Federal Implementation Plans for Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin To Reduce Interstate Transport of Ozone, 40662-40670 [2011-17456]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
40662
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 132 / Monday, July 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
submissions, EPA’s role is to approve
State choices, provided that they meet
the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely
approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason,
this action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address
disproportionate human health or
environmental effects with practical,
appropriate, and legally permissible
methods under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the State, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:12 Jul 08, 2011
Jkt 223001
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: June 29, 2011.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2011–17454 Filed 7–8–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
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
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule; supplemental.
AGENCY:
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
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
• Agency Web site: https://
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: A-and-R-Docket@epa.gov.
• Fax: (202) 566–1741.
• 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
https://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
E:\FR\FM\11JYP1.SGM
11JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 132 / Monday, July 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
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
https://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
(202) 566–1744, and the telephone
number for the Air Docket is (202) 566–
1742. 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 (202) 566–1741.
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: (202) 343–9067; fax number:
(202) 343–2356; e-mail address:
price.doris@epa.gov.
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: (202) 343–9067; fax number:
(202) 343–2356; e-mail address:
price.doris@epa.gov. Oral testimony will
be limited to 5 minutes each. The
hearing will be strictly limited to the
subject matter of the proposal, the scope
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:12 Jul 08, 2011
Jkt 223001
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 https://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
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
40663
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.
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
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
https://www.epa.gov/airtransport.
E:\FR\FM\11JYP1.SGM
11JYP1
40664
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 132 / Monday, July 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
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.
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
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).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:12 Jul 08, 2011
Jkt 223001
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 ozoneseason 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
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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).
E:\FR\FM\11JYP1.SGM
11JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 132 / Monday, July 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:12 Jul 08, 2011
Jkt 223001
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 newlyidentified 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
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
40665
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 newlyidentified 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
E:\FR\FM\11JYP1.SGM
11JYP1
40666
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 132 / Monday, July 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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 ozoneseason 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.
TABLE I.C–1—OZONE SEASON NOX
STATE EMISSION BUDGETS FOR
ELECTRIC GENERATING UNITS BEFORE ACCOUNTING FOR VARIABILITY *
[Tons]
2012–2013
Iowa ..................
Kansas ..............
Michigan ...........
Missouri ............
Oklahoma .........
Wisconsin .........
2014 and
beyond
16,532
13,536
25,752
22,762
21,835
13,704
16,207
10,998
24,727
21,073
21,835
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
limit
(tons)
2012–2013
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Iowa .................................................................................................................................
Kansas .............................................................................................................................
Michigan ...........................................................................................................................
Missouri ............................................................................................................................
Oklahoma .........................................................................................................................
Wisconsin .........................................................................................................................
3,472
2,843
5,408
4,780
4,585
2,878
2014 and
beyond
3,403
2,310
5,193
4,425
4,585
2,775
State emission assurance
level
(tons)
2012–2013
2014 and
beyond
20,004
16,379
31,160
27,542
26,420
16,582
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.
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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:12 Jul 08, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11JYP1.SGM
11JYP1
19,610
13,308
29,920
25,498
26,420
15,991
40667
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 132 / Monday, July 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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 https://
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 https://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 setasides 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
EPA is proposing that new unit setasides 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 setasides that we are proposing (i.e.,
whether the percentages for the setasides 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.
Jkt 223001
For ozone
season NOX
in 2012
Iowa ..................
Kansas ..............
Michigan ...........
Oklahoma .........
Wisconsin .........
For ozone
season NOX
in 2014
17
14
26
22
14
16
11
25
22
13
(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.)
made some corrections to heat input data
based on comments received from sources
correcting such data.
17:27 Jul 08, 2011
[Tons]
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
TABLE I.D–1—STATE NEW UNIT SET- season NOX program. Refer to section
ASIDES AS A PERCENT OF STATE IV.C–2, ‘‘FIP Authority for Each State
OZONE SEASON NOX EMISSION and NAAQS Covered,’’ in the preamble
to the final Transport Rule for a general
BUDGETS
discussion of EPA’s legal responsibility
and authority to impose Federal
Ozone-seaImplementation Plans (FIPs) in certain
son NOX
circumstances where State
(%)
Implementation Plans (SIPs) are
Iowa ..........................................
2 deficient. The TSD entitled ‘‘Status of
Kansas ......................................
2 CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIPs:
Michigan ...................................
2 Supplemental Proposed Rule TSD’’
Missouri ....................................
3 identifies actions taken by EPA with
Oklahoma .................................
2 respect to the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP
Wisconsin .................................
6 requirements for the named states with
respect to the relevant NAAQS. This
TSD demonstrates that EPA has
As described in section VII.D.2,
authority and a legal obligation to
‘‘Allocations to New Units,’’ of the
promulgate each FIP proposed in this
preamble to the final Transport Rule,
SNPR.
EPA is providing a mechanism to make
To be consistent and synchronize
allowances available in the future for
new units built in Indian country. Table with the other states covered by the
Transport Rule ozone season NOX
I.D–2 shows the Indian Country setprogram, EPA has not adjusted the
asides EPA is proposing to use to set
timing for compliance with the
aside ozone-season NOX allowances
Transport Rule programs for these
from the budgets of states included in
states.6 EPA expects to finalize this
this SNPR which have areas of Indian
rulemaking on or before November 1,
country within their boundaries. Under
2011; the ozone season for 2012 does
the final Transport Rule, EPA will
not begin until May 1, 2012. This will
administer these Indian country new
allow an approximately six-month lead
unit set-asides regardless of whether a
time before the start of the 2012 ozone
state replaces its Transport Rule FIP
season. The vast majority of covered
with an approved SIP. EPA is proposing sources already have combustion
to use the same mechanism for the
controls installed; therefore, EPA
states covered in this SNPR. EPA is
expects that only a small number of
taking comment only on the application sources will need to install combustion
of the Indian country new unit set-aside controls to comply, and the total
methodology to these states and on the
6 As explained in the TSD, EPA proposed a SIP
resulting set-asides that we are
call requiring Kansas to address its deficiency for
proposing. EPA provided ample
the 1997 Ozone NAAQS 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
opportunity for comment on the
requirements (76 FR 763). EPA intends to finalize
the SIP call concurrent with the finalization of this
methodologies for Indian country new
action. This will enable Kansas to use the same
unit set-asides through the January 7,
remedy as the other states covered by the final
2011 NODA.
Transport Rule ozone season NOX program.
5 EPA
VerDate Mar<15>2010
TABLE I.D–2—NEW UNIT SET-ASIDE
ALLOWANCES FOR INDIAN COUNTRY
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11JYP1.SGM
11JYP1
40668
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 132 / Monday, July 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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.
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.
II. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
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
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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:12 Jul 08, 2011
Jkt 223001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\11JYP1.SGM
11JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 132 / Monday, July 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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).
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.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
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.
8 76
FR 1109 (January 7, 2011).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:12 Jul 08, 2011
Jkt 223001
40669
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
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.
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.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\11JYP1.SGM
11JYP1
40670
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 132 / Monday, July 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
require all sources to meet the
applicable monitoring requirements of
40 CFR part 75. Part 75 already
incorporates a number of voluntary
consensus standards.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
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, lowincome, 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, lowincome, or tribal populations in the
United States as a result of
implementing the Transport Rule
program inclusive of this proposal.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:12 Jul 08, 2011
Jkt 223001
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
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Federal Emergency Management
Agency
44 CFR Part 67
[Docket ID FEMA–2011–0002; Internal
Agency Docket No. FEMA–B–1200]
Proposed Flood Elevation
Determinations
Federal Emergency
Management Agency, DHS.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
Comments are requested on
the proposed Base (1% annual-chance)
Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed
BFE modifications for the communities
listed in the table below. The purpose
of this proposed rule is to seek general
information and comment regarding the
proposed regulatory flood elevations for
the reach described by the downstream
and upstream locations in the table
below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are
a part of the floodplain management
measures that the community is
required either to adopt or to show
evidence of having in effect in order to
qualify or remain qualified for
participation in the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition,
these elevations, once finalized, will be
used by insurance agents and others to
calculate appropriate flood insurance
premium rates for new buildings and
the contents in those buildings.
DATES: Comments are to be submitted
on or before October 11, 2011.
ADDRESSES: The corresponding
preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(FIRM) for the proposed BFEs for each
community is available for inspection at
the community’s map repository. The
respective addresses are listed in the
table below.
You may submit comments, identified
by Docket No. FEMA–B–1200, to Luis
Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, 500 C
Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202) 646–4064, or (e-mail)
luis.rodriguez1@dhs.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis
Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, 500 C
Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202) 646–4064, or (e-mail)
luis.rodriguez1@dhs.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) proposes to make
determinations of BFEs and modified
BFEs for each community listed below,
in accordance with section 110 of the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973,
42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed BFEs and modified
BFEs, together with the floodplain
management criteria required by 44 CFR
60.3, are the minimum that are required.
They should not be construed to mean
that the community must change any
existing ordinances that are more
stringent in their floodplain
management requirements. The
community may at any time enact
stricter requirements of its own or
pursuant to policies established by other
Federal, State, or regional entities.
These proposed elevations are used to
meet the floodplain management
requirements of the NFIP and also are
used to calculate the appropriate flood
insurance premium rates for new
buildings built after these elevations are
made final, and for the contents in those
buildings.
Comments on any aspect of the Flood
Insurance Study and FIRM, other than
the proposed BFEs, will be considered.
A letter acknowledging receipt of any
comments will not be sent.
National Environmental Policy Act.
This proposed rule is categorically
excluded from the requirements of 44
CFR part 10, Environmental
Consideration. An environmental
impact assessment has not been
prepared.
Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood
elevation determinations are not within
the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, a regulatory
flexibility analysis is not required.
E:\FR\FM\11JYP1.SGM
11JYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 132 (Monday, July 11, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40662-40670]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[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: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
Agency Web site: https://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: A-and-R-Docket@epa.gov.
Fax: (202) 566-1741.
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 https://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
[[Page 40663]]
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 https://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 (202) 566-1744, and the
telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742. 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 (202) 566-1741.
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: (202) 343-9067; fax number: (202) 343-2356; e-mail
address: price.doris@epa.gov.
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: (202) 343-9067; fax
number: (202) 343-2356; e-mail address: price.doris@epa.gov. 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 https://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 https://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
[[Page 40664]]
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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 40665]]
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
[[Page 40666]]
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.
[[Page 40667]]
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
https://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 https://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
[[Page 40668]]
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
[[Page 40669]]
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
[[Page 40670]]
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
