[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 149 (Tuesday, August 4, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46271-46280]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18878]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

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

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

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

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

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions on the emissions data
and on how to submit comments on the emissions data and related
methodologies, contact Alison Eyth, Air Quality Assessment Division,
Environmental Protection Agency, C339-02, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For questions on the
air quality modeling and ozone contributions and how to submit comments
on the air quality modeling data and related methodologies, contact
Norm Possiel, Air Quality Assessment Division, Environmental Protection
Agency, C439-01, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC
27709; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

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

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

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

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

II. Air Quality Modeling Data and Methodologies

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

A. Identification of Projected 2017 Nonattainment and Maintenance Sites

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

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

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

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

           Table 1--2009-2013 and 2017 Average and Maximum Design Values at Projected Nonattainment Sites in the East (Top) and West (Bottom)
                                                                     [Units are ppb]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                2009-2013       2009-2013
           Monitor ID                        State                      County            average design  maximum design   2017 average    2017 maximum
                                                                                value           value       design value    design value
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
90013007........................  Connecticut...............  Fairfield.................            84.3            89.0            77.1            81.4
90019003........................  Connecticut...............  Fairfield.................            83.7            87.0            78.0            81.1
90099002........................  Connecticut...............  New Haven.................            85.7            89.0            77.2            80.2
240251001.......................  Maryland..................  Harford...................            90.0            93.0            81.3            84.0
360850067.......................  New York..................  Richmond..................            81.3            83.0            76.3            77.8
361030002.......................  New York..................  Suffolk...................            83.3            85.0            79.2            80.8
390610006.......................  Ohio......................  Hamilton..................            82.0            85.0            76.3            79.1
480391004.......................  Texas.....................  Brazoria..................            88.0            89.0            81.4            82.3
481210034.......................  Texas.....................  Denton....................            84.3            87.0            76.9            79.4
482011034.......................  Texas.....................  Harris....................            81.0            82.0            76.8            77.8
482011039.......................  Texas.....................  Harris....................            82.0            84.0            78.2            80.2
484392003.......................  Texas.....................  Tarrant...................            87.3            90.0            79.6            82.1
484393009.......................  Texas.....................  Tarrant...................            86.0            86.0            78.6            78.6
551170006.......................  Wisconsin.................  Sheboygan.................            84.3            87.0            77.0            79.4

60190007........................  California................  Fresno....................            94.7            95.0            89.0            89.3
60190011........................  California................  Fresno....................            93.0            96.0            87.6            90.4
60190242........................  California................  Fresno....................            91.7            95.0            87.1            90.3
60194001........................  California................  Fresno....................            90.7            92.0            84.2            85.4
60195001........................  California................  Fresno....................            97.0            99.0            90.6            92.5
60251003........................  California................  Imperial..................            81.0            82.0            79.3            80.3
60290007........................  California................  Kern......................            91.7            96.0            86.2            90.2
60290008........................  California................  Kern......................            86.3            88.0            80.6            82.2
60290011........................  California................  Kern......................            80.0            81.0            76.2            77.1
60290014........................  California................  Kern......................            87.7            89.0            82.8            84.0
60290232........................  California................  Kern......................            87.3            89.0            82.2            83.8
60295002........................  California................  Kern......................            90.0            91.0            84.5            85.5
60296001........................  California................  Kern......................            84.3            86.0            79.7            81.3
60311004........................  California................  Kings.....................            87.0            90.0            81.1            83.9
60370002........................  California................  Los Angeles...............            80.0            82.0            79.0            81.0
60370016........................  California................  Los Angeles...............            94.0            97.0            92.8            95.8
60371002........................  California................  Los Angeles...............            80.0            81.0            77.1            78.1
60371201........................  California................  Los Angeles...............            90.0            90.0            87.9            87.9
60371701........................  California................  Los Angeles...............            84.0            85.0            82.2            83.2
60372005........................  California................  Los Angeles...............            79.5            82.0            78.1            80.6
60376012........................  California................  Los Angeles...............            97.3            99.0            94.5            96.2
60379033........................  California................  Los Angeles...............            90.0            91.0            86.0            86.9
60392010........................  California................  Madera....................            85.0            86.0            79.8            80.8
60470003........................  California................  Merced....................            82.7            84.0            78.1            79.3
60610006........................  California................  Placer....................            84.0            86.0            78.2            80.0

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

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

40131004........................  Arizona...................  Maricopa..................            79.7            81.0            75.0            76.2
60170020........................  California................  El Dorado.................            82.7            84.0            75.1            76.3
60390004........................  California................  Madera....................            79.3            81.0            75.3            76.9
60610003........................  California................  Placer....................            83.0            85.0            75.4            77.2

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

B. Quantification of Interstate Ozone Contributions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

C. Air Quality Modeling Information Available for Public Comment

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

III. Emissions Data and Methodologies

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

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

A. Instructions for Submitting Emissions Comments and Alternative
Emissions Data

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

B. Emissions Information Available for Public Comment

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

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

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

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


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 166 (Friday, August 26, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53443-53444]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21798]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14104-000]

Northland Power Mississippi River LLC; Notice of Preliminary
Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions
To Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On March 1, 2011, Northland Power Mississippi River LLC filed an
application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act,
proposing to study the feasibility of hydropower on the Mississippi
River, near the town of New Orleans, in Jefferson, and Orleans
Parishes, Louisiana. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if
issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license
application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not
authorize the permit holder to perform

any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters
owned by others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed NPI 016B hydrokinetic project would consist of the
following: (1) Up to 120 TREK generating units installed in a matrix on
the bottom of the river; (2) the total capacity of the installation
would be up to 30,000 kilowatts; (3) shielded underwater cables would
convey each matrix power to a substation; and (4) a transmission line
would interconnect with the power grid. The proposed project would have
an average annual generation of 264 gigawatt-hours (GWh), which would
be sold to a local utility.
    Applicant Contact: Tim Richardson, 30 St. Clair Avenue West, 17th
Floor, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Michael Spencer,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>call toll-free at (866) 208-
3676; or, for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission
strongly encourages electronic filing, documents may also be paper-
filed. To paper-file, mail an original and seven copies to: Kimberly D.
Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14104-000) in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: August 18, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-21798 Filed 8-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 18, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57378-57379]
[FR Doc No: 2013-22746]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0667; FRL-9901-14-OECA]

Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Annual
Public Water System Compliance Report

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an
information collection request (ICR), ``Annual Public Water System
Compliance Report'' (EPA ICR No. 1812.05, OMB Control No. 2020-2020) to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects
of the proposed information collection as described below. This is a
proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through
March 31, 2014. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is
not required to respond to a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before November 18, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OECA-
2013-0667, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joyce Chandler, Monitoring, Assistance
and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, MC-2227A,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 564-0050; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting
comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of
the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA
will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate.
The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and
approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice
to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to
submit additional comments to OMB.
    Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0667; Title: Annual Public Water
Systems Compliance Report; ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 1812.05, OMB
Control Number 2020-2020; ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire
on March 31, 2014.
    Abstract: Section 1414(c)(3)(A) of the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA)

requires that each state (a term that includes states, commonwealths,
tribes and territories) that has primary enforcement authority under
the SDWA shall prepare, make readily available to the public, and
submit to the Administrator of EPA, an annual report of violations of
national primary drinking water regulations in the state. These Annual
State Public Water System Compliance Reports are to include violations
of maximum contaminant levels, treatment requirements, variances and
exemptions, and monitoring requirements determined to be significant by
the Administrator after consultation with the states. To minimize a
state's burden in preparing its annual statutorily-required report, EPA
issued guidance that explains what Section 1414(c)(3)(A) requires and
provides model language and reporting templates. EPA also annually
makes available to the states a computer query that generates for each
state (from information states are already separately required to
submit to EPA's national database on a quarterly basis) the required
violations information in a table consistent with the reporting
template in EPA's guidance.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by
this action are States that have primacy enforcement authority and meet
the definition of ``state'' under the SDWA.
    Respondent's Obligation To Respond: mandatory (Section 1414
1414(c)(3)(A) of the SDWA)
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 55 (total).
    Frequency of Response: Annually.
    Total Estimated Burden: 4,400 hours hours (per year). Burden is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total Estimated Cost: $232,303 (per year), includes $0 annualized
capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in Estimates: There is no change of hours in the total
estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by
OMB. The universe of respondents remains the same.

    Dated: September 10, 2013.
Sherry Sterling,
Acting Director, Office of Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2013-22746 Filed 9-17-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 228 (Wednesday, November 26, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70604-70605]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27979]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73661; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2014-107]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Clarify Rule 7018(a) With Respect to Execution and Routing of Orders in
Securities Priced at $1 or More Per Share

November 20, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 12, 2014, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to make a minor clarifying change Rule
7018(a) with respect to execution and routing of orders in securities
priced at $1 or more per share.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal office of
the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to make a minor
clarifying change to the definition of the term ``Consolidated Volume''
provided in Rule 7018(a). Consolidated Volume is currently defined as
the total consolidated volume reported to all consolidated transaction
reporting plans by all exchanges and trade reporting facilities during
a month, excluding executed orders with a size of less than one round
lot.\3\ Consolidated Volume is used as a measure in determining member
firm liability for certain charges, and eligibility for certain
credits, for participation in NASDAQ. The Exchange compares a member
firm's equity transactions in NASDAQ to Consolidated Volume to
determine how impactful its particular order activity in NASDAQ is in
relation to overall equity market volume. The Exchange notes that the
definition of Consolidated Volume does not expressly state that it
encompasses equity securities only. Accordingly, the Exchange is
proposing to add language to the definition to clarify that the
definition of Consolidated Volume under Rule 7018(a) applies only to
equity securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange also excludes from both total Consolidated
Volume and the member's trading activity, expressed as a percentage
of or ratio to Consolidated Volume, the date of the annual
reconstitution of the Russell Investments Indexes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6 of the Act,\4\ in general, and furthers the objectives
of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\5\ in particular, in that
it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any
facility or system which the Exchange operates or controls, and is
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest; and are not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers. Specifically, the proposed change furthers these
objectives because it clarifies the rule and helps avoid potential
investor confusion on how the credits and charges that use the
definition are applied. The Exchange notes that it is not changing how
the rule is applied, and therefore the fees and credits continue to be
reasonable and equitably allocated among member firms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.
Specifically, the change does not alter the meaning or application of
the fees and credits provided under Rule 7018(a), and therefore does
not affect competition in any respect.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \6\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(6) \7\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(ii).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally may
not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \8\ permits the Commission to designate
a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the
Commission waive the 30-day operative delay period to allow the
Exchange to immediately implement a change in rule language that will
serve to enhance the clarity and application of fees assessed and
credits provided under the rule. The Commission believes that the
proposed rule change will enhance clarity and avoid possible
misinterpretation of the rule. For these reasons, the Commission
believes that the proposed rule change presents no novel issues and
that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. Therefore, the
Commission designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon
filing.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \9\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2014-107 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2014-107. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2014-107 and should
be submitted on or before December 17, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-27979 Filed 11-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 11, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47942-47943]
[FR Doc No: 2019-19626]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD19-15-000]

Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference: Managing
Transmission Line Ratings

    As announced in the Notice of Technical Conference issued in this

proceeding on June 28, 2019, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) will convene a staff-led technical conference in the
above-referenced proceeding on Tuesday, September 10, 2019 from
approximately 8:45 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and Wednesday, September 11, 2019
from approximately 8:45 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Eastern time. The conference
will be held in Hearing Room 1 at Commission headquarters, 888 First
Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Commissioners may attend and
participate. The purpose of this conference is to discuss issues
related to transmission line ratings, with a focus on dynamic and
ambient-adjusted line ratings. In particular, this conference will
explore what transmission line rating methodologies and related
practices might constitute best practices, and what, if any, Commission
action in these areas might be appropriate. There will be an
opportunity to provide comments after the conference. A notice
establishing a date when comments are due will be published after the
conference.
    The agenda and a list of participants for this conference are
attached. The conference will be open for the public to attend in
person, or to attend remotely via a webcast. Those who plan to attend
the conference in person are encouraged to complete the registration
form located at http://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/09-10-19-form.asp. There is no registration deadline for in person attendees,
but we strongly encourage attendees who are not citizens of the United
States to register for the conference as soon as possible, in order to
avoid any delay associated with being processed by FERC security. Those
who plan to attend the conference remotely via webcast must register by
5:00 p.m. EST on September 3, 2019. The webcast may not be available to
those who do not register.
    Information on the technical conference (including a link to the
webcast) will be posted on the Calendar of Events on the Commission's
website, http://www.ferc.gov. The conference will be transcribed.
Transcripts will be available for a fee from Ace Reporting (202-347-
3700).
    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please
send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free 1-866-208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a fax to<PHONE_NUMBER> with
the required accommodations.
    For more information about this technical conference, please
contact:
Sarah McKinley (Logistical Information), Office of External Affairs,
(202) 502-8004<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Dillon Kolkmann (Technical Information), Office of Energy Policy and
Innovation,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: September 4, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-19626 Filed 9-10-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P