I note that 'EPA anticipates that power plants may use the following to achieve emission reductions: operate already installed control equipment more frequently, use low sulfur coal, or install control equipment such as low NOx burners, Selective Catalytic Reduction, or scrubbers (Flue Gas Desulfurization).' I >strongly encourage you to amend the proposed Rule to discourage attainment through low sulfur coal! This usually imported coal increases our dependence on fossil fuels from unstable regions and perpetuates our dependence on this the dirtiest of fossil fuels. EPA should write the rule so that it encourages transition off coal.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-0917, p.2]
Greisch, Edward
Coal contains: URANIUM, ARSENIC, LEAD, MERCURY, Antimony, Cobalt, Nickel, Copper, Selenium, Barium, Fluorine, Silver, Beryllium, Iron, Sulfur, Boron, Titanium, Cadmium, Magnesium, Thorium, Calcium, Manganese, Vanadium, Chlorine, Aluminum, Chromium, Molybdenum and Zinc. There is so much of these elements in coal that cinders and coal smoke are actually valuable ores. We should be able to get all the uranium and thorium we need to fuel nuclear power plants for centuries by using cinders and smoke as ore. Unburned Coal also contains BENZENE, THE CANCER CAUSER. We could get all of our uranium and thorium from coal ashes and cinders. The carbon content of coal ranges from 96% down to 25%, the remainder being rock of various kinds. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-1015, p.1]
If you are an underground coal miner, you may be in violation of the rules for radiation workers. The uranium decay chain includes the radioactive gas RADON, which you are breathing. Radon decays in about a day into polonium, the super-poison. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-1015, p.1]
Chinese industrial grade coal is sometimes stolen by peasants for cooking. The result is that the whole family dies of arsenic poisoning in days, not years because Chinese industrial grade coal contains large amounts of arsenic. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-1015, p.1]
Yes, that ARSENIC is getting into the air you breathe, the water you drink and the soil your food grows in. So are all of those other heavy metal poisons. Your health would be a lot better without coal. Benzene is also found in petroleum. If you have cancer, check for benzene in your past. See: http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-34/text/coalmain.html for most of the above. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-1015, p.1]
Hansen, Gordon
PROPOSAL FOR A NATIONAL SOLAR HOT WATER HEATING LOAN PROGRAM PAYS FOR ITSELF AND WILL:
- Create thousands of new companies
- Create hundreds of thousands green jobs
- Save homeowners up to one-third energy bills
- Save the nation's homeowners $45 billion each year
- Save 500 billion pounds CO2 pollution each year -
- Offset power consumed by over 30 million homes
- Offset 80 one billion watt power plants
- Reduce global warming [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-1955, p.2]
All this can start very quickly through existing technology with no homeowner up-front money required because of a simple federal no-interest loan.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-1955,p.2]
Hoppy's Lures
Fishing in the South as well as the rest of this country is not just a sport, but a way of life. The ban that the EPA is trying to put on lead for fishing would be devastating not only to a sport but to the economy. It would have a snowballing effect on just about everything from manufacturing, sporting good stores, marinas, hotels, motels and convention centers, restaurants, airlines, gasoline sales, printing etc. etc. etc. It would do away with thousands of jobs and have a tremendous effect on a already struggling economy. In a bad economy it is an inexpensive pastime for people that are already out of work. This would have a huge effect on so many people. And would produce little to no results in what they are trying to achieve. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-1812, p.1]
Locker, Robert
I recently learned that at least 52 conventional coal fired power plants are scheduled to move forward toward completion without technology to sequester Carbon. Though proponents of such wasteful polluting industries say they are leaving room in the Infrastructure of these new monstrosities, they are not expecting the technology to be developed until 2020. Each year coal plants pour millions of tons of harmful pollution into our air. This pollution doesn't stop at state lines, and as a result people throughout the country are forced to breathe unhealthy air. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-1050, p.2]
I like this idea though I do hope that the 52 dirty coal power plants already in the works are properly encouraged to drop DEAD coal technology in favor of more sustainable technology involving microbial life forces and intensive use of OUR waste stream to produce Biogas, and use decentralized Micro-Turbine heat, cooling, and electric power generation technology to power communities where bio-waste is initially processed. Almost everything taken to a transfer station can be used as a bio-fuel, or can be reused in some other purposeful way. Use of DIRTY DEAD COAL is the BIGGEST WASTE of our national time, treasure, and effort. Stop it NOW please? [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-1050, p.2]
This is a national problem that needs a national solution, and I urge the EPA to quickly finalize this common sense approach to protect public health and help states efficiently and cost-effectively clean up their air. The Supreme Court has ruled that the EPA has the authority to control carbon emissions. Please continue to build in a commonsense way the sticks and carrots approach to get Dirty Energy OUT OF THE PICTURE as soon as possible. 'We The People' of the US of America will benefit beyond measure, as will 'We The People' of the world. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-1050, p.2]
Maryanski, Joseph
I also firmly believe that more must be done to convince fleet operators to move away from diesel engines wherever possible especially for delivery type vehicles, school and other buses.. Modern emission controls seem currently ineffective at reducing the soot, particulate and fowl odors that can cause asthma and other breathing maladies . Until I heard of 'fracking' I thought that natural gas would be our salvation in this regard but now enlightened by the horror of 'fracking' I am not so sure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-0505, p.2]
I am also scared to hell of nuke plants (tombs is more apt term) which are aging and more prone to disrepair and neglect by profit hungry utility companies, especially the likes of Excelon (Oyster Creek, Lacy Twp, NJ) which thumbs its nose at the public and regulators over Tritium leaks and bay warming and degradation. No further nuke plants should be considered until every avenue of renewable energy has been exhausted. Lastly, renewable energy needs equal funding on par with fossil fuel subsidies and tax breaks. Fossil fuel subsidies MUST be eliminated along with all tax breaks to the point of equaling our current or adjusted investment into renewable energy. Every effort must be made to encourage (but not force except by control of the limits of the offending emission) alternative type renewable energy known to be successful like solar, wind, geo, hydro and I expect in a decade or less wave and water current... [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-0505, p.2]
Public, Jean
all state and federal government agencies that burn up vegetation in any way need to be regulated by EPA. it is clear that the massive collaboration to burn up land for various purposes being done by bureau of land management, national park service, forest service, new jersey division fish & game, and private sources like the duke farms in NJ leads to terrible air pollution of fine particulate matter. such fine particulate matter leads to lung cancer, heart attacks, strokes, allergies, asthma and pneumonia, causing much spending on health care by taxpayers in this nation. the health effects of burning vegetation, which releases mercury as well with its horrible health effects, needs to be stopped. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-0132, p.1]
EPA has been in charge of pollution for past 70 years and is not doing enough to protect health. it has gone way past the time to act for health's sake. NJ is a recipient of dirty air from the flow across this country, but its state agencies burn for frivolous reasons. for example NJ div fish & game wants to burn to grow birds so they can kill them. that burning for this stupid reason shows how stupid govt agencies can get. the health effects of this burning are tremendous and cost billions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-0132, p.1]
all forest fire burning permits of 'controlled burns' need to be stopped and banned. Health officials need to also be part of any burning anywhere at any time. In NJ, we have new jersey division fish & wildlife burning, NJ park service, NJ forest fire service, NJ green acres and the private rich foundation of duke farms being allowed to burn, all releasing fine particulate matter and mercury into the air, causing people to die and be injured. this needs to stop. we need EPA to stop this out of control burning. sometimes fire officials want to burn for extra pay and extra overtime salaries. all of this burning needs to be stopped. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-0132, p.1]
Ritz, Aaron
[These comments were submitted as testimony at the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania public hearing on August 26, 2010.  See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-0491-1938, p.175.]
Accordingly to the EPA one in six women already has enough mercury in her body to put her baby at risk of developmental problems. This rule would indirectly help lower that exposure.
The rule will also reduce mercury contamination. Already 47 states have warnings not to eat the fish from their waters because of unsafe mercury levels.
Response:
EPA thanks commenters for sharing their views and opinions regarding the welfare of the environment.  The purpose of the Transport Rule is to reduce emissions of PM2.5, SO2, and NOX.  The Transport Rule is not about the regulation of mercury, natural gas, arsenic, coal, lead in fish, diesel fuel, nuclear energy, burning of vegetation, nor the use of solar hot water generation.  The Transport Rule's purpose is not to dictate what fuels to use nor how.  The fuel options for use are completely up to the owners/operators of the power sector.  For more information on the Transport Rule, please see the Preamble.
Organization: Midamerican Energy Holdings Company
Comment:
Midamerican Energy Holdings Company
EPA has indicated that certain errors had been made in the original state emission budgets, based on a variety of factors, and that the final state emissions caps will be subject to further review and revision. Likewise, EPA has proposed three options to implement the Transport Rule provisions. MidAmerican believes that, to comply with the Administrative Procedures Act, EPA would be required to re-notice and issue for public comment any significant changes to the proposed rule. Nonetheless, MidAmerican does not waive and specifically reserves the right to raise additional issues associated with changes to the state or individual facility emissions budgets and/or in the event that the final rule is significantly more restrictive than EPA's current preferred option. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2748.1 p.6-7]
Response:
EPA thanks the commenter for their comments and feedback.  EPA is working as expeditiously as possible and within the full extent of its authority, under  Section 110(a)(2)(d) of the Clean Air Act, to ensure improved human health for all Americans through reductions in interstate transport of pollutants within the Transport Rule's 27 states.  EPA is under a timeframe to promulgate the Transport Rule as expeditiously as practicable, as per the remand of CAIR by the Court to the Agency for development of the current Transport Rule.
For more detailed information on the Agency's final allocations methodology, please see Section VII.D of the Preamble.  For other general information about the rule, please see the Preamble.
Organization: Minnesota Power
Comment:
Minnesota Power
Exclude Minnesota from the final Transport Rule.  Minnesota should not be included as a Transport Rule affected state when EPA finalizes the rule. EPA has already indicated that Minnesota has provided for comparable emission reductions without the imposition of further requirements from the Transport Rule.  [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2750.1, p.5]
Extend the Minnesota Administrative stay.  If EPA ultimately decides that Minnesota should be a Transport Rule affected state in the final rule, Minnesota Power requests that EPA also extend the existing Administrative Stay of the Clean Air Interstate Rule in Minnesota indefinitely and that EPA establish Minnesota Transport Rule, Group 2 state annual budget requirements no earlier than for calendar year 2015 (the first full calendar year that follows a three year planning period for controls deployment after EPA's projected mid-2011 Transport Rule finalization). Minnesota Power anticipates that such a time extension can be justified for most if not all Transport Rule affected states. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2750.1, p.6]
Response:
Minnesota is included in the Transport Rule Region for fine particles only.  For further information on the analysis done to determine downwind air quality and upwind state emissions, please see Section V of the Preamble.  For further information on the quantification of state emission reductions required, please see Section VI of the Preamble.
The Court ruled that CAIR was unlawful, thereby necessitating the development of the Transport Rule.  Although the Court did not specify a definitive date by which EPA should promulgate the Transport Rule, the Court did not give the Agency an infinite stay on CAIR and did, in fact, indicate that the Transport Rule was to be completed in a timely manner.
Organization: Pfeiff, Mike
Comment:
Pfeiff, Mike
20. Transport Rule Vacatur Scenario - The EPA should provide guidance to stakeholders about what set of market rules would be in place if the Proposed Transport Rule was vacated during judicial review.
I request that the EPA provide the market with a explanation of the implications under a scenario where the Proposed Transport Rule is vacated. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2742.1, p.14]
Response:
EPA has undertaken a very thorough analysis and rulemaking development effort, as per the guidelines of the Courts remand of CAIR to the Agency.  Due to the Agency very strictly following the legal guidance of the Court in development of the Transport Rule, EPA does not believe this rulemaking will be vacated by the Court.
Organization: South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
Ripple, Steven
Comment:
Ripple, Steven
The following is a list of things that I would do as EPA Administrator (in no specific order):
(1) Ban mercury emissions from all sources (not to mention countless others). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-1611, p.2]
(2) Ban PVC. There is nothing good about PVC, and you should already know all about it. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-1611, p.2]
(3) Ban the use of or inclusion (direct or indirect) of formaldehyde, aldehyde, chlorine, PVC, ABS, bromine, xylene, toluene, other dangerous solvents, ozone, HCFCs, HFCs, ethylene glycol, biocides, and the list goes on and on and on (you get the point) in any form in the manufacture of all consumer and commercial products, especially building products, construction products, and buildings themselves. Through the use of safe and/or renewable plastics - like polyethylene and polypropylene - and natural, renewable, recycled, and truly sustainable products we can begin to make the indoor air quality of our homes and workplaces finally better than the air quality outside. Set new minimums and rules for recycling practices and recycled content. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-1611, p.2]
(4) Set limits on or the amount of or in some instances ban altogether non-renewable plastics, as well as setting new industry standards for VOCs (including doing away with exempt solvents and other exempt chemicals, as this is of the highest degree of ignorance). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-1611, p.2]
(5) Work with the Dept of Agriculture to ban the use of toxic pesticides, herbicides, and chemical fertilizers that are all contributing to the pollution of our groundwater, aquifers, streams, rivers, lakes, and oceans, as well as contributing heavily to countless diseases and global warming. Set better regulations for organic farming and eventually phase out non-organic farming practices. Without non-organic farming, there would be no need to certify organic. In the meantime organic certification should be priced on a sliding scale based on a farm's or company's size or profit margin. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-1611, p.2]
(6) Work with the Dept of Agriculture to overhaul our nation's meat industry. Set new safety and animal welfare standards for farming practices, limit the use of antibiotics to life-saving instances, ban growth hormones, ban feeding livestock anything unnatural or unsanitary, and set better regulations for organic farming and eventually phase out non-organic farming practices. Without non-organic farming, there would be no need to certify organic. In the meantime organic certification should be priced on a sliding scale based on a farm's or company's size or profit margin. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-1611, pp.2-3]
(7) Work with the Dept of Agriculture, the FCC, the FTC, and the Dept of Commerce to make it illegal to falsely advertise a product as green, sustainable, and/or renewable without passing a strict set of guidelines. This will make it easier for the public to choose truly green products and impossible for companies to deceive people into buying dirty ones. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-1611, p.3]
(8) Work with the Environmental Working Group's Skin Deep Cosmetics Database - http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/ - to ban the use of all dangerous chemicals in our health and beauty products. Also ban the use of such chemicals in laundry, dish, and car detergents. Basically ban the use of these chemicals for anything that will end up in our water, air, or soil supply!! There are too many chemicals to list here. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-1611, p.3]
(9) Work with the Dept of Commerce to ban the import of any goods to this country that are produced with any banned chemicals I've listed above, plus countless more.  [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-1611, p.3]
(10) Ban the hydraulic fracturing methods that is poisoning our water, food, animals, grasslands, soil, streams, rivers, and aquifers (see Gasland the documentary here: http://gaslandthemovie.com/. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-1611, p.3]
(11) Ban mountaintop removal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-1611, p.3]
(12) Ban falsely sustainable ethanol from corn. Sugar ethanol is the only ethanol that is truly sustainable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-1611, p.3]
(13) Set new minimums for truly sustainable and renewable energy sources including widely unrecognized and ignored ones like Waste Heat, Geothermal, and Landfill Methane. While CO2 sequestration seems to be a suitable short-term solution to CO2 emissions, requiring more CO2-free or low-CO2 energy is a much better long-term solution. Cap and trade is not a viable long-term solution either. Sequestration and cap and trade aim to treat the symptoms of our planet's (and inhabitants') diseases rather than treating the causes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-1611, p.3]
(14) While setting mpg standards and emission standards for cars is a good start, we need a push to utilize the technology used by vehicle manufacturers such as Think - http://www.thinkev.com/ . The Chevy Volt just doesn't go far enough - the technology is entirely too limited. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-1611, p.3]
(15) Work with the Dept of Energy to unveil brand new basic federal requirements as well as new Energy Star requirements. The Energy Star requirements of now should be the new federal minimums, and the new Energy Star requirements should be set so that at least 80% of all current Energy Star labeled products are no longer considered Energy Star. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-1611, p.3]
(16) And finally, any home that was built or worked on during the period of 1930 and 1980 may have asbestos in just about every area: http://www.asbestosresource.com/asbestos/products.html. With the incentives out there for remodeling and retrofitting, I think there needs to be a new campaign to raise asbestos awareness for contractors, homeowners, and home inhabitants. There also needs to be a push for low-cost asbestos testing. When a homeowner budgets for a remodel, he likely doesn't budget for testing each wall, ceiling, and floor for asbestos. If the project is done without testing, and asbestos fibers pollute the home, the contractor and the home's inhabitants will likely suffer extremely unnecessary and dire consequences. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-1611, p.3]
Thank you for taking the time to read this. I fully expect to hear back from you regarding these ideas. They are not new, but they should be implemented to the fullest extent possible as soon as possible, and I'd love to hear your reaction to them as well as your explanation of why they haven't been implemented yet, whether or not you plan to implement them, and if you do, when? [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-1611, pp.3-4]
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
Section 105 grants are the federal funds authorized by the Clean Air Act to support the core functions of state and local air pollution planning and control programs. 57 The EPA describes these grants in its 2011 Budget in Brief document: These funds provide resources to multi-state, state, local, and Tribal air pollution control agencies for the development and implementation of programs for the prevention and control of air pollution and for the implementation of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) set to protect public health and the environment.58 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2677.1 p.22]
The EPA withholds funds from its Section 105 grants to fund the operation of the NOX SIP Call and CAIR trading systems. For fiscal year 2010, the EPA subtracted $66,500 from its Section 105 grant to South Carolina, and $665,665 from EPA Region 4 states and local governments, to support the NOX SIP Call and CAIR trading systems. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2677.1 p.22]
DHEC requests that if the EPA issues a final rule with a FIP, then it should not use Section 105 grants to fund the federal Transport Rule trading program and all future funding from 105 funds for the trading program should cease. An alternative funding option would be for the EPA to charge a small fee for transactions in the trading system. The transaction costs in current EPA trading programs are currently low,59 and the market could withstand a small fee without inhibiting trading. Such a funding source would be more reasonable than using state and local grant money intended for core air quality programs to support an EPA operation, especially in this period of state budgetary contraction. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2677.1 p.22]
Response:
EPA thanks the commenters for their feedback and suggestions.  EPA is working as expeditiously as possible and within the full extent of its authority, under  Section 110(a)(2)(d) of the Clean Air Act, to ensure improved human health for all Americans through reductions in interstate transport of pollutants within the Transport Rule's 27 states.  The purpose of the Transport Rule is to reduce emissions.  The list of suggested Agency actions to be performed and the suggestion that the Agency not use Section 105 grant money for implementation of the Transport Rule are outside the scope of this rulemaking.  Section 105 grant money is not related to this rulemaking.
Organization: Headington, Maureen
Comment:
Headington, Maureen
[These comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August 19, 2010.  See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-0491-1746, pp.136-137.]
I didn't know about this hearing except that someone from one of the lung association's two days ago sent me something, and 'Oh, oh. I have to do this.' This is so important.
I wish these things would be broadcast on every radio station, on every television station because metro Chicago, it is just unfathomable what we've had to endure.

Response:
On August 2, 2010, EPA gave public notice on the Agency's Transport Rule website (http://epa.gov/airquality/transport/actions.html) indicating that three public hearings would be held on August 19[th] (Chicago, IL), August 26[th] (Philadelphia, PA), and September 1[st]  (Atlanta, GA) of 2010 to allow the public ample opportunity to share their views and comments with the Agency.
Organization: Kentucky Division for Air Quality
Comment:
Kentucky Division for Air Quality
Timely guidance from EPA is extremely critical to implementation of the final Transport Rule. This guidance should be issued concurrent with finalization of the rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2805.1, p.1]
Response:
EPA understands that individual states have unique circumstances regarding implementation of the Transport Rule and will be working with individual states, through the Agency's regional offices, to ensure that each affected state will meet the Transport Rule requirements.
Organization: Recycled Energy Development
Comment:
Recycled Energy Development
First, and most important, EPA should adopt output-based emissions standards in the Federal Plan. Rather than base pollution limits on the amount of fuel consumed, standards based on each unit of electricity (and thermal energy) produced would encourage efficiency. As a result, pollution would be prevented and emissions reduced. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2601.1, p.2]
Response:
Please see section VII of the preamble for a detailed explanation on the Agency's allocations methodology used in the Transport Rule and why it is not using an output-based allocations methodology.
Organization: Synthesis Foundation
Province of Ontario, Canada
Wabash Valley Power
Rodman, Margaret
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP)
Anderson, Sally
Ameren Services Company

Comment:
Ameren Services Company
Emissions reductions will begin to take effect very quickly, in 2012 - within one year after the rule is finalized. By 2014, the rule and other state and EPA actions would reduce power plant SO2 emissions by 71 percent over 2005 levels. Power plant NOx emissions would drop by 52 percent.' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-0083, p.2]
Anderson, Sally
[These comments were submitted as testimony at the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania public hearing on August 26, 2010.  See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-0491-1938, pp.162-163.]
Air pollution can directly affect animals exactly the same way it does humans, only their systems, their lungs and everything are more sensitive because they're much smaller.
Without implementation to control pollution, our animals and our wild life and the plants around us can seriously be compromised.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP)
[These comments were submitted as testimony at the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania public hearing on August 26, 2010.  See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-0491-1938, pp.156-157.]
disconnecting the SO2 reductions from the Acid Rain Program
Province of Ontario, Canada
However, MOE scientists believe that even with the significant reductions in the emission of NOx and SO2 required by the Rule, Ontario will continue to experience exceedances of our air quality standards, notably Canada's ozone standard (0.065 ppm), because of trans boundary air pollution from the U.S. The reductions required by the Rule will likely reduce the degree of exceedances in Ontario, and their frequency, but the Transport Rule alone will not eliminate them. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2610.1, p.1]
Accordingly, we are pleased that the U.S. EPA will augment the Transport Rule with other initiatives to reduce air pollution and protect human health and the environment. These initiatives include the reconsideration of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for Ozone, an additional regulation related to utility boilers, a second Transport Rule, and a revised PM NAAQS. We urge the U.S. EPA to move forward with these initiatives as expeditiously as possible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2610.1, p.2]
As we have explained in other submissions, Ontario shares its southern border with eight U.S. states, and its airshed with many more. Because of proximity to the U.S., Ontario is profoundly affected by air pollution from U.S. sources. Excessive levels of air pollution cause thousands of premature deaths each year in Ontario, and are responsible for tens of thousands of additional hospital admissions and emergency room visits annually. We cannot meet our own air quality standards without significant reductions in trans boundary air pollution from the U.S., particularly ozone and its precursors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2610.1, p.2]
Even if Ontario were to reduce its own sources of air pollution to zero, we would still experience exceedances of our ozone standards at most of our monitoring stations because of air pollution from the U.S. Conversely, if no air pollution from the U.S. flowed into Ontario, we would easily meet our ozone standards at all of our monitoring stations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2610.1,p.2]
In Ontario, we are determined to fight climate change, improve air quality, develop renewable energy sources, and transition to a strong green economy. Since the McGuinty Government was elected in 2003 (and re-elected in 2007), we have taken aggressive action on multiple fronts to meet these goals, including: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2610.1,p.2]
Phasing out coal-fired electricity generation. Ontario is phasing out coal-fired electricity generation by the end of 2014. The largest generating plant in the Toronto area closed in 2005. Ontario has announced the phase-out of four more coal-fired units by the end of 2010, with the balance phasing out by the end of 2014. Ontario's coal phase-out initiative will eliminate NOx and SO2 emissions from these units, and will reduce provincial emissions by 12% and 24%, respectively, and greenhouse-gas emissions by up to 30 million tonnes per year. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2610.1, p.3]
Replacing coal-fired electricity with renewable energy. Since October 2003, the McGuinty Government has secured contracts representing more than 5,000 megawatts (MW) of new renewable energy supply from large and small-scale projects across Ontario. More than 1,400 MW of these projects have reached commercial operation and are generating clean electricity from wind, water, sun and bio-based resources. Ontario's Green Energy Act, enacted in 2009, created a Feed In- Tariff program that allows individuals and companies to sell renewable energy at favourable rates. The legislation is expected to create 50,000 green energy jobs over the next three years.  [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2610.1, p.3]
Reducing energy demand. Between 2004 and 2007, Ontario reduced its peak electricity demand by 5% (1,350 MW). To further reduce energy use, by the end of 2010 every home and small business in Ontario will have a Smart Meter with electricity prices that vary by time of day and year to more accurately reflect the market price for electricity. By 2012, new Building Code standards will improve the energy efficiency of new homes by 35%. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2610.1, p.3]
Reducing NOx and S02 emissions from Ontario power plants. Ontario regulates NOx and SO2 through mandated emissions caps from large electricity generating units. Ontario reduced nitrogen dioxide emissions from large power plants in the pollution emission management area (PEMA) to 58% below the cap of 39 kilotonnes in 2009. This cap was set under the Ozone Annex in the Canada-U.S. Air Quality Agreement. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2610.1, p.3]
Public transit is a priority for Ontario. In spring 2009, the government announced that Ontario is moving ahead with over $9 billion in priority rapid transit projects. This initiative will reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector.  [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2610.1, p.3]
Setting ambitious greenhouse-gas reduction targets.  We are committed to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions to 6% below 1990 levels by 2014, 15% below by 2020, and 80% below by 2050.  [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2610.1, p.3]
Rodman, Margaret
My husband and I attended the meeting from 9 a.m. until 11:00 a.m. and listened to comments made by American Lung Association, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, Environmental Market Assoc., Edison Electric Industries, CA Smart Energy, and a young Georgia State University Student, whom had recently taken up 'bicycling' as a mode of transportation, and several physicians. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2594, p.1]
We did not speak at the meeting, but approached Tim Smith at the 11 :00 a.m. recess to relay our concerns. Neither my husband nor I are scientists or engineers. The Transport Rule is a most formidable document at 1,364 pages. I attempted to read the whole document but was 'overwhelmed'. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2594, p.1]
We do know the following facts: The monopolistic energy industry has had 40 years to adapt to the needs of our country under an initial mandate by President Jimmy Carter. The mandate was and continues to be ignored. Change is never easy, but the lack of change is devastating to the public's health and our environment. As I write this letter, Atlanta is under another 'Code Orange Air Alert' . At the time of this writing the Georgia Department of Natural Resources site states that Georgia has had 136 Code Yellow Days, 32 Code Orange Days and 1 Code Red Day in 2010. How are we to live under these conditions? The 'Big Red Spot' sits over Metro Atlanta on the Air Quality Forecast Guidance more often than not. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2594, p.1]
Georgia is the 9th most polluted state in our country . Georgia has 46 coal-fired energy plants. These plants are listed on the Department of Energy site. Georgia also has 28 petroleum plants, 34 natural gas plants, 32 hydroelectric plants, 2 nuclear plants (Edwin Hatch & Vogtle which is being expanded at great expense to the public), 10 Wood & Wood Derived plants, 4 Pumped Storage, and 4 Other Biomass plants. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2594, p.1]
The power companies say Georgia needs more new power plants : Washington Plant in Sandersville, Georgia, Longleaf in Early County, Georgia, and Ben Hill Plant in Ben Hill, Georgia. Our state is home to some of the 'dirtiest' coal-fired plants. In 2006, Plant Bowen (a newer plant), in Bartow County, had the largest emission of Sulfur Dioxide on record. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2594, p.2]
Power plants self-regulation/monitoring has not worked in Georgia. On September 29, 2009, I emailed John White, the AIR Now Program Manager, with concerns that there was missing data from air reporting stations in Georgia. His response was courteous: he copied AIRNow Data Management Center. He informed me that AIRNow is a 'voluntary program'. Georgia usually reports, so something must have happened. Shortly after that, the site was terminated. On October 27, 2009, I emailed Michael Hamlin @epa.gov/ttn/airaqs/contacts.htm and asked why the State Transportation Department of Georgia would control the CleanAirProgram in Georgia. I compared this to `allowing the fox to guard the hen house', since Georgia has not been in compliance with Federal Standards for many years. I did not hear back from Michael Hamlin. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2594, p.2]
When Katrina hit the Gulf Coast five years ago, Governor Sonny Perdue allowed the use of the less refined diesel fuel for Georgia trucks as an emergency measure. I have been unable to find out if the cleaner diesel fuel has been reinstated, and if so, when was it reinstated. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2594, p.2]
There has been a pervasive attitude by our government to not do their job and this must stop. The Environment Protection Agency is the empowered guardian of air, land and water for our nation. The lack of oversight has left the nation with seemingly insurmountable effects of polluted air, polluted land, and polluted water (fresh and salt). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2594, p.2]
[Enclosures can be found on pages 3-13 of this comment.]
Synthesis Foundation
This rule change is too lenient.
Jim Rogers & his cohorts & Cinnergy & now Duke made a decision 10+ years ago to violate the new source requirements in the Clean Air Act. The results, according to USEPA data & the American Lung Association are that a lot of people became ill & many others died prematurely in this Region.
In Cincinnati, about 1/2 the fine particulate pollution comes from Duke's Coal burning plants along the Ohio River. USEPA data tells us that there are 4,000-5,000 deaths per year in Ohio (about 400-500 in our region ~Cincinnati) from this pollutant alone.
Are we interested in allowing this to continue. Not on your life. USEPA needs to shut these plants down (the utilities have already written the costs off on their books) in favor of cleaner alternatives, read natural gas & clean energy.
Further, these deaths were premeditated. Rogers and his cohorts decided 10 years ago to kill 1,000's of people more than the law allowed them. If the law is to mean anything then these mass murderers should be brought to justice. Of course they won't be because these killings were done from a board room.
Letting the companies use scrubbers is not the best available control technology & it ignores the fact that industry tends to turn off their scrubbers and not maintain them.
Finally, I would point out that when Duke is making over bloated claims about their view of the cost of this rule that Jim Rogers CEO of Duke has already received almost a 1/4 BILLION $'s from local rate payers for his retirement. In addition Duke has written down some $600 million in costs from its shareholders in the last year alone to update their current equipment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-0139, p.1]
Wabash Valley Power
Lawrence County and Vermillion Stations:
WVPA owns a minority interest in the Lawrence County and Vermillion Stations. These are simple cycle natural gas-fired peaking stations. WVPA supports the comments filed by the majority owners for these facilities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2627.1,p.6]
Utility Air Regulatory Group:
Lastly, WVPA is a member of the Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG), a voluntary, not-for-profit group of electric utilities, other electric generating companies, and national trade associations. UARG's purpose is to participate on behalf of its members, collectively, in EPA rulemakings under the Clean Air Act ('CAA' or 'Act') and other proceedings that affect the interests of electric generators and in related litigation. WVP A has reviewed and supports the detail [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2627.1 ,p.6]
Response:
EPA thanks the commenters for their support of this Rule.  EPA is working as expeditiously as possible and within the full extent of its authority, under  Section 110(a)(2)(d) of the Clean Air Act, to ensure improved human health for all Americans through reductions in interstate transport of pollutants within the Transport Rule's 27 states.  EPA is under a timeframe to promulgate the Transport Rule as expeditiously as practicable, as per the remand of CAIR by the Court to the Agency for development of the current Transport Rule.
Organization: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Comment:
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Additionally, the TCEQ respectfully requests that the EPA hold an additional public hearing for the proposed rule at a location in Texas. Texas's ozone season nitrogen oxides allocations make up a significant portion of the proposed total budget. A public hearing in Texas would thus provide the opportunity for participation to a large number of stakeholders. Also, Texas's participation' in the proposed rule is substantively different from that required in the Clean Air Interstate Rule program. The change from required participation solely in a cap and trade program addressing fine particulate matter (PM2.5) transport to required participation solely in a cap and trade program addressing ozone transport includes a relatively unique challenge for the numerous stakeholders in Texas. That the EPA is requesting comment on Texas's potential inclusion in the PM2.5 cap and trade program only adds to such a challenge and further supports a request for an additional public hearing in the state. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-0129.1, pp.1-2]
Response:
Although the Court did not specify a definitive date by which EPA should promulgate the Transport Rule, it did not give the Agency an infinite stay on CAIR and did, in fact, indicate that the Transport Rule was to be completed in a timely manner.  Section 307(d)(5) of the CAA requires the Administrator to give an opportunity for written or oral comments.  The Act does not specify the length of time, other than the record must be open 30 days after holding public hearings - with which EPA complied.
EPA posted the signed version of the Proposed Transport Rule to the web when it was signed on July 6, 2010.  The proposal was published in the Federal Register on August 2, 2010, and the public comment period closed on October 1, 2010.  This provided a 60 day comment period (or 90 days from the date posted to the web).
EPA posted the signed version of the first Transport Rule Notice of Data Availability (NODA) (IPM) to the web when it was signed on August 25, 2010.  The first NODA was published in the Federal Register on September 1, 2010, and the public comment period closed on October 15, 2010.  This provided a 45 day comment period (or 52 days from the date posted to the web).  EPA posted the signed version of the second Transport Rule NODA (emissions inventories) to the web when it was published in the Federal Register on October 27, 2010.  The public comment period closed on November 26, 2010, which provided a 30 day comment period.  EPA posted the signed version of the third Transport Rule NODA (allocations and related matters) to the web when it was signed on December 30, 2010.  The third NODA was published in the Federal Register on January 7, 2011.  The public comment period closed on February 7, 2011, which provided a 30 day comment period (or 38 days from the date posted to the web).
Given the timeframe EPA provided to the public for submission of comments, and indicative of the fact that the Agency received several hundred substantive comments, commenters did, in fact, have sufficient time to submit their comments for consideration.

XVII. Extension of the Comment Period

Organization: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Dynegy, Inc.
Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG)
Southern Company
Class of '85 Regulatory Group
Duke Energy
NextEra Energy, Inc.
Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Air Protection Branch
8-Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan (SIP) Coalition
American Electric Power
Prairie State Generating Company, LLC
Consumers Energy
Texas Chemical Council
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA)
Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, Inc. (FCG)
Louisiana Chemical Association (LCA)
Midwest Ozone Group
Florida Municipal Electric Association (FMEA)
Westar Energy, Inc.
PPG Industries, Inc.
Louisiana Public Service Commission
Independence Power & Light (IPL)
New York University School of Law, Institute for Policy Integrity
Kansas City Board of Public Utilities (BPU)
American Petroleum Institute (API)
Missouri Public Utilities Alliance (MPUA)
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ)
Consolidated Asset Management Services (CAMS)
Clean Energy Group
West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
City of Springfield, Illinois, Office of Public Utilities
Lakeland Electric
Seminole Electric Cooperative Inc.
Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO)
State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA)
State of Louisiana, Department of Environmental Quality
Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC)
State of Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Capital Power Corporation
Indiana Energy Association
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO)
Tampa Electric Company
Xcel Energy Inc.
Minnesota Power
Nebraska Public Power District
City of Tallahassee
Buckeye Power, Inc.
Louisiana Energy and Power Authority (LEPA)
E.ON U.S.
First Energy
Sunflower Electric Power Corporation
Florida Municipal Power Agency (FMPA)
PowerSouth Energy Cooperative
Cleco Corporation
Omaha Public Power District
Kansas City Power and Light Company (KCP&L)
Santee Cooper
Exxon Mobil Corporation
National Mining Association (NMA)
Ohio Valley Electric Corporation and Indiana-Kentucky Electric Corporation
American Public Power Association (APPA)
Ohio Coal Association
JEA
Luminant
Pfeiff, Mike
DTE Energy
Comment:
8-Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan (SIP) Coalition
The Coalition requests that EPA grant a 90-day extension to the comment deadline for the CATR.  The Coalition intends to submit detailed comments on the proposed new rule.  However, meaningful comments must be based on a thorough review of the underlying emissions inventory, modeling, and other assumptions for Texas sources.  This review is particularly important for Texas sources due to the large potential impact of this rulemaking on these sources.  Additionally, due to the volume, complexity, and the significant differences from previous versions of the rule this review and analysis cannot be completed by October 1, 2010, the original proposed comment deadline.  [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-0353.1, p.1]
The 8-Hour Ozone SIP Coalition, (the Coalition) along with numerous other organizations and states, requested an extension of the comment period for this rulemaking.  The sixty days provided in the proposal has not proven sufficient to fully analyze the underlying technical materials associated with this rule, nor the potential impact on our members, particularly with the addition on September 1, 2010 of revised technical data supporting the underlying modeling assumptions.  Therefore, we present a brief suite of comments on the proposed rule.  We request that EPA allow affected parties to provide supplemental technical information.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2736.1, p. 2]
American Electric Power
This letter is requesting an extension of the public comment period by 60 days, to November 30, 2010. AEP is a member of the Utility Air Regulatory Group and we also endorse their request for a 60-day extension to the public comment period. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-0552.1, p.1]
The proposed Transport Rule will significantly affect the electric utility industry. Therefore, AEP is reviewing this rule with great interest. The proposed rule's length and complexity, along with the many technical documents and data files that EPA has developed and relied upon to draft this proposed rule make preparing and submitting meaningful comments extremely difficult in the time allotted in the published notice. Review of this proposed rule's hundreds of pages (collectively including the proposed rule and technical support documents) and the impact the assumptions used to develop this proposal has on future environmental control requirements and unit operation are very important to AEP and the utility industry as a whole. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-0552.1, p.1]
On September 1, US EPA issued a Notice of Data Availability (NODA) surrounding new data and modeling to be used in conjunction with promulgation of the final Transport Rule. The AEP system, consisting of AEP Texas Company, Appalachian Power Company, Columbus Southern Power Company, Indiana Michigan Power Company, Kentucky Power Company, Ohio Power Company, Public Service Company of Oklahoma, and Southwestern Electric Power Company, operates in eleven states, all of which are impacted by this program. Thus, the operating companies of the AEP system will be directly affected by the Proposed Transport Rule applicable to the electric generating unit (EGU) source category. This letter supplements our letter dated August 27 and requests an extension of the public comment period to November 30, 2010 for both the proposed rule and the supplemental data. AEP is a member of the Utility Air Regulatory Group and we also endorse their original and supplemental requests for an extension to the public comment period to November 30, 2010. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-1811.1, p.1]
AEP is concerned that the proposal rule is based on inaccurate assumptions, especially with regard to incorrect assumptions about installed emission controls. The proposal incorrectly assumed higher FOD removal rates for Gavin Units 1 and 2 and assumed the installation of FOD controls on Muskingum River Unit 5 will occur in 2011, among others. AEP requests a 60-day extension of the public comment period, to November 30, 2010. The new deadline will allow the company to prepare detailed comments that may be useful to the agency to advance this rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-0552.1, p.2]
As stated above, on September 1, US EPA issued a NODA surrounding new data and modeling to be used in conjunction with promulgation of final Transport Rule. The new data includes an updated National Electric Energy Data System (NEEDS) file, which provides operating parameters for electric generators, as well as an updated version of the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) which is used to model electric sector output and emissions. Since the Transport Rule is fundamentally based on results from NEEDS and IPM modeling efforts, any changes to NEEDS and/or IPM will result in different outcomes within the final Transport Rule. While EPA is providing the data, EPA has not indicated how exactly the data and modeling changes will affect the proposed Transport Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-1811.1, p.2]
The proposed Transport Rule will significantly affect the electric utility industry. Therefore, AEP is reviewing this rule with great interest. The proposed rule's length and complexity, along with the many technical documents and data files that EPA has developed and relied upon to draft this proposed rule make preparing and submitting meaningful comments extremely difficult in the time allotted in the published notice. EPA issuance of new data and modeling indicates that EPA has acknowledged they used a flawed and outdated data source in development of the proposed rule. EPA should reevaluate the results caused by these changes and the evaluation should be placed in the rulemaking docket so the general public can understand the ramifications of the NODA information. Previously developed comments regarding data and modeling of the Transport Rule will now have to be completely reevaluated in light of the new data sel. An extension to the comment deadline will allow the company to prepare detailed comments that may be useful to the agency to advance this rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-1811.1, p.2]
For these reasons, AEP respectfully renews its request for an extension of the public comment period on the Proposed Transport Rule to November 30, 2010, and requests also that EPA extend the comment period on the NODA from October 15 to November 30, 2010. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-1811.1, p.2]
American Petroleum Institute (API)
  API requests that EPA grant a 90-day extension to the comment deadline for the Transport Rule (TR). API intends to submit detailed comments on the proposed new rule. However, meaningful comments must be based on a thorough review of the underlying emissions inventory, modeling, cost/benefit analyses and other assumptions. This review is particularly important for our members, as petrochemical and refining sources are affected by several provisions contained in this rulemaking, and will be significantly affected by EPA's future rulemaking on non-EGUs planned for proposal in 2011. Additionally, due to the volume of technical material, complexity of the analysis, and the significant differences from previous versions of the rule this review and analysis cannot be completed by October 1, 2010, the original proposed comment deadline. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2519.1, p.1]
 API, and numerous other states and organizations, requested an extension of the comment period. The sixty days provided in the proposal has not proven sufficient to fully analyze the underlying technical materials associated with this rule, nor the potential impact on our members, particularly with the addition on September 1, 2010 of revised technical data supporting the underlying modeling assumptions. A sufficient comment period would have allowed time for stakeholders, implementing states, and affected facilities to thoroughly examine the photochemical modeling inputs and outputs, allocation tables, IPM runs, cost/benefit analyses, and purported air quality benefits, as well as rule language itself. The time provided was insufficient to harness the scientific, technical and legal expertise needed to analyze these diverse issues. This analysis is critical on important rule proposals, not just because stakeholders must analyze this information to effectively comment about the rulemaking, but also because thorough public analysis often identifies errors, and allows affected stakeholders to present corrections or alternatives to infeasible rulemaking. In the absence of a sufficient comment period, we therefore must present only a brief suite of comments on the proposed rule. We request that EPA allow affected parties to provide supplemental technical information. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2649.1, pp. 1-2]
American Public Power Association (APPA)
APPA submits these comments against a background of Agency decisions that has made participation in this proceeding exceedingly difficult. Specifically, on September 1, 2010, EPA published a separate Notice of Data Availability ("NODA") for the Proposed Transport Rule. 75 Fed. Reg. 53613. The NODA announces additional EPA modeling runs and other information that "EPA proposes to use to support the final rule," as well as "a list of further planned updates to support the final rulemaking." Id. EPA announced a separate comment period for the NODA, extending until October 15, 2010 (and may have separate comment periods for other subsequently posted information), but refused to extend the comment period for the underlying proposal. APPA requested a deadline extension, through its participation in Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG). EPA`s decision to maintain two separate deadlines for public comments -- one on the Proposed Transport Rule and the information posted in the docket contemporaneously with it, and another for the information released pursuant to the NODA -- makes it extraordinarily challenging to provide comprehensive comments on EPA`s proposal. In addition, EPA on September 10, 2010, denied UARG`s August 19, 2010, request for an extension of the currently inadequate comment period on the Proposed Transport Rule to November 30, 2010, and the EPA has not granted the September 10, 2010 UARG (and APPA indirectly) request for a comment deadline extension to November 30, 2010. This request for the extension was submitted by UARG for both the proposed rule and the NODA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2812.1, pp.4-5]
In light of the significant differences between the data on which EPA based the proposed rule and the data EPA released later pursuant to the NODA, EPA should withdraw the Proposed Transport Rule, revise it using whatever data EPA deems most appropriate and accurate, and republish it for public comment with an adequate comment period. APPA believes there is no urgency to finalizing the PTR so "getting it right" by taking time to sort out many of the issues brought up in APPA's comments and those from UARG is appropriate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2812.1, p.5]
The extremely tight implementation schedule that EPA proposes is in effect made even tighter by the fact that EPA is already changing the terms of the proposed rule. As discussed above, on September 1, 2010, midway through the public comment period on the proposed rule, EPA published its NODA, announcing information that in effect will result in substantial changes to the proposed rule and noting that further changes are to come. Among other things, the NODA announced the release of (i) an updated version of the National Electric Energy Data System ("NEEDS"), which provides the unit-level EGU characteristics used as inputs for the Integrated Planning Model ("IPM"), (ii) results of new base case and policy case modeling runs using an updated version of IPM, and (iii) results of new base case and policy case modeling runs using an updated version of IPM and including data from the Energy Information Administration`s Annual Energy Outlook 2010 natural gas resource assumptions. 75 Fed. Reg. at 53614/2-3. It also announces the release of "[a] summary of other planned input updates to be implemented in the final rulemaking." 75 Fed. Reg. at 53614/3. The data released in connection with the NODA will, when applied by EPA, change substantially the statewide budgets and allowance allocations for 2012 and the allowance allocations for 2014,9 and there will presumably be additional changes leading up to promulgation of a final rule based on the planned input updates that EPA says will be implemented later. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2812.1, pp.15-16]
The scope of the impact that the new data will have is clear at a glance. For example, the parsed file that EPA released in connection with the proposed rule, showing the initial IPM run, indicates that IPM projected about 23,723 MW of new coal generation from unidentified plants yet to be built in 10 different states. See IPM Run File "TR SB Limited Trading", available at http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/epa-ipm/transport.html. The updated parsed file that EPA added to the docket in connection with the NODA appears to indicate that IPM projected only about 2,001 MW of new coal generation from unidentified plants yet to be built in four states. See Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-0312, available at http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#docketDetail?R=EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491. This is likely to be merely one indicator of the substantial changes in EPA`s proposal that will result from use of the NODA information, and the impact of the future changes that EPA anticipates remains to be seen. Clearly, there is no way for sources to begin planning for compliance based on the information that EPA has provided in the docket. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2812.1, p.16]
In sum, the fact that EPA`s proposal to set an initial compliance deadline of January 1, 2012, is complex, difficult and uncertainty is a clear illustration of the ill-advised nature of this attempt to force implementation of such a complex and demanding rule in only six months. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2812.1, p.20]
Buckeye Power, Inc.
We wish to begin by lodging our objection as to the October 1,2010 comment period deadline. This deadline does not allow a meaningful opportunity to evaluate the methodology, modeling, and other information that ultimately led to the formation of the CATR rulemaking. Nevertheless, we offer these comments and urge EPA to reconsider the CATR proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2710.1, p.1]
We understand that EPA submitted supplemental data to update its methodology and modeling, and that there is an October 15, 2010 comment date on the supplemental data. Buckeye plans to submit separate comments on the supplemental data by the October 15,2010 deadline. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2710.1, p.1]
Capital Power Corporation
The comment period was inadequate, particularly in light of simultaneous comment periods for other complex rules and the recent publication of revised data on this rule, with a separate, simultaneous comment period. Sixty days is inadequate to comment on a proposal of such scope and complexity that will regulate all electric generation in two-thirds of the nation and affect every other sector of the economy and every individual energy consumer in the nation. Also, EPA is requesting comments on an inordinately large number of issues within the rule that have implications and effects on other components of the rule. These issues must be carefully considered and their implications thought through to arrive at a consistent and logical position. The 60 days allowed is insufficient to accomplish all these with resources most companies have available to them. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2753.1, p.2]
Companies that operate industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) boilers are especially negatively affected by EPA's failure to provide an adequate comment period. During the entire first half of the comment period for this rule, those sources were fully engaged in analyzing and developing comments on the four interrelated Boiler MACT rulemakings, which EPA estimates will have tens of billions of dollars of impact on ICI boilers. Therefore, those companies directly and immediately affected by this proposed rule have effectively had 30 days to assess its ramifications and develop comments. The technical resources of regulated sources are finite, especially personnel with the technical expertise to analyze the implications of EPA's long and complex regulatory proposals. Those resources were fully deployed during the very short comment period for the four complex Boiler MACT rules, and could not have simultaneously conducted an in-depth analysis of the long and complex Transport Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2753.1, p.2]
City of Springfield, Illinois, Office of Public Utilities
CWLP's initial objection is to the October 1, 2010, deadline to provide comment on the Rule, which will have a significant impact on CWLP's electric power production, our planning, rates and operations. The proposed Rule is voluminous and complex, was proposed or published near the same time as other significant rulemakings impacting coal-fired operations, and is supported by over 150 documents posted by US EPA, many of which are highly technical. Moreover, as late as September 1, 2010. USEPA published its 'Notice of Data Availability Supporting Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone ('NODA') which includes 'an updated version of the power sector modeling platform' accompanied by a later deadline to comment. USEPA acknowledges that this NODA is proposed to be used to support the final Rule, but also changes the projections relied upon in its initial Transport Rule proposal. As a relatively small not-for-profit, municipally-owned utility, it is difficult for CWLP to effectively evaluate, in such a short time frame, the applicability and potential impacts to CWLP of either the proposed Rule, or of new information in the NOOA. Given the short time to comment and that the underlying background documentation has changed, CWLP concurs with others who have commented that the rule making record would benefit from a single set of comments addressing all matters raised regarding the proposed Transport Rule. Accordingly, CWLP yet requests that additional comments on this Transport Rule be allowed until October 15, 2010, when comments on the NODA are also due. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2635.1. pp.1-2]
City of Tallahassee
Insufficient Time to Develop Comments
The City of Tallahassee has serious concerns with the aggressive implementation schedule and specific electric generation unit (EGU) reduction requirements proposed in the Clean Air Transport Rule (CATR) aka the Transport Rule. Given the amount of extremely technical and complex documents that comprise the Technical Support Documents, numerous modeling files and spreadsheets, and the three distinct regulatory alternatives, it nigh impossible for any utility to devote extensive resources on developing significant comments on the impact of the rule, nor catch significant errors within these documents, within the 60 day timeframe.  If EPA continues to hold fast to the 60-day comment deadline, EPA has effectively precluded meaningful public involvement. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2669.1, p.1-2]
Class of '85 Regulatory Group
On behalf of the Class of ' 85 Regulatory Response Group ('Class of ' 85' or 'Group'), I am writing to request a 60-day extension of the comment period on the proposed 'Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone,' published in the Federal Register on August 2, 2010, at 75 Fed. Reg. 45210 ('Proposal'). The Proposal is one of the most far-reaching and complicated rules ever proposed under the Clean Air Act ('CAA'). The current 60-day comment period is inadequate to allow potentially affected sources and States to review and analyze the Proposal and respond to the Agency's specific requests for comments. Accordingly, the Group requests that EPA extend the deadline for submitting comments on the Proposal from October 1,2010 to November 30,2010. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-0325.1, p.1]
Members of the Class of '85 are electric generating companies from around the country, the majority of which are located within potentially regulated states, and will be directly affected by any final rule issued by EPA. The regulatory scheme finalized by EPA will have a significant impact on every aspect of the generating industry - including long-term business planning, the determination of consumer rates, and the day-to-day operation of electric generating units. It is of the utmost importance that Group members are given adequate time to analyze the Proposal and provide the Agency with meaningful feedback on the proposed regulatory schemes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-0325.1, p.1]
The Proposal and supporting materials are too complex and lengthy to review and analyze in 60 days. The Proposal alone consumes 250 pages of the Federal Register. In addition, EPA has posted over 150 supporting materials and documents in the rulemaking docket, most of which consist of highly technical data. Review of these materials constitutes a massive undertaking. Although the Agency made many of these materials available at the time the Proposal was signed, and before the Proposal was published in the Federal Register, the additional time offered for review is insufficient to thoroughly analyze the data. Already, based on an initial review, the Group has identified a number of inaccuracies in the data underlying the Proposal, including mistakes regarding emissions controls or operations at certain electric generating units. If they are not fully identified and corrected, inaccuracies such as these will undermine the foundation of any regulatory scheme promulgated by EP A and result in an ineffectual program that will impair the reliable generation and transmission of electricity throughout the country. Group members face the daunting task of processing the available information,1 evaluating the feasibility of implementing each of the three regulatory schemes set forth in the Proposal, and providing EPA with constructive feedback through detailed comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-0325.1, pp.1-2]
EP A has the discretion to extend the comment period for the Proposal, and doing so would benefit the Agency, States, and the regulated community. Providing adequate time for meaningful public participation in the rulemaking process will help ensure that the final rule comports with the CAA and effectively addresses concerns related to the interstate transport of air pollutants. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-0325.1,p .2]
The Proposal is one of the most far-reaching and complicated rules ever proposed under the CAA. The Proposal alone consumes 250 pages of the Federal Register. In addition, EPA has posted over 150 supporting materials and documents in the rulemaking docket, most of which consist of highly technical data. 2 Review of these materials constitutes a massive undertaking. Although the Agency made many of these materials available at the time the Proposal was signed, and before the Proposal was published in the Federal Register, the additional time offered for review is insufficient to thoroughly analyze the data. Despite requests· from the Class of '85 and a number of other members of the regulated community, EPA has refused to extend the comment period for the Proposal. The Group believes the Agency's position is inconsistent with its actions in other less extensive rulemakings. Within the last six months alone, EPA has extended the comment period on no less than four rulemakings. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District Court declined to issue a schedule for EPA to promulgate the Proposal because it recognized the magnitude of the task facing the Agency. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2854.1,p.2]
The Proposal will have a significant effect on electric generation throughout the country and EPA should provide additional time for stakeholders to verify the accuracy of EPA's data and operational assumptions. Many of the flaws and concerns that the Class of ' 85 expresses throughout these comments could be addressed and resolved by such additional time for comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2854.1,p.2]

Footnote 1: The Group believes that a more detailed explanation of the integrated planning model inputs and results and the air quality modeling results would assist States and industry with their review of the Proposal.
Clean Energy Group
Need for Re-Proposal of the Rule
As discussed above, the Clean Energy Group recommends that EPA release a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and/or revised NODA to allow verification of data. This release would not require EPA to re-propose the rule itself for further public comment before adopting the final Transport Rule. EPA could allow comment on the data through a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and/or revised NODA while, at the same time, working to finalize the rule itself. For the reasons set forth above, this process will be particularly important if EPA proceeds with allocating allowances based on projected emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2702.1, pp. 11-12]
Cleco Corporation
A. EPA's Proposed Compliance Schedule Is Unreasonable.
EPA proposes to issue a final Transport Rule approximately six months before the proposed January 2012 compliance date. As discussed in more detail below, six months is not enough time for affected sources to take any action necessary to comply with this rule. To make matters worse, EPA's NODA effectively stymies compliance planning efforts by changing the data and modeling expected to underlie allowance allocations but failing to provide revised state budgets and unit allocations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2859.1 p.2]
The January 2012 compliance date does not provide sufficient time to install controls, switch fuels or even begin securing allowances. In the event the final allocations are insufficient to cover a company's projected SO2 and/or NOx emissions, the company would be unable to install controls on any of its units in time to comply with the Transport Rule, unless those projects are already well underway. In the proposed rule, EPA significantly underestimates the time to install new controls. Capital retrofit projects for controlling SO2 and NOx emissions require long lead times to plan, design, construct and start up  -  anywhere from two to four years, depending on the unit and type of control project. Based on our experience, not including time for environmental permitting by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality and rate recovery review by the Louisiana Public Service Commission, low NOx burners and SNCR systems take approximately two years from engineering and design to commercial operation and SCR and FGD systems take approximately four years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2859.1 p.2]
The January 2012 compliance date also precludes fuel switching as a compliance option. Most utilities, including Cleco, contract for fuel and fuel transportation well in advance, and as a result, a substantial percentage of the anticipated fuel needed for 2012  -  2014 is already under contract. Cleco has as much as 50% of its solid fuel under long term contracts and the other 50% under medium to short term contracts. Dolet Hills, a mine-mouth lignite plant, has 100% of its fuel already under contract, which precludes any fuel switching at those units. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2859.1 p.2]
While Cleco has attempted a full review and analysis of this proposed rule within the time provided, it has found it almost impossible to do so given the voluminous and complex nature of the proposal and supporting documentation. This is an important rule, and EPA expects it will form the basis for future transport rules. Yet EPA's processes and methodologies are in many cases unclear and in other cases are lost within the thousands of pages of preamble and technical support documents. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2859.1 p.9]
Furthermore, given the many errors we have identified thus far and EPA's release just four weeks ago of new data and modeling runs which will form the basis of revised unit allocations yet to be provided, the proposal is not sufficiently developed for meaningful public comment. We urge the Agency to issue a supplemental proposal that provides the revised data which will form the basis of the final rule and revised unit allocations for review and comment before finalizing this rule. In doing so, EPA will produce a better, more effective product that can inform future rules, decrease the scope and extent of legal challenges, and improve the likelihood that the rule will survive such challenges. Furthermore, the electric power industry, the fuel industry and the transportation industry all involve massive, complex operations with long term planning horizons (with respect to financing, integrated resource planning etc.). The rule as proposed gives these industries little to no indication of what might be required in the final rule, no time to plan, and almost no time to comply. EPA simply has not allowed sufficient opportunity for public review and comment. Given the importance of this rule, the Agency should take the additional time necessary to issue a supplemental proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2859.1 p.9]
Consolidated Asset Management Services (CAMS)
Due to the nature of the proposed TR we request an extension of time to review all the applicable documents and fully craft detailed comments on our recommendations to enhance the TR and bring forth issues that we view could negatively influence the power generation industry, the intent of the TR, and the reliability of the Bulk Electric System. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2612.1, p.1]
Consumers Energy
The purpose of this letter is to request that the public comment period for the Transport Rule be extended by 60 days, to November 30, 2010. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-1890.1, p.1]
EPA's proposed Transport Rule is one of the most extensive and complicated rules that EPA has ever proposed under the Clean Air Act. As proposed, the rule would significantly affect the planning and operations of Consumers Energy, as well as those for all utilities within the Transport Rule region. Our Company's planning includes capital expenses and scheduling built around the final CAIR As proposed, EPA's Transport Rule would accelerate schedules and, in all likelihood, increase costs for our capital expenditures that Consumers Energy currently projects to total in excess of one billion dollars The likely cost increases, coupled with accelerated retirements of units throughout the proposed Transport Rule region, including Michigan, have also caught the attention of the Michigan Public Service Commission. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-1890.1, p.2]
As proposed, the Transport Rule's length and complexity have made it extremely difficult to review and analyze within the 60-day comment period. We are very concerned about the accuracy of information used by EPA in the proposal, as well as our ability to provide accurate information back to EPA during the comment period. The proposed schedule would have our company committing to initiate projects, on accelerated timelines, without knowing what will be contained within a final rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-1890.1, p.2]
A. EPA Has Not Allowed Sufficient Time for Public Comment
As several other entities have pointed out, EPA is subject to neither a statutory nor court-ordered timetable to complete this rulemaking. The extended comment deadlines would provide Consumers Energy, as well as any other affected and interested organizations, a reasonable opportunity to prepare detailed, meaningful comments that may be useful to the Agency in resolving in an appropriate way the many legal, policy, and technical issues raised by the Proposed Transport Rule and, now, by the NODA as well. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-1890.1, p.3]
As proposed, the Transport Rule's length and complexity have made it extremely difficult to adequately review and analyze within the current 60-day comment period. We are very concerned about the accuracy of information used by EPA in the proposal, as well as our ability to provide accurate, complete and coherent information back to EPA during the comment period. The proposed schedule of implementation in the proposed Transport Rule would have our company committing to initiate numerous projects at multiple locations, on accelerated timelines, based on a proposed rule, without the certainty of knowing what will be contained within the final rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2837.1, p.4]
Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO)
Sixty days is inadequate to comment on a proposal that will regulate all electric generation in two thirds of the nation. A rule of this scope does not only affect the directly regulated sources, but every other sector of the economy and every individual energy consumer in the nation. The time EPA allotted for comment for a rule of this complexity, broad application and economic impact failed to constitute the reasonable opportunity for public comment guaranteed by the Clean Air Act and the Administrative Procedures Act. 42 U.S.C. § 7607(h) (2006). Under basic principles of due process and administrative law, EPA must provide the public with a reasonable opportunity to comment on proposed rules. This comment period deprives sources of a means to adequately protect their interests and rights in the administrative and judicial processes. The complexity and breadth of applicability of this Proposed Rule requires a greater comment period than that provided, especially in light of multiple other EPA proposed rules with simultaneous comment periods.
CIBO members, and others that operate industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) boilers, are especially negatively affected by EPA's failure to provide an adequate comment period. During the entire first half of the comment period for this rule, those sources were fully engaged in analyzing and developing comments on the four interrelated Boiler MACT rulemakings, which even EPA estimates will have a financial impact on ICI boilers exceeding $10 billion.
Therefore, although CIBO members are directly and immediately affected by this Proposed Rule, they effectively have had 30 days to assess its ramifications and develop comments. The technical resources of regulated sources are finite, especially personnel with the technical expertise to analyze the implications of EPA's long and complex regulatory proposals. Those resources were the same technical experts deployed during the very short comment period for the four complex Boiler MACT rules, and could not have simultaneously conduct an in-depth analysis of the long and complex Transport Rule.
In addition, on September 1, 2010, EPA issued a Notice of Data Availability, in which it updated the NEEDS (the National Electric Energy Data System) data. This imposes yet another simultaneous EPA rulemaking comment period on the same community of sources, with comments on the huge addition of information in the NODA due October 15, 2010. In the NODA, EPA published new model runs of data, the review of which requires a significant amount of engineering staff and management review. The NODA addresses some critical definitional elements that lay the foundation for other highly consequential aspects of the rule, including defining the availability of plants. A cursory review shows data for at least one CIBO member indicates flawed availability conclusions, which in practical terms will mean that the facility will not be able to obtain the allowances necessary to meet its contractual obligations regarding its availability.
Clearly, EPA's data will require close inspection and analysis by affected sources, and all such data affects the implementation of the Proposed Rule. EPA should extend the comment period on the Proposed Rule to permit sources to comment on the Rule and related NODA as a single exercise.  [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2751.1 p.2-3]
DTE Energy
EPA has made participation in this rulemaking difficult because of the unreasonable time to review a complex rulemaking, then exacerbating the situation by subsequently releasing new data which should significantly influence EPA conclusions in the CATR rulemaking, without allowing additional time for stakeholders to adequately review and comment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-3714.1_NODA,p.2]
Duke Energy
Duke Energy Business Services ("Duke Energy") intends to file comments in the above-referenced rulemaking docket on the proposed "Federal Implementation Plans To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone," as published by EPA on August 2, 2010 (the "Proposed Transport Rule"). 75 Fed. Reg. 45210. EPA announced a 60-day public comment period on the proposed rule, requiring comments to be submitted by October 1, 2010. Id. The purpose of this letter is to request an extension of the public comment period by 60 days, to November 30, 2010. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-0313.1, p.1]
Duke Energy, one of the largest electric power companies in the United States, supplies and delivers electricity to approximately 4 million U.S. customers and natural gas service to approximately 520,000 customers in its regulated jurisdictions. The company has approximately 35,000 net megawatts of electric generating capacity in the Midwest and the Carolinas, and natural gas distribution services in Ohio and Kentucky. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-0313.1,p.1]
The Proposed Transport Rule is one of the most extensive and complicated rules EPA has ever proposed under the Clean Air Act. The Proposed Transport Rule's length and complexity make it virtually impossible to complete a comprehensive review and analysis of the proposed rule and the many technical supporting documents and data files that EPA has developed for this rulemaking, and then to prepare and submit meaningful, detailed comments on the proposed rule, in the period EPA has allowed. The proposed rule and its preamble alone fill over 250 three column pages of the Federal Register. In addition, EPA's technical support documents total several hundred additional pages in length, and EPA's modeling documentation and output information are also quite lengthy. Given the nature and method of presentation of the information in the Federal Register notice and the support documents, commenters must undertake a time-consuming review even to begin to understand how that information may support, or does not support, various elements of EPA's proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-0313.1, pp.1-2]
Duke Energy notes that EPA took two years to develop the Proposed Transport Rule following the July 2008 decision of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals that EPA had promulgated the Clean Air Interstate Rule unlawfully and must replace it through new rulemaking regarding interstate transport. Duke Energy does not refer to this fact to suggest in any way that EPA was dilatory; on the contrary, the length of time EPA took is a reflection of the extent, importance, and complexity of the many issues EPA had to address in preparing a proposed rule for public review and comment. Given the challenges it has faced, EPA should be all the more ready to recognize that parties preparing comments on these important and complex issues likewise face particularly time-consuming tasks and must be given a longer comment period if they are to have a meaningful comment opportunity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-0313.1,p.2]
Duke Energy therefore respectfully requests a 60-day extension of the public comment period, to November 30, 2010. That deadline would still leave at least six months before EPA's target date of June 2011 for completion of the rulemaking, which in any event is subject to no statutory or court-ordered timetable. The extended comment deadline would permit Duke Energy and others to prepare detailed comments that may be useful to the Agency in resolving in an appropriate way the many legal, policy, and technical issues raised by the proposed rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-0313.1, p.2]
The significant number of errors in the proposal, the fact that EPA has already issued one Notice of Data Availability with fundamental changes to what it proposed just a month earlier, and EPA's indication that there are more changes to come, suggest to us the possibility that significant changes to the original proposal could be made, rendering the comments contained herein, and by all respondents to this proposal, incomplete. Therefore, Duke Energy recommends that EPA incorporate the many comments it will receive regarding data errors in the PTR, rerun its analysis and issue a new proposal for public comment before issuing a final rule. This action will by necessity require that the implementation date for the rule be extended beyond 2012. EPA should eliminate the 2012 implementation date and push back the 2014 requirements. Further, that will address the serious concerns about the faulty assumptions EPA has made about how quickly additional controls can be installed. Because the Clean Air Interstate Rule will remain in place until the final rule is implemented, states have adequate assurance that emission reductions will continue to take place as needed to reduce or eliminate significant impacts from upwind states. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2689.1, p.2]
Additionally, much of the modeling and unit specific assumptions that EPA used to develop the proposed rule are flawed. EPA must resolve and correct these many problems, and either withdraw the proposed rule and reinitiate the rulemaking with a new proposal or issue a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking for public comment that includes new state budgets and unit-level allowance allocations that reflect the corrections. Under these circumstances, a rulemaking could not be completed before the beginning of 2012. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2689.1, pp.6-7]
The tight implementation schedule that EPA proposes is in effect made even tighter by the fact that EPA is already changing the terms of the proposed rule. On September 1, 2010, midway through the public comment period on the proposed rule, EPA published its NODA, announcing information that in effect will result in substantial changes to the proposed rule and noting that further changes are to come. Among other things, the NODA announced the release of (i) an updated version of the National Electric Energy Data System ("NEEDS"), which provides the unit-level EGU characteristics used as inputs for the Integrated Planning Model ("IPM"), (ii) results of new base case and policy case modeling runs using an updated version of IPM, and (iii) results of new base case and policy case modeling runs using an updated version of IPM and including data from the Energy Information Administration's Annual Energy Outlook 2010 natural gas resource assumptions. 75 Fed. Reg. at 53614/2-3. It also announces the release of "[a] summary of other planned input updates to be implemented in the final rulemaking." 75 Fed. Reg. at 53614/3. The data released in connection with the NODA will, when applied by EPA, change substantially the statewide budgets and allowance allocations for 2012 and the allowance allocations for 2014, and there will presumably be additional changes leading up to promulgation of a final rule based on the planned input updates that EPA says will be implemented later. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2689.1, pp.7-8]
The scope of the impact that the new data will have is clear at a glance. For example, the parsed file that EPA released in connection with the proposed rule, showing the initial IPM run, indicates that IPM projected about 23,723 MW of new coal generation from unidentified plants yet to be built in 10 different states. See IPM Run File "TR SB Limited Trading", available at http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/epa-ipm/transport.html. By contrast, the updated parsed file that EPA added to the docket in connection with the NODA appears to indicate that IPM projected only about 2,001 MW of new coal generation from unidentified plants yet to be built in four states. See Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-0312, available at http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#docketDetail?R=EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491. This is likely to be merely one indicator of the substantial changes in EPA's proposal that will result from use of the NODA information, and the impact of the future changes that EPA anticipates remains to be seen. Clearly, there is no way for sources to begin planning for compliance based on the information that EPA has provided in the docket. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2689.1, p.8]
Dynegy, Inc.
Dynegy Inc. (Dynegy) respectfully requests an extension of the public comment period on the EPA's proposed 'Federal Implementation Plans To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone' (Proposed Transport Rule), as published at 75 Fed. Reg. 45210 (Aug. 2, 2010). EPA announced a 60-day public comment period on the proposed rule, requiring comments to be submitted by October 1, 2010. By this letter, Dynegy requests an extension of the public comment period by 60 days, to November 30, 2010. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-0138.1, p.1]
Through its subsidiaries, Dynegy produces and sells electric energy, capacity and ancillary services in key U.S. Markets. Dynegy's power generation portfolio consists of approximately 12,500 megawatts of baseload, intermediate and peaking power plants fueled by a mix of natural gas, coal, and fuel oil.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-0138.1, p.1]
The Proposed Transport Rule is one of the most extensive and complicated rules EPA has ever proposed under the Clean Air Act. Given the extent, importance, and complexity of this proposed rulemaking, as well as the proposal's length (i.e., over 250 pages in the Federal Register and hundreds of pages of technical support documents and modeling information), interested parties face a particularly time-consuming challenge in understanding the proposed rule and its enormous environmental and energy implications, and in identifying potentially incorrect or otherwise unrealistic assumptions with respect to specific electric generating units and other critical factors upon which the proposed rule is based. Dynegy believes that a 60-day comment period is not adequate to allow interested parties to identify and prepare meaningful comments on the numerous and significant policy, legal, technical and other substantive issues raised by the proposed rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-0138.1, pp.1-2]
Moreover, many of the same Dynegy personnel analyzing the Proposed Transport Rule are simultaneously involved in the extensive efforts needed to respond to several other concurrent EPA rulemaking activities, including analyzing and preparing comments on EPA's proposed rule regarding disposal of coal combustion residuals, 75 Fed. Reg. 35127 (comment deadline currently September 20, 2010), responding to comprehensive Information Collection Requests regarding effluent limitations guidelines for the steam electric power generating industry (due September 18,2010 and October 15, 2010), and responding to Information Collection Requests regarding Hazardous Air Pollutant emissions from electric utility steam generating units (due in early September 2010). The confluence of responding to these rulemaking activities in the same time period will needlessly limit and strain the finite resources available to devote to each of these significant efforts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-0138.1, p.2]
Dynegy therefore respectfully requests a 60-day extension of the public comment period on the Proposed Transport Rule, to November 30, 2010. Importantly, that deadline would still leave at least six months before EPA's target date of June 2011 for completion of the rulemaking, which is not subject to a statutory or court-ordered deadline. The extended comment deadline also would permit affected electric generators and interested parties to prepare meaningful, detailed comments that may assist the Agency in resolving many of the issues raised by the proposed rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-0138.1, p.2]
E.ON U.S.
EPA should correct the inaccurate data, resulting analyses, state budgets, and unit allocations, and reissue the rule for public comment as a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2797.1, p.10]
The Proposed Transport Rule is a very complex proposal. EPA spent approximately a year and a half on its development and there are many detailed aspects that need to be reviewed by the public, particularly by affected entities. Accompanying the rule are numerous large data files, modeling assumptions, and documentation of methodologies. Further, on September 1, 2010, EPA published the separate NODA for the Proposed Transport Rule, which included revisions and updates to the previously provided large data files, which formed the basis for allowance allocations. Although EPA has provided a 45-day comment period on this notice (15 days beyond the comment period for the Proposed Transport Rule), EPA has not provided an updated allocation table or other detailed files which would naturally follow from the revised data. As such, key information is missing and the rule cannot be adequately evaluated. Further, because correction of key information used in EPA's analyses, state budgets, and unit allocations will change company requirements, EPA should reissue the rule as a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2797.1, p.10]
Exxon Mobil Corporation
EM would like to express extreme concern over EPA's denial of the LCA and LPSC requests for extension to the comment period. EM has been working with the LCA to formulate both individual and group comments. The time period allotted by EPA precluded meaningful public review and comment considering the length and complexity of the proposed rule (1361 pages) and numerous technical support documents posted on the EPA website in support of the proposed rule. Many of these documents in turn referenced other documents. There was lack of consistency in presentation of data, with different support documents using different metrics and even different identification of EGUs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2841.1,p.15]
The proposed TR/FIP is one of the most complex, data intensive rules EPA has ever proposed. In addition, EPA is using a proprietary model administered by a third party contractor as the primary basis for the rule. Associated with this rule are hundreds of pages of technical supp011 documents, data spreadsheets and other related documentation. EM believes EPA should not propose a rule so dependent upon voluminous data without publishing a notification of data availability (NODA) and allowing sufficient comment period on the data itself to ensure models are using data only from affected units and that the data are complete and accurate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2841.1,p.15]
Although EPA indicated a need for acting quickly on this rulemaking citing the court's desire to replace CAIR, there is not a court ordered deadline to finalize this rulemaking. EPA's purported reason for not allowing a limited 60-90 day extension of the comment period cites the need to 'develop a final rule in time to obtain needed emissions reductions'. EPA does not need to rush this rule at the expense of defensibility in order to obtain needed emissions reductions. As noted in the IPM v.3.02 and v. 4.10, there will be substantial reductions ofPM2.5 and ozone precursors - even without the TRJFIP - by 2012. In many states, including Louisiana, these projections appear to be enough to eliminate any significant contribution or interference with attainment. Further, recent data readily available to EPA shows that air quality conditions for ozone and PM2.5 have improved much more rapidly than EPA has predicted, with a number of counties/parishes now clearly in attainment. The court remand of the CAIR rule leaves CAIR and its associated emission reductions in place through the year 2014 while EPA is developing the TRJFIP. Given this state of affairs, EM believes it was arbitrary and capricious for EPA to deny an extension of the comment period and urges EP A to reopen the comment period. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2841.1,pp.15-16]
First Energy
This is an extremely sophisticated rulemaking, over 250 pages in length, incorporating complex modeling and very detailed model inputs and technical support documents totaling several thousands of additional pages. The regulated community needs more time to adequately review, identify discrepancies and comment on the proposed rulemaking. The additional two weeks to review the NODA v4.10 data released by EPA on September 1, 2010 is appreciated, but insufficient. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2657.1, p.2]
Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, Inc. (FCG)
On behalf of the members of the FCG Environmental Committee (hereafter referred to as FCG), we request an extension of 90 days to the public comment period on the proposed Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (hereafter referred to as 'Transport Rule'). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-1686.1, p.1]
The proposed Transport Rule included a 60-day comment period, which officially ends on October 1, 2010. As explained below, this is an insufficient amount of time to fully evaluate this complicated rule. Accordingly, FCG respectfully requests that the comment period be extended by 90 days from October 1 (i.e., to December 31,2010) to allow for a more thorough review of the proposed rule, and development of more meaningful comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-1686.1, p.1]
I. Complexity of the Rule
Due to the complexity of the proposed Transport Rule and the multiple issues associated with the rule making, additional time is necessary to review and properly evaluate all three regulatory options proposed by EPA. In addition to the three EPA proposed regulatory options, each of which must be reviewed and commented on, EPA also requested comment on more than 90 other issues in the proposed Transport Rule. In order to fully vet all issues and develop comments that are thorough and meaningful, per EPA's request, FCG needs more time than the timeline provided by EPA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-1686.1, pp.1-2]
II. Multiple Proposed Options
Moreover, FCG notes it takes time to understand EPA's approach for each option. In order to respond to EPA, FCG must have sufficient time to understand how the proposed rule was developed and how it may impact all aspects of current and future generation needs within the state of Florida. Given the number of issues in which EPA is requesting comment, the complexity of the analysis performed, the occasional lack of clarity in describing this complex analysis, and the fact that EPA has provided three possible regulatory approaches, it is essential that EPA allow enough time for stakeholder review. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-1686.1, p.2]
III. Volume of Technical Support Documents
FCG's ongoing review of the technical support documents and EPA's modeling for the proposed Transport Rule thus far suggests that EPA's assumptions and modeling techniques may have several flaws. Because there are more than 20 Technical Support Documents describing EPA's regulatory approach and numerous modeling files, it will be impossible for FCG to complete our review in the allotted time period. EPA has already identified that a number of data errors exist in the model. These errors can have potentially dramatic impacts on the results of the model. For example, units at the same generating facility which are identically sized and controlled have substantial differences in their respective emission budgets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-1686.1, p.2]
Although EPA has made much of the underlying data available, it has not provided sufficiently clear examples of each calculation. In order for FCG to offer adequate comments on the rule, FCG must understand how EPA arrived at its calculations. In order to understand how EPA arrived at its calculations, FCG needs to either have the actual calculations or sufficiently clear examples of the calculations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-1686.1, p.2]
IV. Timing of Technical Support Documents
Throughout the current comment period EPA has continued to upload Technical Support Documents to its website, some as recent as September 1, 2010. It took EPA two years to develop this complex rule. It is unreasonable to assume that FCG would be able to review and develop the inputs, assumptions and calculations contained within EPA's model. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-1686.1, p.2]
FCG understands that EPA is under a self imposed timeline to develop a replacement rule for the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) remand; however, this does not preclude the fact that stakeholder input should have been both encouraged and considered. Had EPA provided greater transparency of its modeling plans, this issue may have been avoided. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-1686.1, pp.2-3]
Based on the information identified above, FCG urges EPA to extend the proposed rule's comment period by 90 days from October 1 (i.e., to December 31,2010). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-1686.1, p.3]
EPA published its proposed Transport Rule in the Federal Register on August 2,2010, and provided a 50-day comment deadline of October 1,2010. This proposal is extremely technical and complex, requiring 255 pages of the Federal Register, more than 20 Technical Support Documents and numerous modeling files and spreadsheets. EPA proposed three distinct regulatory alternatives, and requested comment on more than 90 other issues. Even after the August 2 proposal, EPA continues to publish further refinements and make additional data available. And during the 50-day comment period, many of the affected parties were actively responding to EPA's burdensome utility MACT Information Collection Request, and thus did not have the additional personnel available to devote to reviewing the proposal. Finally, EPA failed to allow for, much less encourage or consider, stakeholder input during its development of this rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2658.1, pp.1-2]
Accordingly, the FCG and several other entities requested an extension of the comment period. EPA has neglected to even respond to the FCG's request, even after a follow-up phone call and email. The FCG is aware, however, of EPA's refusal to grant an extension of another request on grounds related to a self-imposed promulgation schedule, state attainment schedules, and claims that the rule was released prior to its publication. Each of EPA's grounds are hollow: the court did not mandate a promulgation schedule, CAIR remains in effect to assist attainment goals, and the proposal is incomprehensible without the supporting documents, many of which EPA did not post until August 2, and which EPA has continued to update. Accordingly, EPA has effectively precluded meaningful public involvement by only affording a sixty-day comment period, and refusing to grant any of the numerous requests for an extension. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2658.1, p.2]
Florida Municipal Electric Association (FMEA)
The proposed Transport Rule is extremely complex and our member utilities are finding significant areas of concern as they attempt to review and understand the impact of the rule on their utility operations, cost to consumers and reliability of their energy supply. It is noted that technical support documents are continuing to be add to the EPA website as late as September 1, 2010. A check with our members indicate that additional time is needed to fully understand this rule and EPA's underlying modeling and technical assumptions as well as to allow FMEA to make constructive comments that will provide more useful information to EPA. For these reasons, FMEA respectfully requests that the comment period for this rule be extended an additional 90 days until December 31, 2010. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-1922.1, p.1]
Florida Municipal Power Agency (FMPA)
A. Sufficient Time has not been Provided to Develop Comments
FMPA reiterates the argument asserted by others that sufficient time has not been provided to review and provide meaningful input on the Proposed Transport Rule. The Proposed Transport Rule was published in the Federal Register on August 2, 2010, and allows a 60 day comment period. 1 However, the Proposed Transport Rule suggests broad changes to the previous Clean Air Transport Rule ("CAIR"). In support of the Proposed Transport Rule, EPA has provided a large amount of data and technical documents, upon which numerous assumptions have been made by EPA. Given the breadth of the Proposed Transport Rule, the vast amount of data and technical documents, and the limited resources of public power entities such as FMPA, we believe that EPA's 60 day comment period is unreasonable and should be extended for an additional 60 days period, or, in the alternative, an additional comment period should be allowed following the instant comment period and prior to the publication of a Final Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2725.1, p.2]

1. FMPA recognizes that EPA made the proposed rule and some of the supporting documentation available on July 6, 2010, before the rule was formally published in the Federal Register on August 2, 2010. However, even after having taken advantage of this limited amount of additional review time, we still believe the total review time was insufficient. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2725.1, p.2]
Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Air Protection Branch
The Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) respectfully requests an extension of the public comment period on the EPA's proposed Federal Implementation Plans To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone; Proposed Rule, as published at 75 Fed. Reg. 45210 (August 2, 2010). EPA announced a 60-day public comment period on the proposed rule, requiring comments to be submitted by October 1, 2010. EPD is requesting an extension of the public comment period by 60 days, to November 30, 2010. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-0326.1, p.1]
The amount of information contained in the preamble, the rule and the technical support documents is substantial, and 60 days is not an adequate amount of time to conduct a thorough review. Some concerns we have identified on a very cursory review of the information so far include, the inclusion of non-EGU's, incorrect emissions modeled for both 2012 and 2014, and reductions scheduled to occur in 2015 are actually modeled as occurring at the beginning of 2014. All of these issues may lead to incorrect decisions regarding Georgia's contribution to the receptors EPA has linked us to, the amount of reductions that will actually need to be made, and what group we are placed in for SO2 reductions. It should be of utmost importance to EPA to get this rule right, and given the fact that CAIR is still in place we do not believe the environment will be harmed by allowing an additional 60 days for a proper review of the technical information and the development of meaningful constructive comments on how to improve the proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-0326.1, p.1]
EPD is currently devoting significant resources evaluating and implementing a number of new and proposed air quality rules, including multiple revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, new rules implementing Greenhouse Gas permitting requirements and new Maximum Achievable Control Technology standards. These same resources are also the ones that would be looked to provide the detailed analysis and provided meaningful constructive comment on this proposal, therefore an extension of the public comment period is essential. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-0326.1, p.1]
[These comments were submitted as testimony at the Atlanta, Georgia public hearing on September 1, 2010.  See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-0491-1939, p.91 and 92.]
Georgia EPD will officially be requesting an extension of the comment period. The amount of information contained in the preamble, the rule, and the technical support documents is substantial and 60 days is not an adequate amount of time to conduct a thorough review.
It should be of the utmost importance to EPA to get this rule right. And given the fact that CAIR is still in place, we do not believe the environment would be harmed by allowing an additional 60 days for a proper review of the technical information and the development of meaningful, constructive comments on how to improve the proposal.
Independence Power & Light (IPL)
On behalf of Independence Power and Light ('IPL'), this letter is to request an extension of time to provide comments on the 'Clean Air Transport Rule,' 75 Fed. Reg. 45,210, and on the 'Notice of Data Availability,' 75 Fed. Reg. 53,613. Currently, comments on the Rule are due October 1, and comments on the NODA are due October 15. We request an extension to allow the filing of a single set of comments on both aspects of the rulemaking, to and including November 30, 2010. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-1940.1, p.1]
As noted in the docket, the proposal for rulemaking is based on complicated modeling as to the upwind sources that are contributing significantly or interfering with the maintenance of downwind sites. The proposed rules will have significant service, cost, logistical, construction, and operational impacts on IPL and affected electric generating units (EGUs). IPL is currently working to understand the full significance of the proposed rule to IPL and other EGUs in the state of Missouri. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-1940.1, p.1]
For these reasons, IPL respectfully requests an extension of the comment period so that it may fully understand the implications of the proposed rule. The proposed rule's length and complexity, along with the many technical documents and data files that EPA has developed and relied upon to draft this proposed rule make preparing and submitting meaningful comments extremely difficult in the time allotted in the published notice. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-1940.1, p.2]
IPL respectfully requests an extension of the public comment period on the Proposed Transport Rule to November 30, 2010. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-1940.1, p.2]
IPL respectfully requests also that EPA extend the comment period on the NODA from October 15 to November 30, 2010. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-1940.1, p.2]
THE NODA FAILS TO PROVIDE FOR MEANINGFUL COMMENT AND ISTHUS PREJUDICIAL TO THE PARTIES
The new data placed in the record with the NODA contained computer files that were corrupted or otherwise unusable. Although EPA has cooperated in providing usable files to replace the corrupted and unusable ones, the delay caused an already aggressive schedule for review of the newly introduced additional data to become completely unworkable. It is our understanding that the last corrected file related to the NODA data did not become available until September 25. It follows that September 25 was the first date on which any examination or analysis of the new data could be initiated. EPA initially provided 45 days (September I data availability with an October 15 comment deadline) for comment on the NODA data. Thus, it appears EPA believed that a minimum of 45 days was required to allow for meaningful comment on the NODA data. Consequently, EPA should grant an extension of the comment deadline to November 10 to maintain the same amount of time from when usable NODA data actually become available to the deadline for comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2741.1, p.6]
In any event, the introduction of new pivotal data this late in the rulemaking process prejudices parties seeking to provide meaningful comment in violation of 5 U.S.C. § 553(c). As the NODA makes clear, the newly available data concerns the database showing 'unit level characteristics of the electric generating units (EGUs) included in the IPM modeling' as well as the new base case modeling runs that address compliance issues and the preferred policy options. 75 FR at 53614/2. All of those are critical components of the rulemaking analysis, and changes to any of them could affect the scope and reach of the final rule. Where EPA 'provides entirely new information critical to [its] determination,' Community Nutrition Inst. v. Block, 749 F.2d 50, 57-58 (D.C. Cir. 1984), EPA must provide the opportunity for meaningful comment. Portland Cement Ass'n v. Ruckelhaus, 486 F.2d 375, 393 (D.C. Cir. 1973). This requirement is mandatory 'to ensure that agency regulations are tested through exposure to public comment, to afford affected parties an opportunity to present comment and evidence to support their positions, and thereby to enhance the quality of judicial review.' Chamber of Commerce v. SEC, 443 F.3d 890, 900 (D.C. Cir. 2006)(citation omitted). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2741.1, pp.6-7]
The present situation, which for all practical purposes gives no more than 20 days from the time uncorrupted and usable data files were made available to the October 15 deadline for comments, does not allow for the 'genuine interchange' that notice-and-comment rulemaking is designed to achieve. Conn. L & P Co. v NRC, 673 F.2d 525, 530 (D.C. Cir. 1982). Even accepting arguendo EPA's view that the 45-day period set in the NODA was adequate, the actual time for analysis and comment after usable files finally became available of less than half that period is grossly inadequate.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2741.1, p.7]
The parties are prejudiced by the inadequate comment period as well as by the indication 'additional information used to support the final transport rulemaking may be placed in the docket' at unspecified future date(s). 75 FR at 53615/1. As the NODA encapsulates, the new data relate to key databases and modeling runs, id. at 53614/2, and could produce different results from those contained in the Rule. It is possible that the new data will alter the results for individual States or EGUs, but that cannot be determined until the new data are analyzed, which might not happen until after October 15. Parties must be allowed to determine whether such differences are present, and what effect they have on the various aspects of proposed rule. See Small Refiner Lead Phase-Down Task Force v. EPA, 705 F.2d 506, 540-41 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (prejudice requires specific showing of the 'portions of the documents [a party] objects to and how it might have responded if given the opportunity'). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2741.1, pp.7-8]
Meaningful comment in this context thus means the ability to determine what documents (new data tiles) raise objections and what response is appropriate to those objections. Here, that process could not even begin until the corrupted computer files were purged and replaced with usable files, which took the better part of a month to accomplish. Assuming that all the necessary computer f1les have been made available, the modeling runs involved in replacing the original data with these new data take considerable time and effort. Only at that point can the process of determining objections and developing responses begin. Given the amount of data, the complexity of the issues, and the consequences related to the model results, far more time than the 45-day period set in the NODA, Or the actual 20-day period after the data were finally made available in usable form, would be needed to permit meaningful comment. EPA's failure to provide adequate time prejudices the parties by not allowing them to present specific comments on pivotal matters, and therefore is arbitrary and capricious. See Appalachian Power Co. v. EPA, 249 F.3d 1032, 1059 (D.C. Cir. 2001)(agency action is arbitrary and capricious where agency 'has failed to respond to specific challenges that are sufficiently central to its decision'). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2741.1, p.9]
Indiana Energy Association
a. The Indiana Utility Group believes that the EPA CATR analysis is fatally flawed because of errors in assumed pollution control equipment costs and removal efficiencies, fuel switching assumptions, and implementation dates . In addition, the recently published EPA CATR NODA conflicts with many of the CATR assumptions EPA included in its CATR analysis. Additional examples of the impact of these errors are provided below. As a matter of technical accuracy, fairness and to result in a rule that is reasonable and not arbitrary, the Indiana Utility Group believes that these errors are so significant that the CATR must be reassessed and reproposed using corrected data received during this comment period and the final publicly reviewed NODA data. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-3711 p.2]
g. The Indiana Utility Group submits that the regulated community has not had adequate time to review and comment on the proposed CATR. EPA has organized the record so that a regulated entity must delve into several files that are not in the published rule in order to determine unit specific allocations and assumed controls . The files requisite for any technical analysis are in the Docket but not in the rule, making it extremely difficult and time consuming for a regulated entity to find the relevant files. The Indiana Utility Group believes that EPA used a 'screening tool' to determine significant impact. The EPA source apportionment modeling does not break down on a sector specific basis. Rather, the EPA analysis provides only aggregate state emissions. The regulated community is neither able to discern which group of sources that EPA concluded has the most impact on nonattainment, nor determine which specific sources are implicated . Given the errors extant in the EPA CATR assumptions, the Indiana Utility Group expects that allocations and unit control requirements will need to be revised. The Indiana Utility Group therefore urges that EPA revise and reissue the CATR for public comment as a SNPR. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-3711 p.4]
JEA
EPA Did Not Provide Sufficient Time to Develop Comments
The Transport Rule was published in the Federal Register on August 2,2010 with a comment deadline of October 1, 2010, leaving interested parties 60 days to review the proposed regulation (75 FR 45210), albeit the announcement and initial text of the proposed rule came out on July 6, 2010, this is precisely the timeframe that many of the entities regulated by this proposal were performing Part Three Emissions Testing for EPA's Utility MACT Information Collection Request (ICR). Subsequently, multiple regulated entities were entering the ICR data into EPA's database spreadsheets during this proposal period and were not afforded the luxury of the full proposal time period to analyze the rule and its technical support documents. EPA should recognize the burden that they have placed on certain regulated entities' staff and acknowledge this burden by extending the initial comment period or allowing for an additional notice and comment period. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2713.1, p.3]
Kansas City Board of Public Utilities (BPU)
On behalf of Kansas City Board of Public Utilities ('BPU'), this letter is to request an extension of time to provide comments on the 'Clean Air Transport Rule,' 75 Fed. Reg. 45,210, and on the 'Notice of Data Availability,' ('NODA') 75 Fed. Reg. 53,613. Currently, comments on the Rule are due October 1, and comments on the NODA are due October 15. We request an extension to allow the filing of a single set of comments on both aspects of the rulemaking to November 30,2010. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2194.1, p.1]
As noted in the docket, the proposal for rulemaking is based on complicated modeling as to the upwind sources that are contributing significantly or interfering with the maintenance of downwind sites. Because the proposed rules will have significant service, cost, logistical, construction, and operational impacts on BPU and affected electric generating units (EGUs), BPU has undertaken to analyze the modeling used in the rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2194.1, p.1]
BPU and other EGU s in states identified for the first time by EPA as subject to the proposed Air Transport Rule face an especially difficult burden to prepare and file comments as to the potential impacts that the Rule will have on them. In contrast to EGUs in states previously subject to clean air transport rules, BPU and other EGUs in 'first time states' have no historical basis on which to ground their analyses, nor were they invited to 'listening sessions' as to what direction EPA proposed to take in the rulemaking docket to which other stakeholders from states previously subject to clean air transport regulations were invited. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2194.1, p.2]
BPU is currently working to understand the full significance of the proposed rule to BPU and other EGUs in the State. Through EPA's docket, BPU has obtained and is reviewing EP A's background documentation including modeling information. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2194.1, p.2]
As proposed, the rule would significantly affect the planning and operations of BPU. As a public utility, BPU must go through a lengthy and time-consuming process to obtain funding for emissions controls required by the proposed rule. Assuming BPU could obtain funding, this process often takes over a year to complete in addition to construction time for the new controls. This would be an almost impossible task to complete by 2014. We do not want to rush to conclusions about the best option for BPU and its customers without all of the data available for review. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2194.1, p.2]
These issues have created an impossible situation for BPU to respond in a full and meaningful manner by the current October 1 and October 15 deadlines, particularly given BPU's and Kansas' status as 'first time state' affected by the proposed rule. In addition, the rulemaking record would be better served by a single set of comments that address comprehensively the new and old data. To assure a full and meaningful comment period consistent with statutory and regulatory intent, additional time to comment is appropriate. Accordingly, BPU ,requests that EPA replace the current comment dates and grant an extension to and including November 30,2010 for a single set of comments to address all matters raised by the original Notice and the NODA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2194.1, p.2]
On behalf of Kansas City Board of Public Utilities ('BPU'), this letter is to request an extension of time to provide comments on the 'Clean Air Transport Rule,' 75 Fed. Reg. 45,210, and on the 'Notice of Data Availability,' ('NODA') 75 Fed. Reg. 53,613. Currently, comments on the Rule are due October 1, and comments on the NODA are due October 15. We request an extension to allow the filing of a single set of comments on both aspects of the rulemaking to November 30,2010. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2194.1, p.1]
The publication of the NODA has severely impacted that analysis. Since EPA did not conduct modeling in support of the NODA, any attempt to understand how the NODA will impact the conclusions that EPA reached prior to the NODA requires the input of the NODA data set into the modeling. Due to the complexity of the modeling, inputting and analyzing that new data and its impact will take a matter of weeks to complete. In addition, other new data was received from EPA on September 14, correcting a corrupt model-ready emissions file. Currently, and despite BPU's best efforts, it appears that it will be extremely unlikely, if not impossible, to incorporate the new data into the modeling in a timely fashion that will allow BPU to file comprehensive and meaningful comments which should be considered by EPA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2194.1, pp.1-2]
As a result of the new information in the NODA, these efforts have been hampered by creating a 'moving target' that impedes these efforts to evaluate the applicability and potential impacts of the proposed rules in Kansas and BPU. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2194.1, p.2]
Accordingly, BPU, requests that EPA replace the current comment dates and grant an extension to and including November 30,2010 for a single set of comments to address all matters raised by the original Notice and the NODA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2194.1, p.2]
THE NOTICE OF DATA AVAILABILITY FAILS TO PROVIDE FOR MEANINGFUL COMMENT AND IS THUS PREJUDICIAL TO THE PARTIES
The new data placed in the record with the NODA contained computer files that were corrupted or otherwise unusable. Although EPA cooperated in providing usable files to replace the corrupted and unusable ones, the delay caused an already aggressive schedule for review of the newly introduced additional data to become completely unworkable. It is our understanding that the last corrected file related to the NODA data did not become available until September 25. It follows that September 25 was the first date on which any examination or analysis of the new data could be initiated. EPA initially provided 45 days (September I data availability with an October 15 comment deadline) for comment on the NODA data. Thus, it appears EPA believed that a minimum of 45 days was required to allow for meaningful comment on the NODA data. Consequently, EPA should grant an extension of the comment deadline to November 10 to maintain the same amount of time from when usable NODA data actually become available. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2740.1, p.6]
In any event, the introduction of new pivotal data this late in the rulemaking process prejudices parties seeking to provide meaningful comment in violation of 5 U.S.C. § 553(c). As The NODA makes clear, the newly available data concerns the database showing 'unit level characteristics of the electric generating units (EGUs) included in the IPM modeling' as well as the new base case modeling runs that address compliance issues and the preferred policy options. 75 FR at 53614/2. All of those are critical components of the rulemaking analysis, and changes to any of them could affect the scope and reach of the final rule. Where EPA 'provides entirely new information critical to [its] determination,' Community Nutrition Inst. v. Block, 749 F.2d 50,57-58 (D.C. Cir. 1984). EPA must provide the opportunity for meaningful comment. Portland Cement Ass'n v. Ruckelhaus, 486 F.2d 375, 393 (D.C. Cir. 1973). This requirement is mandatory 'to ensure that agency regulations are tested through exposure to public comment, to afford affected parties an opportunity to present comment and evidence to support their positions, and thereby to enhance the quality of judicial review.' Chamber a/Commerce v. SEC, 443 F.3d 890, 900 (D.C. Cir. 2006)(citation omitted). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2740.1, pp.6-7]