Page 1 of 36

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 97

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491; FRL- ]

[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 
Page 2 of 36

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, D.C. 20004 on July 21, 

2011, beginning at 9:00 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 Website: 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 
Page 3 of 36

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 email. The EPA EDOCKET and the Federal regulations.gov 

websites 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 email comment directly to EPA without going through EDOCKET or

regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically

captured and included as part of the comment that is placed

in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If

you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you

include your name and other contact information in the body

of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If

EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties

and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able 

to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the 

use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be 

free of any defects or viruses.

Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the

EDOCKET index at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although listed 
Page 4 of 36

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 8:00 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, D.C. 20004 on July 21, 

2011, beginning at 9:00 a.m.
Page 5 of 36

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
Page 6 of 36

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
Page 7 of 36

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 
Page 8 of 36

created in the Transport Rule1 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 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 

 

1 Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate 

Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone in 27 States; 

Correction of SIP Approvals for 22 States: Final Rule. 

Available on the Web at http://www.epa.gov/airtransport.
Page 9 of 36

methodology used to identify any specific state’s significant 

contribution and interference with maintenance; the 

methodologies used to establish state budgets, variability 

limits, and state assurance levels; or the methodologies used 

to allocate allowances to existing units, to establish new 

unit set-asides and Indian country new unit set-asides, or to 

allocate allowances in these set-asides. EPA provided an 

adequate opportunity for public comment on all of these 

issues during the comment period for the proposed Transport 

Rule and during the comment periods for the associated 

Notices of Data Availability (NODAs).

2 EPA received numerous 

comments on the proposed Transport Rule and on the associated 

NODAs and considered all comments received during the comment 

periods for these actions before finalizing the Transport 

Rule. 

 

2

 Notice of Data Availability Supporting Federal 

Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine 

Particulate Matter and Ozone (75 FR 53613; September 1, 

2010). This NODA provided additional information on an 

updated version of the power sector modeling platform and 

data inputs EPA proposed to use to support the final 

Transport Rule.

Notice of Data Availability Supporting Federal 

Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine 

Particulate Matter and Ozone: Revisions to Emission 

Inventories (75 FR 66055; October 27, 2010).

Notice of Data Availability for Federal Implementation 

Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate 

Matter and Ozone: Request for Comment on Alternative 

Allocations, Calculation of Assurance Provision Allowance 

Surrender Requirements, New-Unit Allocations in Indian 

Country, and Allocations by States (76 FR 1109; January 7, 

2011).
Page 10 of 36

EPA is also not taking comment on the emissions 

inventories used for the final Transport Rule modeling, 

including the emissions inventories for the six states 

identified above. EPA provided ample opportunity for comment 

on these inventories during the comment period for the 

proposed Transport Rule and the comment periods for the NODAs 

associated with that proposal. Inventories for all states 

included in the modeling domain were made available for 

public comment during that process. EPA made numerous 

changes to these inventories in response to public comments. 

Furthermore, the public had an incentive to comment on the 

inventories for these six states, not only because these 

inventories affect the modeling for all states in the 

modeling domain, but also because EPA was proposing to 

include all six states in at least one of the Transport Rule 

trading programs and the inventories were used for allocating 

the emissions allowances to covered units. EPA proposed to 

include Kansas and Michigan in the ozone-season NOX, annual 

NOX, and annual SO2 programs, proposed to include Oklahoma in 

the ozone-season NOX program, and proposed to include Iowa, 

Missouri and Wisconsin in the annual NOX and annual SO2

programs. Commenters therefore had reason to look closely at 

the 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 
Page 11 of 36

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 
Page 12 of 36

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 

 

3 Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate 

Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions to 

Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NOx SIP Call promulgated 

May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162)
Page 13 of 36

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. 

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 
Page 14 of 36

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 
Page 15 of 36

proposal, EPA proposed to determine that Kansas significantly 

contributes to or interferes with maintenance of the 1997 

ozone NAAQS and also proposed to include Kansas in the 

Transport Rule ozone-season NOX program. In the analysis 

conducted for the final Transport Rule, however, Kansas is 

linked only to a newly-identified ozone maintenance receptor 

in Allegan County, MI. The methodology used to analyze 

significant contribution with respect to the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS, and its application to Kansas, is described in detail 

in the preamble to the final Transport Rule and in the TSDs 

entitled “Air Quality Modeling Final Rule TSD” and 

“Significant Contribution and State Emission Budgets Final 

Rule TSD,” which are available in the public docket for this 

rule. In this SNPR, EPA specifically requests comment on 

whether there are errors in the Agency’s application of the 

Transport Rule methodologies with respect to Kansas’s 

significant contribution to nonattainment and interference of 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS.

iii. Michigan

The final Transport Rule determined that emissions from 

Michigan significantly contribute to nonattainment or 

interfere with maintenance of the annual and 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. EPA also finalized FIPs to include Michigan in the 

Transport Rule annual NOX and annual SO2 programs to address 

the transport requirements related to the annual and 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. These conclusions are not being reviewed or 

reopened for public comment.

The analysis for the final Transport Rule also 

identifies Michigan as a state that significantly contributes 

to nonattainment or interferes with maintenance of the 1997 

ozone NAAQS in another state. In its 2010 Transport Rule 
Page 16 of 36

proposal, EPA proposed to determine that Michigan 

significantly contributes to or interferes with maintenance 

of the 1997 ozone NAAQS and also proposed to include Michigan 

in the Transport Rule ozone-season NOX program. In the 

analysis conducted for the final Transport Rule, however, 

Michigan is linked only to a newly-identified ozone 

maintenance receptor in Harford County, MD. The methodology 

used to analyze significant contribution with respect to the 

1997 ozone NAAQS, and its application to Michigan, is 

described in detail in the preamble to the final Transport 

Rule and in the TSDs entitled “Air Quality Modeling Final 

Rule TSD” and “Significant Contribution and State Emission 

Budgets Final Rule TSD,” which are available in the public 

docket for this rule. In this SNPR, EPA specifically 

requests comment on whether there are errors in the Agency’s 

application of the Transport Rule methodologies with respect 

to Michigan’s significant contribution to nonattainment and 

interference of the 1997 ozone NAAQS.

iv. Missouri

With regard to Missouri, the final Transport Rule 

determined that emissions from Missouri significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of 

the annual PM2.5 NAAQS and the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA also 

finalized FIPs to include Missouri in the Transport Rule 

annual NOX and annual SO2 programs to address the transport 

requirements related to the annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

These conclusions are not being reviewed or reopened for 

public comment.

The analysis for the final Transport Rule also 

identifies Missouri as a state that significantly contributes 

to nonattainment or interferes with maintenance of the 1997 
Page 17 of 36

ozone NAAQS in Harris County, TX, Brazoria County, TX, and 

Allegan County, MI. The methodology used to analyze 

significant contribution with respect to the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS, and its application to Missouri, is described in 

detail in the preamble to the final Transport Rule and in the 

TSDs entitled “Air Quality Modeling Final Rule TSD” and 

“Significant Contribution and State Emission Budgets Final 

Rule TSD,” which are available in the public docket for this 

rule, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0491. In this SNPR, EPA 

requests comment specifically on whether there are errors in 

the Agency’s application of the Transport Rule methodologies 

with respect to Missouri’s significant contribution to 

nonattainment and interference of the 1997 ozone NAAQS.

v. Oklahoma

The final Transport Rule does not include any 

requirements that apply to sources in Oklahoma. The analysis 

conducted for the final Transport Rule, however, identifies 

Oklahoma as a state that significantly contributes to 

nonattainment or interferes with maintenance of the 1997 

ozone NAAQS in Allegan County, MI. In its 2010 Transport 

Rule proposal, EPA proposed to determine that Oklahoma 

significantly contributes to or interferes with maintenance 

of the 1997 ozone NAAQS and also proposed to include Oklahoma

in the Transport Rule ozone-season NOX program. In the 

analysis conducted for the final Transport Rule, however, 

Oklahoma is linked only to a newly-identified ozone 

maintenance receptor in Allegan County, MI. The methodology 

used to analyze significant contribution with respect to the 

1997 ozone NAAQS, and its application to Oklahoma, is 

described in detail in the preamble to the final Transport 

Rule and in the TSDs entitled “Air Quality Modeling Final 
Page 18 of 36

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 
Page 19 of 36

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

 

4 The applicability provisions for determining covered 

units in the named six states for the Transport Rule ozone 

season NOX program are the same as those described in section 

VII.B, “Applicability,” of the preamble to the final 

Transport Rule. 
Page 20 of 36

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)

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

Emission 

Variability Limit 

(tons)

State Emission 

Assurance Level 

(tons)

Note: Variability limits and assurance levels apply to 

each state’s emissions from covered sources, as defined 

by Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate 

Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone in 27 

States; Correction of SIP Approvals for 22 States: 

Final Rule.

D. Allocation of Allowances to Covered Units

The proposed unit-level allocations of ozone season NOX

allowances to existing covered units in Iowa, Kansas, 

Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin are presented in 

the TSD entitled “Proposed Unit-Level Ozone Season NOX

Allowance Allocations to Existing Units in Six States: 

Supplemental Proposed Rule TSD,” which is available in the 

public docket for this rule and on the Web at 

http://www.epa.gov/airtransport. The methodology and 

procedures used for allocations to units covered by the 
Page 21 of 36

Transport Rule ozone season NOX program are specified in 

section VII.D, ”Allocation of Emission Allowances,” of the 

preamble to the final Transport Rule and in the TSD entitled 

“Allowance Allocation Final Rule TSD,” which is available in 

the public docket for this rule. The TSD entitled “Proposed 

Unit-Level Ozone Season NOX Allowance Allocations to Existing 

Units in Six States: Supplemental Proposed Rule TSD” also 

describes how to access publicly available downloadable Excel 

spreadsheets with the proposed unit-level allowance 

allocations and the supporting data EPA used in applying the 

final Transport Rule existing unit allocation methodology to 

eligible units in each of the named states in this SNPR on 

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

EPA is taking comment only on the data inputs (e.g., 

corrections to the heat input value used for any particular 

unit) used in applying the allowance allocation methodology 

for existing units and on the resulting existing-unit 

allocations that we are proposing for the six states 

involved. EPA provided ample opportunity for comment on the 

methodologies used for allowance allocation and for 

establishing the set-asides both in the public comment period 

following the rule proposal and through the January 7, 2011 

NODA. As discussed in section VII.D.1, “Allocations to 

Existing Units” of the preamble to the final Transport Rule, 

EPA has carefully evaluated and responded to numerous 

comments on this issue. These public comments were taken 

into account when finalizing the Transport Rule.5

 

5 EPA made some corrections to heat input data based on 

comments received from sources correcting such data.
Page 22 of 36

EPA is proposing that new unit set-asides for allowance 

allocations to new units be created and implemented for each 

of these six states in the same manner as for the other 

states covered in the Transport Rule ozone season NOX

program. This approach is described in section VII.D.2, 

“Allocations to New Units,” of the preamble to the final 

Transport Rule. Table I.D-1 shows the proposed new 

allocation percentages for ozone season NOX allowances for

Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin. 

As noted above, EPA is taking comment only on the application 

of the new unit set-aside methodology to these states and on 

the resulting set-asides that we are proposing (i.e., whether 

the percentages for the set-asides are calculated properly). 

EPA provided ample opportunity for comment on the new unit 

set-aside methodology in the public comment period following 

the rule proposal. 

Table I.D-1: State New Unit Set-Asides as a Percent of 

State Ozone Season NOX Emission Budgets

Ozoneseason NOx

Iowa 2%

Kansas 2%

Michigan 2%

Missouri 3%

Oklahoma 2%

Wisconsin 6%

As described in section VII.D.2, “Allocations to New 

Units,” of the preamble to the final Transport Rule, EPA is 

providing a mechanism to make allowances available in the 

future for new units built in Indian country. Table I.D-2

shows the Indian Country set-asides EPA is proposing to use 

to set aside ozone-season NOX allowances from the budgets of 
Page 23 of 36

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 setasides 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

F. 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 
Page 24 of 36

deficient. The TSD entitled “Status of CAA 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIPs: Supplemental Proposed Rule TSD” 

identifies actions taken by EPA with respect to the 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP requirements for the named states with 

respect to the relevant NAAQS. This TSD demonstrates that 

EPA has authority and a legal obligation to promulgate each

FIP proposed in this SNPR.

To be consistent and synchronize with the other states 

covered by the Transport Rule ozone season NOX program, EPA 

has not adjusted the timing for compliance with the Transport 

Rule programs for these states.6 EPA expects to finalize 

this rulemaking on or before November 1, 2011; the ozone 

season for 2012 does not begin until May 1, 2012. This will 

allow an approximately six-month lead time before the start 

of the 2012 ozone season. The vast majority of covered 

sources already have combustion controls installed; 

therefore, EPA expects that only a small number of sources 

will need to install combustion controls to comply, and the 

total number of installations is practical to achieve within 

the time period for additional construction. Individual 

sources may comply through other measures (such as purchasing 

additional allowances) in the event that it takes a 

 

6 As explained in the TSD, EPA proposed a SIP call 

requiring Kansas to address its deficiency for the 1997 Ozone 

NAAQS 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements (76 FR 763). EPA 

intends to finalize the SIP call concurrent with the 

finalization of this action. This will enable Kansas to use 

the same remedy as the other states covered by the final 

Transport Rule ozone season NOX program. (Specifically, 

Kansas may request--through a letter submitted to EPA within 

three weeks of the final SIP call--that the Kansas ozone FIP 

be implemented at the same time as the other states.)
Page 25 of 36

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 

 

7 This TSD for Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce 

Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone in 

27 States; Correction of SIP Approvals for 22 States: Final 

Rule is incorporated in its entirety by reference into this 

SNPR.
Page 26 of 36

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” 
Page 27 of 36

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.
Page 28 of 36

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

EPA is required to document the information collection 

burden imposed by the Transport Rule program on industry, 

States, and EPA in an information collection request (ICR). 

The ICR describes the information collection requirements 

associated with the final Transport Rule program inclusive of 

this proposal and estimates the incremental costs of 

compliance with all such requirements, such as the 

requirement for industry to monitor, record, and report 

emissions data to EPA.

The ICR for the Transport Rule Program inclusive of this 

proposal has been submitted for approval to OMB under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and the 

information collection requirements it documents are not 

enforceable until such approval has been granted. An ICR was 

also submitted to OMB in support of the proposed Transport 

Rule; no adverse comment was received by EPA on either the 

information collection requirements or their associated cost 

estimates as described in that document.
Page 29 of 36

EPA believes that there are no information collection 

requirements or burden beyond those reported in the Transport 

Rule program inclusive of this proposal.

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, EPA certifies 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. EPA believes that the provisions of 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act are covered by and reported in 

section XII.C of the preamble to the final Transport Rule.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, requires federal agencies, unless 

otherwise prohibited by law, to assess the effects of their 

regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments 

and the private sector. The Transport Rule program inclusive
Page 30 of 36

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 NODA8 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 

 

8

 76 FR 1109 (January 7, 2011).
Page 31 of 36

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 
Page 32 of 36

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; 
Page 33 of 36

or (2) that is designated by the Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy 

action.” This rule is a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866, and this rule is likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or 

use of energy. EPA prepared a Statement of Energy Effects

for the transport Rule program inclusive of this proposal 

which appears in section XII.H of the preamble to the final 

Transport Rule.

EPA believes that there is no impact to the energy 

supply beyond that which is reported for the Transport Rule 

program inclusive of this proposal in the final Transport 

Rule.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 104–113, 

12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary 

consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do 

so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business practices) that are 

developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. 

NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and 

applicable voluntary consensus standards. As described in 

section XII.I of the preamble to the final Transport Rule, 

the Transport Rule program inclusive of this proposal will 

require all sources to meet the applicable monitoring 
Page 34 of 36

requirements of 40 CFR part 75. Part 75 already incorporates 

a number of voluntary consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income

Populations

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) 

establishes federal executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the

greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make 

environmental justice part of their mission by identifying 

and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental effects of their 

programs, policies, and activities on minority, low-income, 

and Tribal populations in the United States. During 

development of this Transport Rule program inclusive of this 

proposal, EPA considered its impacts on low-income, minority, 

and tribal communities in several ways and provided multiple 

opportunities for these communities to meaningfully 

participate in the rulemaking process. As described in 

section XII.J of the preamble to the final transport Rule, 

EPA believes that the final remedy in the Transport Rule 

program inclusive of this proposal addresses potential 

environmental justice concerns about localized hot spots and 

reduces ambient concentrations of pollution where they are 

most needed by sensitive and vulnerable populations.

EPA believes that the vast majority of communities and 

individuals in areas covered by the Transport Rule program 

inclusive of this proposal, including numerous low-income, 

minority, and tribal individuals and communities in both 

rural areas and inner cities in the eastern and central U.S., 
Page 35 of 36

will see significant improvements in air quality and 

resulting improvements in health. EPA’s assessment of the 

effects of the final Transport Rule program inclusive of this 

proposal on these communities is detailed in section XII.J of 

the preamble to the final Transport Rule. Based on this 

assessment, EPA concludes that we do not expect 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority, low-income, or tribal 

populations in the United States as a result of implementing 

the Transport Rule program inclusive of this proposal.
Page 36 of 36

Federal Implementation Plans for Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, 

Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin to Reduce Interstate 

Transport of Ozone — Page 36 of 36

List of Subjects in 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 97

Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution 

control, Electric utilities, Nitrogen oxides, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide. 

___________________________________

Dated: 

___________________________________

Lisa P. Jackson,

Administrator