SNPR Response to Comments Document

December 2011

Determination of Significant Contribution to Nonattainment of Ozone
NAAQS

General

Commenter generally questions the validity of EPA’s conclusion
regarding the six States determined to significantly contribute to
nonattainment in downwind States and covered in this SNPR, especially
based on the Allegan, MI receptor.

Comment:  Why were States that did not significantly impact a
non-compliance monitor included in this rulemaking?  The goal of the
rulemaking is to ensure that all monitor locations are in attainment by
2014.  Including States that only showed a significant impact on a
maintenance monitor is excessive and does nothing to accomplish the
goal.  [Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority (OMPA)
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4573), p. 2]

RESPONSE:  The comment is outside the scope of the SNPR because it
addresses issues that were within the scope of the request for comments
in the proposed Transport Rule but not in the SNPR.  While EPA is not
reconsidering or reopening the issue, we note that the issue was
previously addressed in the final Transport Rule, section V.C.2, 76 FR
48227, August 8, 2011 and that the North Carolina v. EPA opinion
requires EPA to give independent meaning to the interfere with
maintenance prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).  Further, EPA notes
that the commenter incorrectly describes the objective of the Transport
Rule.

Comment:  PSO and AEP respectfully submit that the data included in the
proposal does not support EPA's conclusion that emissions from EGU
sources in Oklahoma significantly contribute to the projected
maintenance issues at the Allegan County, Michigan monitor, or that
further reductions in NOX emissions from these sources will address the
modeled maintenance issue.  The monitor in question has already attained
the 1997 ozone standard, and EPA's modeling erroneously predicts a
maintenance issue at this location.  Moreover, even if the modeled
values were accurate, they are the result of a well understood
phenomenon resulting from rush-hour mobile source emissions in the
Chicago area and no additional reductions in Oklahoma will aid in
maintaining the standard. [Public Service Company of Oklahoma
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4600), p. 2-3.]

RESPONSE:  EPA’s methodology for identifying nonattainment and
maintenance receptors is based on using modeling to project measured air
quality for specific monitors, not on the designation status of an area
as explained in section III.D of the preamble to the final supplemental.
 EPA believes this approach is appropriate for reasons explained in
section V.C.2 of the preamble to the final Transport Rule.  76 FR 48230,
August 8, 2011.

The commenter claims that ozone at the Allegan County monitor is the
result of rush-hour mobile source emissions in Chicago and no additional
reductions in Oklahoma will aid in maintaining the standard.  However,
the commenter provides not analyses or references to substantiate this
claim.  EPA’s CAMx source apportionment modeling shows that 10 states
(including Oklahoma) contribute above the 1% of the ozone NAAQS
threshold to Allegan County.  EPA’s modeling does show that the
largest ozone contribution is from Illinois.  But that does not change
the fact that 9 other states interfere with maintenance in Allegan
County and it does not alleviate the need for those states, including
Oklahoma, to eliminate their interference with maintenance.  Further,
the North Carolina v. EPA opinion requires EPA to give independent
meaning to the interfere with maintenance prong of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).

Comment:  EPA's decision to use the CSAPR program as the basis for
further NOX reductions in Oklahoma is not sound for all of the reasons
presented in previous comments submitted on the proposed Transport Rule
by AEP, the Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG).  The Edison Electric
Institute (EEI), the Midwest Ozone Group (MOG) and ignores the
substantial additional reductions already required to be made under the
Regional Haze SIP developed by Oklahoma, and proposed to be approved by
EP A in a notice earlier this year.  The reductions required under the
Regional Haze SIP will more than adequately address any contribution of
NOX emissions by Oklahoma sources to the Allegan County, MI monitor.
[Public Service Company of Oklahoma (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4600), p.
2-3.]

RESPONSE:  EPA’s methodology for identifying nonattainment and
maintenance receptors is based on using modeling to project measured air
quality for specific monitors, not on the designation status of an area
as explained in section III.D of the preamble to the final supplemental.
 EPA believes this approach is appropriate for reasons explained in
section V.C.2 of the preamble to the final Transport Rule, 76 FR 48230,
August 8, 2011.  Additional responses on the MOG modeling data are also
contained in section V.C.2.  Responses to CAIR-related baseline comments
are in section V.B. of the preamble to the final Transport Rule, 76 FR
48223, August 8, 2011.  EPA disagrees with the comment that the Regional
Haze SIP will more than adequately address any contribution of NOX
emissions by Oklahoma sources to the Allegan County, Michigan monitor.
EPA agrees that the regional haze SIP requirements will require
reductions in NOX emissions from several EGUs in Oklahoma, and EPA
expects to issue a final approval of those regional haze NOX
requirements by December 31, 2011.  Those required reductions, however,
have compliance dates five years after EPA’s SIP approval — that is,
late 2016.  This time period is much later than 2012.  Accordingly,
those requirements would not have affected EPA’s 2012 base case
inventory for Oklahoma, nor would they have affected EPA’s
determination of whether Oklahoma’s contribution was sufficient for
inclusion under the Transport Rule.

Comment:  EPA's application of its CSAPR modeling methodology to the
state of Oklahoma requires the entire state (along with 3 other states
in this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPR) (Iowa,
Wisconsin and Kansas)) to significantly reduce, at significant total
cost, EGU emissions of NOX during the ozone season to address a modeled
maintenance issue.  The area in question is a single county (Allegan
County) in Michigan.  The county is located in western Michigan in an
area directly East across Lake Michigan from the Chicago/Milwaukee metro
areas.  It is important to note that the monitors in the area show the
county to be in attainment.  The modeling data developed by the Midwest
Ozone Group (MOG) and its Industrial Modeling Coalition, used in
conjunction with ambient air quality data collected by USEPA, show that
not only are transport criteria met by the existing CAIR program, the
requirements of which are still in effect and under which significant
emissions reductions have been achieved and continue, but full
compliance with the NAAQS targeted by this rulemaking are satisfied for
this county. [Public Service Company of Oklahoma
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4600), p. 2-3.]

RESPONSE:  EPA’s methodology for identifying nonattainment and
maintenance receptors is based on using modeling to project measured air
quality for specific monitors, not on the designation status of an area
as explained in section III.D of the preamble to the final supplemental.
 EPA believes this approach is appropriate for reasons explained in
section V.C.2 of the preamble to the final Transport Rule, 76 FR 48230,
August 8, 2011.  Additional responses on the MOG modeling data are
contained in section V.C.2 of the preamble to the final Transport Rule,
76 FR 48230, August 8, 2011.  The comment suggesting that the transport
criteria are met by the existing CAIR program is outside the scope of
issues we requested comment on in this SNPR, ignores the fact that this
rule is to replace, not supplement the CAIR, and was responded to in the
record for the final Transport Rule.  Responses to CAIR-related baseline
comments are in section V.B. of the preamble to the final Transport
Rule, 76 FR 48223, August 8, 2011.  Responses to comments on current air
quality in Allegan County are in section III.D of the final supplemental
rule preamble.

Comment:  The reductions required in the six states are significant.
The proposed 2012 Oklahoma budget 21,835 tons is 56% lower than the
total of the highest emissions for each unit during 2006 through 2010,
and 42% lower than the total 2010 emissions for the applicable units in
the state.  For PSO plants operating in Oklahoma, the allocations would
require these facilities to reduce emissions by 65% from their maximum
annual during 2006 through 2010, and 52% below their 2010 emissions.  Of
these units, only two are coal combustion units with the remaining being
natural gas.  PSO and AEP have developed plans and a schedule to install
additional NOX controls on many of these units.  However, those controls
are scheduled to be phased in over several years.  Based on our
experience of installing controls for NOX emissions over the past
several years, there would not be enough time to complete installation
of all of these controls by the 2012 ozone season, even if expedited
delivery and installation were feasible. [Public Service Company of
Oklahoma (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4600), p. 2-3]

RESPONSE:  EPA made a number of adjustments between proposal and final
that affect the size of the Oklahoma budget.  See the preamble to this
final rule, section III.B.iv, for an explanation of how the final budget
was calculated.  In calculating the 2012 budget, EPA did not assume NOX
combustion control installations or upgrades in 2012.  Sources will be
able to phase in those controls as the above comment suggests.

Comment:  PSO does not believe that the timelines and stringent budgets
within this Proposed Supplemental Transport Rule are justified by the
minimal maintenance impact predicted by the model and the total costs of
imposed reductions, especially considering the number of states/units
affected only because of this one receptor. [Public Service Company of
Oklahoma (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4600), p. 2-3].  Given that the model
predicts that this single receptor still attains the ozone air quality
standard but is marginally approaching levels that suggest additional
reductions will assure maintenance of the standard, and that the
integrity of the modeling results is uncertain as discussed below, it is
excessive to require such significant reductions at such a significant
cost. The cost to achieve this projected 0.1 ppb reduction is not
justified. In addition, the short compliance timeframe imposes greater
costs to expedite construction schedules than accounted for in EPA's
estimate. Oklahoma should not be included in the CSAPR program. Public
Service Company of Oklahoma (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4600), p. 2-3]

RESPONSE:  See preamble section III.D of this final rule for discussion
of EPA’s justification for inclusion of the Allegan site as a
receptor, including discussion of how recent air quality monitoring
reinforces EPA’s position.  As noted in this preamble discussion, a
very large proportion of ozone at the Allegan receptor is caused by
upwind state contributions.  Accordingly, it is especially important for
such a location to ensure that upwind states are meeting the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).

EPA finds that Oklahoma clearly contributes to this ozone problem
receptor.  Oklahoma contributes more than 2 ppb, which is more than
twice the threshold.

EPA finds the costs imposed by the rule to be modest in comparison to
the types of controls routinely in place elsewhere.  For example, for
Oklahoma EPA predicts, at most, additional low NOX burner (LNB)
installations on certain facilities.  Such technologies, and more
stringent controls such as selective catalytic reduction (SCR), have
routinely been in place for states in the areas of the eastern United
States which contribute to downwind state ozone nonattainment.  One
illustration of the degree of SCR installation may be seen by comparing
2008 and 2009 annual NOX emissions.  Because CAIR essentially required
SCR installations to operate year round, which were not required to
operate year-round in 2008, nearly one million tons of NOX was reduced
between 2008 and 2009.  EPA finds the costs of LNB controls that may
result from the rule’s inclusion of Oklahoma to be very reasonable.

EPA has considered the commenter concerns with respect to the compliance
schedule.   In the final rule, EPA is setting the Oklahoma 2012 ozone
season NOX budget at a level that reflects emission reductions
achievable through actions (such as some changes in generation unit
dispatch) that do not include additional LNB installations or
significant changes in dispatch of certain oil/gas units.  EPA is
setting the Oklahoma ozone season NOX budget for 2013 and beyond at the
level that was proposed in the SNPR, i.e., to reflect NOX levels
achievable with additional LNB installations that can be completed
before the 2013 ozone season without necessitating the shutdown of units
during the summer peak demand period in 2012.

Comment:  USEPA has failed to completely examine its own record relating
to the Allegan County ozone monitor (260030005).  In examining the
emission inventory from the proposed rule to the new modeling supporting
the final rule, the emission inventories offer several alternative
perspectives on why this monitor has suddenly changed from a monitor
that was not of interest to a monitor that is now classified as
Maintenance.  These alternatives clearly show that this monitor should
not be used to include additional states in the CSAPR program. [Public
Service Company of Oklahoma (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4600), p. 4-6.]

RESPONSE:  EPA disagrees with the comment.  EPA has carefully examined
the information regarding the Allegan County ozone monitor and explained
the relevance of this information in   Section III.D of the preamble to
the final supplemental rulemaking.

Comment:  First, the states that are shown to contribute to the monitor
based on the 2012 source apportionment modeling should be considered.
These states can be grouped roughly as follows:

Lake Michigan States Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin

Intermediate Range States -Iowa, Kansas, Missouri

Long Range States -Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas

When the NOX inventories in the Lake Michigan and Intermediate Range
States are examined based on the information in the Technical Support
Documents for both the Proposed and Final Modeling, the total NOX
inventories for these states have changed very little (2,683,513 Tons
vs. 2,684,457 Tons).  The state level changes are shown in a table (see
Table 1 of the comment letter) for these states.

This state level analysis shows that while significant decreases in the
EGU portion of the inventory occur in all of the Lake Michigan and
intermediate range states, the total NOX inventory decreases by less, or
increases.  The contributions of other source categories from these
nearer states therefore play a far more significant role in any
projected maintenance for the Allegan County monitor.

Past studies that USEPA modeling staff is aware of (as at least two of
them were participants in various of these studies), determined that two
of the critical states for driving ozone levels in western Michigan are
Illinois and Wisconsin.  For those two states, the total NO" inventory
increases while the EGU contribution decreases by some 34,728 tons
between the cases. This clearly shows that other source categories are
growing the inventory by some 97,699 tons.  Many of these other source
categories also generate organic emissions concurrently with the NOX
emissions, which then reacts in the atmosphere over Lake Michigan to
become ozone.  This ozone then blows on shore in Western Michigan giving
the elevated readings observed.

Taking this one step further, if the four Lake Michigan States are
considered, the numbers become an increase in total NOX of 16,316, but a
decrease in EGU NOX of 150,850 tons, giving a total increase in NO" for
all non-EGU sources of 167,166 tons.  The inventory changes in just
these four key states impacting the Allegan County monitoring site
suggest that the VOC/NOX ratio in the Lake Michigan area has been
significantly shifted toward VOC's between the Proposal and Final
Modeling.  Since these changes have occurred in areas known to
contribute to elevated ozone levels in Western Michigan, this strongly
suggests that local, non-EGU sources are the cause of the increase
modeled at the Allegan County monitor.  With the reduced emission
inventories of the EGU Sector in relation to the total NOX inventory,
addressing the maintenance issues at the Allegan County monitor is being
wrongly placed on the shoulders of EGUs and USEPA must perform more
detailed source apportionment modeling that is able to identify
responsible source categories as well as states.  In addition, this
modeling must be extended to the 2014 Remedy Case, at a minimum, to
properly demonstrate that the remedy USEPA is attempting to impose will
actually achieve the predicted reductions. [Public Service Company of
Oklahoma (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4600), p. 4-6.]

RESPONSE:  The comment is outside the scope of the SNPR to the extent it
is suggesting EPA should make changes to the methodology used to
quantify a state’s significant contribution.  EPA addressed numerous
comments regarding this methodology in the final Transport Rule and did
not reopen this methodology for comment in the SNPR. .

EPA agrees that there were numerous emissions updates, including updates
to both the EGU and non-EGU components of the inventory between the
proposal and the final rule.  Some components of the emissions inventory
increased and some decreased.  In some cases EGU emissions went down
between proposal and final.  EPA agrees that, in general, mobile source
emissions went up, due to the availability of updates to the mobile
source emissions model (MOVES).  EPA also agrees that changes to NOX and
VOC emissions in the inventories used for air quality modeling could
change the VOC/NOX ratio and thereby change projected ozone
concentrations and contributions.  In this regard, EPA reran CAMx for
the final rule using the updated emissions inventories in order to
explicitly account for any chemistry affects from the net changes in
emissions.  As a result of the updated modeling, the Allegan receptor
went from a level that was slightly below the NAAQS in the proposal
modeling to a level that was slightly above the NAAQS (for maintenance)
in the final rule modeling.  Therefore, the Allegan county monitor
became a maintenance receptor for the final rule analysis.  This
receptor was treated in the same way as every other potential
nonattainment and/or maintenance receptor.  EPA believes that the
Allegan county receptor is a valid maintenance receptor and that it is
not identified as a receptor due to any errors in the modeling or the
calculation of future design values (see also responses to comments on
current air quality in Allegan County are in section III.D. of the final
supplemental rule preamble).

The commenter says that EPA’s approach to addressing the maintenance
issues at the Allegan County monitor is being wrongly placed on the
shoulders of EGUs and EPA must perform more detailed source
apportionment modeling that is able to identify responsible source
categories as well as states.  The comment questions EPA’s approach
that considers the collective contribution from all anthropogenic source
categories of NOX (i.e., including both EGU and non-EGU emissions) from
each upwind state along with cost in determining the amount of
significant contribution.  The commenter suggests an approach that is
based on air quality contributions from individual sectors.  This
comment represents a broad challenge to EPA’s approach of considering
cost and collective contribution.   The identification of EGU emission
reductions by EPA in the remedy analysis was based on a determination
that, at the cost thresholds selected under the final Transport Rule,
the power sector offers the most cost-effective emission reductions to
reduce a state’s significant contribution to nonattainment or
interference with maintenance.  Information on EPA’s decision to
include cost as part of the analysis is provided in the final Transport
Rule preamble.

Comment:  USEPA redesignated Allegan County to attainment in 2009.  In
2010, the monitor had a three year average value of 74 ppb and for the
period including through 7/21/2011 a three year average of 77 ppb.  As
discussed in previous comments on the Transport Rule, the Midwest Ozone
Group (MOG) supplied new modeling based on the use of a 2008 base year.
That modeling does not indicate that the Allegan County monitor would be
out of attainment with the 84 ppb standard in any of the cases.  The MOG
modeling shows this monitor at roughly 81 ppb in the base year, 76 ppb
in 2014, and 73 ppb in 2018 with CAIR level reductions (which did not
include Oklahoma) and other rules in place.  The actual monitor
three-year average values are much more consistent with the 2008 values
modeled by MOG and much less consistent with the values being generated
by USEPA using the 2005 base year.  We therefore continue to believe
that USEPA has incorrectly used 2005 for the base year of its analysis
and should re-perform its modeling using a base year of 2008.  [Public
Service Company of Oklahoma (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4600), p. 6.]

RESPONSE:   The comment is outside the scope of the SNPR because issues
concerning the base case were within the scope of the request for
comments in the proposed Transport Rule but not in the SNPR.  While EPA
is not reconsidering or reopening the issue, we note that the issue was
addressed in the final Transport Rule, section V.B, 76 FR 48223-48224.
Additional information is available in section III.D of the preamble to
the final supplemental rulemaking.

Comment:   In 2008 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found
the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to be “fundamentally flawed,”
initially vacating and remanding it to EPA See North Carolina v. EPA,
531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008).  However some months later in December,
the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the CAIR without vacatur,
North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008), instead, leaving
CAIR in place until EPA cured the flaws in CAIR.  Therefore CAIR is a
viable rule and utilities must currently comply with the stringent
nitrogen oxide (NOX) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) limits prescribed by the
rule.

During the last half of the previous decade utilities have installed and
continue to install equipment to control NOX to meet the requirements of
CAIR.  In Ameren’s case we have installed add-on controls including
Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) and combustion controls including
low NOX burners and over-fire air systems on Ameren's fleet of coal
plants.  Ameren has also been a pioneer in enhancing the use of
combustion controls in addition to low NOX burners, such as over fire
air and combustion optimization systems to achieve cost effective
reduction in NOX emissions.  Installation of these controls began in the
1990s to enable Ameren to comply with the Acid Rain Program, state
implementation plans and the NOX Budget Trading Programs and continued
into the subsequent years to achieve regional reductions for the CAIR
program.

EPA has assumed as part of its regulatory analysis that the CAIR program
is not in place and that affected sources are not complying with the
rules.  This assumption is in error. By not including compliance with
CAIR in its assumptions, the EPA analyses have over stated the impact of
these sources prior to the imposition of the proposed inclusion of these
six states into the ozone season control period of the CSAPR.  This
assumption completely invalidates EPA’s analyses and the results
produced.  EPA should redo the analyses assuming that CAIR is fully in
place and the affected sources are complying with the regulations.  EPA
should view CAIR as the valid control program that it is and allow
sources to smoothly transition to the future rules to be promulgated in
a more reasonable time frame, just as was done between the NOX SIP Call
trading program and the CAIR.  [Ameren Corporation
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4596), p. 2.]

RESPONSE:  The comment is outside the scope of the SNPR because it
addresses issues that were within the scope of the request for comments
in the proposed Transport Rule but not in the SNPR.  The comment also
ignores the fact that the Transport Rule replaces, and does not simply
supplement, the CAIR.  While EPA is not reconsidering or reopening the
issue, we note that the issue was previously addressed in the final
Transport Rule, sections V.B and V.C, 76 FR 48223-48236, August 8, 2011.

Commenter supports generally EPA’s supplementary proposal.

Comment:  The Sierra Club commends the EPA for recognizing the important
role of interstate air pollution in the non-attainment and interference
with maintenance of National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(“NAAQS”), and its efforts to address the issue in the proposed
rule. The Sierra Club is the oldest and largest grassroots environmental
group, with over 1.3 million members. Sierra Club members live, work,
attend school, travel and recreate in areas adversely by power plant
emissions. Our members enjoy and are entitled to the benefits of natural
resources that are adversely affected by interstate air pollution,
including air, water and soil; forests and cropland; parks, wilderness
areas and other green space; and flora and fauna. Our membership and
their families include sensitive populations such as asthmatics, the
elderly and children who are at elevated risk for deleterious health
effects posed by power plant emissions.

Sierra Club supports EPA’s proposal to include six states in the
cross-state rule’s ozone season NOX program: Iowa, Kansas, Michigan,
Missouri, Oklahoma and Wisconsin. Using the methodologies and modeling
previously available for public comment, EPA identified two additional
counties that are having trouble maintaining the 1997 ozone standards:
Allegan County, MI and Harford County, MD.  EPA found that Iowa, Kansas,
Missouri, Oklahoma and Wisconsin significantly contribute to Allegan
County’s maintenance problem and Michigan significantly contributes to
the maintenance problem in Harford County.  EPA’s proposal includes
NOX emissions budgets for all the covered units in the six states.  The
NOX emissions at issue, and the ozone it forms, causes significant harm
to public health and the environment.

As EPA explains in the proposed rule, there has been ample time and
stakeholder process for public comment on all aspects of modeling and
methodology.  EPA made all the relevant background data available for
public comment previously in connection with the proposed transport
rule.  Reopening public comment on methodology and modeling would serve
only to delay emissions reductions that are long overdue.  The six
affected states had incentive to review that proposal closely because it
included all six states in at least one of the rule’s trading
programs.

All states that are included in the proposed rule significantly
contribute to ozone maintenance in other states. Although Sierra Club
continues to maintain that EPA’s threshold should be lower, EPA used 1
percent of the NAAQS as the threshold for determining which states to
include in this rule.  For the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.08 ppm, the
contribution threshold is 0.0008 ppm (0.8 ppb).  All states that
contribute .8 ppb or above to a nonattainment or maintenance receptor
are included in the rule for ozone season. Most of the six states
contribute much more.  For Allegan County, MI, Oklahoma contributes over
three times that threshold at 2.8 ppb. Missouri contributes even more at
4.8, Wisconsin 2.2 ppb, Kansas 1 ppb and Iowa .9 ppb.  The numbers show
why it is vital that every contributing state do its fair share of
reductions. If only the few largest state contributors were responsible
for reductions, the air quality standards could not be achieved.  The
sum of all the many small contributors forms a substantial portion of
the total. For Harford County, only 42% of the total contribution is
captured if a 5% threshold is used (4 ppb). Using a 1% threshold
captures 81% of the total contribution to exceedances.  For Allegan
County, only 72% of the total is captured with a 5% threshold, while 92%
is captured with a 1% threshold.  [Sierra Club
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4587), p. 1-2.]

RESPONSE:  EPA concurs with the comments that  issues concerning
modeling and methodology should not be reopened, because adequate
opportunity for public comment was already provided on these matters,
and the comments supporting the inclusion of  Iowa, Michigan, Missouri,
Oklahoma and Wisconsin in the Transport Rule ozone season NOX program.
As explained in the preamble to this final rule, EPA is not finalizing a
FIP for Kansas at this time for the reasons provided in section III.C.

Comment:   In brief, we support EPA’s conclusion that these six states
significantly contribute to nonattainment and interference with
maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS, as well as EPA’s application of
the CSAPR remedial program to power plants in those states.  Given
EPA’s analysis and methodology employed in CSAPR, and the emission
inventories for those and other states, we do not think EPA could come
to a different conclusion, either as a policy or legal matter.

Specifically, we find no error in EPA’s application of CSAPR
methodologies with respect to the significant contribution of Iowa,
Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, or Wisconsin to nonattainment and
interference with maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in downwind
states.  Furthermore, we support the Agency’s decision not to reopen
issues related to its overall methodology employed in CSAPR.  Clearly,
EPA’s decision is final with respect to the contribution of 20 other
eastern states to ozone nonattainment and maintenance problems in
downwind states, and to the establishment of emissions budgets and
related FIP provisions for power plants in those states.  As a matter of
law and policy, EPA is required to apply the same methodologies to the
six states addressed by the SNPR.  Thus, we support EPA’s ozone season
budgets and allocation of allowances to covered power plants in those
states.  [Clean Air Task Force, et al. (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4588), p.
2.]

RESPONSE:   EPA concurs with the comments supporting the inclusion of
Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma and Wisconsin in the Transport Rule
ozone season NOX program and the comments that  issues concerning
modeling and methodology should not be reopened, because adequate
opportunity for public comment was already provided on these matters.
As explained in the preamble to this final rule, EPA is not finalizing a
FIP for Kansas at this time for the reasons provided in section III.C.

Iowa

 Commenter supports EPA’s decision to include Iowa in the ozone season
NOX program.

Comment:  Based on the ozone levels in Iowa this year, as monitored by
the statewide SLAMS network and reported by the State Hygienic Lab and
in light of EPA’s upcoming change in the ozone NAAQS, Iowa’s
inclusion in the supplement is entirely warranted.  [Iowa Environmental
Council (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4572), p. 1.]

RESPONSE:  EPA concurs with the comment supporting the inclusion of Iowa
in the Transport Rule ozone season NOX program.  Iowa is included in the
Transport Rule ozone season NOX program because of the contributions
from NOX emissions in Iowa to the downwind maintenance receptor in
Allegan County, MI.  Reductions in ozone season NOX emissions in Iowa
from implementation of the Transport Rule will help reduce ozone
concentrations within Iowa in addition to reducing ozone in downwind
states.

 EPA’s approach improperly includes Iowa.

Comment:  The final Transport Rule elaborates extensively on EPA’s
justification for not utilizing an updated emissions baseline to reflect
reductions that have been made under the provisions of CAIR, attempting
to draw a distinction regarding the enforceability or perceived lack
thereof based on CAIR’s legal status because “unlike most regulatory
requirements, the emission limitations contained in CAIR are only
temporary.”  EPA’s distinction is disingenuous.  Certainly, EPA
would not have hesitated to utilize its enforcement authority against a
facility that did not hold a sufficient number of emission allowances
under CAIR.  Controls were installed and are operated and emission
limits imposed under state-issued permits that are federally
enforceable, yet, EPA has not made it clear what, if any, controls are
reflected in its modeling.  Further, EPA takes the position that any
costs associated with emission reductions already implemented are
considered “sunk costs” and are not included in projected costs to
comply with the Transport Rule’s requirements.  Neither the emission
reductions achieved to date nor the costs with achieving those emissions
reductions are invisible.  [MidAmerican Energy Company
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4597), p. 3.]

RESPONSE:  The comment is outside the scope of the SNPR because issues
concerning the legal status of CAIR were within the scope of the request
for comments in the proposed Transport Rule but not in the SNPR.  While
EPA is not reconsidering or reopening the issue, we note that the issue
was previously addressed in the final Transport Rule, sections V.B and
V.C, 76 FR 48223-48236, August 8, 2011.

Comment:  Emissions of NOX in Iowa have declined substantially by virtue
of the requirements imposed under CAIR; those emission reductions have a
cost associated with them.  As EPA recognized in the final Transport
Rule, “ultimately we believe the electric power industry will pass
along most of the costs of the rule to consumers, so that the costs of
the rule will largely fall on the consumers of electricity.”  It is
critical that in making its determination to impose another layer of
regulation on sources (and, most importantly, electricity consumers) in
Iowa for allegedly making a less than 1 part per billion impact on an
ozone monitor in Michigan that is in attainment of the ozone standard,
EPA recognize both the emissions reduction efforts and cost impacts
imposed on the citizens of Iowa.  [MidAmerican Energy Company
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4597), p. 3.]

RESPONSE:    EPA used the best practices available to estimate the
future costs and benefits of this action and found that the emission
reductions implemented under this rulemaking, combined with the
reductions of the final Cross-State Rule, provide annual net benefits
starting in 2014 valued between $120 to $280 billion (2007$, 3% discount
rate).  The quantified PM2.5 and ozone health benefits within Iowa alone
are valued between $790 million and $1.9 billion (2007$, 3% discount
rate).  To put the benefits in Iowa in context, EPA estimates that the
total social costs of the entire rule, across all states, is $810
million (2007$, 3% discount rate).  EPA also chose to finalize
interstate trading programs as the remedy for the emission reductions to
provide for the most cost-effective implementation of any emission
controls.  See section VII in the preamble to the final Transport Rule,
76 FR 48271, August 8, 2011.

Comment:  The Allegan County, Michigan ozone monitor has been in
operation, collecting data, since 1992.  On May 12, 2010, prior to the
issuance of the proposed Transport Rule on July 6, 2010, the Michigan
Department of Natural Resources & Environment (“DNRE”) submitted a
request to EPA to redesignate Allegan County to attainment of the 0.08
parts per million 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard, to
change the legal status of the areas from nonattainment to attainment,
and to approve the maintenance plan as a revision to the Michigan State
Implementation Plan.  The DNRE’s request included a maintenance plan
consistent with Clean Air Act Section 175A which demonstrated an
attainment year inventory for 2008, an interim year inventory for 2018,
and a projected maintenance inventory for 2021 under which the 2021
inventories for VOC and NOX remained below attainment year 2008
emissions levels.  The DNRE noted that “continuing reductions in ozone
precursor emissions will be realized from fleet turnover, Maximum
Achievable Control Technology (“MACT”) standards for hazardous air
pollutants and federal diesel emissions programs.”  In addition to
Michigan’s regulations requiring less volatile consumer and commercial
products, the DNRE noted that:

“Due to the legal uncertainty of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)
future year NOX reductions, a conservative 2018 and 2021 inventory was
prepared without the NOX reductions assumed from CAIR for the two
subject sources in this county.”(emphasis supplied)

EPA approved Michigan’s request to redesignate the Allegan County,
Michigan nonattainment area to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard on September 24, 2010 (See 75 Fed. Register 58315), prior to
issuance of the final Transport Rule.  EPA’s redesignation and
approval of Michigan’s maintenance plan, assuming no underlying
reductions from sources in Allegan County, or from upwind states under
the Transport Rule is contrary to EPA’s assertion that NOX emissions
from sources in Iowa interfere with maintenance of the ozone standard in
Allegan County, Michigan.  MEC believes EPA has incorrectly included
Iowa in the Transport Rule’s ozone season NOX reduction requirements.

In addition, EPA should reject arguments that Iowa and other states
should be included in the NOX ozone season reduction requirements
because lower ozone standards may be promulgated in the future.  First,
0.08 parts per million is the existing 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard, and that is the standard which must be met today.
Second, if the standard is ultimately lowered, there is no certainty
that Allegan County, Michigan wouldn’t still be in compliance, as
ozone levels in the area continue to trend downward.  [MidAmerican
Energy Company (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4597), p. 3-4.]

RESPONSE:  See section III.D of the preamble to the final supplemental;
and the preamble (76 FR 48230) and Transport Rule Primary Response to
Comments document in the docket to this rulemaking
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4513].  This issue was discussed in the preamble
to the NOX SIP Call (see 63 FR 57375, October 27, 1998, footnote 25),
and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit’s decision in
Michigan v. EPA, 213 F.3d 663 (2000), further supports the position that
determinations of significant contribution or interference with
maintenance under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) should not be based on
an area’s attainment designation.  Also, under the Clean Air Act
statutory structure, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIPs are due 3 years
from promulgation of a NAAQS, and the statute allows designations to be
done, in some cases, as late as 3 years after promulgation of a new
NAAQS.  This statutory structure suggests that designations are not
relevant to the analysis of what is required to satisfy section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).  Finally, this rule addresses significant
contribution with respect to the 1997 ozone standard only, and the
requirements of the rule are necessary to address emissions that
significantly contribute or interfere with maintenance of that standard.
 The commenter, however, misstates the level of the  existing 8-hour
ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard, which is 0.075 ppm.

Kansas

Commenter(s) dispute EPA’s findings that Kansas significantly
interferes with the Allegan, MI receptor.

Comment:  Commenters first note the inadequate opportunity to comment on
this issue, and assert that EPA is committing reversible error in not
providing adequate opportunity to comment.  No prior notice was given
that Kansas interfered with a receptor in Allegan County, MI;
previously, Kansas was linked for interference with maintenance only
with a receptor in Dallas, TX. See Proposed Air Transport Rule, 76 FR
45210, 45269 (Aug. 2, 2010). No explanation was given in the SNPR for
the change or for how the model shifted from a receptor south of Kansas
to one north of Kansas in the interim.  As Allegan MI was newly
identified in the SPNR, commenter, who is with other Kansas utilities
engaging Trinity Consultants, Inc. to review the EPA data and modeling,
had no prior notice that this would be the area of concern, nor had
Trinity had a prior opportunity to consider "whether there are errors in
the Agency's application of the Transport Rule methodologies with
respect to Kansas's significant contribution to nonattainment and
interference of the 1997 ozone NAAQS" in Allegan County, MI. 76 FR at
40665/2. [Westar Energy (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4583), p. 1-3; Kansas City
Board of Public Utilities (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4585), p. 1-3.]

RESPONSE:  The comment is outside the scope of the SNPR to the extent it
seeks to challenge the methodology selected for quantifying significant
contribution and interference with maintenance.  EPA provided ample
opportunity to comment on this methodology in response to the  proposed
Transport Rule.  While EPA is not reconsidering or reopening the issue
in the SNPR, we note that our methodologies were documented in the
preambles for the proposed rule and final rule and the proposal and
final rule Air Quality Modeling TSDs.  There was ample opportunity to
comment on these methods based on information provided in the proposed
Transport Rule, three subsequent NODAs, and the additional opportunity
to comment on the conclusion in the proposed SNPR.  Further, EPA
disagrees that the opportunity to comment on the linkage between Kansas
and Allegan County was inadequate.  The purpose of the SNPR was to
provide notice of, and an opportunity to comment on, the linkage to
Allegan (and Harford County, MD) that was identified in finalizing the
Transport Rule.  See the preamble, section III.C., of the final
supplemental rule for the status of Kansas.

Comment:  In an August 19, 2011 email denying requests for extension of
time to file comments in this matter, EPA stated: "The supplemental
proposal and all of the key supporting documentation and model results
were posted on our website on July 7, 2011 and the SNPR was formally
published in the Federal Register on July 20, 2011." This statement is
not true. Trinity determined after initially reviewing the information
posted on EPA's website that only emissions data were available, and not
the actual CAMx model input and output files. Those files contain key
supporting documentation for the proposed results. After contacting EPA
Staff to obtain the files, Trinity sent on August 2 via overnight mail
four 2-TB hard drives for EPA to upload the previously-unavailable
files. This process was finally completed on August 11, when Trinity
received the uploaded files. August 11 thus is the date on which key
supporting documentation was actually made available to Trinity. Once
the files were received, Trinity began the weeks-long process of
transferring the data to Trinity's computers, performing necessary model
runs using the newly available data, and processing results. Until those
steps are completed, Trinity will not be in a position to determine
whether EPA made any errors with respect to the claimed interference by
Kansas in Allegan, MI. [Westar Energy (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4583), p.
1-3; Kansas City Board of Public Utilities (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4585),
p. 1-3.]

RESPONSE:  Air quality modeling input and output files developed by EPA
for the final Transport Rule were available in the docket on the date of
signature of the final rule (see docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4228,
"Final Transport Rule Air Quality Modeling Data Drives").   This docket
item provides instructions on how to obtain electronic copies of the
final Transport Rule modeling input and output files.  The material that
was available for instant access online was sufficient to understand the
application of the modeling in order to provide meaningful comment.  The
modeling code is available as a public resource in concert with the
substantive material presented for immediate consumption and review
online.  Additionally, all of this material was available in the docket
office as of the day of signature and prior to publication in the
Federal Register.  Also, a commenter submitted a follow-up analysis
pertaining to certain modeling input files by Trinity Consultants that
came in after the close of the 60-day comment period.  These comments
are responded to in section 6 (B), below.

Comment:  As of the filing of the comments, Trinity has not had enough
time to complete that process, which is critical to determining whether
the SNPR modeling erred, and how such errors affected the final results.
 This precludes commenter from filing meaningful comments because of the
limited nature of the topics (whether errors in the modeling occurred)
allowed to be addressed at this time.  A complete analysis of the actual
CAMx model input and output files is needed to address matters of
central relevance to the SNPR, and to show errors that would increase
the likelihood that the current SNPR must be significantly changed.
EPA's denial of an extension prevents the filing of meaningful analysis
and comments that could invalidate any rule that results from the SPNR,
and thus constitutes reversible error. [Westar Energy
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4583), p. 1-3; Kansas City Board of Public
Utilities (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4585), p. 1-3.]

RESPONSE:  Our methodologies were documented in the preambles for the
proposed rule and final rule and the proposal and final rule Air Quality
Modeling TSDs.  There was ample opportunity to comment on these methods
based on information provided in the proposed rule.

Comment:   Trinity's initial assessment of the SNPR modeling suggests
several areas that could uncover errors in the final results after full
examination and analysis. In this regard, the projected maximum ozone
concentration at the Allegan receptor was 85.1 ppb, or 0.1 ppb over the
threshold of 85 ppb for a maintenance site. Previously, EPA projected
that the concentration at the Allegan receptor was 84.7 ppb. The
increased projected concentration between the Proposed Rule and the SNPR
would seem to suggest that Kansas EGU emission projections increased
since the prior projections were made. Yet, that is not the case;
instead, Kansas EGU projected emissions dropped and other Kansas sources
were projected to have higher emissions. Certainly, this calls into
question whether Kansas EGU emissions should be considered to be the
cause of interference at the Allegan MI receptor. [Westar Energy
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4583), p. 1-3; Kansas City Board of Public
Utilities (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4585), p. 1-3.]

RESPONSE:  While EPA is not reconsidering or reopening the issue, we
note that in both the Transport Rule proposal and final rule, CAMx
photochemical modeling for the 2012 “no CAIR” base case was used to
determine nonattainment and maintenance receptors.  The final rule
modeling was updated based on comments from the proposal.  There were
numerous emissions updates, including updates to both the EGU and
non-EGU components of the inventory.  The commenter is correct that in
some cases EGU emissions went down between proposal and final.  In
general mobile source emissions went up, due to the availability of
updates to the mobile source emissions model (MOVES).  EPA ran CAMx for
the final rule and followed the proposed rule methodology for
determining nonattainment and maintenance receptors and contributions
from upwind states.  The Allegan receptor went from a level that was
slightly below the NAAQS in the proposal modeling to a level that was
slightly above the NAAQS (for maintenance) in the final rule modeling.
Specifically, in the final rule modeling, ozone at the Allegan receptor
was projected to be 85.1 ppb which is 0.2 ppb above the NAAQS (projected
maximum design values of 85 ppb and higher are indicative of a
maintenance problem).  Therefore, the Allegan county monitor became a
maintenance receptor for the final rule analysis.  This receptor was
treated in the same way as every other potential nonattainment and/or
maintenance receptor.  EPA believes that the Allegan county receptor is
a valid maintenance receptor and is not identified as a receptor due to
any errors in the modeling or the calculation of future design values.
The modeling system was updated and the receptor was found to have a
maintenance problem in 2012.  The methodology for the Transport Rule
identifies the most cost-effective emission reductions available from
upwind states, which are not necessarily from whichever sector may be
the largest absolute contributor of emissions at any specific receptor.
All upwind state NOX emissions (including EGU, non-EGU point sources,
and mobile sources) are tracked collectively to determine state-level
downwind ozone contributions.  The contribution modeling was used to
identify states with an ozone contribution that was at least 1% of the
NAAQS.  The identification of EGU emission reductions in the remedy
analysis was based on a determination that, at the cost thresholds
selected under the final Transport Rule, the power sector offers the
most cost-effective emission reductions to reduce a state’s
significant contribution to nonattainment or interference with
maintenance.

Comment:  Further, the 0.1 ppb differential between the maintenance
threshold and the projected concentration at Allegan heightens the
possibility that any error could dramatically change the results. One
problem with EPA's approach involves its reliance on linear modeling to
represent nonlinear photochemistry for ozone and secondary PM formation.
Linear modeling does not account for limiting factors that act
differently in various emissions scenarios. A related concern involves
the use of a latter version (5.3 versus 5.01) of the CAMx modeling
program for SNPR purposes. Different chemical parameter values are found
in the two versions, with a possible key difference related to changed
chemical reactivity values. What effect changes in these values, which
are used to estimate the projected rates of ozone and PM species
formation, had in the final results were not discussed in the SNPR.
Because there simply has not been enough time since receipt of the
previously unavailable files, Trinity has not yet been able to determine
what effects these changes had on the results or whether they adequately
represent the complex photochemistry involved in quantifying pollutant
concentrations.

It appears also that the SNPR modeling also is biased in favor of
attributing emissions to anthropogenic, rather than to biogenic,
sources. This bias does not reasonably represent the source
contributions at receptors, and fails to account for the limiting factor
among the photochemical reactions when attributing source contributions
to ozone formation. The SNPR modeling does not take into consideration
the ozone formation conditions present near large water bodies, such as
Lake Michigan where the Allegan MI receptor is located, which differ
from those at other areas, and thus unless factored into the model, may
lead to erroneous results. These preliminary assessments of some
possible areas of concern in the modeling suggest areas that could
produce erroneous results. Because an extension was not granted,
commenter does not have a full analysis from Trinity that would
determine whether these and possibly other problems have led to
erroneous results. Commenter reserves its right to submit supplemental
comments into the docket that more fully explain the potential errors
raised by any such concerns after Trinity has had adequate time to
conduct a full analysis of the model using the recently obtained data
files. [Westar Energy (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4583), p. 3-4; Kansas City
Board of Public Utilities (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4585), p. 3-4.]

RESPONSE:  These comments question our use of CAMx as the modeling tool
for the Transport Rule and our choice of the source apportionment
technique for ozone.  Our methodologies were documented in the preambles
for the proposed rule and final rule and the proposal and final rule Air
Quality Modeling TSDs.  There was ample opportunity to comment on these
methods based on information provided in the proposed rule.  The focus
of the CSAPR transport analysis for ozone was on the contribution to
ozone at downwind receptors resulting from emissions of NOX from
anthropogenic sources in upwind states irrespective of whether the
anthropogenic NOX formed ozone through reactions with anthropogenic VOC
or biogenic VOC.  For this purpose, the APCA ozone source apportionment
technique was used for the proposed and final rule modeling because this
technique allocates ozone formed from anthropogenic NOX reacting with
either anthropogenic or biogenic VOC to the sources of anthropogenic
NOX.  Ozone formed from reactions of biogenic VOC and biogenic NOX are
allocated not includes as part of the state contributions in the CSAPR
modeling.  The commenter claims that only the portion of the ozone
formed from the reaction of anthropogenic NOX with biogenic VOC under
“NOX limited” conditions should be allocated to the anthropogenic
NOX and that ozone formed under “VOC limited” conditions should be
allocated to biogenic sources.  Specifically, the commenter suggests
that we should have used an alternative technique (OSAT) which splits
the ozone from anthropogenic NOX plus biogenic VOC to the biogenic
sources and anthropogenic sources based on assumptions as to whether the
ozone is formed under NOX-limited or VOC-limited regimes.  EPA disagrees
with this comment because even when the amount of ozone is limited about
the amount of biogenic VOC, the ozone is still formed by reactions with
anthropogenic NOX.  We did not get any comments on the proposed rule
that said that we should have used OSAT.  In addition, the commenter
contends that EPA’s approach relied on a linear model.  This is not
correct since the chemical mechanism in CAMx includes non-linear
chemistry associated with the formation of ozone and secondary PM2.5
species concentrations.  The rationale for changes in the chemical
parameter file in CAMx v5.3 versus v5.0 are documented in the CAMx v5.3
User’s Guide (docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4380).  This document
clearly states the users should not “mix and match” a version of
CAMx with a different version of the chemical parameter file, as
suggested by the commenter.  Rather, the chemical parameter files
specified in the user’s guide for CAMx v5.3, as applied by EPA, should
be used when running CAMx v5.3.  The commenter contends that the SNPR
modeling does not take into consideration the ozone formation conditions
present near large water bodies, such as Lake Michigan where the
Allegan, MI receptor is located.  However, the commenter provides no
information to support this contention.  In fact, EPA’s CAMx air
quality modeling and the MM-5 meteorological modeling used to provide
weather inputs to CAMx do include Lake Michigan (and other large bodies
of water) in terms of the thermodynamic effects and differential
deposition properties of these bodies of water on pollutant
concentrations.  EPA compared the CAMx ozone predictions for Allegan
County to monitored data and found that the model predictions closely
replicate observations, adding confidence to EPA’s model predictions
for this location (see Appendix A of EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4140, "Air
Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support Document").

Michigan

No comments received on this issue.

Missouri

EPA’s supplementary proposal does not require full elimination of
Missouri’s significant contribution.

Comment:   Finally, Sierra Club notes that the cross state rule does not
eliminate each of these states’ significant contribution to downwind
ozone nonattainment and/or interference with maintenance.  The Act
requires EPA to promulgate FIPs for states that contain inadequate
provisions “prohibiting…any source or other type of emissions
activity within the State from emitting any air pollutant in amounts
which will contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere
with maintenance by, any other State with respect to any such national
primary or secondary ambient air quality standard…”.  Nonetheless,
EPA confesses in the Preamble to proposed rule that it has not satisfied
this obligation for all of the states covered by the final rule’s
ozone program, including, Missouri.  EPA expressly explains that
“[t]he one state addressed in the supplemental proposal for which
EPA’s analysis identifies reductions that are necessary but may not be
sufficient to satisfy section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the
1997 ozone NAAQS is Missouri.” For this reason, the cross state rule
and proposed supplement will not fully satisfy EPA’s
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) FIP duty. EPA must require additional reductions in
ozone forming emissions that are sufficient to eliminate Missouri’s
significant contribution to ozone nonattainment and/or interference with
maintenance in the States to which it is linked.  [Sierra Club
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4587), p. 3.]

RESPONSE:  EPA has noted that the Transport Rule FIP may not fully
address Missouri’s obligations under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with
regard to the 1997 ozone NAAQS.  The final rule states that further
analysis is needed to determine if these FIPs do fully satisfy section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) or if additional reductions are needed.  The FIP for
Missouri makes measureable progress toward satisfying the requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS.  To
the extent that significant contribution to nonattainment and/or
interference with maintenance is not entirely eliminated, EPA will
address these instances in a future action.  For more information, see
sections IV.C (76 FR 48218), VI.A (76 FR 48246), and VI.D (76 FR 48263,
August 8, 2011) within the preamble of the final Transport Rule, and see
section IV of the Transport Rule Primary Response to Comments document
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4513].

 (B) EPA is using databases that are out of date and do not represent
current air quality.

Comment:  EPA Should Use a More Recent Base Year Than 2005.  EPA has
used inventory and meteorological data that is not representative of
current conditions.  Inventories and meteorology are available for 2008.
Currently the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO) is
performing modeling with both 2007 and 2008 emissions and meteorological
data.  In addition the Midwest Ozone Group has performed modeling (see
comments submitted by the Midwest Ozone Group, October 1, 2010 to the
original proposed rule (75 Fed. Reg. 45210-45465 (August 2, 2010)) that
shows a totally different picture than that portrayed by EPA’s
modeling. EPA’s reliance on non-current data produces results that are
not reflective of today's environment and should not be relied upon as
the basis of such a far reaching rule. EPA should redo its analysis with
more recent and relevant data. In the case of Missouri's contribution to
the maintenance and nonattainment monitors the July 11, 2011 Federal
Register notice sites 3 monitors; Harris County, TX, Brazoria County, TX
and Allegan County, MI.

Harris and Brazoria, TX Counties - Both of these counties are located in
the Houston metropolitan area; the most populous city in Texas
surrounded by many large VOC and NOX sources from refineries, mobile
sources, power stations and one of the largest ports in the US.
Missouri's contribution to these monitors is 1 ppb ozone or less or
approximately 0.2 ppb ozone over the 1% arbitrary threshold (0.8 ppb)
EPA has chosen. EPA in its current analysis is using 2005 base case
emissions that are significantly higher than those of later years.
Commenter provides table developed by the Midwest Ozone Group using EPA
compiled emissions data compares Missouri statewide NOX emissions from
1999 to 2009. Using the information presented in that table, if EPA
would have chosen 2008 as its base year the NOX inventory for Missouri
would have dropped by 129,580 tons. This would lead to a similarly large
drop in EPA 2012 and 2014 projected emissions. Clearly this large of a
reduction in NOX emissions would significantly lower Missouri's impact
on these Texas monitors to the point of no significance.

Allegan County, MI monitor – This county according to EPAs designation
in the modeling performed is considered a maintenance monitor since its
maximum 2012 ozone design value is 85.1 ppb ozone; 0.2 ppb over the
threshold for an attaining county. According to EPAs modeling Missouri
significantly contributes to this monitor. However this significant
contribution is based on the projected 2005 emissions inventory.
Commenter provides table developed by the Midwest Ozone Group using EPA
compiled emissions data compares Michigan statewide NOX emissions from
1999 to 2009. Using the information presented in that table, if EPA
would have chosen 2008 as its base year the NOX inventory for Michigan
would have dropped by 95,775 tons. This would lead to a similarly large
drop in EPA 2012 and 2014 projected emissions. Clearly this large
reduction in Michigan NOX emissions (as well as those in Missouri) would
have lowered the Allegan County monitor to an ozone level much below the
significance threshold of 84.9 ppb ozone.

Clearly if EPA would have chosen a more recent and relevant base
emissions case that was reflective of current NOX emissions Missouri's
impact on these 3 monitors would be insignificant. EPA needs to revisit
this analysis using more current data sets that reflect actual air
quality.  [Ameren Corporation (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4596), p. 4-7.]

RESPONSE:  The comment about the base case is outside the scope of the
SNPR because it addresses issues that were within the scope of the
request for comments in the proposed Transport Rule but not in the SNPR.
 While EPA is not reconsidering or reopening the issue, we note that EPA
took comment on the rationale for selecting 2005 as the base year and
the use of monitoring data for the period 2003 through 2007 as the
starting point for projecting ozone and PM2.5 concentrations in 2012 and
2014 in the Transport Rule proposal.  Also see the Transport Rule
Primary Response to Comments document in the docket to this rulemaking
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4513] on the use of 2005 as the base year and the
use of 2003 through 2007 monitoring data.

Comment:   Current 2007-2009 8-hour ozone design values show major
inconsistencies with the results of EPA’s analysis for the CSAPR.
Commenter provides a table that shows a comparison of 2003-2009 8-hour
ozone design values and EPA’s 2014 remedy case for selected monitors
in Kansas and Missouri.  As is evident from the table all of these
monitors have current design values that are already lower than what EPA
predicts for its 2014 remedy case.  EPA by overestimating the impact of
states on downwind nonattainment and maintenance areas will tend to
increase the level of control perceived to be required to meet the
desired goals.  This will lead to the installation controls that in
reality may not be needed.  EPA’s base case selection and control
assumptions are fatally flawed and need be re-analyzed using a more
recent and relevant information.  [Ameren Corporation
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4596), p. 7-8.]

RESPONSE:  This comment is outside the scope of the SNPR because it
addresses issues that were within the scope of the request for comments
in the proposed Transport Rule but not in the SNPR.  While EPA is not
reconsidering or reopening the issue, we note that EPA took comment on
the rationale for selecting 2005 as the base year and the use of
monitoring data for the period 2003 through 2007 as the starting point
for projecting ozone and PM2.5 concentrations in 2012 and 2014 in the
Transport Rule proposal.  Also see the Transport Rule Primary Response
to Comments document in the docket to this rulemaking
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4513) on the use of 2005 as the base year and the
use of 2003 through 2007 monitoring data.

In response to the assertion that EPA overestimates the impact of states
on downwind nonattainment and maintenance and thus increases the level
of control perceived to be required to meet the desired goals, EPA
refutes this notion on two grounds.  First, EPA does not overstate the
emission impacts from individual sources.  It is very clearly described
in the preamble section V.B of the program.  Because the rule is
substitution, not incremental, for CAIR,  it cannot assume CAIR in its
base case and any assertions that its base case overstates emissions
because of its failure to reflect CAIR-driven reductions ignores this
important component of the Court’s decision in North Carolina.  On the
second notion that it overstates the control required in the state, EPA
also disagrees.  The first controls that would be operated in a state
would be those already in place (and in some cases already operating).
Therefore, in many states the difference between the base case and the
policy case emissions is not the installation of additional controls,
but simply the operation of existing controls.  The commenter’s
generation portfolio is primarily located in Missouri and Illinois.  EPA
does not anticipate any new controls in these states in response to
Transport Rule.  In fact, for many of the programs in these states, the
state is already emitting at levels less than their 2012 budget level,
suggesting no additional reductions/controls are required from current
levels.  Where this is not the case, EPA modeling may be capturing
additional reductions that are on the way because of state rules (as is
the case with Illinois and its multi-pollutant rule requirements in
2012).  Finally, any additional reductions that are driven by the
Transport Rule (through fuel switching or other means) are reductions
that are incremental to current levels and are necessary to eliminate
that state’s significant contribution.

Oklahoma

Commenter generally opposes inclusion of Oklahoma.

Comment:  The inclusion of the new states in the ozone transport rule is
another example of why EPA is getting beat up by the politicians and
people who are in the know.  As an environmental professional for 35
years I’ve always said EPA is its own worst enemy. You lose the trust
of the people, and it’s a matter of time. In this case, the EPA is
working against the State of OK because OK is causing a violation in one
county in MI. Great model!  [EST Inc. (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4570), p. 1]

Several individuals in Oklahoma similarly stated that they question the
logic that Oklahoma's emissions could, in fact, have an impact on one
single county in Michigan, and that this implausible notion is being
used as the basis for including their state in these proposed rules.
These commenters recommend that EPA should stop and consider the impact
the proposed rule would have on PSC of Oklahoma and its generation
fleet, and not include Oklahoma in the

Transport Rule. [Individual email comments (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4608
through 4618), p. 1]

RESPONSE:  As explained in the preamble to the final supplemental rule,
EPA is obligated under its Clean Air Act authority to protect human
health and welfare.  Using the notice and comment process, EPA is
finalizing the supplemental rule based on our conclusions and taking
into account public comments.  The rule will help reduce ozone season
NOX emissions that expose hundreds of million Americans to harmful
health impacts from ozone pollution.  EPA’s methodology for
identifying nonattainment and maintenance receptors is based on modeled
projections of measured air quality at specific monitors, not on the
designation status of an area.  EPA believes this approach is
appropriate for the reasons explained in section V.C.2 of the preamble
to the final Transport Rule.  76 FR 48230, August 8, 2011.  Further, the
North Carolina v. EPA opinion requires EPA to give independent meaning
to the interfere with maintenance prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).

 (B) EPA lacks a reasonable basis for concluding that Oklahoma
significantly interferes with maintenance of the 1997 Ozone NAAQS in
Michigan.

Comment:  In the 2010 Proposed Transport Rule, EPA linked sources in
Oklahoma with significant impacts in a nonattainment area in Tarrant
County, Texas. The emission reductions required of Oklahoma in the 2010
Proposed Rule were not significant and did not require costly controls
or the shut-down of units. In the Supplemental Proposal, EPA now
abandons its claim of significant impacts in Texas and for the first
time asserts that Oklahoma interferes with maintenance of the 1997 ozone
NAAQS based exclusively on a newly-identified ozone maintenance receptor
in Allegan County, Michigan. This new claim is not only based on a new
wind direction, but also would require a 40% reduction from actual
emissions in approximately six months time. The maintenance area in
question is roughly 700 miles from most of the affected EGUs in
Oklahoma, and the area does not have a nonattainment problem.

Some of the commenters note that EPA's determination that it is
necessary to regulate Oklahoma under CSAPR is arbitrary and capricious.
EPA is proposing to include Oklahoma in the ozone-season NOX program
based solely on its projected significant contribution to or
interference with maintenance of the ozone NAAQS in Allegan County,
Michigan. Allegan County currently is in attainment. EPA is proposing to
include Oklahoma in the ozone-season NOX program not because emissions
from Oklahoma are causing any nonattainment problems, but because EPA's
models predict that ambient ozone concentration in Allegan County will
increase to 85.1 parts per billion ("ppb"), just 0.1 ppb above the 1997
ozone NAAQS. See 62 Fed. Reg. 38,856 (July 18, 1997).

EPA's decision to subject Oklahoma to regulation under CSAPR solely
based on predicted increase in ozone of just 0.1 ppb is not supportable.
The CAMx model is highly variable and will produce significantly
different results based on relatively small changes in the underlying
emissions inventory and other modeling assumptions. The emissions
inventory data relied on by EPA contain a significant number of errors
and, thus, raise concerns regarding the validity of EPA's modeling
results. Additionally, the model relied on by EPA has a significant
degree of uncertainty when used to predict future emissions. According
to EPA's technical support documents, the predicted increase in ozone in
Allegan County during the ozone season has degree of uncertainty of -3.0
to +3.6 percent of the normalized mean bias. The predicted exceedance of
0.1 ppb is well within the range of potential uncertainty and is not
sufficient justification for subjecting Oklahoma EGUs to extremely
burdensome and costly regulatory requirements.  [Oklahoma Gas & Electric
Company (OGE) (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4590), p. 5; Oklahoma Utility Group
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4591), p. 3-4; Public Service Company of Oklahoma
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4600), p. 6-7; Western Farmers Electric
Cooperative (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4589), p. 6-7; Grand River Dam
Authority ("GRDA") (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4586), p. 3-4.]

RESPONSE:  In response to comments on the proposed Transport Rule, EPA
made numerous updates to the emission inventories used for the final
rule modeling.  As a result of all of the updates made to the modeling
platform, the maximum 2012 ozone design value at the Allegan receptor
went from 84.7 ppb (i.e., a level that was slightly below the NAAQS) in
the proposal modeling to 85.1 ppb (i.e., a level that was slightly above
the NAAQS) in the final rule modeling.  This relatively small increase
in ozone concentration between the proposal modeling and final rule
modeling of 0.4 ppb is not “highly variable,” as is contended by the
commenter.  The Allegan county monitor was treated in the same way as
every other nonattainment and/or maintenance receptor.  EPA believes
that the Allegan county receptor is a valid maintenance receptor and is
not identified as a receptor due to any errors in the modeling or the
calculation of future design values.   As described in the Transport
Rule Response to Comments document, EPA believes that it is
inappropriate to use model performance results, such as normalized mean
bias, as a quantitative indicator of model uncertainty in part because
the modeling results are used in a relative sense to project measured
concentrations to 2012 and 2014.  In other words, EPA is not basing the
Transport Rule purely on air quality modeling output, but on an
application of that modeling output to real observed air quality data at
the relevant sites.  A 2002 report by the National Research Council
(Estimating the Public Health Benefits of Proposed Air Pollution
Regulations) states that the accuracy of modeling is increased when the
model predictions for a recent base period and a future time period are
used in a relative sense as scaling (or response) factors to
“calibrate” observed pollutant levels from the recent base period.
 The report states that, “This approach may help reduce the bias
introduced by modeling errors and, therefore, may be more accurate than
using model results directly (absolute values) to estimate future
pollutant levels.” Thus, it is not appropriate to simply use base year
model performance results as a quantitative measure or gauge of the
uncertainty in the air quality modeling process.

 Comment:  Even assuming that EPA can include Oklahoma in the CSAPR
based solely on modeled impacts, commenters are concerned about several
uncertainties in EPA's modeling that need to be addressed in order to
reasonably evaluate whether the Allegan County monitor represents a
maintenance issue for the ozone NAAQS. A report on these uncertainties
was prepared by Trinity Consultants and is included with various comment
letters as Attachment A.

First, EPA's modeling overstates mobile source emissions by failing to
account for new corporate average fuel economy standards and greenhouse
gas emission standards for mobile sources. The latest version of the
Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator was not used in EPA's modeling and
typically predicts less VOC emissions compared to the version used by
EPA for CSAPR. Second, EPA used different chemical parameters in the
CAMx for the Supplemental Proposal than for the 2010 Proposed Rule. This
change in chemistry is not explained. Third, the location of the Allegan
County monitor near the banks of Lake Michigan creates cause for concern
that EPA's model may not adequately address certain unique aspects of
near-water chemistry or atmospheric conditions.

Other of the Oklahoma utility commenters referenced the following key
findings from the Trinity Consultants report:

Comparing the CSAPR to the proposed Transport Rule, NOX and VOC
emissions were noticeably less. Considering that Allegan County was not
identified as a non-attainment or maintenance concern in the proposed
Transport Rule, EGUs do not appear to be the primary source category
impacting Allegan County. Therefore, EGU s should not be required to
make aggressive and disproportionate NOX reductions of 60% when other
sources are having a more significant impact.

Mobile source emissions increased from those predicted in the proposed
Transport Rule. EPA did not apply the most recent available version of
MOVES for predicting the mobile emission impact. The newer version would
likely project lower emissions from mobile sources which may show
Allegan County to not be above the maintenance threshold.

EPA changed the CAMx version used between the proposed Transport Rule
and the CSAPR. The two versions of CAMx have different chemical
parameters and represent a potentially significant change in methodology
results. These changes may be enough to cause Allegan County to have
been reclassified and a change in methodology this significant should
not be made without the opportunity for public comment or adequate
explanation of the impact of the differences.

EPA may have overestimated the anthropogenic contribution of NOX and VOC
emissions. As a result, the costly controls imposed by CSAPR may not
produce the reduced impact to Allegan County predicted. EPA should use
the Ozone Source Apportionment Technology (OSAT) for CAMx and reevaluate
the impacts to properly account for the limiting photochemical factors.

The Allegan County location has unique characteristics that may cause
the modeling not to be representative of actual impacts. The effects of
its proximity to Lake Michigan suggests that the impacts are more likely
to be from more local sources that from such distances as Oklahoma
sources.

Since the Allegan County receptor exceeds EPA's threshold for being a
maintenance receptor by just 0.1 ppb, failure to account for these
uncertainties in the modeling could significantly impact EPA's
conclusion in the Supplemental Proposal. EPA should address these
uncertainties before including Oklahoma in the CSAPR based on modeled
impacts in Allegan County, Michigan. One commenter adds that they
believe that the model has other errors that tend to overstate source
emissions and the corresponding modeled impacts in Allegan County.
Commenter reserves the right to supplement these comments if additional
errors are identified. [Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company (OGE)
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4590), p. 5; Oklahoma Utility Group
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4591), p. 3-4; Public Service Company of Oklahoma
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4600), p. 6-7; Western Farmers Electric
Cooperative (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4589), p. 6-7; Grand River Dam
Authority ("GRDA") (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4586), p. 3-4.]

In comments submitted in mid-November well after the close of the public
comment period, some of these commenters provided further comment on
this issue and attached a follow-up study from Trinity Consultants.  The
commenters note that EPA, in its Technical Support Document (“TSD”)
for the Proposal, stated that onroad vehicle emissions were “primarily
based on the publicly released 12/21/2009 version of the Motor Vehicle
Emissions Simulator (MOVES2010).” However, Trinity Consultants was
unable to replicate EPA’s mobile source emissions using the publicly
available information for MOVES2010. Upon further correspondence with
EPA after the close of the comment period, Trinity Consultants learned
that different datasets need to be used in lieu of the publicly
available database for MOVES2010 in order to duplicate EPA’s mobile
source emissions in CSAPR. Trinity further identified that EPA adjusted
the MOVES2010 inventory output after processing by converting the model
output into emissions per vehicle mile traveled (“VMT”) and then
applied data from a separate VMT database. This is different from the
approach explained in the TSD. The actual VMT information used by EPA to
project Allegan County, Michigan as a maintenance interference location
apparently has not been made available for public review and comment.

These commenters state that Oklahoma is included in the Proposal based
solely on a link to a projected future maintenance problem in Allegan
County.  If EPA had used the publicly available default options for
vehicle emissions in MOVES2010 as described in its TSD, Trinity’s
analysis shows that the vehicle emissions contributed to Allegan County
from upwind states would be roughly five percent less than what EPA
actually modeled. Furthermore, because EPA predicts in the Proposal that
future ozone concentrations in Allegan County will be just slightly
above the ozone standard (by just 0.1 ppb), this difference in vehicle
emissions could affect whether or not Allegan County has a projected
maintenance problem under CSAPR.

These commenters continue by stating that in other rulemaking actions
unrelated to CSAPR, EPA has designated Allegan County as an attainment
area for ozone based on actual, real-world monitoring data.  EPA also
approved a revision to the Michigan State Implementation Plan
(“SIP”) that will maintain compliance with the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard through 2021 in Allegan County. The SIP does not require
emission reductions from out-of-state sources to maintain attainment. It
is only in CSAPR modeling that EPA projects a future maintenance problem
for Allegan County, and even there only by a very slight margin. If EPA
were to utilize the public information as stated in the TSD for the
vehicle emission modeling, we believe that the CSAPR modeling for
Allegan County would show future attainment with the ozone standard
consistent with actual monitoring data and the Michigan maintenance SIP
for that area.

The commenters conclude by arguing that EPA’s authority to impose
emission reduction requirements based on modeling is limited in
important respects. A complete analytic defense of a model’s
application is required in each case, and EPA must consider real-world
data to ensure that modeled predictions are reasonable and accurate.
Where real-world data contradict a model, EPA must address with
reasonable analysis the discrepancies between its model and the actual
data.  Based on Trinity’s analysis, the commenters argue that it is
not appropriate for EPA to issue a final rule without addressing the
discrepancies noted and explaining why they deviated from the approach
set forth in the TSD.  EPA should also reconsider other aspects of the
modeling, such as using maximum design values to identify maintenance
sites, even though EPA guidance seems to call for the use of average
design values in attainment modeling. [AES Shady Point et al.
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4739), p. 1-3 and attachment]

RESPONSE:   These comments include questions about our use of CAMx as
the modeling tool for the Transport Rule and our choice of the source
apportionment technique for ozone.  Our air quality modeling
methodologies were documented in the preambles for the proposed rule and
final rule and the proposal and final rule Air Quality Modeling TSDs.
There was ample opportunity to comment on these methods based on
information provided in the proposed rule.  The focus of the CSAPR
transport analysis for ozone was on the contribution to ozone at
downwind receptors resulting from emissions of NOX from anthropogenic
sources in upwind states irrespective of whether the anthropogenic NOX
formed ozone through reactions with anthropogenic VOC or biogenic VOC.
For this purpose, the APCA ozone source apportionment technique was used
for the proposed and final rule modeling because this technique
allocates ozone formed from anthropogenic NOX reacting with either
anthropogenic or biogenic VOC to the sources of anthropogenic NOX.
Ozone formed from reactions of biogenic VOC and biogenic NOX are
allocated not includes as part of the state contributions in the CSAPR
modeling.  The commenter claims that only the portion of the ozone
formed from the reaction of anthropogenic NOX with biogenic VOC under
“NOX limited” conditions should be allocated to the anthropogenic
NOX and that ozone formed under “VOC limited” conditions should be
allocated to biogenic sources.  Specifically, the commenter suggests
that we should have used an alternative technique (OSAT) which splits
the ozone from anthropogenic NOX plus biogenic VOC to the biogenic
sources and anthropogenic sources based on assumptions as to whether the
ozone is formed under NOX-limited or VOC-limited regimes.  EPA disagrees
with this comment because even when the amount of ozone is limited about
the amount of biogenic VOC, the ozone is still formed by reactions with
anthropogenic NOX.  We did not get any comments on the proposed rule
that said that we should have used OSAT.  The rationale for changes in
the chemical parameter file in CAMx v5.3 versus v5.0 are documented in
the CAMx v5.3 User’s Guide (docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4380).
This document clearly states the users should not “mix and match” a
version of CAMx with a different version of the chemical parameter file,
as suggested by the commenter.  Rather, the chemical parameter files
specified in the user’s guide for CAMx v5.3, as applied by EPA, should
be used when running CAMx v5.3.  The commenter contends that the SNPR
modeling does not take into consideration the ozone formation conditions
present near large water bodies, such as Lake Michigan where the
Allegan, MI receptor is located.  However, the commenter provides no
information to support this contention.  In fact, EPA’s CAMx air
quality modeling and the MM-5 meteorological modeling used to provide
weather inputs to CAMx do include Lake Michigan (and other large bodies
of water) in terms of the thermodynamic effects and differential
deposition properties of these bodies of water on pollutant
concentrations.  EPA compared the CAMx ozone predictions for Allegan
County to monitored data and found that the model predictions closely
replicate observations, adding confidence to EPA’s model predictions
for this location (see Appendix A of EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4140, "Air
Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support Document").  The response
to the commenter’s claims about the mobile emissions used in EPA’s
air quality modeling are provided below.

Comment:  In comments submitted by AES Shady Point above, they claim
that EPA did not apply the most recent available version of MOVES for
predicting the mobile emission impact and that the newer version would
likely project lower emissions from mobile sources which may show
Allegan County to not be above the maintenance threshold.  On November
11, after the close of the public comment period, further comment was
provided on the modeled mobile source emissions along with a study from
Trinity Consultants.  In the November 11 submittal, the commenters note
that in the Emissions Inventory Technical Support Document (“TSD”)
for the final rule, EPA stated that onroad vehicle emissions were
“primarily based on the publicly released December 21, 2009 version of
the Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES2010).” However, the
commenters claim that Trinity Consultants was unable to replicate
EPA’s mobile source emissions using the publicly available information
for MOVES2010.  Upon further correspondence with EPA after the close of
the comment period, Trinity Consultants learned that different datasets
need to be used in lieu of the publicly available database for MOVES2010
in order to duplicate EPA’s mobile source emissions in CSAPR.  Trinity
further identified that EPA adjusted the MOVES2010 inventory output
after processing by converting the model output into emissions per
vehicle mile traveled (“VMT”) and then applied data from a separate
VMT database.  This is different from the approach explained in the TSD.
 The actual VMT information used by EPA to project Allegan County,
Michigan as a maintenance interference location apparently has not been
made available for public review and comment.

These commenters state that Oklahoma is included in the proposal based
solely on a link to a projected future maintenance problem in Allegan
County.  If EPA had used the publicly available default options for
vehicle emissions in MOVES2010 as described in its TSD, Trinity’s
analysis shows that the vehicle emissions contributed to Allegan County
from upwind states would be roughly five percent less than what EPA
actually modeled.  Furthermore, because EPA predicts in the proposal
that future ozone concentrations in Allegan County will be just slightly
above the ozone standard (by just 0.1 ppb), this difference in vehicle
emissions could affect whether or not Allegan County has a projected
maintenance problem under CSAPR.

If EPA were to utilize the public information as stated in the TSD for
the vehicle emission modeling, the commenters believe that the CSAPR
modeling for Allegan County would show future attainment with the ozone
standard consistent with actual monitoring data and the Michigan
maintenance SIP for that area.

Based on Trinity’s analysis, the commenters argue that it is not
appropriate for EPA to issue a final rule without addressing the
discrepancies noted and explaining why they deviated from the approach
set forth in the TSD.  [AES Shady Point et al.
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4739), p. 1-3 and attachment]

RESPONSE:  The calculation of onroad mobile emissions involves the use
of the MOVES model code along with several input data sets.   The inputs
include a “database” with information for calculating emissions
factors, vehicle miles travelled (VMT) data, and meteorological data.
For the final Transport Rule, EPA used the MOVES2010 code that was
released to the public on 12/21/2009 (i.e., December 2009 release).  In
addition to the MOVES code, this release also included several default
data sets that could be used as inputs for running MOVES.  In general,
the defaults are provided for users who do not have more appropriate,
representative data for their particular application.  There is no
requirement to use the default data sets when running the MOVES model.
As described in the Emissions Inventory Technical Support Document (TSD)
and summarized below, EPA did not use all of the default data sets that
came with the December 2009 release for creating onroad mobile emissions
for the final Transport Rule.  The commenter misinterpreted the TSD and
incorrectly assumed that EPA used all the default data sets that were
included with the December 2009 release of MOVES.  The TSD says that we
primarily used MOVES 2010 to compute onroad emissions, but clearly
states that we did not use all of the default data provided with the
December release.  Instead, we strove to use the best available data at
the time of the modeling as input to MOVES.

For the final Transport Rule modeling, EPA did not use the default
“database” that came with the December release.  Rather, we used the
“database” created and released publicly in May 2010.  As noted by
the commenter, the December 2009 database contains errors that were
subsequently corrected in the May 2010 version, and therefore EPA did
not use the December 2009 version for the final Transport Rule Modeling.

For 2005, the TSD states that, “The onroad emissions were primarily
based on the publicly released 12/21/2009 version of the Motor Vehicle
Emissions Simulator (MOVES2010) (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/).
MOVES was run with a state/month aggregation using county-average fuels
for each state, state/month-average temperatures, and national default
vehicle age distributions. 2005 Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT),
consistent with the 2005v2 NEI, were used.”  For 2012, the TSD states
“The onroad emissions were primarily based on the 2010 version of the
Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES2010) – the same version as
was used for 2005... Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) were projected using
growth rates from the Department of Energy’s AEO2009.”  The TSD
states that we used state-month specific 2005 meteorology, not the
default climatology that was included with the December 2009 release.
The TSD also states that we used 2005 VMT from the 2005v2 NEI for our
2005 modeling, and that VMT based on DOE AEO2009 was used for our future
year modeling.  These are clearly not the default datasets that were
included in the December 2009 release.  Thus, EPA disagrees with the
commenter’s assertion that the TSD does not provide adequate
documentation on the meteorological data, VMT, and VMT growth rates EPA
used for the final Transport Rule.  With a base year of 1999, the
default VMT is known to not properly reflect different growth rates in
different states – even with a year as close to 1999 as 2005.  The
2005 and 2012 state-specific VMT used by EPA provide a more appropriate
representation of VMT for these years versus using the default
1999-based VMT data provided with MOVES.  Since mobile source emissions
of NOX and VOC are sensitivity to temperature, the use by EPA of 2005
meteorology, rather than climatological data, provides for greater
consistency with the 2005 meteorology used to drive the air quality
model.  Thus, we believe that the onroad emissions developed for the
final Transport Rule using MOVES 2010 with the May 2010 database and
other inputs developed by EPA, as described in the TSD, provide a
credible projection of onroad emissions for use in the Transport Rule
air quality modeling.

The commenter also ran the MOVES model using the “database” and
other default inputs that came with the December release and found that
using these default data produced onroad mobile NOX and VOC emissions
that were lower than those generated by EPA.  EPA disagrees with the
commenter that onroad mobile emissions using the December 2009 defaults,
which contain known errors, should be used for the Transport Rule
modeling.

The onroad mobile emissions EPA created and used for the final Transport
Rule were provided as state totals in the TSD and as county totals in
files in the docket.  Thus, the commenter had ample opportunity to
review the actual emissions data used by EPA.  The commenter requested
and received from EPA the version of the “database” and other inputs
that EPA used for calculating onroad mobile source emissions for the
final rule.  With these inputs, the commenter was able to successfully
replicate EPA’s onroad mobile emissions.  The commenter did not
provide comments saying that EPA had made any errors in the application
of these data.

Comment:  In addition, the analysis provided by Trinity Consultants
suggests that EPA's model tends to overstate the contribution of
Oklahoma sources to ozone formation in Allegan County.  Commenters are
concerned that the drastic emissions reduction required for Oklahoma in
the Supplemental Proposal goes beyond what is required to address
Oklahoma's impact. EPA also should consider that NOX emissions predicted
for all source groups in Oklahoma, other than mobile sources, were lower
in the modeling for the Supplemental Proposal than in the modeling for
the 2010 Proposed Transport Rule.  EGUs showed a decrease of 20,493 tons
per year of NOX, while NOX emissions from mobile sources increased by
21,344 tons per year.  Oklahoma showed an overall increase in VOC
emissions in the modeling for the Supplemental Proposal compared to the
2010 Proposed Rule, but this VOC emissions increase is attributable to
an increase in modeled emissions from mobile and non-point sources
rather than EGUs.  All told, these changes indicate that EGUs are not
the likely cause of the newly identified maintenance issue in EPA's
modeling for Allegan County, Michigan.  EGUs in Oklahoma should not be
held responsible for remedying an increase in emissions from other types
of sources. [Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company (OGE)
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4590), p. 6; Oklahoma Utility Group
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4591), p. 4.]

RESPONSE:  The comment concerning overstating the contribution of
Oklahoma sources to ozone in Allegan County is outside the scope of the
SNPR because it addresses modeling and inventory issues that were within
the scope of the request for comments in the proposed Transport Rule but
not in the SNPR.  While EPA is not reconsidering or reopening the issue,
we note that in both the Transport Rule proposal and final rule, CAMx
photochemical modeling for the 2012 “no CAIR” base case was used to
determine nonattainment and maintenance receptors.  The final rule
modeling was updated based on comments from the proposal.  There were
numerous emission updates, including updates to both the EGU and non-EGU
components of the inventory.

Comment:  Furthermore, commenters question EPA's authority to include
Oklahoma in the Supplemental Proposal based solely on modeled impacts in
Allegan County, which is in attainment with the applicable ozone NAAQS.
As noted, EPA is predicting possible impacts in Allegan County from
Oklahoma sources based on its use of the CAMx.  EPA's use of this
computer-modeling approach is overly conservative and tends to
exaggerate the impact of source emissions on air quality.  EPA's
modeling, at most, establishes a tenuous link to a predicted problem in
Michigan, but does not establish that Oklahoma sources actually
"contribute significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with
maintenance of NAAQS," as contemplated by the CAA.  EPA oversteps the
bounds of its authority by proposing to impose stringent requirements on
Oklahoma sources to address an issue that does not exist in the real
world. [Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company (OGE)
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4590), p. 6; Oklahoma Utility Group
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4591), p. 4.]

RESPONSE:  The comment is outside the scope of the SNPR because it
addresses EPA’s authority and modeling issues that were within the
scope of the request for comments in the proposed Transport Rule but not
in the SNPR.  While EPA is not reconsidering or reopening these issues,
we refer the commenter to section IV.A of the final Transport Rule for a
discussion of EPA’s authority, as well as section III.D of the
preamble to the final supplemental rule for a discussion of the Allegan
County, MI receptor.  Additionally, in response to comments on the
proposed rule, EPA performed a trajectory analysis to examine the upwind
transport patterns on days with measured exceedances at the Transport
Rule nonattainment and maintenance sites (see docket item
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4360).  EPA’s trajectory analysis included
backward trajectories from Allegan County for multiple times on
exceedance days at Allegan not only for 2005, but also for other years
during the period 2003 through 2007.  This analysis shows multiple days
when air crosses portions of Oklahoma within three days of passing over
Allegan County on days when an exceedance was measured at the Allegan
County monitor in 2005 and on several days in the other years examined.
EPA believes that the trajectory analysis corroborates the air quality
contribution modeling which links emissions in Oklahoma to the ozone
maintenance problem in Allegan County.

Comment: AES Shady Point believes there are significant technical flaws
in the modeling and allocation process.  In general terms, the need for
significant reductions in Oklahoma for the maintenance of attainment in
Allegan County, Michigan, which is over 900 miles from the AES Shady
Point facility, does not make logical sense because Allegan County is
directly across Lake Michigan from the Chicago/Milwaukee airshed. The
emissions from that airshed (and Gary, IN and St. Louis, MO) would seem
to dwarf any contribution from several hundred miles further away in
Oklahoma. Modeling by Midwest Ozone Group does not indicate that Allegan
County is expected to have attainment maintenance issues.  The fact that
Allegan County, Michigan already is in attainment with the NAAQS
supports the exclusion of Oklahoma in the proposed rule.  There is not
an immediate non-attainment issue that needs to be addressed.  It is
appropriate to allow an orderly process and period to achieve compliance
with a rule that is intended solely for maintenance of current
attainment.  [AES Shady Point (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4595), p. 5.]

RESPONSE:  EPA’s methodology for identifying nonattainment and
maintenance receptors is based on modeled projections of measured air
quality at specific monitors, not on the designation status of an area.
EPA believes this approach is appropriate for the reasons explained in
section V.C.2 of the preamble to the final CSAPR.  76 FR 48230, August
8, 2011.  EPA does not believe it would be appropriate to rely on the
designation status of an area.  The statute does not require EPA to do
so.   In fact, the statutory requirement that section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
SIPs be submitted within 3 years of promulgation or revision of a NAAQS
would make it difficult to do so, suggesting that Congress did not
intend section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIPs to be linked in any way to
designation status.  Further, even areas that have never been in
nonattainment or that have been re-designated to attainment (including
those where the majority of pollution comes from out of state) continue
to be at risk for falling into nonattainment due to the impact of
emissions from upwind states.  We therefore disagree with the commenter
and continue to believe that Allegan was appropriately determined to be
a maintenance receptor.  See Section III.D of the preamble to the final
supplemental.

Furthermore, the Transport Rule CAMx source apportionment modeling shows
that 10 states (including Oklahoma) contribute above the 1% of the ozone
NAAQS threshold to Allegan County.  As would be expected, the largest
ozone contribution is from Illinois.  But that does not change the fact
that 9 other states interfere with maintenance in Allegan County and it
does not alleviate the need for those states to eliminate their
interference with maintenance.  Further, the North Carolina v. EPA
opinion requires EPA to give independent meaning to the interfere with
maintenance prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).

Comment:   In addition to the Trinity Consultant's evaluation of the
modeling methodology, AEP/PSO found a specific apparent error in the IPM
TR Base Case Final results. PSO operates a combined cycle at its
Northeastern Power Station. Units 1A and 1B are combustion turbines
equipped with heat recovery steam generators that provide steam to the
original Unit 1 turbine. The Unit 1 boiler has not operated since about
1999. Although the NEEDS v4.1 database does not include the Unit 1
boiler as an emission source, EPA's IPM file shows Unit 1 as emitting
0.0789 Mton of NOX in the 2012 Base Case. This raises the question
whether EPA has double counted Units 1A and 1B's emissions and whether
EPA has accurately quantified emissions in the IPM projections. [Public
Service Company of Oklahoma (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4600), p. 7 plus
attachment.]

RESPONSE:  EPA did not double count units 1A and 1B emissions in its
base case modeling.  Double counting would suggest a number that was
higher than historic levels.  However, EPA’s base case modeling shows
total ozone-season emissions for the Northeastern combined cycle
facility of approximately 102 tons, where as the 2010 emission levels
were approximately 145 tons.  EPA uses the three units as reported in
EIA 860 by the source owner.  The units are modeled as two combustion
turbines and one steam turbine, as supported by the commenter.  The
model accounts for unit level emissions by taking the facility level
emissions and distributing them among the three units. The steam turbine
is dependent on the combustion turbines for operation, therefore,
emissions from the facility are spread across all three units
proportional to their generation.  A failure to do so would suggest a
unit that could generate electricity without any associated fuel use
related to that generation.  In reality, these emissions (the 79 tons
referenced by commenter) would still occur, but would be emitted from
the other two units at the facility.  However, IPM attributes the
emissions to the steam turbine to appropriately capture the economics.
If this was not the case, and the model could generate electricity from
a steam turbine without any corresponding emissions, then it would
dispatch steam turbines as economic before the combustion turbines – a
sequence that is not possible.  In short, the facility level emissions
are correctly captured at the Northeaster unit noted above and there is
no double counting as speculated by the commenter.

Comment:  AEP PSO did an analysis of air parcel back trajectories for
days in 2005 when ozone exceeded 80 ppb at the Allegan monitoring site.
Their analysis identified two “elevated ozone days where the winds
were originating far to the south of the Lake Michigan region showing a
reasonable possibility of Oklahoma emissions participating in ozone
formation that impacts the Allegan County region”.  The commenter
claims that this “calls into question the accuracy of the
meteorological fields being used by USEPA as they relate to the
transport from elevated sources in the Oklahoma region and the potential
benefits of NOX emissions reductions from elevated sources in Oklahoma
in reducing ozone at the Allegan County monitor in a meaningful
fashion”.  This work is included in an attachment to this letter
titled "USEPA's Analysis of the Allegan County Ozone Monitor Is
Incomplete and Does Not Demonstrate a Connection to the CSAPR Remedy
Proposed in the SNPR".  [Public Service Company of Oklahoma
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4600), p. 7 plus attachment.]

RESPONSE:  In response to comments on the proposed rule, EPA performed a
trajectory analysis to examine the upwind transport patterns on days
with measured exceedances at the Transport Rule nonattainment and
maintenance sites (see docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4360).  EPA’s
trajectory analysis was more extensive than the analysis performed by
AEP PSO in that EPA’s analysis included backward trajectories from
Allegan County for multiple times on exceedance days at Allegan not only
for 2005 but also for other years during the period 2003 through 2007.
In general, backward trajectory analyses are intended to show the
upstream pathway followed by air that arrives over a particular location
at a particular time.  In EPA’s trajectory analysis we examined the
airflow pathways within 3 days of when air crossed Allegan County on
each day that an exceedance was measured at the Allegan County monitor.
 EPA’s trajectory analysis shows that air crossed over portions of
Oklahoma within three days before passing over Allegan County on several
of the days when an exceedance was measured at the Allegan County
monitor.  EPA believes that the trajectory analysis corroborates the air
quality contribution modeling which links emissions in Oklahoma to the
ozone maintenance problem in Allegan County.

Comment:  Under the EPA's Supplemental Proposal, the State of Oklahoma
is being required to significantly reduce emissions of NOX during the
ozone season for the maintenance of a single county in Michigan (Allegan
County).  The county in question is hundreds of miles away from
Oklahoma, and modeling data shows that Allegan County, Michigan, is not
expected to have attainment maintenance issues and, in fact, is already
in attainment with the NAAQS targeted by the proposed rulemaking.  It
does not make sense for the EPA to require significant reductions in
Oklahoma for attainment in Allegan County, Michigan, in an area directly
across Lake Michigan from the Chicago/Milwaukee airshed (and also the
Gary, Indiana, and St Louis, Missouri, airsheds), where these areas
would be far greater contributors to nonattainment in Allegan County,
Michigan, than any contribution from Oklahoma.  In addition, the fact
that Allegan County, Michigan, is already in attainment, as shown by
modeling, supports the exclusion of Oklahoma in the Supplemental
Proposal rulemaking.  [Oklahoma Attorney General
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4592), p. 8.]

RESPONSE:  EPA’s methodology for identifying nonattainment and
maintenance receptors is based on modeled projections of measured air
quality at specific monitors, not on the designation status of an area.
EPA believes this approach is appropriate for the reasons explained in
section V.C.2 of the preamble to the final CSAPR.  76 FR 48230, August
8, 2011.  EPA does not believe it would be appropriate to rely on the
designation status of an area.  The statute does not require EPA to do
so.   In fact, the statutory requirement that 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIPs be
submitted within 3 years of promulgation or revision of a NAAQS would
make it difficult to do so, suggesting that Congress did not intend
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIPs to be linked in any way to designation status.
Further, even areas that have never been in nonattainment or that have
been re-designated to attainment (including those where the majority of
pollution comes from out of state) continue to be at risk for falling
into nonattainment due to the impact of emissions from upwind states.
We therefore disagree with the commenter and continue to believe that
Allegan was appropriately determined to be a maintenance receptor.  See
Section III.D of the preamble to the final supplemental.

Furthermore, the Transport Rule CAMx source apportionment modeling shows
that 10 states (including Oklahoma) contribute above the 1% of the ozone
NAAQS threshold to Allegan County.  As would be expected, the largest
ozone contribution is from Illinois.  But that does not change the fact
that 9 other states interfere with maintenance in Allegan County and it
does not alleviate the need for those states to eliminate their
interference with maintenance.  Further, the North Carolina v. EPA
opinion requires EPA to give independent meaning to the interfere with
maintenance prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).

Comment:  The DEQ does not believe that the conclusion that Oklahoma
significantly impacts the air quality in Allegan County, Michigan is
accurate.  The modeling conducted by EPA alleged that the NOX sources in
the state of Oklahoma interfere with maintenance of the ozone standard
for Allegan County, Michigan.  Allegan Co. was designated attainment of
the ozone standard on July 20, 2010, and is now a maintenance area. The
design values for Allegan Co. for the years 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008,
2009, and 2010 are 89, 88, 93, 86, 81, and 74 ppb respectively.  It is
apparent that the emission reductions obtained from the CAIR sources
have helped to lower recent design values to well below the standard,
and that Allegan County’s maintenance of the standard is not
threatened (even the modeled value of 85.1 in the CSAPR was just over
the standard).  If EPA were to update their base case to the year 2008
or later, Allegan Co. would model attainment with no threat to their
maintenance status in a normal weather year. The monitor in Allegan
County is the only monitor projected to be above the standard that EPA
identified Oklahoma as impacting; therefore, if Allegan County is in
attainment of the standard, then Oklahoma can and should be completely
removed from the rule. It is DEQ’s belief that the conclusion that
Oklahoma emissions impact Michigan is false.  [Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4593), p. 1-2.]

RESPONSE:  See section III.D of the preamble for the final supplemental
regarding Allegan County.  The comments on CAIR, modeling, and the base
case are outside the scope of the SNPR because they address issues that
were within the scope of the request for comments in the proposed
Transport Rule, but not in the SNPR.  While EPA is not reconsidering or
reopening these issues, we note that these issues were previously
addressed in sections V.C.2 (76 FR 48230, August 8, 2011) and V.B (76 FR
48223, August 8, 2011) of the preamble to the final Transport Rule.

Comment:  It is important to note that Oklahoma is currently being
included for its alleged impact on one county in the entire United
States. Commonsense suggests that carbon emissions in Oklahoma are not
dictating the air quality of Allegan County, Michigan, while somehow
having little or no impact on states with which we share a border.
Without additional and conclusive scientific data, I reject the EPA’s
conclusions in this instance, which I believe call into question the
overall validity of its study and modeling data.  I strongly advocate
that further scientific and empirical modeling is necessary to truly
determine if Oklahoma is impacting any area of the country in relation
to air quality.  I am asking today that the EPA revisit this important
issue to ensure that it is using proven science and techniques to make
an informed decision on this issue.  [Governor, State of Oklahoma
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4594), p. 1.]

RESPONSE:  See section III.D of the preamble to the final supplemental.
Regarding the comment on carbon emissions, the Transport Rule does not
regulate carbon emissions.  Regarding comments on the validity of
EPA’s modeling, the comment is outside the scope of the SNPR because
it addresses issues that were within the scope of the request for
comments in the proposed Transport Rule but not in the SNPR.  While EPA
is not reconsidering or reopening the issue, we note that our
methodologies were documented in the preambles for the proposed rule and
final rule and the proposal and final rule Air Quality Modeling
Technical Support Documents.  See EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4372, "Air
Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support Document".  There was
ample opportunity to comment on these methods based on information
provided in the proposed rule.

Comment:  Since its promulgation in 2005, CAIR has achieved significant
emissions reductions. For the purpose of determining the base case
(i.e., the analytical baseline emissions scenario), EPA arbitrarily
assumed that CAIR is not in effect. EPA claims that it is required to do
so because if it "were to consider all reductions associated with CAIR
in the 'base case,' the baseline emissions would not adequately reflect
the true 2012 baseline in each state." 76 Fed. Reg. at 48,223.  EPA
incorrectly assumes that pre-CAIR emission levels represent the
emissions that "would occur in each state in 2012 if the Transport Rule
did not require any reductions in that state."  Id. EPA's reasoning is
arbitrary because it lacks a "rational relationship to the real world."
See, e.g., Appalachian Power Co. v. EPA, 249 F.3d 1032, 1053 (D.C. Cir.
2001) (citing Chemical Mfrs. Ass'n v. EPA, 28 F.3d 1259, 1265 (D.C. Cir.
1994» ("While courts routinely defer to agency modeling of complex
phenomena, model assumptions must have a 'rational relationship' to the
real world."); Columbia Falls Aluminum Co. v. EPA, 139 F.3d 914, 923
(D.C. Cir. 1998) ("An agency's use of a model is arbitrary if that model
bears no rational relationship to the reality it purports to
represent.") (internal quotations omitted).

In light of the numerous regulatory developments since 2005 and the
billions of dollars invested in installing controls at EGUs, it is
unreasonable for EPA to assume that all of the EGUs currently subject to
CAIR would instantly stop operating these controls on January 1, 2012.
The D.C. Circuit in North Carolina remanded without vacatur the federal
CAIR program; it did not in any way invalidate state regulations
implementing CAIR.  Since 2005, EPA has set significantly more stringent
NAAQS for Ozone, SO2, NOX, and PM.  Many states have become dependent on
the emissions reductions achieved by their CAIR programs to attain or
maintain these newly promulgated, and more stringent, NAAQS within their
own borders.  EPA cannot assume that these states will forgo these
reductions simply because the federal mandate to implement CAIR expires.

It is far more rational for EPA to acknowledge the emissions reductions
achieved by CAIR.  EPA cannot simply assume that pre-CAIR emission
levels are an appropriate base case without first determining whether
states will continue to require CAIR reductions.  The U.S. Court of
Appeals remanded CAIR without vacatur and has consistently declined to
set a deadline for EPA to replace CAIR. See North Carolina v. EPA, 550
F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (remanding without vacating CAIR); Order,
North Carolina v. EPA, No. 09-1316 (D.C. Cir. Feb 2, 2010) (denying
request for writ of mandamus ordering EPA to issue proposed rule).
Nothing requires EPA to discount emissions reductions achieved by CAIR.

Failing to account for CAIR undermines the ability of EPA's model to
accurately determine whether states significantly contribute to
nonattainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. Michigan is a CAIR state and
Allegan County currently is in attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS.  In
2010, the Holland monitor, located in Allegan, Michigan, had a
three-year average of 74 ppb.  If EPA used this actual data, which
reflects CAIR reductions, its modeling would show that Allegan, Michigan
would remain in attainment. See Docket No. EPA-HQ2009-0491-2809
(Comments Submitted by the Midwest Ozone Group). Modeling submitted by
the Midwest Ozone Group in response to the 2010 Proposal shows that if
EPA considered CAIR, and other rules currently in place, ambient air
quality at the Holland monitor would be approximately 81 ppb in the base
year, 9 76 ppb in 2014, and 73 ppb in 2018. See id.  There simply is no
rational basis for EPA's determination that Oklahoma will significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interference with the 1997 ozone NAAQS in
Allegan County, Michigan. [Western Farmers Electric Cooperative
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4589), p. 6-7; Grand River Dam Authority ("GRDA")
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4586), p. 4-5.]

RESPONSE:  The comment is outside the scope of the SNPR because it
addresses issues that were within the scope of the request for comments
in the proposed Transport Rule but not in the SNPR.  While EPA is not
reconsidering or reopening the issue, we note that EPA took comment on
the rationale for selecting 2005 as the base year and the use of
monitoring data for the period 2003 through 2007 as the starting point
for projecting ozone and PM2.5 concentrations in 2012 and 2014 in the
Transport Rule proposal.  See section V.B of the final Transport Rule
preamble.  Also see section IV.A of the Transport Rule Primary Response
to Comments document in the docket to this rulemaking
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4513].

	7.  Wisconsin

No comments received on this issue.

II.  FIPs (use of ozone season NOX program in Transport Rule as FIP)

General

(A) EPA lacks authority to promulgate the proposed FIP.

Comment:  For the reasons discussed in detail in its comments on the
Proposed Transport Rule, UARG opposes EPA’s imposition of FIPs
establishing ozone-season NOX emission reduction requirements in these
states without first giving the states adequate time and opportunity to
develop and submit state implementation plans (“SIPs”) implementing
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the Clean Air Act (“CAA”).  See Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2756.1, at 19-26 (Oct. 1, 2010).  For example,
UARG notes that, even assuming for the sake of argument that, as EPA
asserts, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D) “requires all states, within 3 years
of promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, to submit SIPs that prohibit
certain emissions of air pollutants because of the impact they would
have on air quality in other states,” 76 Fed. Reg. at 40664 -- an
assertion that ignores that the 3-year SIP submission deadline appears
only in CAA section 110(a)(1), which explicitly applies to SIPs that
“provide[] for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of
NAAQS “within,” not outside, the state that submits the SIP -- that
is no basis for EPA’s imposition of FIPs in this rule.  As UARG notes
in its comments, any schedule for submission of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
SIPs for the 1997 NAAQS should be restarted “upon EPA’s promulgation
of a valid final rule” replacing the currently effective Clean Air
Interstate Rule.5 Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2756.1, at 26.
[Utility Air Regulatory Group (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4598), p. 2-3.]

RESPONSE:  The comment is outside the scope of this action because it
questions the legality of using a FIP, not whether the Transport Rule
FIPs are the appropriate method for addressing the emissions.  While EPA
is not reconsidering or reopening the issue, we note that the legality
question was previously addressed in section IV.A of the preamble to the
final Transport Rule.

Iowa

No comments received on this issue.

Kansas

No comments received on this issue.

Michigan

Commenter disagrees with use of the FIP and the associated timeframe.

Comment:  Within the proposed rules, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) again indicated their decision to use the final Transport
Rule program's federal implementation plans (FIPs) to address the
emissions in these six states.  Once again, and as also stated in our
original comments to the August 2, 2010, Federal Register, "Federal
Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine

Particulate Matter and Ozone," and comments to the January 7, 2011
Federal Register, "Notice of Data Availability for Federal
Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate
Matter and Ozone," one of the MDEQ's most critical concerns is "the
implementation timing for the proposed Interstate Transport Rules, where
Phase One begins in 2012 and Phase Two in 2014.  The MDEQ continues to
believe the shortened timeline for implementation of the Transport Rule
has adverse impacts on the states and sources affected." The MDEQ
requests the implementation of the FIP be delayed a minimum of 18
months, until states can finalize an approvable state implementation
plan (SIP) to effectively replace the FIP requirements.  [Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4606), p. 1.]

RESPONSE:  The comment is outside the scope of the SNPR because it
addresses issues that were within the scope of the request for comments
in the proposed Transport Rule, but not in the SNPR.  While EPA is not
reconsidering or reopening these issues we note that the issues were
previously addressed in sections VII.C and section X of the preamble to
the final Transport Rule, as well as in the Transport Rule Primary
Response to Comments document in the docket to this rulemaking
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4513].  Additionally, questions regarding the
legality of using a FIP were addressed in the preamble.

Missouri

No comments received on this issue.

Oklahoma

(A) EPA lacks authority to promulgate the proposed FIP for Oklahoma.

Comment:  The proposed FIP for Oklahoma is premature and inconsistent
with the structure of CAA.  In the Supplemental Proposal, EPA claims
that it has authority to include Oklahoma in the CSAPR by virtue of the
Agency's general finding on April 25, 2005 that all 50 states, including
Oklahoma, failed to submit State Implementation Plans ("SIPs") to
address the requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to
the 1997 ozone NAAQS.  In a Technical Support Document ("TSD") for the
Supplemental Proposal, EPA says that it "has not, subsequent to that
date, received or approved a SIP revision to correct the deficiency" for
Oklahoma.  Commenters disagree with EPA's characterization of the status
of Oklahoma's SIP.  First, EPA's claim misrepresents the status of
Oklahoma's SIP and ignores subsequent actions taken by Oklahoma to
implement the good neighbor requirements. It also ignores the reality
that EPA only in this proposal gave Oklahoma any notice about the
putative contribution to Allegan County's prospective and/or projected
nonattainment.  It would have been impossible for Oklahoma to have taken
steps previously to ensure that it is meeting its good neighbor
obligations because EPA had never identified the potential problem which
Oklahoma must address.

Also, contrary to EPA's assertion in the TSD, Oklahoma submitted an
interstate transport SIP on May 1, 2007 to address the requirements of
CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).  In the 2007 SIP, the State informed EPA as
follows:

“As required by Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the Clean Air Act, the
State of Oklahoma submits to the USEPA that it has met the requirements
for the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards
("NAAQS") and does not significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in another State.”

On December 5, 2007, the State supplemented its interstate transport SIP
with additional assessments and also provided EPA with the following
certification regarding the adequacy of its SIP under CAA Section
110(a)(1) and (2):

“We have evaluated our existing SIP for implementation of the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS to determine if it includes all the requirements in
Section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA and is consistent with the guidance
provided to the Regional Air Division Directors from William T. Harnett,
Director, Air Quality Policy Division on October 2,2007.  We conclude
and certify that our SIP does meet these requirements.”

The guidance referred to in this certification is an EPA memorandum
titled "Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and
(2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards." The memorandum lists the basic elements that EPA thinks
should be part of a SIP and also says, "To the extent that existing SIPs
for ozone and particulate matter already meet these requirements, States
need only certify that fact to [EPA]."  Consistent with EPA's guidance,
Oklahoma certified in 2007 that the State's Interstate Transport SIP met
all of the requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(l) and (2), which includes
the interstate transport requirements related to NAAQS under CAA Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).  Since then, EPA has not approved or disapproved of
the State's conclusion in 2007 that its SIP meets the requirements of
CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) related to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
EPA has approved certain portions of the Oklahoma SIP relating to
Prevention of Significant Deterioration ("PSD") requirements and has
also issued a proposal to partially approve and partially disapprove
other specific portions related to visibility.

EPA is now proposing to move directly to imposing a Federal
Implementation Plan ("FIP"), eliminating the State's opportunity to
receive notice of, and correct, a perceived deficiency in the

2007 SIP submittal as it relates to the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). The EPA does not have authority under the CAA to
proceed with implementing a FIP prior to approving or disapproving the
State's 1997 SIP as it relates to the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).  The CAA requires the EPA to act on a SIP revision
within 12 months of having received a completed submission (such SIP
submissions are deemed complete after 6 months unless EPA makes a
finding otherwise) see CAA section 110 (k)(l)(B), (k)(2). When a State
submits a SIP, the CAA allows EPA to issue a FIP within 2 years after
the Administrator disapproves the SIP in whole or part. Also, the CAA
gives the EPA the authority to issue a FIP within two years after
finding that a State failed to submit a SIP, or submitted a SIP that was
found to be incomplete. However, the authority to issue a FIP expires
two years after EPA issues a finding of failure to submit a SIP. The EPA
has missed that two year deadline here and therefore, lacks authority
under the CAA to issue the proposed FIP. Furthermore, where a State
submits a SIP after the issuance of a deficiency finding by the
Administrator, the EPA must act on the SIP submittal before issuing a
FIP.

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 7410(c)(l)(B):

(1) The Administrator shall promulgate a Federal implementation plan at
any time within 2 years after the Administrator –

(A) finds that a State has failed to make a required submission or finds
that the plan or plan revision submitted by the State does not satisfy
the minimum criteria established under subsection(k)(l)(A) of this
section, or

(B) disapproves a State implementation plan submission in whole or part,
unless the State corrects the deficiency, and the Administrator approves
the plan or plan revision, before the Administrator promulgates such