oral argument not yet scheduled...attorney general of kansas jeffrey a. chanay chief deputy attorney...

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED

No. 14-1268 ________________________________________

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

________________________________________

STATE OF KANSAS, et al.,

Petitioners, v.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, et al.,

Respondents. ________________________________________

On Petition for Review from the Environmental Protection Agency

________________________________________

ADDENDA TO THE BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONERS ________________________________________

DEREK SCHMIDT Attorney General of Kansas JEFFREY A. CHANAY Chief Deputy Attorney General BURKE W. GRIGGS Assistant Attorney General 120 SW 10th Avenue, 3rd Floor Topeka, KS 66612-1597 785-296-2215 [email protected] Co-counsel for Petitioner State of Kansas October 28, 2015 - Final Version

C. BOYDEN GRAY ADAM J. WHITE ADAM R.F. GUSTAFSON Counsel of Record BOYDEN GRAY & ASSOCIATES 1627 I Street NW, Suite 950 Washington, DC 20006 202-955-0620 [email protected] Counsel for Petitioners Additional counsel on next page

USCA Case #14-1268 Document #1580634 Filed: 10/28/2015 of 71

DOUG PETERSON Attorney General of Nebraska DAVE BYDALEK Chief Deputy Attorney General JUSTIN D. LAVENE

Bureau Chief, Agriculture, Environment & Natural Resources Bureau, Attorney General’s Office

2115 State Capitol Lincoln, NE 68509 402-471-2682 (telephone) 402-471-3297 (telefacsimile) [email protected]

Co-counsel for Petitioner State of Nebraska


TABLE OF CONTENTS

ADDENDUM A: STANDING DECLARATIONS

Declaration of Rick Brunetti (State of Kansas) .................................. A-1

Declaration of Jackie McClaskey (State of Kansas) .......................... A-4

Declaration of Jim Macy (State of Nebraska) .................................... A-5

Declaration of Todd Sneller (State of Nebraska) ............................... A-7

Declaration of James G. Wilkinson (MOVES20214 Modeling Results) .................................................................................. A-8

ADDENDUM B: STATUTES AND REGULATIONS

Official Release of MOVES2014, 79 Fed. Reg. 60343 (Oct. 7, 2014) ... B-1

Notice and Comment, 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)-(c) ...................................... B-6

Science Advisory Board, 42 U.S.C. § 4365(c)(1) ................................ B-7

Emission Factors, 42 U.S.C. § 7430 .................................................. B-8

State Implementation Plans, 42 U.S.C. § 7502(c)(3) ........................... B-9

Emission Model, 40 C.F.R. § 93.111(a)-(b) ...................................... B-10

ADDENDUM C: EPAct Study Test Fuel Distillation Temperatures ADDENDUM D: EPAct Study Test Fuel Aromatics Levels ADDENDUM E: Octane Levels of EPAct Study Test Fuels vs. Market Fuel ADDENDUM F: T50 & T90 Distillation Temperatures of MOVES2014

Defaults vs. Market Fuel


ADDENDUM A

STANDING DECLARATIONS


ADDENDUM A

STANDING DECLARATIONS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Declaration of Rick Brunetti (State of Kansas) .......................................... A-1

Declaration of Jackie McClaskey (State of Kansas) ................................... A-4

Declaration of Jim Macy (State of Nebraska) ........................................... A-5

Declaration of Todd Sneller (State of Nebraska) ....................................... A-7

Declaration of James G. Wilkinson (MOVES2014 Modeling Results) ........ A-8


Declaration of Rick Brunetti

1. I am Rick Brunetti, Director of the Bureau of Air within the Kansas Department ofHealth and Environment (KDHE). I have been in my current position for the past seven(7) years and prior to that was District Environmental Administrator for the SalinaDistrict Office of KDHE for fifteen (15) years.

2. I am responsible for overseeing the team that prepares any State Implementation Plans,transportation conformity analysis, and hot-spot analysis required of Kansas by the CleanAir Act and U.S. EPA's implementing regulations.

3. Under the Official Release of the MOVES2014 Motor Vehicle Emissions Model for SIPsand Transportation Conformity (hereinafter "Official Release"), States must immediatelybegin using EPA's MOVES2014 model in the development of new State ImplementationPlans (SIPs). 79 Fed. Reg. 60343, 60344 (Oct. 7, 2014). Beginning October 7, 2016,States must use MOVES2014 for assessing the conformity of their federally fundedtransportation projects with applicable SIPs and for conducting "hot spot" analysis. Id.

4. Last December, U.S. EPA proposed a new National Ambient Air Quality Standard(NAAQS) for ozone "within the range of 0.065 to 0.070 parts per million (ppm)." 79 Fed.Reg. 75234, 75234 (Dec. 17, 2014).

5. EPA plans to finalize the new ozone standard in October 2015. See Office of Informationand Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Unified Agenda (Spring2015), http://www.reginfo.govipublicido/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=20150486RIN=2060-AP38.

6. Based on data from ozone monitors, a portion of the State of Kansas will be designated asnonattaimnent with any new ozone NAAQS in the proposed range. For example, i f EPAselects 0.070 ppm as the new ozone standard, the Kansas City and Wichita MetropolitanStatistical Areas (MSAs) and their associated counties will be designated asnonattainment using data from the years 2012-14. I f EPA selects 0.065 ppm as the newozone standard, Trego and Shawnee counties will also be designated as nonattainmentusing data from the years 2012-14.

7. Because Kansas will have to designate nonattainment areas under the new ozoneNAAQS, Kansas will be required to submit a SIP describing how the State plans to bringeach nonattainment area into compliance with the NAAQS using "all reasonablyavailable control measures." 42 U.S.C. § 7502(c)(1).

8. "[R]easonably available control measures," include fuel regulations designed to reducemotor vehicle emissions of ozone precursors, namely volatile organic compounds(VOCs) and nitrous oxides (NO). See Mississippi Comm'n on Envt '1 Qua v. EPA, slipop. at 8 (D.C. Cir. June 2, 2015).

A-1


9. I f Kansas reaches moderate nonattainment, it will also have to conduct "conformityanalyses" demonstrating that all federally funded activities, including transportationprojects, "conform to" any applicable SIP. 42 U.S.C. § 7506(c)(1).

10. To demonstrate transportation conformity, Kansas will have to demonstrate that itstransportation projects will not cause, contribute to, or worsen a violation of a NAAQS,including the new ozone standard, or delay attainment of that standard. 42 U.S.C.§ 7506(c)(1)(B).

ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN

11. The Official Release imposes significant administrative burdens on the State of Kansas.Under the Official Release, Kansas will have to oversee the use of the MOVES2014model for use in SIPs and transportation conformity analysis. The MOVES2014 model isa computer model that requires hardware, time, and personnel. KDHE presently has two(2) modelers who would need to acquire additional training in order to effectively run andoversee the MOVES2014 model for areas in Kansas that are designated as nonattainmentfor ozone. Both of these modelers are already trained and experience in usingMOVES2010b.

12. In order to prepare to use MOVES2014, Kansas personnel will have to acquire additionaltraining in order to effectively run and oversee the MOVES2014 model for areas inKansas that are designated nonattainment for ozone. There are certain costs in anunknown amount for this training as well as any associated computer hardware orsoftware upgrades needed. See Official Release, 79 Fed. Reg. at 70345 (States will haveto "become familiar with the MOVES2014 emissions model" and undergo "training" onthe new model).

PERVERSE INCENTIVES

13. According to the MOVES2014 model, blending ethanol into fuel may increase nitrousoxides (N0x) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). NOx and VOCs are precursors ofozone. Therefore, the MOVES2014 model associates higher levels of ethanol in fuel withincreased levels of ground-level ozone.

14. KDRE understands that the MOVES2014 model's estimates about ethanol's effect onemissions of NOx and VOCs are suspect. According to sources cited below, addingethanol to gasoline reduces emissions of these pollutants. Ethanol is a high-octane fuelthat replaces and dilutes the other high-octane components of gasoline—high distillatehydrocarbons—that are responsible for a high proportion of gasoline's NOx and VOCemissions. See M. Matti Maricq, et al., The Impact of Ethanol Fuel Blends on PMEmissions from a Light-Duty GDI Vehicle, 46 Aerosol Sci. & Tech. 580 (2011) (findingdecreases in NOx emissions of "about 20%"when the ethanol content of fuel is increasedfrom 0% to 17% or higher); Robert A. Stein & Rod Harris, Effect of Ethanol on NOEmissions of Vehicles with SI Engines ("NO„ emissions typically decrease or areunaffected with increasing ethanol content"); Partial Grant and Partial Denial of CleanAir Act Waiver Application Submitted by Growth Energy To Increase the Allowable

A-2


Ethanol Content of Gasoline to 15 Percent, 75 Fed. Reg. 68094, 68096 (Nov. 4, 2010)("Scientific information supports a conclusion that [when] motor vehicles. . . operat[e]on gasoline ethanol blends. . . volatile organic compound (VOC) and carbon monoxide(CO) emissions decrease.").

15. The MOVES2014 model's suspect modeling of ethanol's emissions effects encouragesKansas and other States to adopt policies that may restrict ethanol blending in fuel.

16. If the MOVES2014 model were reexamined to reflect ethanol's emissions effectsbeneficial to ozone, Kansas would adopt policies that achieve emissions reductions byencouraging increased blending of ethanol in gasoline. For example, Kansas wouldencourage gasoline retailers to market E 15 and, i f possible, higher ethanol blends i f thispractice resulted in the lowering of modeled ground-level ozone. Kansas law requiresKDHE to be no more stringent than federal law, and therefore KDHE cannot require ahigher ethanol blend unless the EPA first sanctions it. Therefore, Kansas could adoptregulations to implement federal standards that allow higher ethanol blends. See, e.g.,Kansas Department of Health and Environment, 1 Air Quality State Implementation Plan:Kansas City Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan 30 'II 5.2 (June 15, 2007) (relying onvehicle and fuel regulations, including "reductions through time of VOCs and NO frommotor vehicles," to maintain compliance with the ozone NAAQS.),http://www.kdheks.govibariplarming/2007_KC_8-Hr_Ozone_Maint_Plan.pdf.

AIR QUALITY

17. Because the MOVES2014 model projects suspect emissions effects of ethanol, SIPsbased on MOVES2014 may be inefficient and counterproductive. Because ofMOVES2014, Kansas may not be able to reduce ground-level ozone through policies thatencourage increased ethanol blending, and may instead have to rely on more costly andless efficient controls on stationary sources. Because Kansas will not be able to use allavailable means of reducing ozone, it may not be able to achieve compliance with thenew ozone NAAQS as soon as it otherwise would.

18. SIP policies based on MOVES2014 in Kansas and neighboring States that limit or merelycap ethanol blending in gasoline may have the opposite of their intended effect,increasing emissions of V0Cs, NOx and other harmful pollutants, with consequent harmto Kansas's air quality.

19. VOCs and NOx emitted in Kansas and upwind States will adversely increase ozonelevels in Kansas.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on June ;262 , 2015 R i c k Brunetti

A-3


1320 Research Park DriveManhattan, Kansas 66502(785) 564-6700

Jackie McClaskey, Secretary

Department of Agricultureagriculture.ks.gov

Declaration of Secretary of Jackie McClaskey

1. I am the Secretary of Agriculture for the State of Kansas.

900 SW JacksonTopeka, K

(78Governor Sam

2. Polic ies inside or outside the State of Kansas that discourage ethanol blending would adversethe agricultural and ethanol industries in Kansas, because ethanol is a nationwide commoditydiminished demand for ethanol in any State depresses the price of corn grown, and ethanol piKansas.

3. Kansas's ethanol industry directly employs or supports 16,000 jobs and contributes $1 billiongross domestic product of Kansas every year.

4. Kansas's corn industry directly employs or supports over 19,800 jobs and contributes $4.5 bilgross domestic product of Kansas every year.

5. A n EPA computer model that encouraged anti-ethanol policies across the country, would advaffect Kansas's tax revenues and its ability to provide necessary services to its citizens.

declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing i - t f t-Z-a n d c o r r e c t .

Executed on June 30, 2015 Jackie McClaskey1

A-4


n

n

Declaration of Jim Macy

1. I am the Director of the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality. I haveover 30 years of experience in the environmental field as a regulatory official inthe State of Missouri, as a consultant, and now as the head of the State ofNebraska's enviromnental agency. I have first-hand knowledge and experiencewith ozone nonattaimnent designations by U.S. EPA in the State of Missouri.

2. I am responsible for overseeing and supervising the agency in Nebraska withexclusive jurisdiction to act as the state air pollution control agency for allpurposes of the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq., includingState Implementation Plans (SIPs), transportation conformity analysis, and hot-spot analysis that would be required of Nebraska by the Clean Air Act and U.S.EPA's implementing regulations if an ozone nonattainment designation wouldoccur in Nebraska in the future.

3. Las t December, U.S. EPA proposed a new National Ambient Air QualityStandard (NAAQS) for ozone "within the range of 0.065 to 0.070 parts permillion (ppm). 79 Fed. Reg. 75234, 75234 (Dec. 17, 2014).

4. I t is my understanding that EPA plans to finalize the new ozone standard inOctober 2015.

5. Based on the most recent ozone monitoring data within the State of Nebraska,portions of Nebraska may be in nonattaimnent with any new ozone NAAQS inthe proposed range. For example, if EPA selects 0.065 ppm as the new ozonestandard, the following counties could be designated as nonattainment: KnoxCounty and Douglas County.

6. I f Nebraska would have nonattainment areas under the new ozone NAAQS,Nebraska would be required to submit a SIP describing how the State plans tobring each nonattainment area into compliance with the NAAQS using "allreasonably available control measures." 42 U.S.C. § 7502(c)(1).

7. I n the event Nebraska would be designated nonattainment for ozone, Nebraskawould also have to conduct "conformity analyses" demonstrating that all federallyfunded activities, including transportation projects, "conform to" any applicableSIP. 42 U.S.C. § 7506(c)(1).

8. T o demonstrate transportation conformity Nebraska would have to demonstratethat its transportation projects will not cause, contribute to, or worsen a violationof a NAAQS, including the new ozone standard, or delay attainment of thatstandard. 42 § 7506(c)(1)(B).

9. T he Official Release of the MOVES2014 Motor Vehicle Emissions Model forSIPs and Transportation Conformity may impose additional administrative

A-5


burdens on the State of Nebraska should the state be designated nonattainment forozone. Under the Official Release, Nebraska may have to use the MOVES2014model for use in SIPs and transportation conformity analysis. 79 Fed. Reg. 60343,60344 (Oct. 7, 2014).

10. The Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality has no experience orexpertise in running the prior MOVES2010b model or MOVES2014.

11. In order to prepare to use MOVES2014, should it become necessary in the eventof a nonattainment designation, Nebraska Department of Environmental Qualitypersonnel would, at a minimum, have to become familiar with the MOVES2014emission model and undergo training.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and coa ct

Executed on June , 2015 pm MacyDirectorNebraska Departmen o fEnvironmental Quality

A-6


Declaration of Todd Sneller

1. I am Todd C. Sneller. Since 1979, I have served as the Administrator o f the NebraskaEthanol Board, an Agency o f state goverment charged with the development o f the ethanolindustry. I hold a B.S. degree from Nebraska Wesleyan University and have played an activerole in the creation and development of the U.S. fuel ethanol industry. I currently serve on theBoards o f the American Coalition for Ethanol, the Clean Fuels Development Coalition, BinNebraska — L i fe Sciences Association and am a member o f the Nebraska EconomicDevelopment Association.

2. Policies inside or outside the State o f Nebraska that discourage ethanol blending wi l ladversely affect the agricultural and ethanol industries in Nebraska, because ethanol i s anationwide commodity, and diminished demand for ethanol in any State depresses the price ofcorn grown, and ethanol produced, in Nebraska.

3. Nebraska's corn and ethanol production accounts for nearly 13% of the state's gross domesticproduct and a significant portion o f the State's tax revenue. Each year, Nebraska ethanolproducers process up to 45% of the state's corn crop to produce 2 billion gallons of motor fuelfor use inside and outside the State. (Sources: Nebraska Gross Domestic Product, NebraskaDepartment of Economic Development, Bureau of Business Research, University of Nebraska-Lincoln and the Nebraska Department of Revenue)

4. Without ethanol Nebraska motorists would spend an additional $110 million annually to fueltheir vehicles. Rack ethanol prices currently average 12 to 13 cents per gallon below gasolineand 87% o f motor fuel sold in Nebraska contains ethanol, so drivers are saving money.(Sources: Nebraska Ethanol Board, Historical Fuel Prices and the Nebraska Department o fRevenue)

5. By encouraging anti-ethanol policies across the country, the MOVES2014 model adverselyaffects Nebraska tax revenues and the state's ability to provide necessary services to its citizens.


Executed on June 25, 2014ae )41e6,1

Todd SnellerAdministratorNebraska Ethanol Board

A-7


DECLARATION OF JAMES G. WILKINSON, PHD

1414121 Rev 0 ICM MOVES2014 Sensitivities (James Wilkinson, PhD Declaration).docx Golder Associates Inc.

9 Monroe Parkway, Suite 270 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 USA

Tel: (503) 607-1820 Fax: (503) 607-1825 www.golder.com

Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America

Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation

Introduction

1. I am a Senior Consultant with Golder Associates Inc. (Golder). Golder is a global firm with more

than 7,000 employees who provide design, construction, and consulting services related to the

earth, environment, and energy. I have a PhD in Engineering and Public Policy from Carnegie

Mellon University and a BS in Petroleum Engineering from Montana Tech of the University of

Montana. I have 30 years of experience in applied research and directly related technical

experience in disciplines spanning the physical sciences, geophysical sciences, mathematics,

and computational sciences. My experience includes but is not limited to managing large scale,

multidisciplinary applied research projects with multiple stakeholders and sponsors that include

projects related to urban-scale air quality, meteorological, and emissions modeling studies. I

have worked with the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (US EPA’s) family of

Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) models since 2010 including MOVES2010a,

MOVES2010b, and MOVES2014. My project experience includes the development and quality

assurance of inputs to the MOVES model, running the MOVES model, and analyzing the results

from the MOVES model for the ten states and associated counties that comprise the

Southeastern States Air Resources Managers Inc. (SESARM) whose goal is to foment a better

understanding of and to improve air quality in the Southeastern United States. I have used

MOVES to estimate on-road mobile source emissions for multiple years in Texas for the Houston

8-hour Ozone SIP Coalition, which is a coalition of petrochemical, energy, and oil and gas

exploration and production firms who seek to improve air quality in the greater Houston region. I

have also used MOVES to estimate on-road mobile source emissions for thirteen western states

to support air quality studies for the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP), which is a

voluntary partnership of states, tribes, federal land managers, local air agencies and the US EPA

whose purpose is to understand current and evolving regional air quality issues in the Western

United States. Finally, I have used MOVES to estimate on-road mobile source emissions for the

greater Toronto, Ontario region to support air quality modeling studies sponsored by Toronto’s

Pearson Airport.

2. MOVES20141 is US EPA’s most recent model that estimates on-road mobile source emissions.

MOVES2014 estimates emissions for mobile sources covering a broad range of pollutants over

multiple spatial scales including national, county, and project-level analyses. MOVES2014

1 EPA (2014). MOVES (Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator). MOVES2014 October Release. http://www.epa.gov/oms/models/moves/ (accessed 12-Jun-2015).

A-8


http://www.epa.gov/oms/models/moves/

Steve VanderGriend July 2, 2015 Urban Air Initiative 1414121

1414121 Rev 0 ICM MOVES2014 Sensitivities (James Wilkinson, PhD Declaration).docx

includes the benefits of the Tier 32,3 regulations as well the impacts of other EPA rulemakings

promulgated since the release of MOVES2010b, new emissions data, and new user requested

features.

3. The Urban Air Initiative (UAI) desires to understand how on-road emission estimated by the

MOVES2014 model respond to changes in various fuel characteristics related to ethanol-blended

fuels. UAI contracted with Golder to conduct sensitivity runs of MOVES2014 to determine the

relative changes in on-road mobile source emissions estimates due to changes in various fuel

parameters for select regions of the United States (i.e., Kansas City, Minneapolis, and Chicago).

Methods

4. MOVES2014 was obtained from (EPA 2015)1 and was run on a four core Intel® Core™ i5-3380M

system with eight gigabytes of random access memory under a 64-bit Windows 7 Enterprise

(Service Pack 1) operating system.

5. Table 1 identifies the cities and counties that UAI selected to run MOVES2014.

Table 1. Counties for Which MOVES2014 was run

City State County FIPS County Code(a) Kansas City Kansas Wyandotte 20209

Chicago Illinois Cook 17031 Minneapolis Minnesota Hennepin 27053

(a) The FIPS county code is a five-digit Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) code which uniquely identifies counties and county equivalents in the United States, certain U.S. possessions, and certain freely associated states. 6. On-road mobile source emissions were estimated using MOVES2014 for the year 2017.

7. MOVES2014 provides the option to estimate on-road mobile source emissions based on the

following data sets:

a. County-level default data that are calculated within the MOVES2014 model;

b. User-supplied county-specific data; and

c. User-supplied project level data that are typically at the finest resolution and are related

to specific roadway segments.

2 CFR (2014). Control of Air Pollution From Motor Vehicles: Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards; Final Rule. www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-04-28/pdf/2014-06954.pdf (accessed 12-Jun-2015). 3 EPA (2014). Tier 3 Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards Program. http://www.epa.gov/oms/tier3.htm (accessed 12-Jun-2015)

A-9


http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-04-28/pdf/2014-06954.pdf

http://www.epa.gov/oms/tier3.htm



8. As the study was concerned with relative changes in the emissions estimates as the fuel

characteristics were changed, I determined that the MOVES2014’s county-level default fleet,

travel, and meteorological data that are a component of the MOVES2014 system were sufficient.

9. Ten different fuels with various ethanol blends were modeled for each of the three areas. Two

ethanol-blended fuels for each county were modelled based on the MOVES2014 default fuels

specific to those counties. Four ethanol-blended fuels for each county were modelled using fuel

parameters derived from the application of the MOVES2014 Fuels Wizard and were based on a

county-specific default fuel. Finally, four ethanol-blended fuels were modelled based on fuel

formulation parameters provided by UAI. The following details regarding Tables 2, 3, and 4

apply:

a. Ten fuels were modelled for each city-county.

b. Each fuel has a numeric identifier listed under the “Fuel” column.

c. Where the “Source” is “MOVES2014,” the MOVES2014 default fuel parameters that are

identified by the “Fuel ID” (e.g., Fuel ID 3495) were used to model the on-road mobile

source emissions estimates.

d. Where the “Source” is identified as “Fuels Wizard,” the fuel parameter values were

derived from the MOVES2014 fuel parameter modelling tool (i.e., MOVES2014 Fuels

Wizard) that is provided with the MOVES2014 modeling system. The basis for the fuel

parameters used in the Fuels Wizard was the MOVES2014 default fuel parameters

identified by the MOVES2014 fuel identifier (e.g., Fuel ID 3495). In these instances, the

MOVES2014 Fuels Wizard was used to calculate new fuel parameters by changing only

the ethanol content of the attendant base fuel [e.g., Fuel ID 3495] to the ethanol value

identified in the table. The Fuels Wizard automatically calculated all of the other fuel

parameters in response to the change in ethanol content.

e. Where the “Source” is identified as “UAI,” the fuel parameters were provided by the UAI.

f. The columns following the “Source” column identify the MOVES2014 fuel parameters that

were modelled for each fuel.

10. In regards to the use of the MOVES2014 Fuels Wizard with ethanol-blended fuels above E20 and

below E85, I can find no specific statement in the MOVES2014 user and technical documentation

concerning whether or not MOVES2014 can accommodate such fuels. However, with this

stipulation, I believe it prudent to examine how MOVES2014 emissions estimates respond to

ethanol-blended fuels of 25% and 30% ethanol content. Given that these are potential fuels that

A-10




may be used in the near future, policy-makers and the public will likely refer to MOVES2014-

generated emissions estimates for such fuels whether or not MOVES2014 was specifically

formulated to model higher ethanol-content fuels such as E25 and E30.

11. The MOVES2014 fuel parameters that were modelled for Kansas City (Wyandotte County),

Kansas are identified in Table 2.

Table 2. Fuel Parameters Used in MOVES2014 for Kansas City

Fuel Source Fuel

Subtype ID

Reid Vapor

Pressure (psi)

Sulfur (ppm)

Ethanol (% vol)

Aromatics (% wt)

Olefin Content (% wt)

Benzene (% wt)

E200 (%)

E300 (%)

T50 (°F)

T90 (°F)

01 Fuels Wizard (Fuel ID 3495) 10 7 10 0 26.84 10.75 0.63 43.24 83.77 213.61 325.9

02 MOVES2014 (Fuel ID 3495) 12 8 10 10 24.82 10.29 0.63 46.31 84.16 207.27 324.13

03 MOVES2014 (Fuel ID 3497) 15 7 10 15 23.48 9.11 0.63 52.44 84.68 194.84 321.76

04 UAI 15 8 10 15 23.48 9.11 0.63 52.44 84.68 194.84 321.76 05 UAI 15 7 10 15 23.48 9.11 0.63 58 84.68 170 321.76 06 UAI 18 7 10 20 22.1 8.9 0.63 57 85.5 182 319.7 07 UAI 18 7 10 20 22.1 8.9 0.63 58.5 85.5 165 319.7

08 Fuels Wizard (Fuel ID 3497)

18 7 10 20 23.03 8.72 0.63 54.48 84.86 190.67 320.97


18 7 10 25 23.03 8.72 0.63 54.48 84.86 190.67 320.97


18 7 10 30 23.03 8.72 0.63 54.48 84.86 190.67 320.97

12. The MOVES2014 fuel parameters that were modelled for Chicago (Cook County), Illinois are

identified in Table 3.

Table 3. Fuel Parameters Used in MOVES2014 for Chicago

Fuel Source Fuel

Subtype ID

Reid Vapor

Pressure (psi)

Sulfur (ppm)

Ethanol (% vol)

Aromatics (% wt)


Benzene (% wt)

E200 (%)

E300 (%)

T50 (°F)

T90 (°F)


10 5.9 10 0 19.17 8.31 0.6 47.87 84.82 204.16 321.13

02 MOVES2014

(Fuel ID 3571) 12 6.9 10 10 17.15 7.85 0.6 50.98 85.21 197.82 319.36

03 MOVES2014 (Fuel ID 3573)

15 6.9 10 15 15.81 6.67 0.6 57.11 85.73 185.39 316.99

A-11




04 UAI 15 6.9 10 15 15.81 6.67 0.6 58 85.73 170 316.99 05 UAI 18 6.9 10 20 14.7 6.2 0.6 57.8 86.8 175 314.5 06 UAI 18 6.9 10 20 14.7 6.2 0.6 59 86.8 165 314.5 07 UAI 12 8.4 10 10 17.15 7.85 0.6 50.98 85.21 197.82 319.36


18 6.9 10 20 15.36 6.28 0.6 59.11 85.91 181.22 316.2


18 6.9 10 25 15.36 6.28 0.6 59.11 85.91 181.22 316.2


18 6.9 10 30 15.36 6.28 0.6 59.11 85.91 181.22 316.2

13. The MOVES2014 fuel parameters that were modelled for Minneapolis (Hennepin County),

Minnesota are identified in Table 4.

Table 4. Fuel Parameters Used in MOVES2014 for Minneapolis

Fuel Source Fuel

Subtype ID

Reid Vapor

Pressure (psi)

Sulfur (ppm)

Ethanol (% vol)

Aromatics (% wt)


Benzene (% wt)

E200 (%)

E300 (%)

T50 (°F)

T90 (°F)


10 8.7 10 0 24.3 8.18 0.86 47.24 81.1 205.44 338.04


12 9.7 10 10 22.28 7.72 0.86 50.31 81.49 199.1 336.27


15 8.7 10 15 20.94 6.54 0.86 56.44 82.01 186.67 333.9

04 UAI 18 8.7 10 20 19.7 6.1 0.86 58 82.5 174 331.5 05 UAI 18 8.7 10 20 19.7 6.1 0.86 59.5 82.5 158 331.5 06 UAI 15 9.7 10 15 20.94 6.54 0.86 58.7 82.01 165 333.9 07 UAI 10 9.7 10 0 22.28 7.72 0.86 50.31 81.49 199.1 336.27


18 8.7 10 20 20.49 6.15 0.86 58.49 82.19 182.5 333.11


18 8.7 10 25 20.49 6.15 0.86 58.49 82.19 182.5 333.11


18 8.7 10 30 20.49 6.15 0.86 58.49 82.19 182.5 333.11

14. For each set of fuel formulation parameters identified in Tables 2, 3, and 4, MOVES2014 was run

to estimate on-road mobile source emissions for a June 2017 weekday and weekend day.

Emissions were estimated for all MOVES2014 gasoline-fueled source types (e.g., motorcycle,

passenger car). Finally, emissions were estimated for each process type (e.g., crankcase

running exhaust, evaporative fuel leaks).

A-12




Results

15. Table 5 presents the MOVES2014 emissions estimates for June weekday in 2017 using the

default data (i.e., Fuel 02 and Fuel 03) and for each fuel formulation parameter sensitivity run for

Kansas City (Wyandotte County), Kansas.



Chicago (Cook County), Illinois.



Minneapolis (Hennepin County), Minnesota.

18. The Exhaust Processes in Tables 5, 6, and 7 include crankcase running exhaust, crankcase start

exhaust, running exhaust, and start exhaust. The Evaporative Processes in Tables 5, 6, and 7

include evaporative fuel leaks, evaporative fuel vapor venting, and evaporative permeation.

19. For each county, weekend emissions exhibit similar trends to those for the weekday; however,

the weekend emissions mass is predicted to be lower by 10% to 30% depending on pollutant.

A-13


Stev

e Va

nder

Grie

nd

July

2, 2

015

Urb

an A

ir In

itiat

ive

1414

121

1414

121

Rev

0 IC

M M

OVE

S201

4 Se

nsiti

vitie

s (J

ames

Wilk

inso

n, P

hD D

ecla

ratio

n).d

ocx

Tabl

e 5.

MO

VES2

014

Emis

sion

s Es

timat

es fo

r Ea

ch s

et o

f Fue

l For

mul

atio

n Pa

ram

eter

s fo

r Ka

nsas

City

(Wya

ndot

te C

ount

y), K

ansa

s fo

r a

June

Wee

kday

in

2017

. Th

e Co

nten

ts o

f the

Fuel C

olum

n ar

e Co

nsis

tent

Bet

wee

n Th

is T

able

and

Tab

le 2

.

Fuel

MO

VES2

014

Emiss

ions

Est

imat

es (t

ons p

er d

ay)

Exha

ust P

roce

sses

Ev

apor

ativ

e Pr

oces

ses

Tota

l All

Proc

esse

s

Benz

ene

Etha

nol

VOC

NO

x PM

10

PM2.

5 SO

2 Be

nzen

e Et

hano

l VO

C Be

nzen

e Et

hano

l VO

C N

Ox

PM10

PM

2.5

SO2

01

0.06

7 0.

002

1.39

2.

34

0.04

3 0.

038

0.01

4 0.

0036

0.

000

0.66

0.

071

0.00

2 2.

06

2.34

0.

043

0.03

8 0.

014

02

0.05

9 0.

040

1.41

2.

52

0.04

6 0.

040

0.01

5 0.

0050

0.

197

0.86

0.

064

0.23

7 2.

27

2.52

0.

046

0.04

0 0.

015

03

0.05

7 0.

059

1.39

2.

60

0.04

6 0.

041

0.01

5 0.

0044

0.

200

0.88

0.

061

0.25

9 2.

27

2.60

0.

046

0.04

1 0.

015

04

0.05

6 0.

058

1.38

2.

62

0.04

6 0.

041

0.01

5 0.

0050

0.

197

0.90

0.

061

0.25

5 2.

28

2.62

0.

046

0.04

1 0.

015

05

0.05

7 0.

060

1.35

2.

59

0.04

7 0.

041

0.01

5 0.

0051

0.

269

0.88

0.

062

0.32

9 2.

23

2.59

0.

047

0.04

1 0.

015

06

0.05

9 0.

074

1.51

2.

73

0.04

7 0.

042

0.01

5 0.

0051

0.

269

0.92

0.

064

0.34

3 2.

44

2.73

0.

047

0.04

2 0.

015

07

0.06

0 0.

077

1.49

2.

72

0.04

8 0.

042

0.01

5 0.

0051

0.

269

0.92

0.

065

0.34

6 2.

42

2.72

0.

048

0.04

2 0.

015

08

0.06

1 0.

073

1.56

2.

74

0.04

8 0.

043

0.01

5 0.

0051

0.

333

0.92

0.

066

0.40

6 2.

48

2.74

0.

048

0.04

3 0.

015

09

0.06

9 0.

071

1.82

2.

91

0.05

1 0.

045

0.01

5 0.

0050

0.

400

0.95

0.

074

0.47

1 2.

77

2.91

0.

051

0.04

5 0.

015

10

0.08

1 0.

068

2.21

3.

13

0.05

4 0.

048

0.01

5 0.

0047

0.

373

0.98

0.

085

0.44

1 3.

19

3.13

0.

054

0.04

8 0.

015

Tabl

e 6.

MO

VES2

014

Emis

sion

s Es

timat

es fo

r Eac

h se

t of F

uel F

orm

ulat

ion

Para

met

ers

for C

hica

go (C

ook

Coun

ty),

Illin

ois

for a

Jun

e W

eekd

ay in

201

7. T

he

Cont

ents

of t

he Fuel C

olum

n ar

e Co

nsis

tent

Bet

wee

n Th

is T

able

and

Tab

le 3

.

Fuel

MO

VES2

014

Emiss

ions

Est

imat

es (t

ons p

er d

ay)

Exha

ust P

roce

sses

Ev

apor

ativ

e Pr

oces

ses

Tota

l All

Proc

esse

s

Benz

ene

Etha

nol

VOC

NO

x PM

10

PM2.

5 SO

2 Be

nzen

e Et

hano

l VO

C Be

nzen

e Et

hano

l VO

C N

Ox

PM10

PM

2.5

SO2

01

0.87

3 0.

028

20.5

1 35

.05

0.63

4 0.

561

0.25

5 0.

0642

0.

000

11.1

2 0.

937

0.02

8 31

.63

35.0

5 0.

634

0.56

1 0.

255

02

0.75

9 0.

620

20.5

3 38

.06

0.67

3 0.

595

0.26

5 0.

0748

2.

092

14.0

4 0.

834

2.71

1 34

.56

38.0

6 0.

673

0.59

5 0.

265

03

0.71

9 0.

946

20.4

4 39

.72

0.68

5 0.

606

0.27

1 0.

0776

3.

203

14.6

8 0.

797

4.14

9 35

.12

39.7

2 0.

685

0.60

6 0.

271

04

0.72

6 0.

968

20.2

0 39

.59

0.68

7 0.

608

0.27

1 0.

0776

3.

203

14.6

8 0.

804

4.17

1 34

.88

39.5

9 0.

687

0.60

8 0.

271

05

0.75

1 1.

229

22.4

1 41

.77

0.70

3 0.

622

0.27

6 0.

0795

4.

390

15.3

3 0.

830

5.61

9 37

.74

41.7

7 0.

703

0.62

2 0.

276

06

0.75

8 1.

271

22.3

2 41

.71

0.70

6 0.

624

0.27

6 0.

0795

4.

390

15.3

3 0.

837

5.66

1 37

.65

41.7

1 0.

706

0.62

4 0.

276

07

0.73

3 0.

608

20.4

0 38

.44

0.67

3 0.

595

0.26

5 0.

0643

2.

135

14.4

0 0.

797

2.74

3 34

.80

38.4

4 0.

673

0.59

5 0.

265

08

0.76

9 1.

208

22.9

0 42

.00

0.71

3 0.

631

0.27

6 0.

0795

4.

390

15.3

3 0.

849

5.59

8 38

.23

42.0

0 0.

713

0.63

1 0.

276

09

0.85

1 1.

198

26.3

8 44

.83

0.75

0 0.

664

0.27

6 0.

0790

5.

453

15.8

5 0.

930

6.65

1 42

.23

44.8

3 0.

750

0.66

4 0.

276

10

0.98

7 1.

219

31.8

5 48

.30

0.79

0 0.

699

0.27

6 0.

0774

6.

577

16.3

6 1.

065

7.79

6 48

.21

48.3

0 0.

790

0.69

9 0.

276

A-14


Stev

e Va

nder

Grie

nd

July

2, 2

015

Urb

an A

ir In

itiat

ive

1414

121

1414

121

Rev

0 IC

M M

OVE

S201

4 Se

nsiti

vitie

s (J

ames

Wilk

inso

n, P

hD D

ecla

ratio

n).d

ocx

Tabl

e 7.

MO

VES2

014

Emis

sion

s Es

timat

es fo

r Eac

h se

t of F

uel F

orm

ulat

ion

Para

met

ers

for M

inne

apol

is (H

enne

pin

Coun

ty),

Min

neso

ta fo

r a J

une

Wee

kday

in

2017

. Th

e Co

nten

ts o

f the

Fuel C

olum

n ar

e Co

nsis

tent

Bet

wee

n Th

is T

able

and

Tab

le 4

.

Fuel

MO

VES2

014

Emiss

ions

Est

imat

es (t

ons p

er d

ay)

Exha

ust P

roce

sses

Ev

apor

ativ

e Pr

oces

ses

Tota

l All

Proc

esse

s

Benz

ene

Etha

nol

VOC

NO

x PM

10

PM2.

5 SO

2 Be

nzen

e Et

hano

l VO

C Be

nzen

e Et

hano

l VO

C N

Ox

PM10

PM

2.5

SO2

01

0.35

0 0.

008

7.45

13

.92

0.27

0 0.

238

0.08

4 0.

0244

0.

000

3.84

0.

374

0.00

8 11

.29

13.9

2 0.

270

0.35

0 0.

008

02

0.31

3 0.

210

7.66

15

.04

0.28

7 0.

254

0.08

8 0.

0260

0.

718

4.89

0.

339

0.92

8 12

.55

15.0

4 0.

287

0.31

3 0.

210

03

0.30

8 0.

322

7.75

15

.55

0.29

2 0.

258

0.09

0 0.

0296

1.

076

4.98

0.

338

1.39

9 12

.73

15.5

5 0.

292

0.30

8 0.

322

04

0.32

6 0.

414

8.62

16

.30

0.29

9 0.

265

0.09

2 0.

0296

1.

476

5.20

0.

356

1.89

1 13

.82

16.3

0 0.

299

0.32

6 0.

414

05

0.33

4 0.

444

8.61

16

.26

0.30

3 0.

268

0.09

2 0.

0296

1.

476

5.20

0.

364

1.92

0 13

.81

16.2

6 0.

303

0.33

4 0.

444

06

0.30

7 0.

329

7.61

15

.58

0.29

4 0.

260

0.09

0 0.

0259

1.

101

5.11

0.

333

1.42

9 12

.72

15.5

8 0.

294

0.30

7 0.

329

07

0.32

3 0.

008

7.21

13

.82

0.25

9 0.

229

0.08

4 0.

0224

0.

000

3.97

0.

346

0.00

8 11

.17

13.8

2 0.

259

0.32

3 0.

008

08

0.33

4 0.

406

8.80

16

.40

0.30

4 0.

269

0.09

2 0.

0296

1.

476

5.20

0.

363

1.88

2 14

.00

16.4

0 0.

304

0.33

4 0.

406

09

0.37

4 0.

391

10.3

0 17

.45

0.32

1 0.

284

0.09

2 0.

0285

1.

838

5.38

0.

403

2.22

8 15

.67

17.4

5 0.

321

0.37

4 0.

391

10

0.44

1 0.

376

12.6

3 18

.74

0.34

0 0.

300

0.09

2 0.

0269

2.

220

5.55

0.

468

2.59

6 18

.18

18.7

4 0.

340

0.44

1 0.

376

A-15




20. Bar charts of the emissions mass by pollutant and ethanol fuel content were prepared. As

weekday and weekend day emissions estimated by MOVES2014 exhibit similar trends, though

with weekend day emissions estimates being lower, only the bar charts for the weekday

emissions estimates are presented.

21. Figure 1 presents bar charts of MOVES2014 on-road mobile source exhaust emissions estimates

for each pollutant for Kansas City (Wyandotte County), Kansas for a June weekday in 2017

grouped by the ethanol content of the fuels. In general, the following is observed with exhaust

emissions estimates with increasing fuel content (i.e., moving from E0 to E10 to E15 through

E30):

a. VOC emissions are relatively flat for E0 to E15 fuels but trend up from E20 to E30 fuels;

b. NOX, PM10, PM2.5 and SO2 emissions trend up from E0 to E30 fuels;

c. Benzene emissions trend down from E0 to E15 fuels and trend up from E20 to E30 fuels;

and

d. Ethanol emissions trend up from E0 to E20 fuels and trend down from E25 to E30 fuels.

22. Figure 2 presents bar charts of MOVES2014 on-road mobile source evaporative emissions

estimates for each pollutant for Kansas City (Wyandotte County), Kansas for a June weekday in

2017 grouped by the ethanol content of the fuels. In general, the following is observed with

evaporative emissions estimates with increasing fuel content:

a. VOC emissions trend up from E0 to E30 fuels;

b. Benzene emissions trend up from E0 to E20 fuels and trend down from E25 to E30 fuels;

and

c. Ethanol emissions trend up from E0 to E25 fuels and trend down with the E30 fuel.

23. Figure 3 presents bar charts of MOVES2014 on-road mobile source total (i.e., exhaust plus

evaporative) emissions estimates for Kansas City (Wyandotte County), Kansas for a June

weekday in 2017 grouped by the ethanol content of the fuels. In general, the following is

observed with total (exhaust plus evaporative) emissions estimates with increasing fuel content:

a. VOC, ethanol, NOX, PM10, PM2.5 and SO2 emissions trend up from E0 to E30 fuels;

and

b. Benzene emissions trend down from E0 to E15 fuels and trend up from E20 to E30 fuels.

A-16




Figure 1. Bar charts of exhaust emissions estimates for Kansas City (Wyandotte County), Kansas for a June weekday in 2017.

A-17




Figure 2. Bar charts of evaporative emissions estimates for Kansas City (Wyandotte County), Kansas for a June weekday in 2017.

A-18




Figure 3. Bar charts of total (exhaust plus evaporative) emissions estimates for Kansas City (Wyandotte County), Kansas for a June weekday in 2017.

A-19





for each pollutant for Chicago (Cook County), Illinois for a June weekday in 2017 grouped by the

ethanol content of the fuels. In general, the following is observed for the exhaust emissions

estimates with increasing fuel content (i.e., moving from E0 to E10 to E15 through E30):

a. VOC, NOX, PM10, PM2.5 and SO2 emissions trend up from E0 to E30 fuels;

b. Benzene emissions trend down from E0 to E15 fuels and trend up from E20 to E30 fuels;

and

c. Ethanol emissions trend up from E0 to E20 fuels and trend down from E25 to E30 fuels.


estimates for each pollutant for Chicago (Cook County), Illinois for a June weekday in 2017

grouped by the ethanol content of the fuels. In general, the following is observed for the




and

c. Ethanol emissions trend up from E0 to E30 fuels.


evaporative) emissions estimates for Chicago (Cook County), Illinois for a June weekday in 2017

grouped by the ethanol content of the fuels. In general, the following is observed for the total

(exhaust plus evaporative) emissions estimates with increasing fuel content:


and


A-20




Figure 4. Bar charts of exhaust emissions estimates for Chicago (Cook County), Illinois for a June weekday in 2017.

A-21




Figure 5. Bar charts of evaporative emissions estimates for Chicago (Cook County), Illinois for a June weekday in 2017.

A-22




Figure 6. Bar charts of total (exhaust plus evaporative) emissions estimates for Chicago (Cook County), Illinois for a June weekday in 2017.

A-23





for each pollutant for Minneapolis (Hennepin County), Minnesota for a June weekday in 2017

grouped by the ethanol content of the fuels. In general, the following is observed for the exhaust

emissions estimates with increasing fuel content (i.e., moving from E0 to E10 to E15 through

E30):

a. VOC, NOX, PM10, PM2.5 and SO2 emissions trend up from E0 to E30 fuels;

b. Benzene emissions trend down from E0 to E15 fuels and trend up from E20 to E30 fuels;

and

c. Ethanol emissions trend up from E0 to E20 fuels and trend down from E25 to E30 fuels.


estimates for each pollutant for Minneapolis (Hennepin County), Minnesota for a June weekday in

2017 grouped by the ethanol content of the fuels. In general, the following is observed for the




and

c. Ethanol emissions trend up from E0 to E30 fuels with increasing ethanol content.


evaporative) emissions estimates for Minneapolis (Hennepin County), Minnesota for a June

weekday in 2017 grouped by the ethanol content of the fuels. In general, the following is

observed for the total (exhaust plus evaporative) emissions estimates with increasing fuel

content:


and


A-24




Figure 7. Bar charts of exhaust emissions estimates for Minneapolis (Hennepin County), Minnesota for a June weekday in 2017.

A-25




Figure 8. Bar charts of evaporative emissions estimates for Minneapolis (Hennepin County), Minnesota for a June weekday in 2017.

A-26




Figure 9. Bar charts of total (exhaust plus evaporative) emissions estimates for Minneapolis (Hennepin County), Minnesota for a June weekday in 2017.

A-27




Conclusion

30. MOVES2014 was used to estimate on-road mobile source emissions for a June 2017 weekday

and weekend day for Kansas City (Wyandotte County), Kansas, Chicago (Cook County), Illinois,

and Minneapolis, (Hennepin County), Minnesota for the following fuel formulation parameter data

sets:

a. Each county-specific MOVES2014 default fuel (i.e., two per county);

b. Four different fuel formulation parameter data sets for each county based on data

provided by UAI; and

c. Four different fuel formulation parameter data sets for each county derived from the

MOVES2014 Fuels Wizard.

31. The fuels that were modelled had ethanol contents of 0% (E0), 10% (E10), 15% (E15), 20%

(E20), 25% (E25), and 30% (E30) by volume.

32. In general, the following is observed in regards to exhaust emissions estimated by MOVES2014

across all fuels and counties that were modelled with increasing ethanol content:

a. VOC, NOX, PM10, PM2.5 and SO2 emissions estimates trend up from E0 to E30 fuels;

b. Benzene emissions estimates trend down from E0 to E15 fuels and trend up from E20 to

E30 fuels; and

c. Ethanol emissions estimates trend up from E0 to E20 fuels and trend down from E25 to

E30 fuels.

33. In general, the following is observed in regards to evaporative emissions estimated by

MOVES2014 across all fuels and counties that were modelled with increasing ethanol content:

a. VOC emissions estimates trend up from E0 to E30 fuels;

b. Benzene emissions estimates trend up from E0 to E20 fuels and trend down from E25 to

E30 fuels; and

c. Ethanol emissions estimates trend up from E0 to E30 fuels.

34. In general, the following is observed in regards to total (i.e., exhaust plus evaporative) VOC,

benzene, and ethanol emissions estimated by MOVES2014 across all fuels and counties that

were modelled with increasing ethanol content:

A-28




a. VOC emissions estimates trend up from E0 to E30 fuels;

b. Benzene emissions estimates trend down from E0 to E15 fuels and trend up from E20 to

E30 fuels; and

c. Ethanol emissions estimates trend up from E0 to E30 fuels.

35. Weekday and weekend day emissions estimated by MOVES2014 exhibit similar trends though

weekend day emissions estimates are general lower by 10% to 30% depending on pollutant.


Executed on July 2, 2015

James G. Wilkinson

A-29


ADDENDUM B

STATUTES AND REGULATIONS


ADDENDUM B

STATUTES AND REGULATIONS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Official Release of MOVES2014, 79 Fed. Reg. 60343 (Oct. 7, 2014) ........... B-1

Notice and Comment, 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)-(c) .............................................. B-6

Science Advisory Board, 42 U.S.C. § 4365(c)(1) ......................................... B-7

Emission Factors, 42 U.S.C. § 7430 ........................................................... B-8

State Implementation Plans, 42 U.S.C. § 7502(c)(3) .................................... B-9

Emission Model, 40 C.F.R. § 93.111(a)-(b)............................................... B-10


60343 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 7, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

1 Interested parties can find these documents under either the ‘‘Emission Model and Conformity’’ or ‘‘Project-Level Conformity’’ topics on this Web site.

2 Nonattainment and maintenance areas located in California use the latest approved version of the Emission FACtor (EMFAC) model.

Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222–5110.

(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741–6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr- locations.html.

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on September 19, 2014. Lance T. Gant, Acting Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. 2014–23592 Filed 10–6–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 51 and 93

[FRL–9917–26–OAR]

Official Release of the MOVES2014 Motor Vehicle Emissions Model for SIPs and Transportation Conformity

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving and announcing the availability of the Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator model (MOVES2014) for official use outside of California. MOVES2014 is the latest state-of-the art upgrade to EPA’s modeling tools for estimating emissions from cars, trucks, buses, and motorcycles, based on the latest data and regulations. MOVES2014 is approved for use in state implementation plans (SIPs) and transportation conformity analyses outside of California. This notice starts a two-year grace period before the MOVES2014 emission model is required to be used in new regional emissions analyses and new hot-spot analyses for transportation conformity determinations outside of California.

DATES: EPA’s approval of the MOVES2014 emissions model for SIPs and transportation conformity analyses in states other than California is effective October 7, 2014. This approval also starts a two-year transportation conformity grace period that ends on October 7, 2016, after which MOVES2014 is required to be used for

new transportation conformity analyses outside of California. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical model questions regarding the official release or use of MOVES2014, please email EPA at [email protected]. For questions about SIPs, contact Rudy Kapichak at [email protected] or (734)214–4574. For transportation conformity questions, contact Astrid Larsen at [email protected] or (734)214–4812. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The contents of this document are as follows: I. General Information II. What is MOVES2014? III. SIP Policy for MOVES2014 IV. Transportation Conformity and

MOVES2014

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me? Entities potentially impacted by the

approval of MOVES2014 are those that adopt, approve, or fund transportation plans, transportation improvement programs (TIPs), or projects under title 23 U.S.C. or title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 and those that develop and submit SIPs to EPA. Regulated categories and entities affected by this action include:

Category Examples of regulated entities

Local government .................................... Local transportation and air quality agencies, including metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs). State government .................................... State transportation and air quality agencies. Federal government ................................ Department of Transportation (Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Adminis-

tration (FTA)).

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by the release of MOVES. Other entities not listed in the table could also be affected. To determine whether your organization is affected by this action, you should carefully examine the transportation conformity applicability requirements in 40 CFR 93.102. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the persons listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

B. How can I get copies of MOVES2014 and other related information?

The official version of the MOVES2014 model, along with user guides and supporting documentation, are available on EPA’s MOVES Web site: www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/index.htm.

Individuals who wish to receive EPA announcements related to the MOVES2014 model should subscribe to

the EPA-MOBILENEWS email listserv. To subscribe to the EPA-MOBILENEWS listserv, send a blank email to EPA at [email protected]. Your email address will then be added to the list of subscribers and a confirmation message will be sent to your email address. For more information about the EPA- MOBILENEWS listserv, visit EPA’s Web site at www.epa.gov/otaq/models/mobilelist.htm.

Available guidance on how to apply MOVES2014 for SIPs and transportation conformity purposes can be found on EPA’s transportation conformity Web site, http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/policy.htm,1 including ‘‘Policy Guidance on the Use of MOVES2014 for State Implementation Plan Development, Transportation Conformity, and Other

Purposes’’ (EPA–420–B–14–008, July 2014).

EPA will continue to update these Web sites as other MOVES support materials and guidance are developed or updated.

II. What is MOVES2014?

MOVES2014 is EPA’s latest motor vehicle emissions model for state and local agencies to estimate volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrogen oxides (NOX), particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), carbon monoxide (CO), and other precursors from cars, trucks, buses, and motorcycles for SIP purposes and conformity determinations outside of California.2 The model is based on analyses of millions of emission test results and considerable advances in the Agency’s understanding of vehicle emissions. The first model in the MOVES series, called MOVES2010, was

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:08 Oct 06, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07OCR1.SGM 07OCR1asab

alia

uska

s on

DS

K5V

PT

VN

1PR

OD

with

RU

LES

B-1



3 See EPA’s notice of availability, ‘‘Official Release of the January 2011 AP–42 Method for Estimating Re-Entrained Road Dust from Paved Roads’’, published in the Federal Register on February 4, 2011 (76 FR 6328) available on EPA’s Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/policy.htm#models. In addition to the latest version of AP–42, EPA approved-alternative local methods can be used for estimating re-entrained road dust.

4 This is an available option although not explicitly mentioned in the ‘‘Policy Guidance on the Use of MOVES2014 for State Implementation Plan Development, Transportation Conformity, and Other Purposes’’ (EPA–420–B–14–008, July 2014).

5 See Clean Air Act section 172(c)(3) and 40 CFR 51.112(a)(1).

released in December of 2009. MOVES2010 was followed by two minor updates, MOVES2010a and MOVES2010b. Both of these minor MOVES2010 revisions enhanced model performance and did not significantly affect the criteria pollutant emissions results from MOVES2010.

MOVES2014 is a major revision to MOVES2010b and improves upon it in many respects. MOVES2014 includes new data, new emissions standards, and new functional improvements and features. It incorporates substantial new data for emissions, fleet, and activity developed since the release of MOVES2010. These new emissions data are for light- and heavy-duty vehicles, exhaust and evaporative emissions, and fuel effects. MOVES2014 also adds updated vehicle sales, population, age distribution, and vehicle miles travelled (VMT) data.

MOVES2014 incorporates the effects of three new federal emissions standard rules not included in MOVES2010:

• Medium- and heavy-duty engine and vehicle greenhouse gas emission and fuel efficiency standards (promulgated September 2011, 76 FR 57106) began phasing in with the 2014 model year, and will result in lower medium- and heavy-duty engine and vehicle energy consumption rates and some reduction in criteria pollutant emissions as a result of improved aerodynamics and rolling resistance.

• Light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas emission and Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards (promulgated October 2012, 77 FR 62623) will begin phasing in with the 2017 model year, and will result in decreased energy consumption rates and decreased refueling emissions.

• Tier 3 vehicle emission and fuel standards (promulgated April 2014, 79 FR 23414) will begin phasing in with the 2017 model year, and will reduce both tailpipe and evaporative emissions of VOC, NOX, CO, and PM from light- duty cars and trucks, and some heavy- duty vehicles.

MOVES2014 also includes a number of new functional improvements and features. Some of these, such as the addition of multi-day diurnal events to evaporative emissions calculations, directly affect the estimation of criteria pollutant emissions. Others, such as new options for entering start and extended idle activity, make MOVES2014 more flexible and better able to incorporate local data where available.

EPA performed a comparison of MOVES2014 to MOVES2010b using local data for several different urban counties, varying the local data used by

fleet age distribution, fraction of light- and heavy-duty VMT, local fuel specifications, meteorology, and other input factors. In general, VOC, NOX, PM, and CO emissions show greater decreases over time compared to MOVES2010b. Differences in total emissions vary by calendar year and location, but in general, VOC and NOX emissions are lower in MOVES2014. PM emissions may be higher in some areas and lower in others. Actual results will vary based on local inputs in a given area, with local variations in fleet age distribution and composition having a significant influence on the final results.

MOVES2014 includes the capability to estimate vehicle exhaust and evaporative emissions as well as brake wear and tire wear emissions for criteria pollutants and precursors. However, MOVES does not include the capability to estimate emissions of re-entrained road dust. To estimate emissions from re-entrained road dust, practitioners should continue to use the latest approved methodologies.3

MOVES2014 also incorporates the code and database for the NONROAD2008 model, which provides the option of calculating emissions of nonroad equipment. Because the nonroad capability in MOVES2014 is essentially the same as NONROAD2008, either MOVES2014, NONROAD2008, or the nonroad portion of NMIM2008 (which incorporates NONROAD2008) can be used in analyses to meet any regulatory requirements that call for the development of new nonroad inventories.4

III. SIP Policy for MOVES2014 EPA has articulated its policy

regarding the use of MOVES2014 in SIP development in its ‘‘Policy Guidance on the Use of MOVES2014 for State Implementation Plan Development, Transportation Conformity, and Other Purposes’’ (EPA–420–B–14–008, July 2014). This document highlights certain aspects of the guidance, but state and local governments should refer to the guidance for more detailed information on how and when to use MOVES2014 in reasonable further progress SIPs,

attainment demonstrations, maintenance plans, inventory updates, and other SIP submissions.

MOVES2014 should be used in ozone, CO, PM, and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) SIP development as expeditiously as possible, as there is no grace period for the use of MOVES2014 in SIPs. The Clean Air Act requires that SIP inventories and control measures be based on the most current information and applicable models that are available when a SIP is developed.5 However, EPA also recognizes the time and level of effort that certain states may have already undertaken in SIP development using a version of MOVES2010. States should consult with their EPA Regional Office if they have questions about how MOVES2014 affects SIPs under development in specific nonattainment or maintenance areas. Early consultation can facilitate EPA’s adequacy finding for SIP motor vehicle emissions budgets or EPA’s SIP approval.

States should use the latest version of MOVES that is available at the time that a SIP is developed, which is currently MOVES2014 to develop the most accurate estimates of emissions possible. However, state and local agencies that have already completed significant work on a SIP with a version of MOVES2010 (e.g., attainment modeling has already been completed with MOVES2010) can continue to do so. It would be unreasonable to require the states to revise these SIPs with MOVES2014 since significant work has already occurred based on the latest information available at the time the SIP was developed, and EPA intends to act on these SIPs in a timely manner.

The Clean Air Act does not require states that have already submitted SIPs or will submit SIPs shortly after the release of a new model to revise these SIPs simply because a new motor vehicle emissions model is now available. This is supported by existing EPA policies and case law [Sierra Club v. EPA, 356 F.3d. 296, 307–08 (D.C. Cir. 2004)]. Of course, states can choose to use MOVES2014 in these SIPs, for example, if it is determined that it is appropriate to update motor vehicle emissions budgets (‘‘budgets’’) with the model for future conformity determinations. However, as stated above, states should use MOVES2014 where SIP development is in its initial stages or has not progressed far enough along that switching from a previous model version would create a significant adverse impact on state resources.


alia

uska

s on

DS

K5V

PT

VN

1PR

OD

with

RU

LES

B-2



6 A minor revision would be one that is made to improve performance but does not change results.

Incorporating MOVES2014 into the SIP now could assist areas in mitigating possible transportation conformity difficulties in the future after the MOVES2014 conformity grace period ends. New regional conformity analyses that are started after the grace period is over must be based on MOVES2014 (40 CFR 93.111), so having MOVES2014- based SIP budgets in place at that time could provide more consistency with transportation conformity determinations.

IV. Transportation Conformity and MOVES2014

In this document, EPA is approving MOVES2014 for use in transportation conformity analyses outside of California. EPA is also establishing a two-year conformity grace period before the use of MOVES2014 is required in these transportation conformity determinations. The MOVES2014 grace period for regional conformity and hot- spot analyses applies to the use of MOVES2014 and any future minor revisions that occur during the grace period.6

Transportation conformity is a Clean Air Act requirement to ensure that federally supported highway and transit activities are consistent with (‘‘conform to’’) the SIP. Conformity to a SIP means that a transportation activity will not cause or contribute to new air quality violations; worsen existing violations; or delay timely attainment of national ambient air quality standards or any interim milestones. Transportation conformity applies in nonattainment and maintenance areas for transportation-related pollutants: ozone, CO, PM2.5, PM10 and NO2. EPA’s transportation conformity regulations (40 CFR parts 51.390 and 93 subpart A) describe how federally funded and approved highway and transit projects meet these statutory requirements.

The remainder of this section describes how the transportation conformity grace period was determined and summarizes how it will be implemented, including those circumstances when the grace period could be shorter than two years. However, for complete explanations of how MOVES2014 is to be implemented for transportation conformity, including details about using MOVES2014 during the grace period, refer to ‘‘Policy Guidance on the Use of MOVES2014 for State Implementation Plan Development, Transportation Conformity, and Other Purposes’’ (EPA– 420–B–14–008).

A. Why is EPA establishing a two-year conformity grace period?

The transportation conformity regulation at 40 CFR 93.111 requires that conformity determinations be based on the latest motor vehicle emissions model approved by EPA. Section 176(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act states that ‘‘. . . [t]he determination of conformity shall be based on the most recent estimates of emissions, and such estimates shall be determined from the most recent population, employment, travel, and congestion estimates. . . .’’ When EPA approves a new emissions model such as MOVES2014, a grace period is established before the model is required for conformity analyses. The transportation conformity rule provides for a grace period for new emissions models of between three and 24 months (40 CFR 93.111(b)(1)), depending on the degree of change in the model and the transportation re-planning by the MPO likely to be necessary.

EPA articulated its intentions for establishing the length of a conformity grace period in the preamble to the 1993 transportation conformity rule (November 24, 1993, 58 FR 62211):

‘‘EPA and DOT [the Department of Transportation] will consider extending the grace period if the effects of the new emissions model are so significant that previous SIP demonstrations of what emission levels are consistent with attainment would be substantially affected. In such cases, States should have an opportunity to revise their SIPs before MPOs must use the model’s new emissions factors.’’

In consultation with DOT, EPA considered many factors in establishing the length of the grace period, including the degree of change in emissions models and the effects of the new model on the transportation planning process (40 CFR 93.111).

EPA considered the time it will take state and local transportation and air quality agencies to conduct and provide technical support for analyses. State and local agencies will need to become familiar with the MOVES2014 emissions model, and to convert existing data for use in MOVES2014. Since 1993, the fundamental purpose of § 93.111(b) of the transportation conformity rule has been to provide a sufficient amount of time for MPOs and other state and local agencies to learn and employ new emissions models. The transition to a new emissions model for conformity involves more than learning to use the new model and preparing input data and model output. After model start-up is complete, state and local agencies also need to consider how

the model affects regional conformity analysis results and whether SIP and/or transportation plan/TIP changes are necessary to assure future conformity determinations.

The two-year conformity grace period is also necessary to provide sufficient time for state and local agencies to learn and apply new technical guidance and training courses that reflect MOVES2014. EPA is working diligently to update these guidance documents and training courses as quickly as possible. EPA will notify MOVES2014 users when these important materials are available, and subsequently, EPA will also work with DOT to provide training for current and new users of the model. Training courses are anticipated to be provided in the form of webinars, other web-based courses, conference seminars, or in-person training. Courses will be developed to address different levels of State and local expertise.

In addition, many agencies will be implementing the transition to PM and CO hot-spot analyses with MOVES2014 for applicable projects in those nonattainment and maintenance areas, with each analysis potentially involving multiple state and local agencies. States with previously approved CO hot-spot protocols (40 CFR 93.123(a)(1)) that are based on a previous model will need time to revise them. As stated above, additional time is necessary to revise previously approved SIPs, and the SIP revision process and state requirements can vary. Finally, EPA considered the general time and monetary resource constraints in which state and local agencies currently operate. These agencies need to participate in EPA and DOT training and possibly provide training to other individuals in their offices.

Upon considerations of all these factors, EPA is establishing a two-year grace period, which begins October 7, 2014 and ends on October 7, 2016, before MOVES2014 is required to be used for new transportation conformity analyses, outside of California.

B. Circumstances When Grace Period Will Be Shorter Than Two Years

The grace period for regional conformity analyses will be shorter than two years for a given pollutant if an area revises its SIP and motor vehicle emissions budgets with MOVES2014, and such budgets have been found adequate or approved into the SIP prior to the end of the two-year grace period. In this case, the new regional emissions analysis must use MOVES2014 if the conformity determination is based on a MOVES2014-based budget (40 CFR 93.111).


alia

uska

s on

DS

K5V

PT

VN

1PR

OD

with

RU

LES

B-3



7 In the remainder of this notice, ‘‘MOVES2010’’ refers to all of the MOVES2010 models: MOVES2010, MOVES2010a, and MOVES2010b.

8 In this example, such an area would use MOVES2014 to develop a regional emissions analysis for comparison to the revised MOVES2014- based budgets (e.g., PM10 budgets). The regional emissions analysis for ozone could be based on MOVES2010 for the VOC and NOx budgets in the ozone SIP for the remainder of the conformity grace period.

9 In CO nonattainment and maintenance areas, a hot-spot analysis is required for all non-exempt projects, with quantitative hot-spot analyses being required for larger, congested intersections and other projects (40 CFR 93.123(a)(1)). In addition, the transportation conformity rule requires that a quantitative PM10 or PM2.5 hot-spot analysis be completed for certain projects of local air quality concern (40 CFR 93.123(b)(1)).

10 See http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/ transconf/projectlevel-hotspot.htm.

11 Section 93.123(a)(3) of the transportation conformity rule allows DOT, in consultation with EPA, to make a categorical hot-spot finding for certain projects based on appropriate modeling.

Areas that are designated nonattainment or maintenance for multiple pollutants may rely on both MOVES2014 and MOVES2010 7 to determine conformity for different pollutants during the grace period. For example, if an area revises a previously submitted (but not approved) MOVES2010-based PM10 SIP with MOVES2014 and EPA finds these revised MOVES2014 budgets adequate for conformity, such budgets would apply for conformity on the effective date of the Federal Register notice announcing EPA’s adequacy finding. In this example, if the area is nonattainment for PM10 and ozone, the MOVES2014 grace period would end for PM10 regional conformity analyses once EPA found the new MOVES2014-based SIP budgets adequate for PM10 regional conformity analyses begun after the effective date of adequacy finding. However, MOVES2010 could continue to be used for ozone regional emissions analysis begun before the end of the MOVES2014 grace period.8 In addition, the length of the grace period for hot- spot analyses would not be affected by an early submission of MOVES2014- based budgets. In this example, the two- year grace period for PM10 hot-spot analyses would continue to apply even if the grace period is shortened for regional PM10 conformity analyses. EPA Regional Offices should be consulted for questions regarding such situations in multi-pollutant areas.

In addition, in most cases, if an area revises previously approved MOBILE or MOVES2010-based SIP budgets using MOVES2014, the revised MOVES2014 budgets would be used for conformity purposes once EPA approves the SIP revision. In general, EPA will not make adequacy findings for these SIPs because submitted SIPs cannot supersede approved budgets until they are approved. However, 40 CFR 93.118(e)(1) allows an approved budget to be replaced by an adequate budget if EPA’s approval of the initial budgets specifies that the budgets being approved may be replaced in the future by new adequate budgets. This flexibility has been used in limited situations in the past, such as during the transition from MOBILE5 to MOBILE6. In such cases, the MOVES2014-based

budgets would be used for conformity purposes once they have been found adequate, if requested by the state in its SIP submission and specified in EPA’s SIP approval. States should consult with their EPA Regional Office to determine if this flexibility applies to their situation.

C. Use of MOVES2014 for Regional Conformity Analyses During the Grace Period

During the conformity grace period, areas should use interagency consultation to examine how MOVES2014 will impact their future transportation plan and TIP conformity determinations, including regional emissions analyses. Isolated rural areas should also consider how future regional conformity analyses will be affected when MOVES2014 is required. Areas should carefully consider whether the SIP and budgets should be revised with MOVES2014 or if transportation plans and TIPs should be revised before the end of the conformity grace period, since doing so may be necessary to ensure conformity in the future.

Finally, the transportation conformity rule provides some flexibility for completing conformity determinations based on regional emissions analyses that use MOVES2010 that are started before the end of the grace period. Regional emissions analyses that are started during the grace period can use either MOVES2010 or MOVES2014. The interagency consultation process should be used if it is unclear if a MOVES2010- based analysis was begun before the end of the grace period. If you have questions about which model should be used in your conformity determination, you can also consult with your EPA Regional Office.

When the grace period ends on October 7, 2016, MOVES2014 will become the only approved motor vehicle emissions model for regional emissions analyses for transportation conformity in states other than California. In general, this means that all new transportation plan and TIP conformity determinations started after the end of the grace period must be based on MOVES2014, even if the SIP is based on MOVES2010, MOBILE6.2, or an older version of the MOBILE model.

D. Use of MOVES2014 for Project-Level Hot-Spot Analyses During the Conformity Grace Period

The MOVES2014 grace period also applies to the use of MOVES2014 for CO, PM10 and PM2.5 hot-spot analyses. Sections 93.116 and 93.123 of the transportation conformity rule contain the requirements for when a hot-spot

analysis is required for project-level conformity determinations.9 The transportation conformity rule provides some flexibility for analyses that are started before the end of the grace period. A conformity determination for a transportation project may be based on a previous model if the analysis was begun before or during the grace period, and if the final environmental document for the project is issued no more than three years after the issuance of the draft environmental document (40 CFR 93.111(c)). Interagency consultation should be used if it is unclear if a previous analysis was begun before the end of the grace period. For CO, PM10 and PM2.5 hot-spot analyses that start during the grace period, project sponsors can choose to use MOVES2010 or MOVES2014.

EPA encourages sponsors to use the consultation process to determine which option may be most appropriate for a given situation. Any new CO, PM10 or PM2.5 hot-spot analyses for conformity purposes begun after the end of the grace period must be based on MOVES2014. EPA released guidance on how to conduct quantitative PM2.5 and PM10 hot-spot modeling for transportation conformity purposes and will update it to include MOVES2014. See EPA’s Project-level Web page 10 for latest information and guidance documents on how to conduct CO, PM10 and PM2.5 hot-spot modeling for transportation conformity purposes.

Any quantitative new CO, PM10 or PM2.5 hot-spot analysis for conformity purposes begun after the end of the grace period must use MOVES2014. The interagency consultation process should be used if it is unclear whether these conditions are met. For questions about which model should be used in a project-level conformity determination, consult with your EPA Regional Office.

E. FHWA’s CO Categorical Hot-Spot Finding

Since FHWA’s February 2014 CO categorical hot-spot finding 11 for projects affecting intersections is based on MOVES2010b, a project sponsor can


alia

uska

s on

DS

K5V

PT

VN

1PR

OD

with

RU

LES

B-4



continue to rely on this categorical finding during the grace period, as long as the project’s parameters fall within the acceptable range of modeled parameters of the categorical hot-spot finding. See http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ stateresources/transconf/projectlevel- hotspot.htm#fhwa for additional details. Any new CO hot-spot analyses for conformity purposes begun after the end of the grace period may no longer rely on the February 2014 CO categorical hot-spot finding because the finding was based on MOVES2010b.

F. Previously Approved CO SIP Hot- Spot Protocols

Section 93.123(a)(1) of the transportation conformity rule allows areas to develop alternate procedures for determining localized CO hot-spot analyses, when developed through interagency consultation and approved by the EPA Regional Administrator. Some states have chosen in the past to develop such procedures based on previously approved EPA emissions models.

During the MOVES2014 grace period, areas with previously approved CO hot- spot protocols based on MOVES2010 may continue to rely on these protocols. Areas with previously approved CO hot- spot protocols based on MOBILE6.2 or earlier MOBILE versions can no longer be used, and should have been discontinued at the end of the previous MOVES2010 grace period. Once the MOVES2014 grace period ends, any new CO hot-spot analyses for conformity purposes begun after the end of the grace period may no longer use their previously approved CO hot-spot protocols that were based on MOVES2010.

Dated: September 22, 2014. Christopher Grundler, Director, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Office of Air and Radiation. [FR Doc. 2014–23258 Filed 10–6–14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0615; FRL–9916–95– Region 9]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Placer County Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve a revision to the Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emissions from natural gas-fired water heaters, small boilers, and process heaters. We are approving a local rule that regulates these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). DATES: This rule is effective on December 8, 2014 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by November 6, 2014. If we receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that this direct final rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA–R09– OAR–2014–0615, by one of the following methods:

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions.

2. Email: [email protected]. 3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel

(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901.

Instructions: All comments 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 Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email. www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, and EPA will not know

your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105–3901. While all documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicole Law, EPA Region IX, (415) 947– 4126, [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.

Table of Contents I. The State’s Submittal

A. What rule did the State submit? B. Are there other versions of this

rule? C. What is the purpose of the

submitted rule? II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule? B. Does the rule meet the evaluation

criteria? C. EPA recommendations to further

improve the rule D. Public comment and final action

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State’s Submittal

A. What rule did the State submit?

Table 1 lists the rule we are approving with the dates that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the California Air Resources Board.

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Amended Submitted

PCAPCD ..................... 247 Natural Gas-Fired Water Heaters, Small Boilers and Process Heaters .... 02/13/14 05/13/14


alia

uska

s on

DS

K5V

PT

VN

1PR

OD

with

RU

LES

B-5


Notice and Comment, 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)-(c)

(b) General notice of proposed rule making shall be published in the Federal Register, unless persons subject thereto are named and either personally served or otherwise have actual notice thereof in accordance with law. The notice shall include—

(1) a statement of the time, place, and nature of public rule making proceedings;

(2) reference to the legal authority under which the rule is proposed; and

(3) either the terms or substance of the proposed rule or a description of the subjects and issues involved.

Except when notice or hearing is required by statute, this subsection does not apply—

(A) to interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice; or

(B) when the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefor in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.

(c) After notice required by this section, the agency shall give interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rule making through submission of written data, views, or arguments with or without opportunity for oral presentation. After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the agency shall incorporate in the rules adopted a concise general statement of their basis and purpose. When rules are required by statute to be made on the record after opportunity for an agency hearing, sections 556 and 557 of this title apply instead of this subsection.

B-6


Science Advisory Board, 42 U.S.C. § 4365(c)(1)

(c) Proposed environmental criteria document, standard, limitation, or regulation; functions respecting in conjunction with Administrator

(1) The Administrator, at the time any proposed criteria document, standard, limitation, or regulation under the Clean Air Act [42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.], the Federal Water Pollution Control Act [33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.], the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 [42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.], the Noise Control Act [42 U.S.C. 4901 et seq.], the Toxic Substances Control Act [15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.], or the Safe Drinking Water Act [42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.], or under any other authority of the Administrator, is provided to any other Federal agency for formal review and comment, shall make available to the Board such proposed criteria document, standard, limitation, or regulation, together with relevant scientific and technical information in the possession of the Environmental Protection Agency on which the proposed action is based.

B-7


Emission Factors, 42 U.S.C. § 7430

Within 6 months after November 15, 1990, and at least every 3 years thereafter, the Administrator shall review and, if necessary, revise, the methods (“emission factors”) used for purposes of this chapter to estimate the quantity of emissions of carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, and oxides of nitrogen from sources of such air pollutants (including area sources and mobile sources). In addition, the Administrator shall establish emission factors for sources for which no such methods have previously been established by the Administrator. The Administrator shall permit any person to demonstrate improved emissions estimating techniques, and following approval of such techniques, the Administrator shall authorize the use of such techniques. Any such technique may be approved only after appropriate public participation. Until the Administrator has completed the revision required by this section, nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the validity of emission factors established by the Administrator before November 15, 1990.

B-8


State Implementation Plans, 42 U.S.C. § 7502(c)(3)

(c) Nonattainment plan provisions

The plan provisions (including plan items) required to be submitted under this part shall comply with each of the following:

. . .

(3) Inventory

Such plan provisions shall include a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in such area, including such periodic revisions as the Administrator may determine necessary to assure that the requirements of this part are met.

B-9


Emissions Model, 40 C.F.R. § 93.111(a)-(b)

Criteria and Procedures: Latest emissions model.

(a) The conformity determination must be based on the latest emission estimation model available. This criterion is satisfied if the most current version of the motor vehicle emissions model specified by EPA for use in the preparation or revision of implementation plans in that State or area is used for the conformity analysis. Where EMFAC is the motor vehicle emissions model used in preparing or revising the applicable implementation plan, new versions must be approved by EPA before they are used in the conformity analysis.

(b) EPA will consult with DOT to establish a grace period following the specification of any new model.

B-10


ADDENDUM C

EPAct STUDY TEST FUEL DISTILLATION TEMPERATURES


ADDENDUM C

EPAct STUDY TEST FUEL DISTILLATION TEMPERATURES

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

High T50, High T90 ....................................................................... C-1

High T50, Low T90 ........................................................................ C-2

Mid T50, High T90 ........................................................................ C-3

Mid T50, Low T90 ......................................................................... C-4

Low T50, High T90 ........................................................................ C-5

Low T50, Low T90 ......................................................................... C-6


C-1

High T50, High T90: T50=220 ˚F, T90=340 ˚F1

1 Data represent the test fuels measured in the EPAct study. EPAct Study Test Fuels, http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/documents/epact-v2-e89-fuel-properties-dha.xlsx (last visited on June 25, 2015).


C-2

High T50, Low T90: T50=220 ˚F, T90=300 ˚F


C-3

Mid T50, High T90: T50=190 ˚F, T90=340 ˚F


C-4

Mid T50, Low T90: T50=190 ˚F, T90=300 ˚F


C-5

Low T50, High T90: T50=165 ˚F, T90=340 ˚F


C-6

Low T50, Low T90: T50=165 ˚F, T90=300 ˚F


ADDENDUM D

EPAct STUDY TEST FUEL AROMATICS LEVELS


ADDENDUM D

EPAct STUDY TEST FUEL AROMATICS LEVELS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

EPAct Study Designed Proportion of Aromatics vs. Actual Proportion of Aromatics ............................................................................................... D-1

Aromatics Levels of EPAct Study Test Fuels vs. Market Fuel .................... D-3


D-1

EPAct Study Designed Proportion of Aromatics vs. Actual Proportion of Aromatics�

�

1 EPA, EPAct/V2/E-89: Assessing the Effect of Five Gasoline Properties on Exhaust Emissions from Light-Duty Vehicles Certified to Tier 2 Standards: Final Report on Program Design, Appendix A: Re-Design of Fuel Matrices for EPAct Program, at A-13 (Apr. 2013). 2 Gas Chromatography is a scientific method for isolating and measuring the presence of aromatics and other compounds in fuel samples. A similar but less accurate measuring method is ASTM D1319. See infra, at D-2. Aromatic proportions were calculated by totaling the proportion of Mono-Aromatics, Naphthalenes, Naphtheno/Olefino-Benzs, and Indenes measured in the test fuels. EPAct Study Test Fuels, http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/documents/ epact-v2-e89-fuel-properties-dha.xlsx (last visited on June 25, 2015) (Sheet “DHA-vol%”; Rows 8–16, 109–64, and 192–96).

Test Fuel #Designed Proportion

of Aromatics1

(%)

Actual Proportion of Aromatics (Gas

Chromatography)2

(%)

Percentage Increase

1 15 17.5 16.78%2 15 19.3 28.99%3 15 16.3 8.81%4 15 20.9 39.18%5 35 37.9 8.43%6 15 20.3 35.03%7 15 18.9 26.17%8 15 17.8 18.91%9 35 39.4 12.69%

10 35 39.4 12.59%11 35 38.6 10.36%12 35 38.1 8.77%13 35 40.3 15.02%14 15 20.4 35.79%15 35 36.1 3.19%16 35 36.4 3.89%20 15 15.6 4.00%21 35 36.9 5.49%22 15 15.8 5.32%23 15 21.0 39.99%24 15 19.3 28.92%25 35 37.2 6.36%26 35 36.7 4.98%27 15 18.7 24.43%28 35 35.5 1.32%30 35 35.8 2.17%31 35 37.1 5.99%


D-2

��

3�EPA, EPAct/V2/E-89, supra at D-1, note 1. 4EPAct Study Test Fuels, supra at D-1, note 2.

Test Fuel #Designed Proportion

of Aromatics3

(%)

Actual Proportion of

Aromatics (D1319)4

(%)

Percentage Increase

1 15 15.4 2.67%2 15 14.1 -6.00%3 15 15.0 0.00%4 15 15.5 3.33%5 35 34.7 -0.86%6 15 15.0 0.00%7 15 17.0 13.33%8 15 15.7 4.67%9 35 35.8 2.29%

10 35 34.0 -2.86%11 35 35.0 0.00%12 35 34.8 -0.57%13 35 34.1 -2.57%14 15 16.9 12.67%15 35 35.3 0.86%16 35 35.6 1.71%20 15 15.2 1.33%21 35 35.5 1.43%22 15 15.0 0.00%23 15 15.9 6.00%24 15 15.3 2.00%25 35 35.2 0.57%26 35 35.6 1.71%27 15 14.9 -0.67%28 35 34.5 -1.43%30 35 35.5 1.43%31 35 35.5 1.43%


D-3

Aromatics Levels of EPAct Study Test Fuels vs. Market Fuel5

5 “EPAct Fuels” represent the test fuels used in the EPAct study. EPAct Study Test Fuels, supra, at D-1, note 2. “Market Fuels” represent U.S. fuels measured in the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers Fuel Survey. Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, North American Fuel Survey (Summer 2014). Petitioners’ copy of the Manufacturers Fuel Survey from the Alliance of Automobiles Manufactures, was purchased subject to a signed agreement not to republish the raw data. If either EPA or the Court wants to review the raw data, then Petitioners will file it under seal immediately upon request.

EPAct Test Fuels (Gas Chromatography)

EPAct Test Fuels (D1319)

E10 EPAct Test Fuels (Gas Chromatography)

E10 EPAct Test Fuels (D1319)

All Market Fuels

E10 Market Fuels

E10 Weighted Avg.

Regular E10 Market Fuels

Premium E10 Market Fuels

Average 28.78 25.63 29.61 26.20 21.14 20.74 21.49 21.62 20.55Median 35.75 34.00 36.17 34.00 21.20 21.10 ---- 21.40 20.85Highest 40.84 35.80 40.07 35.60 40.40 40.40 40.40 33.60 40.40Lowest 15.84 14.10 16.59 15.00 3.90 3.90 3.90 10.20 3.90

E10 Market Fuels (All Cities)

Aromatics (%)EPAct Test Fuels


ADDENDUM E

OCTANE LEVELS of EPAct STUDY TEST FUELS vs. MARKET FUEL


ADDENDUM E

OCTANE LEVELS of EPAct STUDY TEST FUELS vs. MARKET FUEL

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Octane Levels of EPAct Study Test Fuels vs. Market Fuel ......................... E-1

Distribution of Octane Levels Across EPAct Study Test Fuels and Market Fuels .............................................................................................. E-2


E-1

Octane Levels of EPAct Study Test Fuels vs. Market Fuel1

1 “EPAct Fuels” represent the test fuels used in the EPAct study. EPAct Study Test Fuels, http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/documents/epact-v2-e89-fuel-properties-dha.xlsx (last visited on June 25, 2015). “Market Fuels” represent U.S. fuels measured in the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers Fuel Survey. Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, North American Fuel Survey (Summer 2014). Petitioners’ copy of the Manufacturers Fuel Survey from the Alliance of Automobiles Manufactures, was purchased subject to a signed agreement not to republish the raw data. If either EPA or the Court wants to review the raw data, then Petitioners will file it under seal immediately upon request. 2 The weighted average was calculated using the 2014 average sales of each fuel grade (Regular, Mid-grade, and Premium). Energy Information Administration, U.S. Sales to End Users, Total Refiner Motor Gasoline Sales Volumes, http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_refmg_d_nus_vtr_mgalpd_ m.htm (last visited on June 25, 2015). Of all gasoline sold in 2014, 84.29% was Regular, 6.30% was Mid-grade, and 9.41% was Premium. For calculation purposes, Mid-grade was divided into half Regular and half Premium. Thus, Regular was assigned a weight of 87.44%, and Premium was assigned a weight of 12.56%.

All EPAct Fuels

All Market Fuels

EPAct Fuels (E10)

Market Fuels (E10 Weighted

Avg.)2

Market Fuels (E10)

Market Fuels (Regular E10)

Market Fuels (Premium E10)

Average 92.79 89.79 92.76 88.35 89.80 87.77 92.37Median 92.80 88.90 92.80 ---- 88.80 87.80 92.80Highest 96.05 94.40 94.65 94.40 94.40 90.40 94.40Lowest 87.70 84.20 90.55 84.20 84.20 84.20 90.40

Octane (AKI)


E-2

Distribution of Octane Levels Across EPAct Study Test Fuels

and Market Fuels3

3 Raw octane values were rounded to the nearest whole octane value. “EPAct Fuels” represent the test fuels used in the EPAct study. See EPAct Study Test Fuels, supra at E-1, note 1. “Market Fuels” represent U.S. fuels measured in the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers Fuel Survey. See North American Fuel Survey, supra at E-1, note 1. These charts show the percent of EPAct Study test fuels surveyed and market fuels with a particular rounded octane value.


E-3


ADDENDUM F

T50 & T90 DISTILLATION TEMPERATURES of MOVES2014 DEFAULTS vs. MARKET FUEL


ADDENDUM F

T50 & T90 DISTILLATION TEMPERATURES of MOVES2014 DEFAULTS vs. MARKET FUEL

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Corresponding MOVES Default Counties and Market Fuel Cities ............. F-1

All MOVES Default Counties and Market Fuel Cities ............................... F-3


F-1

Corresponding MOVES Default Counties and Market Fuel Cities1

1 “Corresponding” refers to the fact that the counties whose MOVES defaults are analyzed correspond to the cities whose market fuel data are analyzed. MOVES2014 October Release. http://www.epa.gov/oms/models/moves/ (accessed 12-Jun-2015). “Market Fuels” represent U.S. fuels measured in the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers Fuel Survey. Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, North American Fuel Survey (Summer 2014). Petitioners’ copy of the Manufacturers Fuel Survey from the Alliance of Automobiles Manufactures, was purchased subject to a signed agreement not to republish the raw data. If either EPA or the Court wants to review the raw data, then Petitioners will file it under seal immediately upon request.

MOVES E10 Defaults

MOVES RFG E10 Defaults

MOVES Conventional E10

Defaults

E10 Market Fuels

RFG E10 Market Fuels

Conventional E10 Market

Fuels

E10 Market Fuels

Weighted Avg.




T50 (°F)E10 Market Fuels (Corresponding Cities)MOVES2014 E10 Defaults (Corresponding Counties)

MOVES E10 Defaults



Defaults

E10 Market Fuels



Fuels

E10 Market Fuels

Weighted Avg.




T90 (°F)MOVES2014 E10 Defaults (Corresponding Counties) E10 Market Fuels (Corresponding Cities)


F-2!!


F-3

All MOVES Default Counties and Market Fuel Cities

MOVES E10 Defaults



Defaults

E10 Market Fuels



Fuels

E10 Market Fuels

Weighted Avg.




MOVES2014 E10 Defaults (All Counties) E10 Market Fuels (All Cities)

T50 (°F)

MOVES E10 Defaults



Defaults

E10 Market Fuels



Fuels

E10 Market Fuels

Weighted Avg.




T90 (°F)MOVES2014 E10 Defaults (All Counties) E10 Market Fuels (All Cities)


F-4!!


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that all counsel of record who have consented to

electronic service are being served today with a copy of this document via the

Court’s CM/ECF. All parties in this case are represented by counsel

consenting to electronic service.

/s/ Adam R.F. Gustafson October 28, 2015 Adam R.F. Gustafson


oral argument not yet scheduled...attorney general of kansas jeffrey a. chanay chief deputy attorney...

Documents