SIP Call and NOX Budget Trading Program as well as local
emission reductions in the northeast corridor. These measures produced
a significant decrease in ozone. However, the reductions from the NOX
SIP Call and NOX Budget Trading Program are completed, so further
reductions in transported ozone are likely to be minimal. This is
confirmed by data in EPA's 2007 Air Quality Trends Report, which shows
little decrease in regional reductions. Thus, it is not likely that
ozone will continue to decrease at the rate observed from 2002 to 2007
unless local emission reductions are expanded to amounts well beyond
those in the present federally enforceable SIP.
    The preliminary data from the 2008 ozone season \4\ decreases EPA's
confidence that New Jersey's nonattainment areas will be able to attain
the ozone standard by 2009. Including 2008's preliminary data, the
design values become 92 ppb in the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic
City, PA-NJ-DE-MD area and 89 ppb in the New York-Northern New Jersey-
Long Island, NY-NJ-CT area. EPA is not encouraged that the additional
measures being implemented by the states will bring ozone air quality
to attainment by 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Region 2 is using the preliminary data from the Air Quality
System or in some circumstances from the EPA-State real-time data
reporting system. These data have not completed the states' quality
assurance review. Certified 2008 ozone data were not available from
the states at the time of this notice. EPA anticipates that the
final data are not likely to change by more than one or two ppb from
the preliminary data used in EPA's assessment. Changes of this
amount would not change EPA's conclusions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sections 172(a)(2)(C) and 181(a)(5) of the Act provide for the
opportunity of up to two one-year extensions of the attainment date of
2010. EPA can grant an extension if all of the monitors in a
nonattainment area have a 4th highest daily 8-hour average in 2009 of
84 ppb or less and the State has complied with all requirements and
commitments pertaining to the area in the applicable implementation
plan. The historical ozone monitoring trends for New Jersey's ozone
nonattainment areas, supplemented with the preliminary fourth-highest
concentrations in 2008, support the view that the area is unlikely to
attain the ozone standard or even to have all monitors record a 4th-
highest 8-hour ozone of 84 ppb or less in 2009.
    In summary, recent ambient data also do not support the State's
contention that the model is underpredicting ozone for 2009, because if
this was the case, these areas would be closer to attainment based on
2007 and 2008 data. Additionally, there does not appear to be enough
evidence that additional emissions reductions over the next year will
achieve attainment or be sufficient to meet the air quality requirement
for an attainment date extension.
    Even including the preliminary data for 2008, air quality for the
past few years does not show lower ozone concentrations consistent with
attainment by the 2009 ozone season. These air quality data are similar
to the photochemical grid modeling results obtained by following the
methods in EPA's guidance, showing that adjustments to the modeling
results are not needed. It is unlikely that New Jersey's nonattainment
areas will attain the ozone standard by the attainment date.
c. Summary of Weight of Evidence Discussion
    With New Jersey's photochemical grid modeling results predicting a
2009 projected design value well above the air quality health standard
for New Jersey's nonattainment areas, the State has a heavy burden to
provide a demonstration that these areas will attain the ozone standard
by the attainment date. New Jersey needed to supply a substantial
amount of evidence that the model is seriously overestimating future
ozone concentrations. Modeling and air quality studies do not support
an argument that the model overpredicts concentrations in 2009.
Reductions anticipated to take effect between now and the beginning of
the 2009 ozone season are also not enough to close this gap. New Jersey
has suggested that it can adopt additional emission reduction
strategies which will reduce ozone, but these reductions are not yet in
place or are voluntary and mostly unquantifiable emission control
plans. They are not likely to reduce ozone enough to reach the standard
by 2009, even if they are implemented. EPA also cannot give much
credence to additional measures that New Jersey says it will implement,
but will not officially include as part of its attainment
demonstration.
    Ozone air quality concentrations through 2007 are far above the
level needed for attainment and it is unlikely that New Jersey and the
other states impacting these two nonattainment areas will be able to
implement enough additional emission controls to reach the standard by
2009. This is supported by the lack of improvement shown in the
preliminary air quality data from 2008. Also, the present air quality
data does not support the hypothesis that the models are incorrect. If
New Jersey's hypothesis was correct, present air quality concentrations
would be closer to the standard if New Jersey's nonattainment areas
were going to reach attainment in the upcoming 2009 ozone season, when
attainment is due.
    The information and calculations provided by New Jersey's SIP
emphasizes methods or data that support their claims that the
nonattainment areas could attain the standard by the deadline. EPA's
review of the ``weight of evidence'' analyses must evaluate a spectrum
of likely alternative calculations, not only those that tend to show
the area will attain the ozone standard. As noted before, the method
recommended by EPA's guidance and other reasonable variations on EPA's
methods predict the area will not attain the ozone standard by 2009.
New Jersey has provided considerable information in support of its
``weight of evidence.'' EPA has determined this information does not
demonstrate that the proposed

adjustments to the photochemical grid model's attainment year forecast
will give a more accurate answer than the calculations based on EPA's
recommendations in its modeling guidance.
3. What Is EPA's Evaluation?
    The result of the photochemical grid modeling analysis using EPA's
recommended methods predicts that New Jersey's nonattainment areas will
not attain the standard by the attainment year of 2009. In response to
this, New Jersey has offered a number of alternative methods for using
the modeling information and additional control strategies that when
taken together might plausibly demonstrate attainment.
    EPA has carefully evaluated the information provided by New Jersey
and other information it deems relevant to help predict whether ozone
air quality is likely to be in attainment of the ozone standard after
control measures are in place by the 2009 ozone season. Taking all this
information together, EPA finds the argument that attainment is likely
in 2009 is unconvincing, and EPA does not find the possibility that
attainment is plausible enough to satisfy the Clean Air Act requirement
that State Implementation Plans provide for attainment of the NAAQS by
the applicable attainment date.
    In general, EPA's conclusions can be summarized as follows:
     New Jersey's modeling, using an appropriate photochemical
grid model and EPA's guidance methods, does not predict attainment in
2009.
     New Jersey's attainment demonstration greatly relied on
adjustments to the baseline assumptions which formed the basis of the
photochemical modeling analysis. These adjustments to the base year
starting value and the amount of reduction in ozone from 2002 to 2009
differ from EPA's modeling guidance and, more importantly, are not
sufficiently justified, and are biased toward a conclusion that New
Jersey's nonattainment areas will attain the standard.
     New Jersey's attainment demonstration greatly relied on
research which evaluated the impact of a widespread power blackout to
develop an alternative approach to estimating anticipated air quality
improvements from upwind power plants. While EPA believes that this
approach provides some insight into the transport of ozone precursors,
a critical review of all the research available to EPA and New Jersey
leads EPA to disagree with the premise that the air quality modeling
results should be adjusted using New Jersey's alternative approaches.
     New Jersey's attainment demonstration relies, in part, on
emission reductions resulting from a commitment to adopt and implement
a number of regulations prior to the start of the 2009 ozone season.
Some of these were included in the photochemical grid modeling. These
regulations would provide for additional reductions from boilers,
refineries, power generation, consumer products and portable fuel
containers. New Jersey's SIP submittal contains a schedule to adopt
these regulations by May of 2008. While New Jersey has recently adopted
two rule packages, the third has yet to be proposed. EPA must discount
the effects of these relied-upon emission reductions since these
emission reductions may not be achieved by the start of the 2009 ozone
season.
     In order to insure attainment, New Jersey refers to
additional measures that were not included in the original
photochemical modeling analysis. New Jersey, however, has specifically
not included these measures as part of its attainment demonstration. In
order for a control measure's benefit to be creditable towards
attainment, the measures must be enforceable by the State and be
included in the federally enforceable SIP. As such, these additional
measures cannot be relied upon to make-up the difference between what
the modeling projects and what is needed for attainment.
     Some of New Jersey's additional measures can be
quantified, others cannot. While EPA encourages New Jersey to continue
to promote these worthwhile and important emission reduction programs,
the amount of tangible air quality benefit is difficult to estimate
with any degree of certainty. Even if these measures were adopted and
implemented, the emissions reductions are not sufficient to meet the
ozone standard in 2009 even by selecting the most favorable assumptions
of the benefits associated with these control measures.
     New Jersey used measured ozone through 2006 to support its
conclusion that the photochemical grid modeling was likely to be
incorrect in its prediction that New Jersey's nonattainment areas would
be far from attainment by 2009. However, when comparing more recent
data from 2007 and preliminary data from 2008 with the results of the
photochemical grid modeling using EPA's method, the photochemical grid
model does not exhibit the magnitude of inaccuracies suggested in New
Jersey's attainment demonstration.
     Regardless of the issues raised by New Jersey regarding
the performance of EPA's recommended air quality models, the air
quality measured during 2007 exceeded the ozone standard by a
significant margin. Even a linear comparison of the percentage of
additional emission reductions planned by the State with the needed
improvement in air quality between 2007 and 2009 indicates it is
unlikely that air quality will improve enough to meet the ozone
standard by 2009. Preliminary air quality data from 2008 is
sufficiently similar to 2007 air quality data to indicate that
attainment by 2009 is now even less likely.
     New Jersey, along with the other states sharing its
nonattainment areas, did not take sufficient steps as required by the
section 182(j) of the Act to coordinate with each other on the
implementation of SIP submittals applicable to the nonattainment areas.
The SIPs submitted by each of the states which share New Jersey's
nonattainment areas differ significantly in their level of emission
controls, and, to a lesser extent, modeling demonstrations. In
particular, for the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT
nonattainment area, the three states did not agree on the basic issue
of whether they will attain the ozone standard by the attainment date.
    For these reasons, EPA proposes to disapprove the attainment
demonstration portion of New Jersey's SIP submittal. The photochemical
grid modeling, performed according to EPA's guidelines, predicts New
Jersey's nonattainment areas will fall short of attaining the ozone
standard by a substantial margin. New Jersey provides extensive
information to argue that attainment is plausible if the modeled
results are adjusted and if additional measures (not included in the
modeling or the attainment demonstration) will be in place and are
effective. New Jersey's demonstration does not provide the level of
compelling evidence needed for EPA to have confidence that New Jersey's
nonattainment areas will actually attain the NAAQS by the June 2010
deadline.

V. What Are the Consequences of a Disapproved SIP?

    This section explains the consequences of a disapproval of a SIP
submittal under the Act. The Act provides for the imposition of
sanctions and the promulgation of a federal implementation plan (FIP)
if a state fails to submit a plan revision that corrects the
deficiencies identified by EPA in its disapproval.

A. What Are the Act's Provisions for Sanctions?

    If EPA disapproves a required SIP or component of a SIP, such as
the Attainment Demonstration SIP, section 179(a) provides for the
imposition of sanctions unless the deficiency is corrected within 18
months of the final rulemaking of disapproval. The first sanction would
apply 18 months after EPA disapproves the SIP if a state fails to make
the required submittal which EPA proposes to fully or conditionally
approve within that time. Under EPA's sanctions regulations, 40 CFR
52.31, the first sanction would be 2:1 offsets for sources subject to
the new source review requirements under section 173 of the Act. If a
state has still failed to submit a SIP revision for which EPA proposes
full or conditional approval 6 months after the first sanction is
imposed, the second sanction will apply. The second sanction is a
limitation on the receipt of Federal highway funds. EPA also has
authority under section 110(m) to sanction a broader area, but is not
proposing to take such action in today's rulemaking.

B. What Federal Implementation Plan Provisions Apply if a State Fails
To Submit an Approvable Plan?

    In addition to sanctions, if EPA finds that a state failed to
submit the required SIP revision or disapproves the required SIP
revision, or a portion thereof, EPA must promulgate a FIP no later than
2 years from the date of the finding if the deficiency has not been
corrected within that time period.

C. What Are the Ramifications Regarding Conformity?

    One consequence of EPA's disapproval of a control strategy SIP is a
conformity freeze whereby affected MPOs cannot make new conformity
determinations on long range transportation plans and transportation
improvement programs (TIPs). If we finalize the disapproval of the
attainment demonstration SIP, a conformity freeze will be in place as
of the effective date of the disapproval without a protective finding
of the budget. (40 CFR 93.120(a)(2)) This means that no transportation
plan, TIP, or project not in the first four years of the currently
conforming transportation plan and TIP or that meet the requirements of
40 CFR 93.104(f) during a 12-month lapse grace period \5\ may be found
to conform until another attainment demonstration SIP is submitted and
the motor vehicle emissions budgets are found adequate or the
attainment demonstration is approved. In addition, if the highway
funding sanction is implemented, the conformity status of the
transportation plan and TIP will lapse on the date of implementation of
the highway sanctions. During a conformity lapse, only projects that
are exempt from transportation conformity (e.g., road resurfacing,
safety projects, reconstruction of bridges without adding travel lanes,
bicycle and pedestrian facilities, etc.), transportation control
measures that are in the approved SIP and project phases that were
approved prior to the start of the lapse can proceed during the lapse.
No new project-level approvals or conformity determinations can be made
and no new transportation plan or TIP may be found to conform until
another attainment demonstration SIP is submitted and the motor vehicle
emissions budget is found adequate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Additional information on the implementation of the lapse
grace period can be found in the final transportation conformity
rule published on January 24, 2008. (73 FR 4423-4425)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. What Are EPA's Conclusions?

    EPA is proposing to disapprove New Jersey's attainment
demonstrations for the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-
CT and the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE 8-hour
ozone moderate nonattainment areas because New Jersey's demonstration
does not provide the level of compelling evidence for EPA to have
confidence that New Jersey's nonattainment areas will attain the NAAQS
by the June 2010 deadline.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and
is therefore not subject to review under the EO.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.,
because this proposed SIP disapproval under section 110 and subchapter
I, part D of the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself create any new
information collection burdens but simply disapproves certain State
requirements for inclusion into the SIP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.3(b).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule does not
impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities. This
proposed SIP disapproval under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of
the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements
but simply disapproves certain State requirements for inclusion into
the SIP. Accordingly, it affords no opportunity for EPA to fashion for
small entities less burdensome compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables or exemptions from all or part of the rule. The fact that
the Clean Air Act prescribes that various consequences (e.g., higher
offset requirements) may or will flow from this disapproval does not
mean that EPA either can or must conduct a regulatory flexibility
analysis for this action. Therefore, this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of this
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related
to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector. EPA has determined that the proposed disapproval action does
not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of
$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This action
proposes to disapprove pre-existing requirements under State or local
law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs
to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector,
result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely disapproves
certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP and does not
alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to this action.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP
EPA is proposing to disapprove would not apply in Indian country
located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying
only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks,
such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO has the
potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO
13045 because it is not an economically significant regulatory action
based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997). This proposed SIP disapproval under section 110
and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself
create any new regulations but simply disapproves certain State
requirements for inclusion into the SIP.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law No. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    The EPA believes that VCS this action is not subject to
requirements of Section 12(d) of NTTAA because application of those
requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.

 J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this proposed action. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's
role is to approve or disapprove state choices, based on the criteria
of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to
disapprove certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP under
section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act and will not
in-and-of itself create any new requirements. Accordingly, it does not
provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects,
using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive
Order 12898.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

    Dated: April 28, 2009.
George Pavlou,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. E9-10663 Filed 5-7-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: November 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 227)]
[Notices]
[Page 68607-68608]
[DOCID:fr27no06-98]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting
Comments, Protests, and Motions To Intervene

November 16, 2006.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Preliminary Permit.
    b. Project No.: 12745-000.
    c. Date filed: October 5, 2006.
    d. Applicant: Modesto Irrigation District and Turlock Irrigation
District.
    e. Name and Location of Project: The proposed Don Pedro Pumped
Storage Project would be located on the Tuolumne River, Don Pedro
Reservoir, Tuolumne County, California.
    f. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    g. Applicant contact: Donald H. Clarke, Law Offices of GKRSE, 1500
K Street, NW., Suite 330, Washington, DC 20005,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    h. FERC Contact: Tom Papsidero,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to
intervene: January 23, 2007.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with
Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Comments, protests and
interventions 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. Please include the project
number (P-12745-000) on any comments or motions filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person in 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.
    j. Description of Existing Facilities and Proposed Project: The
proposed project would consist of the following new facilities:
Alternative A--(1) an upper reservoir with a maximum storage capacity
of 25,000 acre-feet and a

surface area of 1,114 acres at normal water surface elevation of 1,565
feet above mean sea level (msl); (2) a one-half mile-long, 34-foot-
diameter tunnel to connect the upper reservoir with the existing Don
Pedro Reservoir; (3) a powerhouse with pump/turbines having an
installed capacity of approximately 880 megawatts (MW); (4) an intake
on the existing Don Pedro Reservoir, which would be used as the lower
reservoir; (5) a 47-mile-long, 230-kilovolt transmission line.
Alternative A of the proposed project would have an annual generation
of 1,541,000 MWh. Alternative B--(1) an upper reservoir with a maximum
storage capacity of 13,000 acre-feet and a surface area of 166 acres at
normal water surface elevation of 1,560 feet above mean sea level
(msl); (2) a 1.1-mile-long, 25-foot-diameter tunnel to connect the
upper reservoir with the existing Don Pedro Reservoir; (3) a powerhouse
with pump/turbines having an installed capacity of approximately 440
MW; (4) an intake on the existing Don Pedro Reservoir, which would be
used as the lower reservoir; (5) a 47-mile-long, 230-kilovolt
transmission line. Alternative B of the proposed project would have an
annual generation of 770,000 MWh.
    k. Location of Applications: A copy of the application is available
for inspection and reproduction at the Commission in the Public
Reference Room or may 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 toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is

also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item g
above.
    l. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    m. Competing Preliminary Permit--Anyone desiring to file a
competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project
must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to
file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application (see 18 CFR 4.36).
Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to
file the competing preliminary permit application no later than 30 days
after the specified comment date for the particular application. A
competing preliminary permit application must conform with 18 CFR
4.30(b) and 4.36.
    n. Competing Development Application--Any qualified development
applicant desiring to file a competing development application must
submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the
particular application, either a competing development application or a
notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely
notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested
person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after
the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing
license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30(b) and 4.36.
    o. Notice of Intent--A notice of intent must specify the exact
name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective
applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to
submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary
permit application or a development application (specify which type of
application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s)
named in this public notice.
    p. Proposed Scope of Studies under Permit--A preliminary permit, if
issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed
preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the
preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of
preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts.
Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide
whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to
construct and operate the project.
    q. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene--Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    r. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents--Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``NOTICE OF INTENT
TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION'', ``COMPETING APPLICATION'',
``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the Project
Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. Any of
the above-named documents must be filed by providing the original and
the number of copies provided by the Commission's regulations to: The
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. An additional copy must be sent to Director,
Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, at the above-mentioned address. A copy of any
notice of intent, competing application or motion to intervene must
also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in
the particular application.
    s. Agency Comments--Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-19928 Filed 11-24-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 24, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32745-32746]
[FR Doc No: 2016-12201]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP16-941-000.
    Applicants: Enable Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Filing--
Black Hills 3771--name change to be effective 3/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 5/11/16.
    Accession Number: 20160511-5202.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-942-000.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
    Description: Compliance filing TETLP Request for Waiver of OFO
Penalty Provisions.
    Filed Date: 5/11/16.
    Accession Number: 20160511-5245.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-943-000.
    Applicants: Vector Pipeline L.P.
    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Filing--EGD
& Peoples to be effective 6/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 5/12/16.
    Accession Number: 20160512-5034.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/24/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-944-000.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: May 2016 Negotiated Rate and
Non-conforming Agreements Cleanup to be effective 6/12/2016.
    Filed Date: 5/12/16.
    Accession Number: 20160512-5066.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/24/16.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but

intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP16-548-002.
    Applicants: Trans-Union Interstate Pipeline, L.P.
    Description: Compliance filing Compliance Filing to Docket RP16-548
to be effective 4/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 5/11/16.
    Accession Number: 20160511-5120.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/23/16.

    Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 12, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-12201 Filed 5-23-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P