[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14780-14781]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6009]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2011-0242; FRL-9513-5]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Kraft Pulp Mills
(Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing
approved collection. The ICR which is abstracted below describes the
nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before April 12,
2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2011-0242, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA

Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency, Enforcement
and Compliance Docket and Information Center, mail code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB at: Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Learia Williams, Compliance Assessment
and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2223A,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 564-0050; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On May 9, 2011 (76 FR 26900), EPA sought comments on this ICR
pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional
comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days
of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OECA-2011-0242, which is available for public viewing
online at http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the
Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC The
EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number
for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov to either submit or view public comments, access
the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov, as EPA
receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For
further information about the electronic docket, go to
www.regulations.gov.
    Title: NSPS for Kraft Pulp Mills (Renewal).
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 1055.10, OMB Control Number 2060-0021.
    ICR Status: This ICR is schedule to expire on April 30, 2012. Under
OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the
collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.
    Abstract: The affected entities are subject to the General
Provisions of the NSPS at 40 CFR part 60, subpart A, and any changes,
or additions to the Provisions specified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart BB.
    Owners or operators of the affected facilities must submit initial
notification, performance tests, and periodic reports and results.
Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the
occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the
operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the
monitoring system is inoperative. Reports are also required, at a
minimum, semiannually.
    Any owner or operator subject to the provisions of this part shall
maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least
two years following the date of such measurements, maintenance reports
and records. All reports are sent to the delegated state or local
authority. In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the
reports are sent directly to the EPA regional office. This information
is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart BB
as authorized in section 112 and 114(a) of the Clean Air Act. The
required information consists of emissions data and other information
that have been determined to be private.
    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15, and are
identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information estimated to average 37 hours
per response. ``Burden'' means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose and provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information. All
existing ways will have to adjust to comply with any previously-
applicable instructions and requirements that have subsequently
changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Owners and operators of kraft pulp
mills.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 106.
    Frequency of Response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 16,086.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $5,723,477, which is comprised of
$1,541,377 in labor costs, $344,900 in capital/startup costs, and
operation and maintenance (O&M) costs of $3,837,200.
    Changes in the Estimates: The increase in burden from the most
recently approved ICR is due to two adjustments: (1) There is an
increase in the average number of respondents expected to become
subject to the standards over the next three years; and (2) this ICR
uses updates labor rates for each of the three labor categories.
    The increase in O&M costs is due to an increase in the average
number of respondents expected to become subject to the standards over
the next three years.
    There is also an increase in Agency costs, which is due to the use
of the most updated labor rates.

John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2012-6009 Filed 3-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


_____________________

Ex Parte Meeting Summary:  Ozone NAAQS

Date:  December 20, 2007, 10:30 – 11:30 am

Attendees:

Visitors:

Dr. Suresh Moolgavkar

Exponent Corp

Seattle, WA

(representing Utility Air Regulatory Group, UARG)

Dr. Peter Valberg

Gradient Corp.

Cambridge, MA

(representing UARG)

EPA attendees:

George Gray, ORD

Pamela Williams, ORD

Bob Fegley, ORD

John Vandenberg, ORD

Ila Cote, ORD

Lydia Wegman, OAR

Karen Martin, OAR

Harvey Richmond, OAR

Dave McKee, OAR

Mary Ross, ORD

Debra Walsh, ORD

Jim Brown, ORD

Tom Bateson, ORD

Summary of discussion:

Dr. Moolgavkar stated that the EPA doesn’t seem to appreciate the
difficulty of teasing out small signals in data, due to noise.  He
provided two examples where in the past conclusions had been developed
based on limited data which, with time and new studies, did not hold up
(i.e., hormone replacement therapy and antioxidants).  With respect to
air pollution, he stated the studies are very complex and the
epidemiological data was a weak basis for decision making due to
uncertainty.

Dr. Gray asked Dr. Moolgavkar, specific to ozone, about the relevance of
human chamber studies to interpretation of epidemiological evidence.
Dr. Mookgavkar stated that we can’t expect chamber studies to observe
mortality and illness, which were major endpoints in epidemiological
studies. Dr. Valberg then noted that chamber studies had shown effects
at 80 ppb, but not at lower levels.  Dr. Valberg stated the agency needs
to consider, for subsequent cost/benefit analyses, the difficulty in
estimating mortality from ozone exposures due to societal covariates
that affect epidemiological observations e.g., day of week.

Dr. Moolgavkar indicated that a paper published by James et al (2007) on
PM was relevant to ozone in that it provided a new way of looking at air
quality data.  He stated that in this paper no association with
mortality was found in long-term studies (little detail was provided).

Dr. Valberg provided comments on the ozone FR proposal.  He stated that
presenting the data using alternative scaling factors, as was done for
PM, for 1, 8 and 24 hours would illustrate the day-to-day and seasonal
variability in ozone monitoring data. He concluded that associations of
health outcomes with central monitoring data are uncertain and the
potential exists for misclassification and confounding of data
interpretation.

Dr. Gray asked Dr. Moolgavkar to discuss model choice issues.  Dr.
Moolgavkar provided some background regarding model choice, noting the
issue arose from investigation of GAM issues by researchers at Johns
Hopkins University.  He stated that model sensitivity analyses were
important, that temporal trends were a source of uncertainty, and that
how variables enter the analysis could alter results.   His perspective
is that we should ask “how can we explain time series of mortality and
hospital admissions?”, for example, rather than “does ozone produce
effects on mortality and hospital admissions?”. Various methods to
evaluate goodness of fit were available, and he noted that Dr. Clyde had
found that pollutants need not be included in some models, and that
choice of model fit test can make a large difference in results
interpretation.

Dr. Gray asked Drs. Moolgavkar and Valberg about consistency in modeling
approaches among air quality researchers.  Dr. Moolgavkar noted that
various lag models are often evaluated, including various model
adjustments for weather, but only the most significant are reported.
AIC and BIC approaches also are often used.   Dr. Moolgavkar noted that
the Johns Hopkins researchers were consistent in their approach to model
evaluation, but most other researchers were variable.

Dr. Valberg stated that the variation in patterns of death by day of
week and month were a source of uncertainty in interpretation of
results.  Dr. Mary Ross (EPA) asked about the linearity of dose-response
relationship in that plotting response versus ozone concentration
appeared linear. Dr. Valberg agreed that with increased concentration
the gradation of responsiveness among individuals in the population
would appear linear as more individuals would be affected as ozone
concentration increased.

Dr. Gray asked about the interpretation of data given air conditioner
use. Dr. Moolgavkar stated some studies have considered variation in air
conditioner usage, though he couldn’t recall at the moment which ones.
 Dr. Moolgavkar noted is it likely some information has been missed due
to publication bias, in that relevant information may be buried in
publications and not evident as to its relevance to the ozone review.
He also pointed to model choice bias and that some changes had been made
around 2003 in the air pollution literature.  He concluded that EPA
needed to recognize the limitations in approaches used to evaluate ozone
effects.

Dr. Gray thanked the visitors for their time, noted that the
Administrator had not decided about the NAAQS, and that their comments
had been heard and the comments played and important role in the
decision process.  Dr. Moolgavkar noted he was [pleasantly] surprised by
the evident attention paid by EPA staff and management to the docket
comments.


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 93 (Friday, May 13, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 28024]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11733]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 503-048-ID]

Swan Falls Hydroelectric Project, Idaho Power Company; Notice of
Teleconference

    a. Date and Time of Meeting: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 at 10 a.m.
(Mountain Time).
    b. Place: By copy of this notice we are inviting all interested
parties to attend a teleconference from their location.
    c. FERC Contact: Dianne Rodman,<PHONE_NUMBER>:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    d. Purpose of the Meeting: Commission staff will be meeting with
the staff of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Idaho Power Company
as part of its on-going section 7 Endangered Species Act consultation
efforts.
    e. All local, state, and federal agencies, Indian tribes, and
interested parties are hereby invited to listen in on the
teleconference. The phone number and passcode to the teleconference
will be provided upon a request made by interested parties to Dianne
Rodman. All requests for the teleconference phone number and passcode
must be made no later than 2:30 p.m. (Mountain Time), May 20, 2011.

    Dated: May 6, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-11733 Filed 5-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 132 (Monday, July 11, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40662-40670]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17456]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 97

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491; FRL-9436-9]
[RIN 2060-AR01]

Federal Implementation Plans for Iowa, Kansas, Michigan,
Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin To Reduce Interstate Transport of
Ozone

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; supplemental.

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

SUMMARY: In this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPR), EPA
is providing an opportunity for public comment on our conclusion that
emissions from Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, and
Wisconsin significantly contribute to downwind nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 1997 ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) in other states. EPA is also proposing
Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) to address (a) the emissions
identified as significantly contributing to nonattainment and
interference with maintenance and (b) the transport requirements with
respect to the relevant NAAQS. EPA is proposing to implement the ozone
season NOX program in the Transport Rule (Federal
Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate
Matter and Ozone in 27 States; Correction of SIP Approvals for 22
States) as the FIPs for Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, and
Wisconsin to address the emissions identified as significantly
contributing to nonattainment or interfering with maintenance with
respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS. In addition, this notice identifies
the budgets, associated variability limits, and allowance allocations
that would be used for each state if EPA finalizes the FIPs proposed
here.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 22, 2011.
    A public hearing, if requested, will be held in Room 4128 at USEPA
West (EPA West) [Old Customs Building], 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20004 on July 21, 2011, beginning at 9 a.m.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. OAR-EPA-
HQ-OAR-2009-0491, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Agency Web site: http://www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET,
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, is EPA's preferred
method for receiving comments. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Air Docket, Environmental Protection Agency,
Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Please include a total of two copies.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center (Air Docket), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room
B102, Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during
the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should
be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0491. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at http://www.epa.gov/edocket, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through EDOCKET,
regulations.gov, or e-mail. The EPA EDOCKET and the Federal
regulations.gov Web sites are ``anonymous access'' systems, which means
EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment
directly to EPA without going through EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your
e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties

and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the EDOCKET index
at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in EDOCKET or in hard
copy at the Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. This Docket
Facility is open from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is (929) 566-
1742, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions concerning today's action
should be addressed to Ms. Doris Price, Clean Air Markets Division,
Office of Atmospheric Programs, Mail Code 6204J, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Hearing

    A public hearing, if requested, will be held in Room 4128 at USEPA
West (EPA West) [Old Customs Building], 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20004 on July 21, 2011, beginning at 9 a.m.
    If you wish to request a hearing and present testimony or attend
the hearing, you should notify, on or before July 14, 2011, Ms. Doris
Price, Clean Air Markets Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Mail
Code 6204J, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Oral
testimony will be limited to 5 minutes each. The hearing will be
strictly limited to the subject matter of the proposal, the scope of
which is discussed below. Any member of the public may file a written
statement by the close of the comment period.
    Written statements (duplicate copies preferred) should be submitted
to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491, at the address listed above for
submitted comments. The hearing location and schedule, including lists
of speakers, will be posted on EPA's webpage at http://www.epa.gov/airtransport.
    A verbatim transcript of the hearing and written statements will be
made available for copying during normal working hours at the Office of
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center at the address listed
for inspection for documents.
    If no requests for a public hearing are received by close of
business on July 14, 2011, a hearing will not be held and this
announcement will be made on the webpage at the address shown above.

Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations

    The following are abbreviations of terms used in this SNPR:

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EGU Electric Generating Unit
FIP Federal Implementation Plan
FR Federal Register
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ICR Information Collection Request
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NODA Notice of Data Availability
NOX Nitrogen Oxides
SIP State Implementation Plan
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PM2.5 Fine Particulate Matter, Less Than 2.5 Micrometers
PM Particulate Matter
RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis
SNPR Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
SO2 Sulfur Dioxide
TSD Technical Support Document

Outline

I. Today's Proposal
    A. EPA's Authority for This Rule
    B. Application of Methodologies To Identify Nonattainment and
Maintenance Receptors and To Determine Significant Contribution and
Interference With Maintenance
    i. Iowa
    ii. Kansas
    iii. Michigan
    iv. Missouri
    v. Oklahoma
    vi. Wisconsin
    C. Ozone Season NOX Emission Budgets for Six States
    D. Allocation of Allowances to Covered Units
    E. Implementation
    F. Expected Effects of the Proposed Action
II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations

I. Today's Proposal

    In this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPR), EPA is
providing an opportunity for public comment on its conclusion that
Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 1997
ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in other states.
    In addition, EPA is proposing FIPs to address the transport
requirements of the relevant NAAQS using programs created in the
Transport Rule \1\ that is being finalized simultaneously with this
proposal. EPA is proposing to implement the ozone season NOX
program in the Transport Rule as the FIPs for Iowa, Kansas, Michigan,
Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin to address the emissions identified
as significantly contributing to nonattainment or interfering with
maintenance with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport
of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone in 27 States; Correction of SIP
Approvals for 22 States: Final Rule. Available on the Web at http://www.epa.gov/airtransport.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the final Transport Rule, EPA identified and finalized FIPs for
20 states with emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment
or interfere with maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS, 18 states with
emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and 21
states with emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
    In this notice, EPA is taking comment only on a) its conclusions
that the six states identified above have emissions that significant
contribute to

nonattainment and interfere with maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS,
and b) its decision to use the final Transport Rule programs as the
FIPs to address these emissions in the six states.
    In this notice, EPA is not taking comment on any aspect of the
final Transport Rule, including any aspect of the methodology used to
identify receptors for nonattainment; the methodology used to identify
receptors for maintenance; the methodology used to identify any
specific state's significant contribution and interference with
maintenance; the methodologies used to establish state budgets,
variability limits, and state assurance levels; or the methodologies
used to allocate allowances to existing units, to establish new unit
set-asides and Indian country new unit set-asides, or to allocate
allowances in these set-asides. EPA provided an adequate opportunity
for public comment on all of these issues during the comment period for
the proposed Transport Rule and during the comment periods for the
associated Notices of Data Availability (NODAs).\2\ EPA received
numerous comments on the proposed Transport Rule and on the associated
NODAs and considered all comments received during the comment periods
for these actions before finalizing the Transport Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Notice of Data Availability Supporting Federal
Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine
Particulate Matter and Ozone (75 FR 53613; September 1, 2010). This
NODA provided additional information on an updated version of the
power sector modeling platform and data inputs EPA proposed to use
to support the final Transport Rule.
    Notice of Data Availability Supporting Federal Implementation
Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and
Ozone: Revisions to Emission Inventories (75 FR 66055; October 27,
2010).
    Notice of Data Availability for Federal Implementation Plans to
Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone:
Request for Comment on Alternative Allocations, Calculation of
Assurance Provision Allowance Surrender Requirements, New-Unit
Allocations in Indian Country, and Allocations by States (76 FR
1109; January 7, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is also not taking comment on the emissions inventories used
for the final Transport Rule modeling, including the emissions
inventories for the six states identified above. EPA provided ample
opportunity for comment on these inventories during the comment period
for the proposed Transport Rule and the comment periods for the NODAs
associated with that proposal. Inventories for all states included in
the modeling domain were made available for public comment during that
process. EPA made numerous changes to these inventories in response to
public comments. Furthermore, the public had an incentive to comment on
the inventories for these six states, not only because these
inventories affect the modeling for all states in the modeling domain,
but also because EPA was proposing to include all six states in at
least one of the Transport Rule trading programs and the inventories
were used for allocating the emissions allowances to covered units. EPA
proposed to include Kansas and Michigan in the ozone-season
NOX, annual NOX, and annual SO2
programs, proposed to include Oklahoma in the ozone-season
NOX program, and proposed to include Iowa, Missouri and
Wisconsin in the annual NOX and annual SO2
programs. Commenters therefore had reason to look closely at all of the
emission data for all six states that EPA made available in the
proposal and the NODAs.

A. EPA's Authority for This Rule

    The statutory authority for this action is provided by the CAA, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et. seq. Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA, often
referred to as the ``good neighbor'' provision of the Act, requires
states to prohibit certain emissions because of their impact on air
quality in downwind states. Specifically, it requires all states,
within 3 years of promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, to submit
SIPs that prohibit certain emissions of air pollutants because of the
impact they would have on air quality in other states. 42 U.S.C.
7410(a)(2)(D). Section 301(a)(1) of the CAA gives the Administrator of
EPA general authority to prescribe such regulations as are necessary to
carry out her functions under the Act. 42 U.S.C. 7601(a)(1). Section
110(c)(1) requires the Administrator to promulgate a FIP at any time
within 2 years after the Administrator a) finds that a state has failed
to make a required SIP submission or that such a submission is
incomplete, or b) disapproves a SIP submission, unless the state
corrects the deficiency and the Administrator approves the SIP
revision. 42 U.S.C. 7410(c)(1). Tribes are not required to submit state
implementation plans. However, as explained in EPA's regulations
outlining Tribal Clean Air Act authority, EPA is authorized to
promulgate FIPs for Indian country as necessary or appropriate to
protect air quality if a tribe does not submit and get EPA approval of
an implementation plan. See 40 CFR 49.11(a).
    For each FIP in this rule, except the FIP for Kansas, EPA either
has found that the state has failed to make a required
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submission, or has disapproved a SIP submission.
In addition, EPA has determined, in each case, that there has been no
approval by the Administrator of a SIP submission correcting the
deficiency prior to promulgation of the FIP. EPA's obligation to
promulgate a FIP arose when the finding of failure to submit or
disapproval was made, and in no case has it been relieved of that
obligation. The specific findings made and actions taken by EPA are
described in greater detail in the TSD entitled ``Status of CAA
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIPs: Supplemental Proposed Rule TSD,'' which is
available in the public docket for this rule.
    In addition, EPA has proposed a SIP Call under CAA 110(k)(5) for
Kansas (76 FR 763, January 6, 2011), based on its conclusion that
Kansas significantly contributes to nonattainment or interferes with
maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS. On March 9, 2007, EPA approved a
110(a)(2)(D)(i) SIP submission from the state of Kansas for the 1997
ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS on March 9, 2007 (72 FR 10608).
This SIP submission did not rely on compliance with the Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR) \3\ to satisfy the requirements of
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). The analysis for the final Transport Rule, however,
demonstrates that emissions from Kansas significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in
other states. Because the SIP does not prohibit these emissions, EPA is
proposing to find it substantially inadequate to meet the requirements
of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS. EPA has
proposed to give Kansas 18 months to submit a SIP to correct this
deficiency. EPA has also proposed to give Kansas the option of asking
EPA to impose a FIP beginning in the 2012 ozone season. Any final
action on the proposed SIP Call will be taken in a separate action, and
will establish a deadline for submission of a new 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
SIP. In this action we are taking comment, with respect to Kansas, only
on our conclusion that Kansas significantly contributes to
nonattainment or interferes with maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS
and our proposal to use the Transport Rule ozone-season NOX
program as the FIP for Kansas. We are not taking comment on issues
related solely to the proposed SIP Call for Kansas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate
Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain
Program; Revisions to the NOX SIP Call promulgated May
12, 2005 (70 FR 25162).

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

B. Application of Methodologies To Identify Nonattainment and
Maintenance Receptors and To Determine Significant Contribution and
Interference With Maintenance

    In this SNPR, EPA is providing an opportunity for public comment on
specific conclusions regarding emissions from six states that
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 1997 ozone NAAQS. As noted above, EPA is not taking comment on
the methodologies to identify nonattainment and maintenance receptors
and to determine significant contribution and interference with
maintenance with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS, which were finalized
in the Transport Rule. Rather, we are accepting comment on the
conclusion that application of these methodologies demonstrates that
Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 1997
ozone NAAQS in other states.
i. Iowa
    The final Transport Rule determined that emissions from Iowa
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the annual PM2.5 NAAQS and the 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. EPA also finalized FIPs to include Iowa in the Transport Rule
annual NOX and annual SO2 programs to address the
transport requirements related to the annual and 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. These conclusions are not being reviewed or
reopened for public comment.
    The analysis for the final Transport Rule also identifies Iowa as a
state that significantly contributes to nonattainment or interferes
with maintenance only for a newly-identified 1997 ozone NAAQS
maintenance receptor in Allegan County, MI. The methodology used to
analyze significant contribution with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS,
and its application to Iowa, is described in detail in the preamble to
the final Transport Rule and in the TSDs entitled ``Air Quality
Modeling Final Rule TSD'' and ``Significant Contribution and State
Emission Budgets Final Rule TSD,'' which are available in the public
docket for this rule. In this SNPR, EPA specifically requests comment
on whether there are errors in the Agency's application of the
Transport Rule methodologies with respect to Iowa's significant
contribution to nonattainment and interference of the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
ii. Kansas
    The final Transport Rule determined that emissions from Kansas
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA also finalized FIPs to
include Kansas in the Transport Rule annual NOX and annual
SO2 programs to address the transport requirements related
to the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. These conclusions are not being
reviewed or reopened for public comment.
    The analysis for the final Transport Rule also identifies Kansas as
a state that significantly contributes to nonattainment or interferes
with maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in another state. In its 2010
Transport Rule proposal, EPA proposed to determine that Kansas
significantly contributes to or interferes with maintenance of the 1997
ozone NAAQS and also proposed to include Kansas in the Transport Rule
ozone-season NOX program. In the analysis conducted for the
final Transport Rule, however, Kansas is linked only to a newly-
identified ozone maintenance receptor in Allegan County, MI. The
methodology used to analyze significant contribution with respect to
the 1997 ozone NAAQS, and its application to Kansas, is described in
detail in the preamble to the final Transport Rule and in the TSDs
entitled ``Air Quality Modeling Final Rule TSD'' and ``Significant
Contribution and State Emission Budgets Final Rule TSD,'' which are
available in the public docket for this rule. In this SNPR, EPA
specifically requests comment on whether there are errors in the
Agency's application of the Transport Rule methodologies with respect
to Kansas's significant contribution to nonattainment and interference
of the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
iii. Michigan
    The final Transport Rule determined that emissions from Michigan
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA also finalized
FIPs to include Michigan in the Transport Rule annual NOX
and annual SO2 programs to address the transport
requirements related to the annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
These conclusions are not being reviewed or reopened for public
comment.
    The analysis for the final Transport Rule also identifies Michigan
as a state that significantly contributes to nonattainment or
interferes with maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in another state.
In its 2010 Transport Rule proposal, EPA proposed to determine that
Michigan significantly contributes to or interferes with maintenance of
the 1997 ozone NAAQS and also proposed to include Michigan in the
Transport Rule ozone-season NOX program. In the analysis
conducted for the final Transport Rule, however, Michigan is linked
only to a newly-identified ozone maintenance receptor in Harford
County, MD. The methodology used to analyze significant contribution
with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS, and its application to Michigan,
is described in detail in the preamble to the final Transport Rule and
in the TSDs entitled ``Air Quality Modeling Final Rule TSD'' and
``Significant Contribution and State Emission Budgets Final Rule TSD,''
which are available in the public docket for this rule. In this SNPR,
EPA specifically requests comment on whether there are errors in the
Agency's application of the Transport Rule methodologies with respect
to Michigan's significant contribution to nonattainment and
interference of the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
iv. Missouri
    With regard to Missouri, the final Transport Rule determined that
emissions from Missouri significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the annual PM2.5 NAAQS and the
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA also finalized FIPs to include
Missouri in the Transport Rule annual NOX and annual
SO2 programs to address the transport requirements related
to the annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. These conclusions are
not being reviewed or reopened for public comment.
    The analysis for the final Transport Rule also identifies Missouri
as a state that significantly contributes to nonattainment or
interferes with maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in Harris County,
TX, Brazoria County, TX, and Allegan County, MI. The methodology used
to analyze significant contribution with respect to the 1997 ozone
NAAQS, and its application to Missouri, is described in detail in the
preamble to the final Transport Rule and in the TSDs entitled ``Air
Quality Modeling Final Rule TSD'' and ``Significant Contribution and
State Emission Budgets Final Rule TSD,'' which are available in the
public docket for this rule, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491. In
this SNPR, EPA requests comment specifically on whether there are
errors in the Agency's application of the Transport Rule methodologies
with respect to

Missouri's significant contribution to nonattainment and interference
of the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
v. Oklahoma
    The final Transport Rule does not include any requirements that
apply to sources in Oklahoma. The analysis conducted for the final
Transport Rule, however, identifies Oklahoma as a state that
significantly contributes to nonattainment or interferes with
maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in Allegan County, MI. In its 2010
Transport Rule proposal, EPA proposed to determine that Oklahoma
significantly contributes to or interferes with maintenance of the 1997
ozone NAAQS and also proposed to include Oklahoma in the Transport Rule
ozone-season NOX program. In the analysis conducted for the
final Transport Rule, however, Oklahoma is linked only to a newly-
identified ozone maintenance receptor in Allegan County, MI. The
methodology used to analyze significant contribution with respect to
the 1997 ozone NAAQS, and its application to Oklahoma, is described in
detail in the preamble to the final Transport Rule and in the TSDs
entitled ``Air Quality Modeling Final Rule TSD'' and ``Significant
Contribution and State Emission Budgets Final Rule TSD,'' which are
available in the public docket for this rule. In this SNPR, EPA
specifically requests comment on whether there are errors in the
Agency's application of the Transport Rule methodologies with respect
to Oklahoma's significant contribution to nonattainment and
interference of the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
vi. Wisconsin
    The final Transport Rule determined that emissions from Wisconsin
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the annual PM2.5 NAAQS and the 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. EPA also finalized FIPs to include Wisconsin in the Transport
Rule annual NOX and annual SO2 programs to
address the transport requirements related to the annual and 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. These conclusions are not being reviewed or
reopened for public comment.
    The analysis for the final Transport Rule also identifies Wisconsin
as a state that significantly contributes to nonattainment or
interferes with maintenance only for a newly identified 1997 ozone
NAAQS maintenance receptor in Allegan County, MI. The methodology used
to analyze significant contribution with respect to the 1997 ozone
NAAQS, and its application to Wisconsin, is described in detail in the
preamble to the final Transport Rule and in the TSDs entitled ``Air
Quality Modeling Final Rule TSD'' and ``Significant Contribution and
State Emission Budgets Final Rule TSD,'' which are available in the
public docket for this rule. In this SNPR, EPA specifically requests
comment on whether there are errors in the Agency's application of the
Transport Rule methodologies with respect to Wisconsin's significant
contribution to nonattainment and interference of the 1997 ozone NAAQS.

C. Ozone Season NOX Emission Budgets for Six States

    In this SNPR, EPA is also presenting state ozone season
NOX emission budgets for covered units (generally large
electric generating units) \4\ in Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri,
Oklahoma, and Wisconsin pertaining to the proposed FIPs for the 1997
ozone NAAQS. EPA will finalize these budgets, adjusted if necessary
based on comments received, as part of the FIPs for these six states.
As noted above, EPA is not taking comment on the methodologies used to
establish state budgets, variability limits, or state assurance levels.
Rather, in this section, we are requesting comment on the state ozone
season NOX emission budgets calculated using these
methodologies. These budgets are presented in Table I.C-1. The
associated variability limits and state assurance levels are presented
in Table I.C-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The applicability provisions for determining covered units
in the named six states for the Transport Rule ozone season
NOX program are the same as those described in section
VII.B, ``Applicability,'' of the preamble to the final Transport
Rule.

    Table I.C-1--Ozone Season NOX State Emission Budgets for Electric
          Generating Units Before Accounting for Variability *
                                 [Tons]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               2014 and
                                                 2012-2013      beyond
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iowa..........................................       16,532       16,207
Kansas........................................       13,536       10,998
Michigan......................................       25,752       24,727
Missouri......................................       22,762       21,073
Oklahoma......................................       21,835       21,835
Wisconsin.....................................       13,704       13,216
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note--These state emission budgets apply to emissions from electric
  generating units greater than 25 MW and covered by the Transport Rule
  Program.
* The impact of variability on budgets is discussed in the preamble to
  the final Transport Rule, section VI.E.

            Table I.C-2--Variability Limits and State Assurance Levels for Ozone Season NOX Emissions
                                                     [Tons]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Emission variability    State emission assurance
                                                                    limit  (tons)             level  (tons)
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
                                                                             2014 and                  2014 and
                                                               2012-2013      beyond     2012-2013      beyond
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iowa........................................................        3,472        3,403       20,004       19,610
Kansas......................................................        2,843        2,310       16,379       13,308
Michigan....................................................        5,408        5,193       31,160       29,920
Missouri....................................................        4,780        4,425       27,542       25,498
Oklahoma....................................................        4,585        4,585       26,420       26,420
Wisconsin...................................................        2,878        2,775       16,582       15,991
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Note: Variability limits and assurance levels apply to each state's
emissions from covered sources, as defined by Federal Implementation
Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and
Ozone in 27 States; Correction of SIP Approvals for 22 States: Final
Rule.

D. Allocation of Allowances to Covered Units

    The proposed unit-level allocations of ozone season NOX
allowances to existing covered units in Iowa, Kansas, Michigan,
Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin are presented in the TSD entitled
``Proposed Unit-Level Ozone Season NOx Allowance Allocations
to Existing Units in Six States: Supplemental Proposed Rule TSD,''
which is available in the public docket for this rule and on the Web at
http://www.epa.gov/airtransport. The methodology and procedures used
for allocations to units covered by the Transport Rule ozone season
NOX program are specified in section VII.D, ''Allocation of
Emission Allowances,'' of the preamble to the final Transport Rule and
in the TSD entitled ``Allowance Allocation Final Rule TSD,'' which is
available in the public docket for this rule. The TSD entitled
``Proposed Unit-Level Ozone Season NOX Allowance Allocations
to Existing Units in Six States: Supplemental Proposed Rule TSD'' also
describes how to access publicly available downloadable Excel
spreadsheets with the proposed unit-level allowance allocations and the
supporting data EPA used in applying the final Transport Rule existing
unit allocation methodology to eligible units in each of the named
states in this SNPR on the Web at http://www.epa.gov/airtransport.
    EPA is taking comment only on the data inputs (e.g., corrections to
the heat input value used for any particular unit) used in applying the
allowance allocation methodology for existing units and on the
resulting existing-unit allocations that we are proposing for the six
states involved. EPA provided ample opportunity for comment on the
methodologies used for allowance allocation and for establishing the
set-asides both in the public comment period following the rule
proposal and through the January 7, 2011 NODA. As discussed in section
VII.D.1, ``Allocations to Existing Units'' of the preamble to the final
Transport Rule, EPA has carefully evaluated and responded to numerous
comments on this issue. These public comments were taken into account
when finalizing the Transport Rule.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ EPA made some corrections to heat input data based on
comments received from sources correcting such data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is proposing that new unit set-asides for allowance allocations
to new units be created and implemented for each of these six states in
the same manner as for the other states covered in the Transport Rule
ozone season NOX program. This approach is described in
section VII.D.2, ``Allocations to New Units,'' of the preamble to the
final Transport Rule. Table I.D-1 shows the proposed new allocation
percentages for ozone season NOX allowances for Iowa,
Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin. As noted above,
EPA is taking comment only on the application of the new unit set-aside
methodology to these states and on the resulting set-asides that we are
proposing (i.e., whether the percentages for the set-asides are
calculated properly). EPA provided ample opportunity for comment on the
new unit set-aside methodology in the public comment period following
the rule proposal.

   Table I.D-1--State New Unit Set-Asides as a Percent of State Ozone
                       Season NOX Emission Budgets
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Ozone-
                                                              season NOX
                                                                 (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iowa.......................................................            2
Kansas.....................................................            2
Michigan...................................................            2
Missouri...................................................            3
Oklahoma...................................................            2
Wisconsin..................................................            6
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described in section VII.D.2, ``Allocations to New Units,'' of
the preamble to the final Transport Rule, EPA is providing a mechanism
to make allowances available in the future for new units built in
Indian country. Table I.D-2 shows the Indian Country set-asides EPA is
proposing to use to set aside ozone-season NOX allowances
from the budgets of states included in this SNPR which have areas of
Indian country within their boundaries. Under the final Transport Rule,
EPA will administer these Indian country new unit set-asides regardless
of whether a state replaces its Transport Rule FIP with an approved
SIP. EPA is proposing to use the same mechanism for the states covered
in this SNPR. EPA is taking comment only on the application of the
Indian country new unit set-aside methodology to these states and on
the resulting set-asides that we are proposing. EPA provided ample
opportunity for comment on the methodologies for Indian country new
unit set-asides through the January 7, 2011 NODA.

      Table I.D-2--New Unit Set-Aside Allowances for Indian Country
                                 [Tons]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 For ozone    For ozone
                                                 season NOX   season NOX
                                                  in 2012      in 2014
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iowa..........................................           17           16
Kansas........................................           14           11
Michigan......................................           26           25
Oklahoma......................................           22           22
Wisconsin.....................................           14           13
------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Implementation

    EPA is proposing that implementation of emission requirements for
the six states addressed in this SNPR be identical to those for the
other states covered by the Transport Rule ozone season NOX
program. Refer to section IV.C-2, ``FIP Authority for Each State and
NAAQS Covered,'' in the preamble to the final Transport Rule for a
general discussion of EPA's legal responsibility and authority to
impose Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) in certain circumstances
where State Implementation Plans (SIPs) are deficient. The TSD entitled
``Status of CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIPs: Supplemental Proposed Rule
TSD'' identifies actions taken by EPA with respect to the
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP requirements for the named states with respect
to the relevant NAAQS. This TSD demonstrates that EPA has authority and
a legal obligation to promulgate each FIP proposed in this SNPR.
    To be consistent and synchronize with the other states covered by
the Transport Rule ozone season NOX program, EPA has not
adjusted the timing for compliance with the Transport Rule programs for
these states.\6\ EPA expects to finalize this rulemaking on or before
November 1, 2011; the ozone season for 2012 does not begin until May 1,
2012. This will allow an approximately six-month lead time before the
start of the 2012 ozone season. The vast majority of covered sources
already have combustion controls installed; therefore, EPA expects that
only a small number of sources will need to install combustion controls
to comply, and the total

number of installations is practical to achieve within the time period
for additional construction. Individual sources may comply through
other measures (such as purchasing additional allowances) in the event
that it takes a particular source more than six months for installation
of a given combustion control. EPA's rationale for determining that
this lead time is sufficient is described in detail in section VII.C
``Compliance Deadlines'' of the preamble to the final Transport Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ As explained in the TSD, EPA proposed a SIP call requiring
Kansas to address its deficiency for the 1997 Ozone NAAQS
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements (76 FR 763). EPA intends to finalize
the SIP call concurrent with the finalization of this action. This
will enable Kansas to use the same remedy as the other states
covered by the final Transport Rule ozone season NOX
program. (Specifically, Kansas may request--through a letter
submitted to EPA within three weeks of the final SIP call--that the
Kansas ozone FIP be implemented at the same time as the other
states.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is also not proposing to alter the compliance deadlines or
deadlines for submission of SIPs to replace the ozone FIPs for these
six states. The submission deadlines and process for the six states
covered by this SNPR, as well as the rationale behind them, can be
found in section X ``Transport Rule State Implementation Plans'' of the
preamble to the final Transport Rule.

F. Expected Effects of the Proposed Action

    This proposal is projected to limit ozone season NOX
emissions in Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Kansas
beginning in 2012. The impacts of the Transport Rule inclusive of this
proposal are discussed in section VIII of the preamble to the final
Transport Rule. Table VIII-A.5 shows the state-by-state ozone season
NOX emissions reductions (compared to the base case)
expected in both 2012 and 2014. Overall ozone improvements, including
these states and others, are displayed in Table VIII-B-2 and are
discussed in greater detail in the Air Quality Modeling Final Rule
TSD.\7\ Overall benefits of the Transport Rule are discussed in section
VIII of the preamble to the final Transport Rule and in the Regulatory
Impact Analysis to the final Transport Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ This TSD for Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce
Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone in 27
States; Correction of SIP Approvals for 22 States: Final Rule is
incorporated in its entirety by reference into this SNPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review
and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may:
    1. Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or
communities;
    2. Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
    3. Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
    4. Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
    In view of its important policy implications and potential effect
on the economy of over $100 million, the Transport Rule program
inclusive of this proposal has been judged to be an economically
``significant regulatory action'' within the meaning of the Executive
Order. Accordingly, EPA submitted the final Transport Rule and this
SNPR to OMB for review under EO 12866 and EO 13563 (76 FR 3821, January
21, 2011).
    In addition, EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and
benefits for the Transport Rule program inclusive of this proposal.
This analysis is contained in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for
the Transport Rule.
    The RIA available in the docket describes in detail the empirical
basis for EPA's assumptions and characterizes the various sources of
uncertainties affecting the estimates below. In doing this, EPA adheres
to EO 13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,'' (76 FR
3,821, January 21, 2011), which is a supplement to EO 12866. For
additional information on how EPA's benefit-cost analyses conform to
the requirements of EO 13563, please see section XII.A of the preamble
to the final Transport Rule. EPA believes that there is no impact to
the economy beyond that which is reported in the final Transport Rule.
1. What economic analyses were conducted for the rulemaking?
    The analyses conducted for the Transport Rule program inclusive of
this proposal provide several important analyses of impacts on public
welfare. These include an analysis of the social benefits, social
costs, and net benefits of the regulatory scenario. The economic
analyses also address issues involving small business impacts, unfunded
mandates (including impacts for Tribal governments), and energy
impacts.
2. What are the benefits and costs of the transport rule program?
    The benefit-cost analysis shows that substantial net economic
benefits to society are likely to be achieved due to reduction in
emissions and improvements in ozone and PM2.5 ambient
concentrations resulting from the Transport Rule program inclusive of
this proposal. For more information on the costs and benefits for the
Transport Rule program inclusive of this proposal, please refer to
Table VIII.C-4 of the preamble to the final Transport Rule.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden
beyond that reported in the final Transport Rule. The information
collection requirements for the Transport Rule Program inclusive of
this proposal have been submitted for approval to Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq. The information collection requirements are not enforceable until
OMB approves them. The Information Collection Request (ICR) submitted
to OMB describes the information collection requirements associated
with the final Transport Rule program inclusive of this proposal and
estimates the burden of compliance with all such requirements, such as
the requirement for industry to monitor, record, and report emission
data to EPA. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    After considering the economic impacts of the Transport Rule
program inclusive of this proposal on small entities, as described in
section XII.C of the preamble to the final Transport Rule, I certify
that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities (No SISNOSE). This certification
is based on the economic impact of the final Transport Rule and this
proposal if finalized on all affected small entities across all
industries affected. The

provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act are covered by and
reported in section XII.C of the preamble to the final Transport Rule.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2
U.S.C. 1531-1538, requires federal agencies, unless otherwise
prohibited by law, to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on
state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. The
Transport Rule program inclusive of this proposal contains a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private
sector in any one year. Accordingly, EPA has prepared under section 202
of the UMRA a written statement that is summarized in section XII.D of
the preamble to the final Transport Rule.
    Consistent with the intergovernmental consultation provisions of
section 204 of the UMRA, EPA held consultations with the governmental
entities affected by the final Transport Rule and this proposal if
finalized. As detailed in section XII.D of the preamble to the final
Transport Rule, EPA participated in informational calls with the
Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) and the National Governors
Association to provide information about the January 7, 2011 NODA \8\
directly to state and local officials and conducted consultations with
federally recognized tribes prior to finalizing the final Transport
Rule and issuing this SNPR for inclusion of six additional states (of
which five--Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin--have
Indian country within their boundaries).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 76 FR 1109 (January 7, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA believes that no unfunded mandates have been created by the
Transport Rule program inclusive of this proposal. Neither the final
Transport Rule nor the provisions in this SNPR have regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    As described in section XII.E of the preamble to the final
Transport Rule, EPA has concluded that the Transport Rule program
inclusive of this proposal does not have federalism implications. Thus,
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the final Transport Rule or to
this SNPR.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    Under Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), EPA
may not issue a regulation that has tribal implications, that imposes
substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by
statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to
pay the direct compliance costs incurred by tribal governments, or EPA
consults with tribal officials early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation and develops a tribal summary impact statement. As
described in section XII.F of the preamble to the final Transport Rule,
EPA believes that there has been proper consultation and coordination
with Indian tribal governments for the Transport Rule program inclusive
of this proposal.
    As required by section 7(a) of the Executive Order, EPA's Tribal
Consultation Official has certified that the requirements of the
Executive Order have been met in a meaningful and timely manner. A copy
of the certification is included in the docket for the final Transport
Rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19,885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under EO 12866, and 2) concerns an environmental health or
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the
Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of this
planned rule on children, and explain why this planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible
alternatives considered by the Agency.
    As described in section XII.G of the preamble to the final
Transport Rule, the Transport Rule program inclusive of this proposal
is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not involve
decisions that increase environmental health or safety risks that may
disproportionately affect children. The EPA believes that the emissions
reductions from the strategies in the Transport Rule program inclusive
of this proposal will further improve air quality and will further
improve children's health.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) provides that
agencies shall prepare and submit to the Administrator of the Office of
Regulatory Affairs, OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for certain
actions identified as ``significant energy actions.'' Section 4(b) of
Executive Order 13211 defines ``significant energy action'' as ``any
action by an agency (normally published in the Federal Register) that
promulgates or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule
or regulation, including notices of inquiry, advance notices of
proposed rulemaking, and notices of proposed rulemaking: (1)(i) That is
a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 or any
successor order, and (ii) is likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (2) that is
designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action.'' This rule is a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, and this
rule is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. EPA prepared a Statement of Energy
Effects for the transport Rule program inclusive of this proposal which
appears in section XII.H of the preamble to the final Transport Rule.
    EPA believes that there is no impact to the energy supply beyond
that which is reported for the Transport Rule program inclusive of this
proposal in the final Transport Rule.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. As described in
section XII.I of the preamble to the final Transport Rule, the
Transport Rule program inclusive of this proposal will

require all sources to meet the applicable monitoring requirements of
40 CFR part 75. Part 75 already incorporates a number of voluntary
consensus standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority, low-income, and Tribal
populations in the United States. During development of this Transport
Rule program inclusive of this proposal, EPA considered its impacts on
low-income, minority, and tribal communities in several ways and
provided multiple opportunities for these communities to meaningfully
participate in the rulemaking process. As described in section XII.J of
the preamble to the final transport Rule, EPA believes that the final
remedy in the Transport Rule program inclusive of this proposal
addresses potential environmental justice concerns about localized hot
spots and reduces ambient concentrations of pollution where they are
most needed by sensitive and vulnerable populations.
    EPA believes that the vast majority of communities and individuals
in areas covered by the Transport Rule program inclusive of this
proposal, including numerous low-income, minority, and tribal
individuals and communities in both rural areas and inner cities in the
eastern and central U.S., will see significant improvements in air
quality and resulting improvements in health. EPA's assessment of the
effects of the final Transport Rule program inclusive of this proposal
on these communities is detailed in section XII.J of the preamble to
the final Transport Rule. Based on this assessment, EPA concludes that
we do not expect disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority, low-income, or tribal populations in
the United States as a result of implementing the Transport Rule
program inclusive of this proposal.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Regional haze, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
dioxide.

40 CFR Part 97

    Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control,
Electric utilities, Nitrogen oxides, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur dioxide.

    Dated: July 6, 2011.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011-17456 Filed 7-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P