### Summary of Interagency Working C omments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review_CSAPR Revisions Rule: Part II DF with Parallel NPRM _RIN 2060- AR35_FRN_2012-01 -17

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review** *

1 of 49 **ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part** **s 52**  **and 97 [**  **EPA -**  **HQ -**  **OAR -**  **200 9**  **- 0**  **491 ; FRL**  **- ]** 
**RIN 2060**  **- AR35**  **Revisions to Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone**  **: Part II**  **AGENCY:** Environmental Prot ection Agency (EPA). **ACTION:** Direct f inal r ule . **SUMMARY :**  EPA is taking direct final action on additional revisions to the final Transport Rule (Federal Implementation Plans: Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and Correction of SI P Approvals, 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) . In the proposed

### Summary of Interagency Working C omments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review_CSAPR Revisions Rule: Part II DF with Parallel NPRM _RIN 2060- AR35_FRN_2012-01 -17

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review** *

2 of 49 Revisions to Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone, 76 FR 63860 (October 14, 2011) , EPA sought additional comment on unit - level operation al information similar to the information supporting the proposed revisions, which specifically addressed post - combustion pollution control equipment and immediate - term operational requirements necessitating non - economic generation based on verifiable data . Based on comments received, EPA is finalizing adjustments that result in revisions to 2012 and 2014 state budgets in Arkansas , Georgia , Ind i ana , Kansas , Louisiana , Mississippi , Missouri , New York , Nebraska , Ohio , Oklahoma , South Carolina , and Texas , and revisions to new unit set asides in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Missouri . 1 **DATES :**  This rule is effective on [ I NSERT DATE 60 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER ] without further notice, unless EPA receives significant adverse

1 Throughout this preamble, EPA refers to a state budget for 2012 and 2013 as a “2012” state budget and refers to a state budget for 2014 and thereafter as a “2014” state budget. Therefore, any revision of a 2012 state budg et would apply to the state budget for 2012 and 2013, and any revision of a 2014 state budget would apply to the state budget for 2014 and thereafter.

### Summary of Interagency Working C omments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review_CSAPR Revisions Rule: Part II DF with Parallel NPRM _RIN 2060- AR35_FRN_2012-01 -17

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review** *

3 of 49 comments b y [ INSERT DATE 3 0 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER ] . If we receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that this direct final rule will not take effect. **ADDRESSES:** Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0 491 , by one of the following methods:  http://www.regulations.gov : Follow the on - line instructions for submitting comments.  Mail: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20460.  H and Delivery: Air and Radiation Docket, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20460 . 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 - 0 491 . EPA's policy is tha t all comments received will be included in the public docket without

### Summary of Interagency Working C omments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review_CSAPR Revisions Rule: Part II DF with Parallel NPRM _RIN 2060- AR35_FRN_2012-01 -17

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review** *

4 of 49 change and may be made available online at http:// www.regulations.gov , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes i nformation 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 www.regulations.gov or e - mail. The http:/ / www.regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, 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 dire ctly to EPA without going through www.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 r ecommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD - ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should

### Summary of Interagency Working C omments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review_CSAPR Revisions Rule: Part II DF with Parallel NPRM _RIN 2060- AR35_FRN_2012-01 -17

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review** *

5 of 49 avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http:// www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http:// www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http:// www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20460 . The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through F riday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566 - 1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566 - 1742.

### Summary of Interagency Working C omments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review_CSAPR Revisions Rule: Part II DF with Parallel NPRM _RIN 2060- AR35_FRN_2012-01 -17

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review** *

6 of 49 **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:** Gabrielle Stevens **,** U.S. Environmental Prote ction Agency, Clean Air Markets Division, MC 6204J, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460, telephone (202) 343 - 9 2 5 2 , e - mail at stevens.gabrielle @epa.gov. Electronic copies of this document can be accessed through the EPA Website at: http://epa.gov/airmarkets . **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:** EPA is publishing this rule without a prior proposed rule because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment . Howeve r, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today’s Federal Register , we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposed rule if significant adverse comments are received on this direct final rule. We will not institute a second comment perio d on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further information about commenting on this rule, see the **ADDRESSES** section of this document. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this direct final rule will not take effect.

### Summary of Interagency Working C omments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review_CSAPR Revisions Rule: Part II DF with Parallel NPRM _RIN 2060- AR35_FRN_2012-01 -17

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review** *

7 of 49 We would address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. Regulated Entities . Entities regulated by this action primarily are fos sil fuel - fired boilers, turbines, and combined cycle units that serve generators that produce electricity for sale or cogenerate electricity for sale and steam. Regulated categories and entities include:

**Category NAICS code**  **Examples of potentially**  **regula ted**  **industries** Industry 2211 , 22 12 , 2213 Electric service providers This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. This table lists the types of entities which EPA is now aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this table could also be regulated. To determine whether your facility, company, business, organization, etc., is regulated by this action, you sho uld carefully examine the applicability criteria in §§ 97 . 404 , 97 . 504 ,

### Summary of Interagency Working C omments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review_CSAPR Revisions Rule: Part II DF with Parallel NPRM _RIN 2060- AR35_FRN_2012-01 -17

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review** *

8 of 49 and 97 . 604 of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the prec eding **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT** section. I. Detailed Discussion of Corresponding Rule Revisions EPA has determined that the following additional corrections are needed to the August 8 , 2011 final Transport Rule , as a result of comments received on t he proposed rule, Revisions to Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (76 FR 63860, October 14, 2011) (Revisions Rule) . In that proposed rule, EPA took comment on several similar corrections and demonstrated a consistent methodology for calculating those corrections. EPA received no comments opposing the proposal to make these corrections to state budgets and new unit set - asides, and EPA received very few comments addressing the manner in which the corrections were quantified, to which EPA responded in the final revisions rule. EPA has calculated the corrections in this rulemaking in a fully consistent manner with the approach

### Summary of Interagency Working C omments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review_CSAPR Revisions Rule: Part II DF with Parallel NPRM _RIN 2060- AR35_FRN_2012-01 -17

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review** *

9 of 49 developed through public comment on the proposed and finalized revisions rule. (1) Revise the Arkansas ozone season NO X b udgets for 2012 and 2014 and c orrect the ozone season new unit set - aside budget for an omitted planned facility . EPA is increasing the Arkansas 2012 and 2014 ozone season NO X budget based upon comments received that demonstrate that the McClellan plant is in an out - of - merit order dispatch area with conditions likely to necessitate what would otherwise be non - economic ge neration. 2 EPA re - calculated the emissions from the McClellan plant with non - economic generation to account for the input assumption changes. These calculations yield increases to the Arkansas 2012 and 2014 state budgets for ozone - season NO X of 73 tons. See “Final Revisions Rule State Budgets and New Unit Set - Asides TSD” in the docket for this rulemaking for a quantitative demonstration of th e s e revision s .

2 In the proposed revisions rule, EPA characterized an out - of - merit order dispatch area as one in which “ units ... are frequently dispatched out of regional economic order as a result of short - run limitations on the ability to meet local electricity demand with generation from outside the area.” (76 FR 63865)

### Summary of Interagency Working C omments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review_CSAPR Revisions Rule: Part II DF with Parallel NPRM _RIN 2060- AR35_FRN_2012-01 -17

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review** *

10 of 49 Comments on the revisions rule identified Turk Unit 1 as commencing commercial operation on or after January 1, 2010, qualifying it as a new unit under the final Transport Rule’s unit - level allocation methodology (76 FR 48290); however, the final Transport Rule erroneously omitted this unit’s projected emissions from the calculation of Arkansas’ ozone - se ason NO X new unit set - aside. EPA is therefore revising the portion of the Arkansas ozone - season budget dedicated to the state’s new unit set - aside account so that it takes into account this unit’s projected emissions, consistent with the new unit set - aside methodology in the final Transport Rule. EPA is only applying this revision for 2014 and beyond, because the Agency has already recorded (i.e., distributed) allowances under the Arkansas state budget for the 2012 and 2013 control periods. Turk Unit 1 r emains eligible to request allowance allocation from the new unit set - asides for any control period under the program. This revision yields an ozone - season NO X new unit set - aside of 8 percent for 2014 and beyond for Arkansas . See “ Final Revisions Rule St ate Budgets and New Unit Set - Asides TSD” in the docket for this

### Summary of Interagency Working C omments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review_CSAPR Revisions Rule: Part II DF with Parallel NPRM _RIN 2060- AR35_FRN_2012-01 -17

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review** *

11 of 49 rulemaking for a quantitative demonstration of th e s e revision s . Th is revision to the Arkansas new unit set aside necessitates changes to allowance allocations to existing units in 2014 and be yond . See the “ Final Revisions Rule Unit - Level Allocations under the FIPs ” tables in the docket to this rulemaking. (2) Revise the Georgia SO 2, annual NO X , and ozone season NO X budgets for 2014 . In the final Transport Rule, EPA explained its intent to captu re “ reductions that occur due to state rules, consent decrees, and other planned changes in generation patterns that occur after 2012, but during or prior to 2014 ” in the 2014 state budgets (76 FR 48261). C ommenters on the revisions rule note d that EPA in advertently included pollution control installation requirements from a Georgia state rule whose deadlines at certain units actually extend beyond 2014 . To correct the alignment of the Georgia 2014 state budgets with the requirements for affected units in Georgia to install controls by the state rule’s deadlines, EPA is increasing Georgia’s 2014 state budgets by 40,334 tons of SO 2 , 13,198 tons of annual NO X , and 5,762 tons of

### Summary of Interagency Working C omments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review_CSAPR Revisions Rule: Part II DF with Parallel NPRM _RIN 2060- AR35_FRN_2012-01 -17

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review** *

12 of 49 ozone - season NO X . See “Final Revisions Rule State Budgets and New Unit Set - Aside s TSD” in the docket for this rulemaking for a quantitative demonstration of th e s e revision s . (3) Revise the Indiana SO 2 budgets for 2012 and 2014 . EPA is revis ing the Indiana 2012 and 2014 annual SO 2 budgets based on comments received on the proposed revision s rule (76 FR 63860, October 14, 2011) regarding post - combustion control status at Gallagher Units 2 and 4 . Commenters identified an erroneous assumption of flue gas desulphurization ( FGD , or scrubber) with 86 percent removal at units that have actually i nstalled dry sorbent injection ( DSI ) technology with a 70 percent removal rate. EPA has recalculated the projected emissions at these units, and that recalculation supports a 2,460 ton increase in the state’s annual SO 2 budget. Commenters on the revisio ns rule also identified a facility in Indiana , Gibson Unit 5, which currently face s immediate - term limitations regarding the amount of flue gas that can be treated in its existing FGD. In the final Transport Rule analysis, EPA relied on the SO 2 removal

### Summary of Interagency Working C omments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review_CSAPR Revisions Rule: Part II DF with Parallel NPRM _RIN 2060- AR35_FRN_2012-01 -17

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review** *

13 of 49 ef ficiency that this facility reported at its scrubber to the Energy Information Administration (EIA). However, EPA has since determined that this report ed value only intended to address the removal efficiency for the portion of the flue gas treated in the scrubber. EPA has recalculated the projected emissions for this unit using the most recent data reported by this facility to EIA on form 860 for 2009, which includes the scrubber’s removal efficiency and the portion of flue gas treated . This recalculatio n supports an increase to Indiana’s 2012 and 2014 budget of 1,873 tons . See “Final Revisions Rule State Budgets and New Unit Set - Asides TSD” in the docket for this rulemaking for a quantitative demonstration of these revisions . (4) Revise the Kansas SO 2 an d annual NO X budgets for 2012 and 2014 . C ommenters on the revisions rule provided information showing that one unit at the Quindaro plant in Kansas is i n an out - of - merit - order dispatch area with conditions likely to necessitate what would otherwise be non - economic generation. EPA re - calculated the emissions from this plant with non - economic generation to account for the input

### Summary of Interagency Working C omments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review_CSAPR Revisions Rule: Part II DF with Parallel NPRM _RIN 2060- AR35_FRN_2012-01 -17

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review** *

14 of 49 assumption changes. These calculations yield increases to the Kansas 2012 and 2014 state budgets for annual SO 2 of 268 tons and an nual NO X of 379 tons. See “Final Revisions Rule State Budgets and New Unit Set - Asides TSD” in the docket for this rulemaking for a quantitative demonstration of these revisions . In the final Transport Rule, EPA explained its intent to capture “ reductions that occur due to state rules, consent decrees, and other planned changes in generation patterns that occur after 2012, but during or prior to 2014 ” in the 2014 state budgets (76 FR 48261). C ommenters on the revisions rule note d that EPA inadvertently inc luded an emission rate requirement from a consent decree affecting a Kansas facility whose deadline actually extends beyond 2014 . To correct the alignment of the Kansas 2014 state budget with the requirements for affected units in Kansas to meet the emiss ion rate limitation by the consent decree’s deadlines, EPA is increasing the Kansas 2014 annual NO X budget by 5,154 tons . See “ Final Revisions Rule State Budgets and New Unit Set - Asides TSD” in the docket

### Summary of Interagency Working C omments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review_CSAPR Revisions Rule: Part II DF with Parallel NPRM _RIN 2060- AR35_FRN_2012-01 -17

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review** *

15 of 49 for this rulemaking for a quantitative demonstrati on of th e s e revision s . (5) Revise the Louisiana ozone season NO X budgets for 2012 and 2014 and adjust the ozone season new unit set - aside . EPA is increasing the Louisiana 2012 and 2014 ozone season NO X budget s based on comments received on the revisions rule demonstrat ing that the Stall and Lieberman plants are in an out - of - merit - order dispatch area with conditions likely to necessitate what would otherwise be non - economic generation. EPA re - calculated the emissions from the Stall and Lieberman plants with no n - economic generation to account for the input assumption changes. These calculations yield increases to Louisiana’s 2012 and 2014 state budgets for ozone - season NO X of 110 tons. See

“ Final Revisions Rule State Budgets and New Unit Set - Asides TSD” in the docket for this rulemaking for a quantitative demonstration of th e s e revision s . Comments on the revisions rule also noted that in calculating the Louisiana ozone - season NO X new unit set aside, EPA included projected emissions from a planned new

### Summary of Interagency Working C omments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review_CSAPR Revisions Rule: Part II DF with Parallel NPRM _RIN 2060- AR35_FRN_2012-01 -17

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review** *

16 of 49 facility, Washington Parish, which will not in fact come into service in Louisiana. EPA is therefore reducing the size of Louisiana’s ozone - season NO X new unit set - aside in 2012 and 2014 to 2 percent (from the previous 3 percent) to account for the exclusion of the se projected emissions from the relevant calculation . This revision means that fewer allowances will need to be held in reserve for the new unit set - aside; after this revision’s effective date, EPA will reallocate any allowances in excess of the revised n ew unit set - aside to existing units in the state by the same existing unit allowance allocation methodology as previously finalized. See “Final Revisions Rule Unit - Level Allocations under the FIPs” in the docket to this rulemaking. (6) Revise the Mississippi ozone season NO X budgets for 2012 and 2014 . EPA is increasing the Mississippi 2012 and 2014 ozone season NO X budget s based on comments received on the revisions rule demonstrat ing that the Moselle plant is in an out - of - merit - order dispatch area with condi tions likely

### Summary of Interagency Working C omments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review_CSAPR Revisions Rule: Part II DF with Parallel NPRM _RIN 2060- AR35_FRN_2012-01 -17

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review** *

17 of 49 to necessitate what would otherwise be non - economic generation. EPA re - calculated the emissions from the Moselle plant with non - economic generation to account for the input assumption changes. These calculations yield increases to Mississippi ’s 2012 and 2014 state budgets for ozone - season NO X of 115 tons. See “ Final Revisions Rule State Budgets and New Unit Set - Asides TSD” in the docket for this rulemaking for a quantitative demonstration of th e s e revision s . (7) Revise the Missouri annual and ozo ne season NO X budgets for 2012 and 2014 and correct the SO 2 , annual NO X , and ozone season NO X new unit set aside budget s for an omitted operating new facility . EPA is increasing the Missouri 2012 and 2014 annual and ozone - season NO X budgets to account for operational constraints at six plants based upon comments received on the revisions rule . The commenters provided information showing that these units were in out - of - merit - order

### Summary of Interagency Working C omments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review_CSAPR Revisions Rule: Part II DF with Parallel NPRM _RIN 2060- AR35_FRN_2012-01 -17

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review** *

18 of 49 dispatch areas with conditions likely to necessitate what would otherwise be non - economic generation. EPA re - calculated the emissions from these six plants with non - economic generation to account for the input assumption changes. These calculations yield increases to Missouri’s 2012 and 2014 state budgets for annual NO X of 26 tons and ozone - season NO X of 26 tons. See “ Final Revisions Rule State Budgets and New Unit Set - Asides TSD” in the docket for this rulemaking for a quantitative demonstration of th e s e revision s . Comments on the revisions rule identified Iatan Unit 2 as commenc ing commercial operation on or after January 1, 2010, qualifying it as a new unit under the final Transport Rule’s unit - level allocation methodology (76 FR 48290); however, the final Transport Rule erroneously omitted this unit’s projected emissions from t he calculation of Missouri’s new unit set - asides. EPA is therefore revising the portion of Missouri’s SO 2 , annual NO X , and ozone - season NO X budget s dedicated to the state’s new unit set - aside s so that they take into account this unit’s projected emissions , consistent with the new unit set - aside

### Summary of Interagency Working C omments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review_CSAPR Revisions Rule: Part II DF with Parallel NPRM _RIN 2060- AR35_FRN_2012-01 -17

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review** *

19 of 49 methodology in the final Transport Rule. EPA is only applying this revision for 2013 and beyond, because the Agency has already recorded (i.e., distributed) allowances under the Missouri state budget for the 2012 c ontrol period. Iatan Unit 2 remains eligible to request allowance allocation from the new unit set - asides for any control period under the program. This revision yields an ozone season NO X new unit set - aside of 6 percent , an annual NO X new unit set - aside of 6 percent , and an SO 2 new unit set aside of 3 percent for 2013 and beyond for Missouri. See

“ Final Revisions Rule State Budgets and New Unit Set - Asides TSD” in the docket for this rulemaking for a quantitative demonstration of th e s e revision s . This r evision to Missouri’s new unit set - aside necessitates changes to allowance allocations to existing units in 2013 and beyond. See the “ Final Revisions Rule Unit - Level Allocations under the FIPs ” tables in the docket to this rulemaking. (8) Revise the Ohio SO 2 , annual NO X , and ozone season NO X budgets for 2012 and 2014 . EPA is increasing Ohio’s 2012 and 2014 annual SO 2 , annual NO X , and ozone - season NO X budgets to account for

### Summary of Interagency Working C omments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review_CSAPR Revisions Rule: Part II DF with Parallel NPRM _RIN 2060- AR35_FRN_2012-01 -17

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review** *

20 of 49 operational constraints at two plants , Conesville and Muskingum River, based on commen ts received on the revisions rule . The commenter provided information showing that these plant s were in out - of - merit - order dispatch areas with conditions likely to necessitate what would otherwise be non - economic generation. EPA re - calculated the emission s from these two plants with non - economic generation to reflect the input assumption changes. These calculations yield increases to Ohio’s 2012 and 2014 state budgets for annual SO 2 of 15,963 tons, annual NO X of 1,644 tons, and ozone - season NO X of 843 ton s. EPA is finalizing additional adjustments to Ohio’s 2012 and 2014 annual and ozone - season NO X budgets to correct an erroneous assumption of an SCR at Bayshore 4. There is no SCR planned or under construction at this facility. This results in a 2,218 ton increase in the state’s annual NO X budget and a 964 ton increase for the ozone - season NO X budget. See “ Final Revisions Rule State Budgets and New Unit Set - Asides TSD” in the docket for this rulemaking for a quantitative demonstration of these revision s.

### Summary of Interagency Working C omments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review_CSAPR Revisions Rule: Part II DF with Parallel NPRM _RIN 2060- AR35_FRN_2012-01 -17

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review** *

21 of 49 (9) Revise the Nebraska SO 2 budgets for 2012 and 2014 . EPA is finalizing revisions to the Nebraska 2012 and 2014 SO 2 budgets, based on comments on the revisions rule , to correct assumptions regarding FGD pollution control technology at Whelan Energy Center Units 1 and 2 and Nebraska City Unit 2. The commenter noted that the technology at Nebraska Unit 2 and Whelan Unit 2 is dry FGD technology, whereas EPA had assumed wet FGD technology with a higher SO 2 removal efficiency than the actual dry FGD technology th at those units achieve . Additionally, EPA is also revising its assumption of FGD technology at Whelan Energy Center Unit 1. There is no FGD present, planned, or under construction at the unit. These adjustments result in an increase of 3,800 tons to t he 2012 and 2014 annual SO 2 budget s for the state. See “ Final Revisions Rule State Budgets and New Unit Set - Asides TSD” in the docket for this rulemaking for a quantitative demonstration of th e s e revision s . (10) Revise the New York SO 2 , annual NO X , and ozone season NO X budgets for 2012 and 2014 .

### Summary of Interagency Working C omments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review_CSAPR Revisions Rule: Part II DF with Parallel NPRM _RIN 2060- AR35_FRN_2012-01 -17

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review** *

22 of 49 EPA is increasing New York’s 2012 and 2014 annual SO 2 , annual NO X , and ozone - season NO X budgets based on comments received on the revisions rule demonstrat ing that the East River plant is in an out - of - merit - order disp atch area with conditions likely to necessitate what would otherwise be non - economic generation . EPA re - calculated the emissions from this facility with out - of - merit - order dispatch to reflect the input assumption changes. These calculations yield increas es to New York ’s 2012 and 2014 state budgets for annual SO 2 of 88 tons, annual NO X of 727 tons, and ozone - season NO X of 350 tons. EPA is also finalizing an adjustment of 5, 3 60 tons to New York’s 2012 and 2014 SO 2 budgets based on comments received on the revisions rule. Commenters identified two facilities , Dunkirk and Huntley , with existing dry sorbent injection ( DSI ) technology for which EPA had assumed a n SO 2 removal rate of 70 percent but which actually achieve s a removal rate of only 53 percent . EPA recalculated the projected emissions for these units based on this revised assumption and is increasing the New York 2012 and 2014 SO 2 budgets accordingly. See “ Final Revisions Rule State

### Summary of Interagency Working C omments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review_CSAPR Revisions Rule: Part II DF with Parallel NPRM _RIN 2060- AR35_FRN_2012-01 -17

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review** *

23 of 49 Budgets and New Unit Set - Asides TSD” in the docket for this rulemaking for a quantitative demonstration of th e s e revision s . (11) Revise the Oklahoma ozone - season NO X budgets for 2012 and 2014. EPA is increasing the Oklahoma 2012 and 2014 ozone season NO X budget based upon comments received on the revisions rule demonstrat ing that the Comanche plant is in an out - of - merit - order dispatch area with conditions likely to necessitate what would otherwise be non - economic generation. EPA re - calculated the emissions from the Comanche plant with non - economic generation to account for th e input assumption changes. These calculations yield increases to the Oklahoma 2012 and 2014 state budgets for ozone - season NO X of 3,006 tons. See “ Final Revisions Rule State Budgets and New Unit Set - Asides TSD” in the docket for this rulemaking for a qu antitative demonstration of th e s e revision s . (12) Revise the South Carolina SO 2 budgets for 2012 and 2014 .

### Summary of Interagency Working C omments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review_CSAPR Revisions Rule: Part II DF with Parallel NPRM _RIN 2060- AR35_FRN_2012-01 -17

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review** *

24 of 49 EPA is finalizing an 8,013 ton increase to South Carolina’s 2012 and 2014 annual SO 2 budgets based on comments received on the revision rule regarding po st combustion control technology at three units . This action revises the assumption of an FGD at the W S Lee Facility. There are no FGD s planned, under construction, or expected to be online in 2012 or 2014 at this facility. See “ Final Revisions Rule St ate Budgets and New Unit Set - Asides TSD” in the docket for this rulemaking for a quantitative demonstration of th e s e revision s . (13) Revise the Texas annual NO X and ozone season NO X budgets for 2012 and 2014. EPA is increasing the Texas 2012 and 2014 annual a nd ozone - season NO X budgets to account for operational constraints at six plants based on comments received on the revisions rule : Jones, Moore County, Nichols, Plant X, Knox Lee, and Wilkes . The commenters provided information showing that these plant s were in out - of - merit - order dispatch areas with conditions likely to necessitate what would otherwise be non - economic generation.

### Summary of Interagency Working C omments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review_CSAPR Revisions Rule: Part II DF with Parallel NPRM _RIN 2060- AR35_FRN_2012-01 -17

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review** *

25 of 49 EPA re - calculated the emissions from these plants with non - economic generation to account for the input assumption changes. Th ese calculations yield increases to the Texas 2012 and 2014 state budgets for annual NO X of 2,438 tons, and ozone - season NO X of 991 tons. See “ Final Revisions Rule State Budgets and New Unit Set - Asides TSD” in the docket for this rulemaking for a quantita tive demonstration of th e s e revision s . 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, Octob er 4, 1993), this action is a "significant regulatory action .” Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB ) for review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011 ) and any changes made in res ponse to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action. B. Paperwork Reduction Act

### Summary of Interagency Working C omments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review_CSAPR Revisions Rule: Part II DF with Parallel NPRM _RIN 2060- AR35_FRN_2012-01 -17

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review** *

26 of 49 This action does not impose any new information collection burden. This action makes relatively minor revisions to the emission budgets and allow ance allocations or allowance allocations only in certain states in the final Transport Rule and corrects minor technical errors which are ministerial . However, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the information collection r equirements contained in the final Transport Rule under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2060 - 0667 . The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9 . 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

### Summary of Interagency Working C omments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review_CSAPR Revisions Rule: Part II DF with Parallel NPRM _RIN 2060- AR35_FRN_2012-01 -17

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review** *

27 of 49 include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of thi s rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) a small business as defined by the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not - for - profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. After consider ing the economic impacts of today’s action on small entities, I certif y that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substa ntial number of small entities. The small entities directly regulated by this action are electric power generat ors whose ultimate parent entity has a total electric output of 4 million megawatt - hours (MWh) or less in the previous fiscal year. We have determined that the changes considered in this proposed rulemaking pose no additional

### Summary of Interagency Working C omments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review_CSAPR Revisions Rule: Part II DF with Parallel NPRM _RIN 2060- AR35_FRN_2012-01 -17

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review** *

28 of 49 burden for small entities. T he proposed revision to the new unit set - asides in Arkansas , Missouri, and Texas would yield an extremely small change in unit - level allowance allocations to existing units, including small entities, such that it would not affect the analysis conducted on small entity impacts under the finalized Transport Rule. In all other states, the revisions proposed in this rulemaking would yield additional allowance allocations to all units, including small entities, without increasing program stringency, such that i t is not possible for the impact to small entities to be any larger than that already considered and reviewed in the finalized Transport Rule.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures o f $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. This action is increasing the budgets and increasing the total number of allowances or maintaining the same budget but revising unit - l evel

### Summary of Interagency Working C omments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review_CSAPR Revisions Rule: Part II DF with Parallel NPRM _RIN 2060- AR35_FRN_2012-01 -17

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review** *

29 of 49 allocations in several other states in the Transport Rule. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA. In developing th e final Transport Rule, EPA consulted with small governments pursuant to a plan established u nder section 203 of UMRA to address impacts of regulatory requirements in the rule that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This action makes relatively minor revisions to the emissions budgets and allowance allocations or allowance allocations only in certain states in the final Transport Rule. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. EPA did provide information to state an d local officials during development of both the proposed and final Transport Rule.

### Summary of Interagency Working C omments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review_CSAPR Revisions Rule: Part II DF with Parallel NPRM _RIN 2060- AR35_FRN_2012-01 -17

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review** *

30 of 49 F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 1317 5 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action makes relatively minor revisions to the emissions budgets and allowance allocations in several states in the final Transport Rule and helps ease the transition from CAIR. Indian country new unit set - asides wi ll increase slightly or remain unchanged in the states affected by this action. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. EPA consulted with tribal officials during the process of promulgating the final Transport Rule to permit them to have meaningful and timely input into its development. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks This action is not subject to EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significa nt as defined in EO 12866, and because the Agency does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.

### Summary of Interagency Working C omments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review_CSAPR Revisions Rule: Part II DF with Parallel NPRM _RIN 2060- AR35_FRN_2012-01 -17

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review** *

31 of 49 Analyses by EPA that show how the emission reductions from the strategies in t he final Transport Rule will further improve air quality and children’s health can be found in the final Transport Rule RIA. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This actio n is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. EPA believes that there is no meaningful impact to the energy supply beyond that which is reported for the Transport Rule program in the final Transport Rule. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA ”), Public Law No. 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

### Summary of Interagency Working C omments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review_CSAPR Revisions Rule: Part II DF with Parallel NPRM _RIN 2060- AR35_FRN_2012-01 -17

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review** *

32 of 49 techn ical 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 Age ncy 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 require s all sources to meet the applicable monitoring requirements of 40 CFR part 75. Part 75 already incorporates a number of voluntary consensus standards. This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Action s 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 th e greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission

### Summary of Interagency Working C omments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review_CSAPR Revisions Rule: Part II DF with Parallel NPRM _RIN 2060- AR35_FRN_2012-01 -17

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review** *

33 of 49 by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, an d activities on minority populations and low - income populations in the United States. EPA has determined that this action will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low - income populations becaus e it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. EPA believes that the vast majority of communities and individuals in areas covered by the Transport Rule program inclusive of this action , including numerous low - in come, 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 on these communities is detailed in section XII.J of the preamble to the final Transport Rule. K. Congressional Review Act

### Summary of Interagency Working C omments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review_CSAPR Revisions Rule: Part II DF with Parallel NPRM _RIN 2060- AR35_FRN_2012-01 -17

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review** *

34 of 49 The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement F airness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A Major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective **[INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]**  . L. Judicial Review Petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION]. Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA indicates which Federal Courts of Appeal have ven ue for

### Summary of Interagency Working C omments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review_CSAPR Revisions Rule: Part II DF with Parallel NPRM _RIN 2060- AR35_FRN_2012-01 -17

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review** *

35 of 49 petitions of review of final actions by EPA. This section provides, in part, that petitions for review must be filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit if (i) the agency action consists of “nationally applicable regulation s promulgated, or final action taken, by the Administrator,” or (ii) such action is locally or regionally applicable, if “such action is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect and if in taking such action the Administrator finds and publish es that such action is based on such a determination.” Any final action related to the Transport Rule is “nationally applicable” within the meaning of section 307(b)(1). Through this rule, EPA interprets section 110 of the CAA, a provision which has natio nwide applicability. In addition, the Transport Rule applies to 27 States. The Transport Rule is also based on a common core of factual findings and analyses concerning the transport of pollutants between the different states subject to it. For these rea sons, the Administrator also is determining that any final action regarding the Transport Rule is of nationwide scope and effect for purposes of section

### Summary of Interagency Working C omments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review_CSAPR Revisions Rule: Part II DF with Parallel NPRM _RIN 2060- AR35_FRN_2012-01 -17

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review** *

36 of 49 307(b)(1). Thus, pursuant to section 307(b) any petitions for review of final actions regarding the Tr ansport Rule must be filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days from the date final action is published in the Federal Register. Filing a petition for reconsideration of this action does not affect the finality of th is rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. In addition, pursuant to CAA section 307(b)(2) this action ma y not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. List of Subjects **40 CFR Part 52** Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Particula te matter, Regional haze, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide.

### Summary of Interagency Working C omments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review_CSAPR Revisions Rule: Part II DF with Parallel NPRM _RIN 2060- AR35_FRN_2012-01 -17

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review** *

37 of 49 **40 CFR Part 97** Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Electric utilities, Nitrogen oxides, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide.

### Summary of Interagency Working C omments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review_CSAPR Revisions Rule: Part II DF with Parallel NPRM _RIN 2060- AR35_FRN_2012-01 -17

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review** *

38 of 49 **Revisions to Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone:**  **Part II** (page 3 4 of 49 )
Dated: ____________________

______________________________________________________ Lisa P. Jackson Administrator . For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part XX of chapter I of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: 1. Section 97.410 is amended by: a. Revising paragraphs (b)(4), (b)(5), and (b)(7); b. Revising paragraph (f);

### Summary of Interagency Working C omments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review_CSAPR Revisions Rule: Part II DF with Parallel NPRM _RIN 2060- AR35_FRN_2012-01 -17

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review** *

39 of 49 c. Revising parag raph (k); d. Revising paragraph (n); e. Revising paragraph (p); and f. Revising paragraph (t) to read as follows: §97.410 S tate NO X Annual trading budgets, new unit set asides, Indian country new unit set - aside, and variability limits . * * * * * (b) * * * ( 4 ) The NO X annual trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 53,738 tons . ( 5 ) The NO X annual new unit set - aside for 2014 and thereafter is 1,075 tons . (6) * * * (7) The NO X annual variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 9,673 tons. * * * * * (f) Kansas . (1) The NO X annual trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 31,093 tons. (2) The NO X annual new unit set - aside for 2012 and 2013 is

### Summary of Interagency Working C omments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review_CSAPR Revisions Rule: Part II DF with Parallel NPRM _RIN 2060- AR35_FRN_2012-01 -17

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review** *

40 of 49 591 tons. (3) The NO X annual Indian country new unit set - aside for 2012 and 2013 is 31 tons. (4) The NO X annual trading budge t for 2014 and thereafter is 31,093 tons. (5) The NO X annual new unit set - aside for 2014 and thereafter is 591x tons. (6) The NO X annual Indian country new unit set - aside for 2014 and thereafter is 31 tons. (7) The NO X annual variability limit for 201 4 and thereafter is 5,597 tons. * * * * * (k) Missouri . (1) The NO X annual trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 52, 400 tons. (2) The NO X annual new unit set - aside for 2012 is 1,572 tons and for 2013 is 3,144 tons. (3) [Reserved] (4) The NO X annual trad ing budget for 2014 and thereafter is 48, 743 tons. (5) The NO X annual new unit set - aside for 2014 and thereafter is 2, 9 25 tons.

### Summary of Interagency Working C omments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review_CSAPR Revisions Rule: Part II DF with Parallel NPRM _RIN 2060- AR35_FRN_2012-01 -17

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review** *

41 of 49 (6) [Reserved] (7) The NO X annual variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 8, 7 74 tons. * * * * * n) New York . (1) The NO X annual trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 21,755 tons. (2) The NO X annual new unit set - aside for 2012 and 2013 is 413 tons. (3) The NO X annual Indian country new unit set - aside for 2012 and 2013 is 22 tons. (4) The NO X annual trading budget for 201 4 and thereafter is 21,755 tons. (5) The NO X annual new unit set - aside for 2014 and thereafter is 413 tons. (6) The NO X annual Indian country new unit set - aside for 2014 and thereafter is 22 tons. (7) The NO X annual variability limit for 2014 and ther eafter is 3,916 tons. * * * * * (p) Ohio . (1) The NO X annual trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 96,565 tons.

### Summary of Interagency Working C omments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review_CSAPR Revisions Rule: Part II DF with Parallel NPRM _RIN 2060- AR35_FRN_2012-01 -17

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review** *

42 of 49 (2) The NO X annual new unit set - aside for 2012 and 2013 is 1,931 tons. (3) [Reserved] (4) The NO X annual trading budget for 2014 and thereaft er is 91,355 tons. (5) The NO X annual new unit set - aside for 2014 and thereafter is 1,827 tons. (6) [Reserved] (7) The NO X annual variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 16,444 tons. * * * * * (t) Texas . (1) The NO X annual trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 135,961 tons. (2) The NO X annual new unit set - aside for 2012 and 2013 is 5,302 tons. (3) The NO X annual Indian country new unit set - aside for 2012 and 2013 is 136 tons. (4) The NO X annual trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 135,961 t ons. (5) The NO X annual new unit set - aside for 2014 and thereafter is 5,302 tons.

### Summary of Interagency Working C omments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review_CSAPR Revisions Rule: Part II DF with Parallel NPRM _RIN 2060- AR35_FRN_2012-01 -17

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review** *

43 of 49 (6) The NO X annual Indian country new unit set - aside for 2014 and thereafter is 136 tons. (7) The NO X annual variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 24,473 tons. 2. Section 97.510 is amended by: a. Revising paragraph (b); b. Revising paragraphs (d)(4),(d)(5), and (d)(7); c. Revising paragraph (i); d. Revising paragraph (l); e. Revising paragraph (m); f. Revising paragraph (o); g. Revising paragraph (q); h. Revisi ng paragraph (r); and i. Revising paragraph (v), to read as follows: §97.510 S tate NO X Ozone Season trading budgets, new unit set - asides, Indian country new unit set - aside, and variability limits . * * * * * (b) Arkansas . (1) The NO X ozone season trading budget for

### Summary of Interagency Working C omments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review_CSAPR Revisions Rule: Part II DF with Parallel NPRM _RIN 2060- AR35_FRN_2012-01 -17

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review** *

44 of 49 2012 and 2013 is 15,110 tons. ( 2 ) The NO X ozone season new unit set - aside for 2012 and 2013 is 756 tons . ( 3 ) [Reserved] ( 4 ) The NO X ozone season trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 15,110 tons . (5) The NO X ozone season new unit set - aside for 2014 and thereafter is 1,209 tons . (6) [Reserved] (7) The NO X ozone season variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 3,173 tons. * * * * * (d) * * * (4) The NO X ozone season trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 24,041 tons . ( 5 ) The NO X ozo ne season new unit set - aside for 2014 and thereafter is 481 tons . (6) * * * (7) The NO X ozone season variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 5,049 tons. * * * * *

### Summary of Interagency Working C omments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review_CSAPR Revisions Rule: Part II DF with Parallel NPRM _RIN 2060- AR35_FRN_2012-01 -17

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review** *

45 of 49 (i) Louisiana . ( 1) The NO X ozone season trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 18,136 ton s. ( 2 ) The NO X ozone season new unit set - aside for 2012 and 2013 is 345 tons . ( 3 ) The NO X ozone season Indian country new unit set - aside for 2012 and 2013 is 18 tons . ( 4 ) The NO X ozone season trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 18,136 tons . (5) T he NO X ozone season new unit set - aside for 2014 and thereafter is 345 tons . (6) The NO X ozone season Indian country new unit set - aside for 2014 and thereafter is 18 tons . (7) The NO X ozone season variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 3,809 tons. * * * * * (l) Mississippi . ( 1) The NO X ozone season trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 12,429 tons. ( 2 ) The NO X ozone season new unit set - aside for 2012 and 2013 is 237 tons . ( 3 ) The NO X ozone season Indian country new unit set - aside for 2012 and 2013 is 12 tons .

### Summary of Interagency Working C omments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review_CSAPR Revisions Rule: Part II DF with Parallel NPRM _RIN 2060- AR35_FRN_2012-01 -17

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review** *

46 of 49 ( 4 ) The NO X ozone season trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 12,429 tons . (5) The NO X ozone season new unit set - aside for 2014 and thereafter is 237 tons . (6) The NO X ozone season Indian country new unit set - aside for 2014 and thereafte r is 12 tons . (7) The NO X ozone season variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 2,610 tons. * * * * * (m) Missouri . (1) The NO X ozone season trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 22, 788 tons. ( 2 ) The NO X ozone season new unit set - aside for 2012 is 684 tons and for 2013 is 1,367 tons . ( 3 ) [Reserved] ( 4 ) The NO X ozone season trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 21, 09 9 tons . (5) The NO X ozone season new unit set - aside for 2014 and thereafter is 1, 26 6 tons . (6) [Reserved] (7) The NO X ozone season variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 4, 43 1 tons.

### Summary of Interagency Working C omments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review_CSAPR Revisions Rule: Part II DF with Parallel NPRM _RIN 2060- AR35_FRN_2012-01 -17

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review** *

47 of 49 * * * * * (o) New York . ( 1) The NO X ozone season trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 10,592 tons. ( 2 ) The NO X ozone season new unit set - aside for 2012 and 2013 is 201 tons . ( 3 ) The NO X ozone season Indian country new unit set - aside for 2012 and 2013 is 11 tons . ( 4 ) The NO X ozone season trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 10,592 tons . (5) The NO X ozone season new unit set - aside for 2014 and thereafter is 201 tons . (6) The NO X ozone season In dian country new unit set - aside for 2014 and thereafter is 11 tons . (7) The NO X ozone season variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 2,224 tons. * * * * * (q) Ohio . (1) The NO X ozone season trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 41,870 tons. ( 2 ) The NO X ozone season new unit set - aside for 2012 and 2013 is 837 tons . ( 3 ) [Reserved]

### Summary of Interagency Working C omments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review_CSAPR Revisions Rule: Part II DF with Parallel NPRM _RIN 2060- AR35_FRN_2012-01 -17

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review** *

48 of 49 ( 4 ) The NO X ozone season trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 39,599 tons . (5) The NO X ozone season new unit set - aside for 2014 and thereafter is 792 tons . (6) [Reserved] (7) The NO X ozone season variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 8,316 tons. * * * * * (r) Oklahoma . (1) The NO X ozone season trading budget for 2012 is 39,633 tons and for 2013 is 24,901 tons. ( 2 ) The NO X ozone season new unit set - aside for 201 2 is 793 tons and for 2013 is 498 tons . ( 3 ) [Reserved] ( 4 ) The NO X ozone season trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 24,901 tons . (5) The NO X ozone season new unit set - aside for 2014 and thereafter is 498 tons . (6) [Reserved] (7) The NO X ozone se ason variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 5,229 tons. * * * * *

### Summary of Interagency Working C omments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review_CSAPR Revisions Rule: Part II DF with Parallel NPRM _RIN 2060- AR35_FRN_2012-01 -17

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review** *

49 of 49 (v) Texas .( 1) The NO X ozone season trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 66,856 tons. ( 2 ) The NO X ozone season new unit set - aside for 2012 and 2013 is 2,607 tons . ( 3 ) The NO X ozone sea son Indian country new unit set - aside for 2012 and 2013 is 67 tons . ( 4 ) The NO X ozone season trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 66,856 tons . (5) The NO X ozone season new unit set - aside for 2014 and thereafter is 2,607 tons . (6) The NO X ozone sea son Indian country new unit set - aside for 2014 and thereafter is 67 tons . (7) The NO X ozone season variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 14,040 tons. 3. Section 97.610 is amended by revising paragraph s (b), (g), (i), and (k) to read as follows: §97.610 S tate SO 2 Group 1 trading budgets, new unit set asides, Indian country new unit set - aside, and variability limits . (b) Indiana . (1) The SO 2 trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is

### Summary of Interagency Working C omments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review_CSAPR Revisions Rule: Part II DF with Parallel NPRM _RIN 2060- AR35_FRN_2012-01 -17

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review** *

50 of 49 289,757 tons. ( 2 ) The SO 2 new unit set - aside for 2012 and 2013 is 8,693 tons . ( 3 ) [Reserved] ( 4 ) The SO 2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 165,444 tons . (5) The SO 2 new unit set - aside for 2014 and thereafter is 4,963 tons . (6) [Reserved] (7) The SO 2 variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 29,780 tons. * * * * * (g) Missouri . (1) [Reserved] ( 2 ) The SO 2 new unit set - aside for 2012 is 4,149 tons and for 2013 is 6,224 tons . ( 3 ) [Reserved] ( 4 ) [Reserved] (5) The SO 2 new unit set - aside for 2014 and thereafter is 4,978 tons . (6) [Reserved] (7) [Reserved]

### Summary of Interagency Working C omments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review_CSAPR Revisions Rule: Part II DF with Parallel NPRM _RIN 2060- AR35_FRN_2012-01 -17

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review** *

51 of 49 * * * * * (i) New York . ( 1) The SO 2 trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 36,300 tons. ( 2 ) The SO 2 new unit set - aside for 2012 and 2013 is 690 tons . ( 3 ) The SO 2 Indian country new unit set - aside for 2012 and 2013 is 36 tons . ( 4 ) The SO 2 trading budget for 20 14 and thereafter is 27,560 tons . (5) The SO 2 new unit set - aside for 2014 and thereafter is 523 tons . (6) The SO 2 Indian country new unit set - aside for 2014 and thereafter is 28 tons . (7) The SO 2 variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 4,961 tons. * * * * * (k) Ohio . (1) The SO 2 trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 326,193 tons. ( 2 ) The SO 2 new unit set - aside for 2012 and 2013 is 6,524 tons .

### Summary of Interagency Working C omments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review_CSAPR Revisions Rule: Part II DF with Parallel NPRM _RIN 2060- AR35_FRN_2012-01 -17

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review** *

52 of 49 ( 3 ) [Reserved] ( 4 ) The SO 2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 153,040 tons . (5) The SO 2 new unit s et - aside for 2014 and thereafter is 3,061 tons . (6) [Reserved] (7) The SO 2 variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 27,547 tons. * * * * * 4. Section 97.710 is amended by: a. Revising paragraphs (b)(4), (b)(5), and (b)(7); b. Revising paragraph (c); c. Revising paragraphs (e); and d. Revising paragraphs (f); to read as follows: §97.710 S tate SO 2 Group 2 trading budgets, new unit set asides, Indian country new unit set - aside, and variability limits. * * * * * (b) * * * (4) The SO 2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 135,565 tons .

### Summary of Interagency Working C omments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review_CSAPR Revisions Rule: Part II DF with Parallel NPRM _RIN 2060- AR35_FRN_2012-01 -17

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review** *

53 of 49 ( 5 ) The SO 2 new unit set - aside for 2014 and thereafter is 2,711 tons . (6) * * * (7) The SO 2 variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 24,402 tons. * * * * * (c) Kansas . (1) The SO 2 trading budget for 2012 and 201 3 is 41,796 tons. ( 2 ) The SO 2 new unit set - aside for 2012 and 2013 is 794 tons . ( 3 ) The SO 2 Indian country new unit set - aside for 2012 and 2013 is 42 tons . ( 4 ) The SO 2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 41,796 tons . (5) The SO 2 new unit set - aside for 2014 and thereafter is 794 tons . (6) The SO 2 Indian country new unit set - aside for 2014 and thereafter is 42 tons . (7) The SO 2 variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 7,523 tons. * * * * *

### Summary of Interagency Working C omments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review_CSAPR Revisions Rule: Part II DF with Parallel NPRM _RIN 2060- AR35_FRN_2012-01 -17

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review** *

54 of 49 (e) Nebraska . (1) The SO 2 trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 68,852 tons. ( 2 ) The SO 2 new unit set - aside for 2012 and 2013 is 2,685 tons . ( 3 ) The SO 2 Indian country new unit set - aside for 2012 and 2013 is 69 tons . ( 4 ) The SO 2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 68,852 tons . (5) The SO 2 new unit se t - aside for 2014 and thereafter is 2,685 tons . (6) The SO 2 Indian country new unit set - aside for 2014 and thereafter is 69 tons . (7) The SO 2 variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 12,393 tons. * * * * * (f) South Carolina . (1) The SO 2 trading budg et for 2012 and 2013 is 96,633 tons. ( 2 ) The SO 2 new unit set - aside for 2012 and 2013 is 1,836 tons . ( 3 ) The SO 2 Indian country new unit set - aside for 2012 and 2013 is 97 tons .

### Summary of Interagency Working C omments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review_CSAPR Revisions Rule: Part II DF with Parallel NPRM _RIN 2060- AR35_FRN_2012-01 -17

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review** *

55 of 49 ( 4 ) The SO 2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 96,633 tons . (5) The SO 2 new unit set - aside for 2014 and thereafter is 1,836 tons . (6) The SO 2 Indian country new unit set - aside for 2014 and thereafter is 97 tons . (7) The SO 2 variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 17,394 tons.

### Summary of Interagency Working C omments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review_CSAPR Revisions Rule: Part II DF with Parallel NPRM _RIN 2060- AR35_FRN_2012-01 -17

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review** *

1 of 5 **ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 C** **FR Parts 5**  **2 and 97**  **[ EPA** **- HQ**  **- OAR** **- 200**  **9 -**  **0491 ; FRL**  **- ]** 
**RIN 2060**  **- AR35**  **Revisions to Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone**  **: Part II**  **AGENCY:** Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). **ACTION:** Propo sed r ule. **SUMMARY :**  EPA is proposing additional revisions to certain portions of the Transport Rule (Federal Implementation Plans: Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and Correction of SIP Approvals, 76 FR 48208 (August

### Summary of Interagency Working C omments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review_CSAPR Revisions Rule: Part II DF with Parallel NPRM _RIN 2060- AR35_FRN_2012-01 -17

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review** *

2 of 5 8, 2011) . Th e final Transport Rule limits the interstate transport of emissions of nitrogen oxides (NO X ) and sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) that contribute harmful levels of fine particle matter and ozone in downwind states. A fter the final rule was published, it was brought t o our attention that the re are some incorrect data assumptions that affect a few states’ budgets or new unit set - asides in the rule text . EPA proposed revisions to the final Transport Rule on October 14, 2011 (76 FR 63860) based on this new information an d sought comment on additional unit - level information addressing post - combustion pollution control equipment and operational requirements necessitating non economic generation of a unit. EPA is finalizing the earlier specifically proposed revisions in a s eparate action. EPA has reviewed the information provided in comments addressing the topics described above and proposes to determine that the unit - level adjustments described in the preamble to the direct final are merited . **DATES :**  Written comments must be received by [INSERT DATE 3 0 DAYS FROM PUBLICATION] .

### Summary of Interagency Working C omments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review_CSAPR Revisions Rule: Part II DF with Parallel NPRM _RIN 2060- AR35_FRN_2012-01 -17

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review** *

3 of 5 **ADDRESSES:** Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0 491 , by mail to : Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1 200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20460. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in the **ADDRESSES** section of the direct final rule located in the rules section of th is Federal Register . **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:** Gabrielle Stevens **,** U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Clean Air Markets Division, MC 6204J, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460, telephone (202) 343 - 9 2 5 2 , e - mail at stevens.gabrielle @epa.gov. Electronic copies of this document can be accessed through the EPA Website at: http://epa.gov/airmarkets . **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:** This document proposes to take action on certain por tions of the Transport Rule. We finalized a rule to address discrepancies in unit - specific modeling assumptions that affect the propose d calculation of Transport Rule state budgets in Florida, Louisiana,

### Summary of Interagency Working C omments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review_CSAPR Revisions Rule: Part II DF with Parallel NPRM _RIN 2060- AR35_FRN_2012-01 -17

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review** *

4 of 5 Michigan, Missis si ppi, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Yo rk, Texas and Wisco n sin, as well as new unit set - asides in Arkansas and Texas (see 76 FR 63860, October 14, 2011). We are issuing a direct final rule , in parallel with this proposal, based on comments received on the Revisions Rule proposal, to amend the August 8, 2011 final regulation (76 FR 4820 8) by correcting annual NO X budgets in Georgia, Kansas, Missouri, New York, Ohio, and Texas; ozone - season NO X budgets in Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Texas ; SO 2 budgets in Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, and South Carolina; and new unit set - aside budget s in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Missouri. We have explained our reasons for this action in the preamble to the direct final rule. If we receive no significant adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule. If we receive adverse comment, we will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take effect. We would address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule.

### Summary of Interagency Working C omments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review_CSAPR Revisions Rule: Part II DF with Parallel NPRM _RIN 2060- AR35_FRN_2012-01 -17

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review** *

5 of 5 We do not intend to institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further information, please see the information provided in the **ADDRESSES** section of this document.

**Revisions to Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone**  **: Part II**  (page 5 of 5 )

Dated: ____________________

### Summary of Interagency Working C omments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. *** E.O. 12866 Review_CSAPR Revisions Rule: Part II DF with Parallel NPRM _RIN 2060- AR35_FRN_2012-01 -17

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review** *

6 of 5 ______________________________________________________ **Lisa P. Jackson** Administrator .