```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 132 (Monday, July 11, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40662-40670]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17456]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 97

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

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; supplemental.

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

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

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

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. OAR-EPA-
HQ-OAR-2009-0491, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Agency Web site: http://www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET, 
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, is EPA's preferred 
method for receiving comments. Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
     E-mail: A-and-R-Docket@epa.gov.
     Fax: (202) 566-1741.
     Mail: Air Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. 
Please include a total of two copies.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center (Air Docket), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 
B102, Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during 
the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should 
be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0491. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be 
included in the public docket without change and may be made available 
online at http://www.epa.gov/edocket, including any personal 
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed 
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information 
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through EDOCKET, 
regulations.gov, or e-mail. The EPA EDOCKET and the Federal 
regulations.gov Web sites are ``anonymous access'' systems, which means 
EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you 
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment 
directly to EPA without going through EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your 
e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of 
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on 
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that 
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your 
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties

[[Page 40663]]

and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to 
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special 
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or 
viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the EDOCKET index 
at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically in EDOCKET or in hard 
copy at the Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution 
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the 
telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742. This Docket 
Facility is open from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is (929) 566-
1742, fax (202) 566-1741.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions concerning today's action 
should be addressed to Ms. Doris Price, Clean Air Markets Division, 
Office of Atmospheric Programs, Mail Code 6204J, Environmental 
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; 
telephone number: (202) 343-9067; fax number: (202) 343-2356; e-mail 
address: price.doris@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Hearing

    A public hearing, if requested, will be held in Room 4128 at USEPA 
West (EPA West) [Old Customs Building], 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20004 on July 21, 2011, beginning at 9 a.m.
    If you wish to request a hearing and present testimony or attend 
the hearing, you should notify, on or before July 14, 2011, Ms. Doris 
Price, Clean Air Markets Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Mail 
Code 6204J, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, 
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 343-9067; fax 
number: (202) 343-2356; e-mail address: price.doris@epa.gov. Oral 
testimony will be limited to 5 minutes each. The hearing will be 
strictly limited to the subject matter of the proposal, the scope of 
which is discussed below. Any member of the public may file a written 
statement by the close of the comment period.
    Written statements (duplicate copies preferred) should be submitted 
to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491, at the address listed above for 
submitted comments. The hearing location and schedule, including lists 
of speakers, will be posted on EPA's webpage at http://www.epa.gov/airtransport.
    A verbatim transcript of the hearing and written statements will be 
made available for copying during normal working hours at the Office of 
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center at the address listed 
for inspection for documents.
    If no requests for a public hearing are received by close of 
business on July 14, 2011, a hearing will not be held and this 
announcement will be made on the webpage at the address shown above.

Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations

    The following are abbreviations of terms used in this SNPR:

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

Outline

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

I. Today's Proposal

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

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

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

[[Page 40664]]

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

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

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

A. EPA's Authority for This Rule

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

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

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

[[Page 40665]]

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

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

[[Page 40666]]

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

C. Ozone Season NOX Emission Budgets for Six States

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 40667]]

D. Allocation of Allowances to Covered Units

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

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

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

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

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

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

E. Implementation

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

[[Page 40668]]

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

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

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

F. Expected Effects of the Proposed Action

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

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

II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

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

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

[[Page 40669]]

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

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

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

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

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

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

[[Page 40670]]

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

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

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

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

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

40 CFR Part 97

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

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