[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 11, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 70108]
[FR Doc No: 2016-24475]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14585-001]

Dynegy Estero Bay Wave Park, LLC; Notice of Surrender of
Preliminary Permit

    Take notice that Dynegy Estero Bay Wave Park, LLC, permittee for
the proposed Estero Bay Wave Park Project, has requested that its
preliminary permit be terminated. The permit was issued on October 28,
2014, and would have expired on November 1, 2017.\1\ The project would
have been located in coastal waters between 2.5 and 3.0 miles off the
coast of San Luis Obispo County, California, and on land near the town
of Morro Bay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 149 FERC ] 62,059.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The preliminary permit for Project No. 14585 will remain in effect
until the close of business, November 3, 2016. But, if the Commission
is closed on this day, then the permit remains in effect until the
close of business on the next day in which the Commission is open.\2\
New applications for this site may not be submitted until after the
permit surrender is effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 18 CFR 385.2007(a)(2) (2016).

    Dated: October 4, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-24475 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Technical Support Document for the Modeling Portion Of the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania’s Fine Particulate Matter State Implementation Plan
(SIP) Entitled “ State Implementation Plan Revision:  Attainment
Demonstration and Base Year Inventory Pennsylvania Portion of the
Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE Fine Particulate Nonattainment Area
April 2010”

TSD Prepared October, 2011 by

Todd A. Ellsworth

Office of Air Monitoring and Analysis, 3AP40

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

/s/

____________________________________________

Reviewed by Andrew Hass, Acting Associate Director,

Office of Air Monitoring and Analysis (3AP40)

October 11, 2011

_________________

Date Signed

Purpose of the Technical Support Document

This Technical Support Document (TSD) describes the Environmental
Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) evaluation of the modeling and WOE
portion of Pennsylvania’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
entitled “State Implementation Plan Revision:  Attainment
Demonstration and Base Year Inventory Pennsylvania Portion of the
Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE  Fine Particulate Nonattainment Area
April 2010”.  This SIP revision will hereafter be referred to as the
Philadelphia Area PM2.5 SIP.

In April 2005 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designated 126
areas of the country as “non-attainment” under the annual fine
particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).  Among
those non-attainment areas is the Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE Fine
Particulate Nonattainment Area (NAA).  The Philadelphia-Wilmington,
PA-NJ-DE Nonattainment Area (Philadelphia Area) is comprised of 9
counties in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware.  The Pennsylvania
counties included in this NAA are: Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery
and Philadelphia counties (five-county Philadelphia area).   According
to the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) and the EPA Implementation Rule, this
entire NAA must attain compliance with the annual PM2.5 NAAQS by 2010.
Figure 1 displays a map of the Philadelphia Area.

Figure 1:  Map of the Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE        PM2.5
Nonattainment Area

                                                                 The
purpose of this TSD is to provide more detailed information than can be
contained in

the official notice published in the Federal Register.  Readers who need
more information than we provide in this TSD or want to review the
modeling in more detail should read the above referenced Philadelphia
Area PM2.5 SIP.

The Regulatory Framework

On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 36852), EPA established PM2.5 NAAQS, including
an annual standard of 15.0 µg/m3 based on a 3-year average of annual
mean PM2.5 concentrations, and a 24-hour (or daily) standard of 65
µg/m3 based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour
concentrations. EPA established the standards based on significant
evidence and numerous health studies demonstrating that serious health
effects are associated with exposures to PM2.5.

Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required by the
CAA to designate areas throughout the United States as attaining or not
attaining the NAAQS; this designation process is described  in section
107(d)(1) of the CAA. In 1999, EPA and state air-quality agencies
initiated the monitoring process for the 1997 NAAQS, and, by January
2001, established a complete set of air-quality monitors. On January 5,
2005, EPA published initial air-quality designations for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS (70 FR 944), based on air-quality monitoring data for calendar
years 2001-03.

On April 14, 2005, EPA published a final supplemental rule amending the
agency’s initial designations (70 FR 19844).  EPA did not consider
modifications made in this rule to be “re-designations” because the
changes were made before April 5, 2005, the effective date of the
initial designations.  As a result of the final supplemental rule, PM2.5
nonattainment designations are in effect for 39 areas, comprising 208
counties within 20 states (and the District of Columbia) nationwide,
with a combined population of about 88 million. The
Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE PM2.5 Nonattainment Area, which is the
subject of this proposed rulemaking, is included in the list of areas
not attaining the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.

On October 17, 2006, EPA strengthened the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS to
35µg/m3, and retained the level of the annual PM2.5 standard at 15.0
µg/m3 (see 71 FR 61144).  On November 13, 2009, EPA designated areas as
either attainment/unclassified or nonattainment with respect to the
revised 24-hour NAAQS (see 74 FR 58688).  In the November 2009
designation action, EPA established a deadline of December 14, 2012, for
states to submit attainment plans for areas designated as nonattainment
for the revised 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore the Philadelphia Area
PM2.5 SIP does not address the current 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

Of relevance to the proposed rulemaking herein, 74 FR 58688 clarified
designations for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by relabeling the existing
designation tables to identify designations for the annual NAAQS, and by
providing a separate table identifying designations for the 1997 24-hour
NAAQS (i.e., 65 µg/m3).  In that table, the Philadelphia-Wilmington,
PA-NJ-DE PM2.5  Nonattainment Area is designated as attaining the 1997
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

Introduction to the Philadelphia Area PM2.5 State Implementation Plan
for the Annual Average PM2.5 Standard

On July 18, 1997 the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
established a health based fine particulate matter (PM2.5) National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) at 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter
(µg/m3), annual average.  The Pennsylvania counties of Bucks, Chester,
Delaware, Montgomery and Philadelphia counties were designated by the
EPA as being in non-attainment for the annual PM2.5 NAAQS in April 2005.

The Philadelphia Area PM2.5 SIP includes plans to reduce PM2.5 emissions
within the Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE  PM2.5 Nonattainment Area.
The Plan also includes modeling that will predict whether the area will
meet the PM2.5 standard by the attainment date.  This TSD reviews
Pennsylvania’s documentation of modeling that shows attainment of the
annual average PM2.5 standard by the 2010 attainment date.  All of the
states in the northeastern United States cooperated via the Ozone
Transport Commission’s (OTC) Modeling Committee to prepare the
modeling that was performed by the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and supporting organizations.

Pennsylvania believes that the Philadelphia Area PM2.5 SIP demonstrates
that all of the CAA and Rule requirements associated with the annual
PM2.5 NAAQS have been  met; and that Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE
PM2.5 Nonattainment Area will attain compliance with the annual PM2.5
NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, and not later than 2010.

What Are The Components Of A Modeled Attainment Demonstration?

Modeling Process Overview

Pennsylvania is a member of the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union
(MANE-VU) Regional Planning Organization (RPO).  The MANE-VU RPO was
tasked with the assignment of preparing a PM2.5 modeling platform that
all member states could use to demonstrate compliance with the 1997
PM-2.5 NAAQS.

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) was
the lead agency for coordinating and running the modeling platform used
by the MANE-VU RPO.  Modeling centers responsible for running the
platform included the NYSDEC, the University of Maryland at College Park
(UMD), the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management
(NESCAUM), the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJ
DEP), and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VA DEQ).
Each modeling center was responsible for installing the modeling
platform, conducting diagnostic tests and completing a benchmark run to
ensure accurate results.

The MANE-VU RPO used the Community Multi-scale Air Quality model (CMAQ)
version 4.4 as its photochemical grid model.  The model uses simulations
of chemical reactions, emission of PM2.5   and PM2.5 precursors and a
sophisticated meteorological model to produce PM2.5 concentrations over
the eastern United States.  The meteorological data used in the
meteorological model was for the base year PM2.5   season of 2002.  The
photochemical grid model was run with the base year meteorology and base
year emissions to determine if the model performance was satisfactory.
Once the model performance was determined to be adequate, 2009 PM2.5
concentrations were modeled by running the model with projected
emissions for 2009 and the original 2002 meteorology.    The meteorology
was held constant so that the results of changing the emissions would
not be influenced by changing meteorology.

The EPA modeling guidance recommends that states use the modeled PM
concentrations in a relative sense and not rely solely on the
concentrations the model predicts for the attainment year (2009 in this
case).  A modeled attainment test is an exercise in which an air quality
model is used to simulate current and future air quality. If future
estimates of PM2.5 concentrations are less than the NAAQS, then this
element of the attainment test is satisfied11. EPA’s recommended test
is one in which model estimates are used in a “relative” rather than
“absolute” sense. Ratios of the model’s future (2009) predicted
PM2.5 concentrations to base year (2002) predictions are calculated for
all PM2.5 monitor locations. These ratios are called relative response
factors (RRF). Future PM2.5 concentrations are estimated at existing
monitoring sites by multiplying a modeled relative response factor at
locations “near” each monitor by the observation-based,
monitor-specific, “baseline” design value. The resulting predicted
“future concentrations” are compared to NAAQS. The PM2.5 attainment
test is complicated and reflects the fact that PM2.5 is a mixture
species. Therefore, the attainment test for PM2.5 is called the
Speciated Modeled Attainment Test (SMAT). In the test, ambient PM2.5 is
divided into major components. These are:

- mass associated with sulfates

- mass associated with nitrates

-mass associated with ammonium

- mass associated with organic carbon

- mass associated with elemental carbon

-mass associated with particle bound water

- mass associated with “other” primary inorganic particulate matter

-and passively collected mass

A separate RRF is calculated for each of the PM2.5 components (except
passive mass).

Each of these site-specific ratios are called component-specific RRFs.
Future PM2.5 design values are estimated at existing monitoring sites by
multiplying modeled relative response factors “near” each monitor
times the observed “component specific design value”. This latter
quantity is estimated using measured site-specific design values for
PM2.5 in concert with available measured composition data. Future
site-specific PM2.5 design values at a site are estimated by adding the
future year values of the seven PM2.5 components. If all future
site-specific PM2.5 design values are less than or equal to 15.0
micrograms per cubic meter (µ/m3) at all locations, the test is passed
and the modeling system will have predicted attainment of the PM2.5
annual air quality standard.

Steps Required in a Modeled Attainment Demonstration

The modeling guidance lists nine steps for preparing modeling to
demonstrate attainment of the PM2.5 standard.

1. Develop a conceptual description of the problem to be addressed.

2. Develop a modeling/analysis protocol.

3. Select an appropriate model to support the demonstration.

4. Select appropriate meteorological time periods to model.

5. Choose an appropriate area to model with appropriate
horizontal/vertical resolution
   and establish the initial and boundary conditions that are suitable
for the application.

6. Generate meteorological inputs to the air quality model.

7. Generate emissions inputs to the air quality model.

8. Run the air quality model with base case emissions and evaluate the
performance.

    Perform diagnostic tests to improve the model, as necessary.

9. Perform future year modeling (including additional control
strategies, if necessary) and

    apply the attainment test.

How Did Pennsylvania Address All Of The Components Of A Modeled
Attainment Demonstration?

The Philadelphia Area PM2.5 SIP addresses each of the elements of a
modeled attainment demonstration as follows:

Conceptual description of the problem

A conceptual model describes how weather patterns affect the formation
and transport of PM2.5, accounting for emissions and photochemistry.

The conceptual model for the Philadelphia Area PM2.5 SIP is described in
 Attachment 1 entitled: The Nature of the Fine Particle and Regional
Haze Air Quality Problems in the Mid-Atlantic Northeast Visibility
Union(MANE-VU) Region: A Conceptual Description (NESCAUM), November
2006. This document was prepared by Northeast States for Coordinated Air
Use Management (NESCAUM) for use by the OTC member States, and it
provides the conceptual description of the fine particle issues in the
OTC states, consistent with the EPA’s guidance.

The NSCAUM document contains a conceptual description that explains how
elevated regional PM2.5 peak concentrations in the summer differ
significantly from the largely urban peak concentrations observed during
winter. On average, summertime concentrations of sulfate in the
northeastern United States are more than twice that of the next most
important fine particle constituent, organic carbon (OC), and more than
four times the combined concentration of nitrate and black carbon (BC)
constituents. Episodes of high summertime sulfate concentrations are
consistent with stagnant meteorological flow conditions upwind of the
Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE PM2.5 NAA and the accumulation of
airborne sulfate (via atmospheric oxidation of SO2) followed by
long-range transport of sulfur emissions from industrialized areas
within and outside the area.  National assessments have indicated that
in the winter, sulfate levels in urban areas are higher than background
sulfate levels across the eastern U.S., indicating that the local urban
contribution to wintertime sulfate levels is significant relative to the
regional sulfate contribution from long-range transport. A network
analysis for the winter of 2002 suggests that the local enhancement of
sulfate in urban areas of the MANE-VU region ranges from 25 to 40% and
that the long-range transport component of PM2.5 sulfate is still the
dominant contributor in most eastern cities.

In the winter, urban organic carbon (OC) and sulfate each account for
about a third of the overall PM2.5 mass concentration observed in
Philadelphia and New York City areas. Nitrate also makes a significant
contribution to urban PM2.5 levels observed in the northeastern United
States during the winter months. Wintertime concentrations of OC and
nitrate in urban areas can be twice the average regional concentrations
of these pollutants, indicating the importance of local source
contributions. This is likely because winter conditions are more
conducive to the formation of local inversion layers which prevent
vertical mixing. Under these conditions, emissions from tailpipe,
industrial and other local sources become concentrated near the
Earth’s surface, adding to background pollution levels associated with
regionally transported emissions.

The Model Used in the Attainment Demonstration

By agreement of the OTC, NYSDEC ran the Community Multi-scale Air
Quality Model version 4.4 (CMAQ) for the states in the northeast ozone
transport region, that includes Pennsylvania.  CMAQ is an acceptable
model, listed in the photochemical modeling guidance as a currently used
photochemical grid model.  EPA agrees CMAQ is appropriate for this
modeling demonstration.  The inputs to the model are described in
Section V of the Philadelphia Area PM2.5 SIP.

Meteorological Time Periods Used in the Modeling

The Philadelphia Area PM2.5 SIP notes that the OTC Modeling Committee
agreed to model all days in 2002.  Modeling an entire year covers many
different kinds of PM episodes and exceeds EPA’s recommendations for
episode selection.  Due to the fact that the attainment demonstration is
being conducted using a resource intensive photochemical grid model, EPA
accepts the use of a single, recent “representative” year to be used
for an annual model simulation.  Two factors were used in selecting 2002
as the “representative” year:  1. the observed annual mean
concentrations of PM2.5 are close to the 3-year observed design value at
all, or most monitoring sites, and 2. the pattern of quarterly mean
values is similar to the pattern of quarterly mean concentrations
averaged over 3 years.

Meteorological Data Used in the Air Quality Model

The OTC Modeling Committee decided to use a prognostic meteorological
model that provides life-like meteorological inputs to the photochemical
grid model.  The Pennsylvania State University/National Center for
Atmospheric Research Mesoscale Meteorological Model (MM5) version 3.6
was chosen for the modeling analysis.  The MM5 model provides a
reasonable representation of weather conditions at the surface and
aloft.

Domain of the Model, Horizontal/Vertical Resolution and the Initial and
Boundary Conditions

The modeling domain extends from Maine to Florida and out in the
Atlantic Ocean on the east and west to the Mississippi River (see Figure
2 below).  The size of the modeling domain was made large enough to
include all emission sources that affect PM2.5 concentration in the
northeastern United States.  Even this boundary is defined by a larger
photochemical modeling domain that covers much of North America.  Over
the northeastern United States, the model used 12 kilometer grid cells.
The Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE PM2.5 Nonattainment Area is
included in the 12 kilometer grid cell area.  The OTC Modeling Committee
used a 12-kilometer grid size for the areas in and near its states to
provide a fine enough grid resolution to adequately capture the PM
patterns experienced in the ozone transport region (OTR).  Outside the
local areas the grid resolution used in the modeling is 36 kilometers.
The selection of model domains and horizontal grid resolution was deemed
acceptable to EPA.

Vertical resolution is the number of layers and the size of each layer
in the model.  The layers in the photochemical grid model were set up to
be compatible with the model that produced weather conditions for the
photochemical grid model.  The vertical resolution used in the modeling
exercise followed EPA’s modeling guidance and therefore adequately
represents the atmosphere where PM2.5 is emitted, forms and is
transported.

Figure 2.  OTC Modeling Study Domain

Outer grid at 36-kilometer resolution, inner grid at 12-kilometer
resolution

Emissions Used in the Air Quality Model

The emissions data for 2002 were generated by individual states within
the OTR and assembled and processed through the Mid-Atlantic Northeast
Visibility Union (MANE-VU), a Regional Planning Organization (RPO).
These emissions were then processed by NYSDEC using the SMOKE emissions
processor to provide CMAQ compatible inputs.   The 2002 emissions for
the non-OTR areas within the modeling domain were obtained from the
corresponding RPOs and were processed using SMOKE, in a manner similar
to that of the OTR emissions.

The OTR states, through MANE-VU, contracted MACTEC Federal Programs
(called Contractor) to develop 2009, 2012 and 2018 inventories based
upon 2002 inventories that the states had previously developed for use
in the base-year model work. The Contractor, in consultation with the
states, developed the necessary growth and control factors and applied
to the 2002 inventory. Emissions for mobile sources and the electric
energy generating units (EGUs) was not part of the Contractor’s
effort. .  To generate on-road mobile emissions, the states provided the
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) and NESCAUM with
appropriate MOBILE 6 input files along with the projected vehicle miles
traveled (VMT), which was coupled with hourly “gridded temperature”
information. As for the emissions from the EGU sector, the inter-RPO
work group utilized the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) to develop the
state and unit-level emissions.  These inventories are identified as
2009 on the way (2009 OTW), since they reflect all emission control
measures that were promulgated or would become effective on or before
2009.

Emission inventory details are provided in Sections III and IV of the
Philadelphia Area PM2.5 SIP.

Base Case Run Model Performance Evaluation

NY DEC performed a model evaluation for the OTC to determine how well
CMAQ reproduced 2002 PM2.5 concentrations.

CMAQ was employed to simulate PM2.5 for the calendar year 2002.  A
review of PM2.5 and its individual species was conducted for the study
domain.

The CMAQ model performance for surface PM2.5 is good with acceptable
bias and error.  Several observations can be made with respect to model
performance, including the following:

Approximately 80-90% of organic mass (OM) is in the primary fraction.
Observed OM has distinct maximum during summer when secondary formation
is highest; CMAQ exhibits substantial under-prediction in secondary
organic aerosols (SOA).  The predicted primary OM is highest during the
winter.

CMAQ captures seasonal variation in SO4 well.

CMAQ appears to overestimate primary PM2.5 components (EC, soil, primary
OM), especially during colder months.

CMAQ appears to underestimate secondary OM during the summer.

These issues are not of great regulatory concern since attainment tests
are based on the application of relative response factors.  In summary,
the regional and local model performance is acceptable for PM2.5.  While
there are some differences between the spatial data between sub-regions,
there is nothing to suggest a tendency for the model to respond in a
systematically different manner between regions.  Examination of the
statistical metrics by sub-region confirms the absence of significant
performance problems arising in one area but not in another, building
confidence that the CMAQ modeling system is operating consistently
across the full OTC domain.  This confidence in the modeling results
allows for the modeling system to be used to support the State
Implementation Plan to meet the 24-hour and annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

2009 Control Case Modeling and the Modeled Attainment Test

As previously mentioned, the Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE PM2.5 NAA
has an attainment date of April 5, 2010.  The PM2.5 NAAQS include an
annual standard of 15 μg/m3 based on the 3-year average of annual mean
PM2.5 concentrations.

The purpose of a modeling assessment is to determine if control
strategies currently being implemented (“on the books”) will lead to
attainment of the annual average NAAQS for PM2.5 by 2009.  The modeling
is applied in a relative sense, similar to the 8-hour ozone attainment
test.  However, The PM2.5 attainment test is more complicated and
reflects the fact that PM2.5 is a mixture.  In the test, ambient PM2.5
is divided into major components, with a separate relative response
factor (RRF) and future design value (DVF) calculated for each of the
PM2.5 components.  Since the attainment test is calculated on a per
species basis, the attainment test for PM2.5 is referred to as the
Speciated Modeled Attainment Test (SMAT).  The following sections
outline the process to determine that 2009 projections of PM2.5 will
meet the NAAQS from regional modeling, as suggested in EPA’s modeling
guidance.

Annual SMAT Results

Table 1 presents the results of the annual SMAT results for the PA-NJ-DE
nonattainment area. The SMAT results demonstrate that the projected
average annual arithmetic mean PM2.5 concentration calculated at each
FRM monitor attains the annual PM2.5 NAAQS.  Specifically, all future
design value (DVF) calculations are less than15 μg/m3.   Table 1
presents the results of the annual SMAT results for a suite of regional
modeling runs conducted by OTC each representing OTB/OTW – “On the
Books, On the Way” control measures.  All runs demonstrate compliance
with the annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

                      Table 1: Annual SMAT Results for
Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE PM               2.5 Nonattainment
Area On-The-Books-On-The-Way Control Measures

AIRS ID	Site Name	County	State	2000-2004 DVB	2009

Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	DVF

420170012	Bristol	Bucks	PA	14.14	13.69	14.73	13.85	12.1

420290100	New Garden	Chester	PA	14.39	14.73	16.36	13.76	12.4

420450002	Chester	Delaware	PA	15.07	15.96	16.34	13.74	13.3

420910013	Norristown	Montgomery	PA	12.68	13.62	13.96	12.34	11.3

421010004	AMS Lab	Philadelphia	PA	15.99	14.01	15.95	13.82	12.9

421010024	NE Airport	Philadelphia	PA	13.58	13.63	14.95	12.96	11.9

421010047	Broad Street	Philadelphia	PA	16.59	16.45	15.80	15.37	13.5

421010136	Elmwood	Philadelphia	PA	15.70	14.20	15.27	12.99	12.7

100031003	Bellefonte	New Castle	DE	14.87	15.16	15.50	13.13	12.6

100031007	Lums Pond	New Castle	DE	13.16	14.37	16.05	10.66	11.3

100031012	Newark	New Castle	DE	15.27	14.91	16.53	13.14	12.6

100032004	MLK	New Castle	DE	16.41	15.40	17.61	14.04	13.3

340070003	Camden	Camden	NJ	13.99	14.54	15.76	12.47	12.3

340071007	Pennsauken	Camden	NJ	13.99	14.00	14.75	13.59	12.3

340155001	Gibbstown	Gloucester	NJ	13.92	13.43	15.08	11.39	11.7

                                   Summary of Photochemical Grid
Modeling Results

In summary, the basic photochemical grid modeling, presented in the
Philadelphia Area PM2.5 SIP, meets EPA’s guidelines and when used with
the methods recommended in EPA’s modeling guidance, is acceptable to
EPA.  When EPA’s attainment test is applied to the modeling results,
the 2009 annual-average PM2.5 design value is predicted to be 13.5μg/m3
in the Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE PM2.5 NAA.  Thus, based on
EPA’s modeled attainment test, the Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE
PM2.5 NAA will reach attainment of the annual average PM2.5 standard in
2009 before the attainment date of April 5, 2010.

Unmonitored Area Analysis

The modeled attainment test does not address future air quality at
locations where there is not a PM2.5 monitor nearby.  To guard against
the possibility that air quality levels could exceed the standard in
areas with limited monitoring, EPA suggests that additional review is
necessary, particularly in nonattainment areas where the PM2.5
monitoring network just meets or minimally exceeds the size of the
network required to report data to Air Quality System (AQS).  This
review is intended to ensure that a control strategy leads to reductions
in PM2.5 and its constituent pollutants at other locations that could
have baseline (and future) design values exceeding the NAAQS were a
monitor deployed there.  The test is called an “unmonitored area
analysis”.  The purpose of the analysis is to use a combination of
model output and ambient data to identify areas that might exceed the
NAAQS if monitors were located there.

It is important to note that the Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE PM2.5
NAA currently has an operating network of fifteen PM2.5 monitors.  EPA
believes that the density of the monitoring network in NAA relieves the
necessity of applying this additional analysis.

Local Area Analysis

EPA modeling guidance recommends that a local area analysis be performed
for those areas where local primary PM2.5 sources are thought to be
contributing to a monitor and causing non-attainment of the NAAQS.  At
this time, no monitors within the Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE
PM2.5 NAA are projected to exceed the annual PM2.5 NAAQS so it does not
appear to be a necessary requirement in this circumstance to conduct the
local area analysis.  PADEP has observed enhancement of PM2.5
concentrations at the Chester monitor by local sources.  Using emissions
to distance ratios (Q/d) and local predominant wind directions; seven
(7) sources were identified for possible analysis with a dispersion
model to gauge the effect of local direct PM2.5 emissions on the North
Braddock monitor.  A local area analysis using a dispersion model,
however, was not conducted since the modeled concentrations for the
Chester monitor currently would attain the PM2.5 NAAQS.  This does not
preclude the Department from conducting a dispersion modeling analysis
as part of a local area analysis in the future for the EPA’s revised
24-hour PM2.5 standard.

Supplemental Analyses and Weight of Evidence (WOE) Determination

EPAs modeling guidance states that additional analyses are recommended
to determine if attainment will be likely, even if the modeled
attainment test is “passed”.  The guidance recommends supplementary
analyses in all cases.  EPAs modeling guidance describes how to use a
photochemical grid model and additional analytical methods to complete a
WOE analysis to estimate if emissions control strategies will lead to
attainment.  A WOE analysis is a supporting analysis that helps to
determine if the results of the photochemical modeling system are
correctly (or not correctly) predicting future air quality.

All models, including the CMAQ, model have inherent uncertainties. Over
or under prediction may result from uncertainties associated with
emission inventories, meteorological data, and representation of PM2.5
chemistry in the model. Therefore, EPA modeling guidance provides for
other evidence to address these model uncertainties so that proper
assessment of the probability to attain the applicable standards can be
made.

EPA modeling guidance states that those modeling analyses that show that
attainment with the NAAQS will be reached in the future with some margin
of safety (i.e., estimated concentrations below 14.5 μg/m3 for annual
PM2.5 and 62 μg/m3 for 24-hour PM2.5) need more limited supporting
material.

Due to the fact that the modeling results presented in Table 1 fall
below the aforementioned “weight of evidence” thresholds established
by EPA, a limited supplemental analysis was deemed necessary to support
the 2009 attainment demonstration.

PM2.5 Design Values

Table 2 (see below) shows the 2009 annual PM2.5 design value for all
monitors in the Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE PM2.5 NAA. It is clear
from this figure that all the monitors are currently attaining the
NAAQS. All the monitors continue to attain in 2010.

                       Table 2: 2008-2010 Philadelphia-Wilmington,
PA-NJ-DE PM2.5 NAA

Monitored PM2.5 Design Values

AIRS ID	Site Name	County	State	2008	2009	2010

Annual PM2.5   DV	Annual  PM2.5   DV	Annual  PM2.5   DV

420170012	Bristol	Bucks	PA	12.6	12.2	11.3

420290100	New Garden	Chester	PA	13.4	13.9	13.8

420450002	Chester	Delaware	PA	14.1	13.7	13.1

420910013	Norristown	Montgomery	PA	12.3	11.7	10.5

421010004	AMS Lab	Philadelphia	PA	13.4	12.5	11.5

421010024	NE Airport	Philadelphia	PA	12.4	11.6	10.5

421010047	Broad Street	Philadelphia	PA	14.5	13.0	11.9

421010136	Elmwood	Philadelphia	PA	13.2	13.3	X

100031003	Bellefonte	New Castle	DE	12.9	12.2	11.1

100031007	Lums Pond	New Castle	DE	11.8	11.3	10.5

100031012	Newark	New Castle	DE	12.9	12.2	11.2

100032004	MLK	New Castle	DE	14.2	13.0	11.7

340070003	Camden	Camden	NJ	12.9	13.3	12.9

340071007	Pennsauken	Camden	NJ	12.7	11.7	10.3

340150004

Gloucester	NJ	11.6	11.4	10.0

421010055	24th and Ritner	Philadelphia	PA	13.5	12.4	12.0

421010057	Fire Admin Building	Philadelphia	PA	12.7	12.1	11.7

Summary of EPA’s Evaluation Pennsylvania’s WOE Analysis

The reduction in PM2.5 precursor emissions, coupled with current annual
PM2.5   design values that show attainment of the annual NAAQS, confirms
the Commonwealth’s assertion that the Philadelphia-Wilmington,
PA-NJ-DE PM2.5 NAA will be in compliance with the annual PM2.5 NAAQS by
the attainment date.

Summary of EPA’s Technical Findings

The result of the photochemical grid modeling analysis using EPA’s
recommended methods predicts that the Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE
PM2.5 NAA will attain the annual PM2.5 standard by the attainment date
of April 5, 2010. This result is confirmed by the 2010 air quality data
presented in Table 2.

Recommendation of Approval of Attainment Demonstration

Ü

Ý

Þ

+

™

›

ž

µ

½

Ô

æ

-

'

Ý

Þ

ñ

ò

␃愁Ĥ摧䥣ᤀæ

è

ì

ï

ð

ñ

ò

  h

 h

摧異

h-

hpu

hpu

ༀຄᄁ㟾$␸䠀$葞Ď葠ﻲ摧戂\	㜀$␸䠀$摧異

摧異

hpu

hpu

h

h

h

h

Ff—

@

 h¬

愀Ĥ摧掻ñ

hÁ

h¬

h¬

hÂ

hÂ

h

h

hÂ

hÂ

&The Nature of the Fine Particle and Regional Haze Air Quality Problems
in the Mid-Atlantic Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) Region: A
Conceptual Description (NESCAUM), November 2006.

 	Environmental Protection Agency, Clean Air Fine Particle
Implementation Rule, 40 CFR Part 51, March 29, 2007.

 	  HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2005/January/Day-05/a001.htm"  70
FR 944 , January 5, 2005

 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 guidance also states that additional analyses are recommended to
determine if attainment will be likely, even if the modeled attainment
test is “passed”.  The guidance recommends supplementary analyses in
all cases.

 PAGE

 PAGE   1


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 88 (Tuesday, May 7, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 19920]
[FR Doc No: 2019-09279]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EL18-22-001; EL19-26-001]

Notice of Petition for Partial Waiver; Wabash Valley Power
Association, Inc.

    Take notice that on April 30, 2019, pursuant to section 292.402 of
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules and
Regulations,\1\ Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc., on behalf of
itself and Participating Members,\2\ filed a notice of change in
Implementation Plan and requests continued partial waivers under
sections 292.303(a) and 292.303(b) of the Commission's regulations \3\
implementing section 210 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act
of 1978, as amended,\4\ all as more fully explained in the petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 292.402.
    \2\ The Participating Members include: Boone REMC, Carroll White
County REMC, Citizens Electric Corporation, Corn Belt Energy,
EnerStar Electric Cooperative, Fulton County REMC, Heartland REMC,
Jay County REMC, Kosciusko REMC, LaGrange County REMC, Marshall
County REMC, Miami-Cass REMC, M.J.M. Electric Cooperative, Newton
County REMC, Noble REMC, Parke County REMC, Steuben County REMC, and
Warren County REMC.
    \3\ 18 CFR 292.303(a) and (b).
    \4\ 16 U.S.C. 824a-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Petitioner.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 21, 2019.

    Dated: May 1, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-09279 Filed 5-6-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 9, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 195)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 52132-52134]
[DOCID:fr09oc09-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 93

[Docket No. FAA-2006-25709; Amendment No. 93-92]
RIN 2120-AJ49

Congestion Management Rule for LaGuardia Airport

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

ACTION: Final rule; rescission.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is rescinding the final rule Congestion Management
Rule for LaGuardia Airport. The final rule established procedures to
address congestion in the New York City area by assigning slots at
LaGuardia Airport (LaGuardia), assigning to existing operators the
majority of slots at the airports, and creating a market by annually
auctioning off a limited number of slots in each of the first five
years of the rule. The final rule also contained provisions for minimum
usage, requiring reservations for unscheduled operations, and
withdrawal for operational need. The rule was scheduled to sunset in
ten years.

DATES: Effective Date: October 9, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions concerning this
rulemaking, contact: Molly W. Smith, Office of Aviation Policy and
Plans, APO-200, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For legal questions concerning this rulemaking,
contact: Rebecca MacPherson, FAA Office of the Chief Counsel, 800
Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA has broad authority under 49 U.S.C. 40103 to regulate the
use of the navigable airspace of the United States. This section
authorizes the FAA to develop plans and policy for the use of navigable
airspace and to assign the use that the FAA deems necessary for its
safe and efficient utilization. It further directs the FAA to prescribe
air traffic rules and regulations governing the efficient utilization
of the navigable airspace.

I. Background

    The final rule Congestion Management Rule for LaGuardia Airport was
published in the Federal Register on October 10, 2008 (73 FR 60574)
(2008 final rule). The final rule established procedures to address
congestion in the New York City area by assigning slots for scheduled
services at LaGuardia Airport (LaGuardia), assigning to existing
operators the majority of slots at the airports, and creating a market
by annually auctioning off a limited number of slots in each of the
first five years of the rule. The final rule also contained provisions
for minimum slot usage, withdrawal of slots for operational need, and
requiring reservations for unscheduled operations. The rule was
scheduled to sunset in ten years and added to the Code of Federal
Regulations December 9, 2008. The rulemaking was highly controversial.
The final rule was challenged by several parties before it could take
effect. On December 8, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit stayed the rule. On January 22, 2009, the
ATA requested the Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood, withdraw

the final rule in light of the court's stay. While the regulations were
incorporated into the Code of Federal Regulations, due to the courts
ruling, they had no force and effect.
    On March 11, 2009, the President signed Public Law 111-8, Omnibus
Appropriations Act, 2009. That legislation provides several departments
within the executive branch, including the Department of
Transportation, with the funds to operate until the end of this fiscal
year. That legislation also contains a provision in Division I, section
115 that prohibits the Secretary of Transportation from promulgating
regulations or taking any action regarding the scheduling of airline
operations that involve auctioning rights or permission to conduct
airline operations at such an airport or withdrawing a right or
permission to conduct operations at such an airport (except when the
withdrawal is for operational reasons or pursuant to the terms or
conditions of such operating right or permission). The prohibition is
limited to this fiscal year.
    At present, operations at LaGuardia remain limited by order at 71
scheduled operations and three unscheduled operations per hour until
October 2009.\1\ The FAA published a proposal on June 17, 2009 to
extend this order until October 2010 while the agency considers its
options with regard to managing congestion at the airport on a longer-
term basis (74 FR 28772). Options under consideration would provide a
means for carriers to either commence or expand operations at the
airport, thereby introducing more competition and service options to
benefit the traveling public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Operating Limitations at New York LaGuardia Airport
(LaGuardia Order), December 27, 2006 (71 FR 77854), as amended
November 8, 2007 (72 FR 63224), August 19, 2008 (73 FR 48248),
January 8, 2009 (74 FR 845), and January 15, 2009 (74 FR 2646).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 14, 2009 the FAA published a notice proposing to rescind the
2008 final rule citing the impact of the Omnibus Appropriations Act on
the rule and the state of the economy in general. The comment period
closed June 15, 2009. The FAA received five sets of comments, all of
which supported rescission of the rule.
    For the reasons stated in the NPRM, the FAA has decided to rescind
the 2008 final rule effective immediately. The FAA has determined that
good cause exists for implementing this rule immediately. As discussed
above, the rule has been stayed by court action and has not been
implemented. Accordingly, no further action is required by the
regulated parties and delaying the effective date serves no useful
purpose. The agency will consider its options with regard to managing
congestion at the airport in ways that provide a means for carriers
either to commence or expand operations at the airport in future
rulemaking.

II. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second,
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies to analyze the
economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the
Trade Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 4 2531-2533) prohibits agencies from
setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign
commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, this Trade
Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where
appropriate, to be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded
Mandate Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare
a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of
proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result
in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually
(adjusted for inflation). The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted
value of $136.1 million in lieu of $100 million.
    The FAA conducted all of these analyses when it originally issued
the 2008 final rule. The agency has determined the rescission does not
require any further economic analysis. Practically speaking, due to the
rescission, the status quo remains in effect, and neither costs nor
benefits anticipated by the final rule will accrue. Likewise, the
paperwork burden anticipated under the 2008 final rule will not be
imposed on any parties. The FAA has already determined that the rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Rescission of the
2008 final rule likewise imposes no such burden. As the rescission of
the rule does not impose any standard on any party, the FAA has
assessed the potential effect of this rescission and determined that it
will impose no costs on international entities and thus have a no trade
impact. Nor will the rescission impose a Federal mandate that may
result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for
inflation) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector, and the requirements of Title
II of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 do not apply.
    The rescission of the 2008 final rule is a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is ``significant'' as defined
in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures. Accordingly, it has been
reviewed by DOT and OMB.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this rescission under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We have determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect 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, and, therefore, does not have federalism implications.

Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures'' identifies FAA actions that are normally categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) in the absence of extraordinary circumstances The FAA
previously determined that the final rule qualified for the categorical
exclusions identified in paragraph 312d ``Issuance of regulatory
documents (e.g., Notices of Proposed Rulemaking and issuance of Final
Rules) covering administration or procedural requirements (does not
include Air Traffic procedures; specific Air traffic procedures that
are categorically excluded are identified under paragraph 311 of this
Order)'' and paragraph 312f, ``Regulations, standards, and exemptions
(excluding those which if implemented may cause a significant impact on
the human environment.'' It has further been determined that no
extraordinary circumstances exist that may cause a significant impact
and therefore no further environmental review is required. The FAA
documented this categorical exclusion determination. A copy of the
determination and underlying documents has been included in the Docket
for the rule. The FAA has determined that the rescission of the 2008
final rule also qualifies for a categorical exclusion since it will
have no impact on the environment.

Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use

    The FAA has analyzed this rescission under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it
is not a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order
because while a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866, it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You can get an electronic copy of rulemaking documents using the
Internet by--
    1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://
www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies web page at http://
www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or
    3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://
www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
    You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. Make
sure to identify the docket number, notice number, or amendment number
of this rulemaking.
    You may access all documents the FAA considered in developing this
rescission from the internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal
referenced in paragraph (1).

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 93

    Air traffic control, Airports, Navigation (air), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

The Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends Chapter I of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 93--SPECIAL AIR TRAFFIC RULES

0
1. The authority citation for part 93 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40109, 40113, 44502,
44514, 44701, 44719, 46301.

Subpart C--[Removed and Reserved]

0
2. Remove and reserve Subpart C of Part 93.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 1, 2009.
J. Randolph Babbitt,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E9-24232 Filed 10-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P