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 

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 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; supplemental. 

SUMMARY: In this supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (SNPR), EPA is 

providing an opportunity for public 

comment on our conclusion that 

emissions from Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, 

Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin 

significantly contribute to downwind 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 1997 ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) in other states. EPA is also 

proposing Federal Implementation 

Plans (FIPs) to address (a) the emissions 

identified as significantly contributing 

to nonattainment and interference with 

maintenance and (b) the transport 

requirements with respect to the 

relevant NAAQS. EPA is proposing to 

implement the ozone season NOX

program in the Transport Rule (Federal 

Implementation Plans to Reduce 

Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate 

Matter and Ozone in 27 States; 

Correction of SIP Approvals for 22 

States) as the FIPs for Iowa, Kansas, 

Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, and 

Wisconsin to address the emissions 

identified as significantly contributing 

to nonattainment or interfering with 

maintenance with respect to the 1997 

ozone NAAQS. In addition, this notice 

identifies the budgets, associated 

variability limits, and allowance 

allocations that would be used for each 

state if EPA finalizes the FIPs proposed 

here. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 22, 2011. 

A public hearing, if requested, will be 

held in Room 4128 at USEPA West (EPA 

West) [Old Customs Building], 1301 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20004 on July 21, 2011, beginning at 

9 a.m. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. OAR–EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2009–0491, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Agency Web site: http:// 

www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET, EPA’s 

electronic public docket and comment 

system, is EPA’s preferred method for 

receiving comments. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: 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 

http://www.epa.gov/edocket, including 

any personal information provided, 

unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Do not submit 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected through 

EDOCKET, regulations.gov, or e-mail. 

The EPA EDOCKET and the Federal 

regulations.gov Web sites are 

‘‘anonymous access’’ systems, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your 

e-mail address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 132 / Monday, July 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 40663 

1Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce 

Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and 

Ozone in 27 States; Correction of SIP Approvals for 

22 States: Final Rule. Available on the Web at 

http://www.epa.gov/airtransport. 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the EDOCKET index at 

http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in EDOCKET or in hard 

copy at the Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA 

West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(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 http://www.epa.gov/ 

airtransport. 

A verbatim transcript of the hearing 

and written statements will be made 

available for copying during normal 

working hours at the Office of Air and 

Radiation Docket and Information 

Center at the address listed for 

inspection for documents. 

If no requests for a public hearing are 

received by close of business on July 14, 

2011, a hearing will not be held and this 

announcement will be made on the 

webpage at the address shown above. 

Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations 

The following are abbreviations of 

terms used in this SNPR: 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

EGU Electric Generating Unit 

FIP Federal Implementation Plan 

FR Federal Register 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ICR Information Collection Request 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

NODA Notice of Data Availability 

NOX Nitrogen Oxides 

SIP State Implementation Plan 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PM2.5 Fine Particulate Matter, Less Than 2.5 

Micrometers 

PM Particulate Matter 

RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis 

SNPR Supplemental Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide 

TSD Technical Support Document 

Outline 

I. Today’s Proposal 

A. EPA’s Authority for This Rule 

B. Application of Methodologies To 

Identify Nonattainment and Maintenance 

Receptors and To Determine Significant 

Contribution and Interference With 

Maintenance 

i. Iowa 

ii. Kansas 

iii. Michigan 

iv. Missouri 

v. Oklahoma 

vi. Wisconsin 

C. Ozone Season NOX Emission Budgets 

for Six States 

D. Allocation of Allowances to Covered 

Units 

E. Implementation 

F. Expected Effects of the Proposed Action 

II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

I. Today’s Proposal 

In this supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (SNPR), EPA is 

providing an opportunity for public 

comment on its conclusion that Iowa, 

Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, 

and Wisconsin significantly contribute 

to nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 1997 ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) in other states. 

In addition, EPA is proposing FIPs to 

address the transport requirements of 

the relevant NAAQS using programs 

created in the Transport Rule 1 that is 

being finalized simultaneously with this 

proposal. EPA is proposing to 

implement the ozone season NOX

program in the Transport Rule as the 

FIPs for Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, 

Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin to 

address the emissions identified as 

significantly contributing to 

nonattainment or interfering with 

maintenance with respect to the 1997 

ozone NAAQS. 

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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
40664 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 132 / Monday, July 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

2Notice 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). 

3Rule 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). 

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 

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 

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. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 132 / Monday, July 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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 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 

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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
40666 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 132 / Monday, July 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

4The 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. 

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 2014 and 

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 

limit 

(tons) 

State emission assurance 

level 

(tons) 

2012–2013 2014 and 

beyond 2012–2013 2014 and 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. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 132 / Monday, July 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 40667 

5EPA made some corrections to heat input data 

based on comments received from sources 

correcting such data. 

6As 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.) 

D. Allocation of Allowances to Covered 

Units 

The proposed unit-level allocations of 

ozone season NOX allowances to 

existing covered units in Iowa, Kansas, 

Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, and 

Wisconsin are presented in the TSD 

entitled ‘‘Proposed Unit-Level Ozone 

Season NOx Allowance Allocations to 

Existing Units in Six States: 

Supplemental Proposed Rule TSD,’’ 

which is available in the public docket 

for this rule and on the Web at http:// 

www.epa.gov/airtransport. The 

methodology and procedures used for 

allocations to units covered by the 

Transport Rule ozone season NOX

program are specified in section VII.D, 

’’Allocation of Emission Allowances,’’ 

of the preamble to the final Transport 

Rule and in the TSD entitled 

‘‘Allowance Allocation Final Rule 

TSD,’’ which is available in the public 

docket for this rule. The TSD entitled 

‘‘Proposed Unit-Level Ozone Season 

NOX Allowance Allocations to Existing 

Units in Six States: Supplemental 

Proposed Rule TSD’’ also describes how 

to access publicly available 

downloadable Excel spreadsheets with 

the proposed unit-level allowance 

allocations and the supporting data EPA 

used in applying the final Transport 

Rule existing unit allocation 

methodology to eligible units in each of 

the named states in this SNPR on the 

Web at http://www.epa.gov/airtransport. 

EPA is taking comment only on the 

data inputs (e.g., corrections to the heat 

input value used for any particular unit) 

used in applying the allowance 

allocation methodology for existing 

units and on the resulting existing-unit 

allocations that we are proposing for the 

six states involved. EPA provided ample 

opportunity for comment on the 

methodologies used for allowance 

allocation and for establishing the 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. 

TABLE I.D–1—STATE NEW UNIT SETASIDES 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 setasides 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 

season NOX

in 2012 

For ozone 

season NOX

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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
40668 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 132 / Monday, July 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

7This 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. 

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 

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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 132 / Monday, July 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 40669 

8 76 FR 1109 (January 7, 2011). 

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. 

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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
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. 

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. 

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 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: 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 

(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. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1