### Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

1 **Revisions to Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone**  1. Understanding the time constraints for this review, and that this is a proposal, m any reviewers nevertheless have requested more time to review the proposed rule , noting that the proposed changes could a ffect their regulated entities, stakeholders, and/or borrowers. These reviewers strongly request that at the final rule st age they are afforded more review time. 2. Most reviewers requested further documentation in support of the rule , and m any reviewers requested further explanation from EPA as to how the technical support documents (TSDs ) were constructed. Those reviewers have provided more specific analytical question along these lines below.
3. Since this draft rule amends an economically significant rule, several reviewers recommended that EPA provide an updated RIA for CSAPR, and note incremental impacts to costs and benefits of the proposed amendments.
4. Many reviewers requested a redline of the updated draft rule that includes EPA’s addition of FL, as well as the regulatory text as it relates to the substantive amendments p roposed in the draft proposed rule
. 5. Several reviewers requested further clarification /explanation on what changed conditions led EPA to increase States bu dgets. 6. Can EPA provide edits to the proposal further clarifying how the allowance allocation model works ?
7. Please provide further explanation as to the consequences of the rule, and in particular to the consequences of removing the assurance penalty
. Has EPA considered that the incentive c ould remain to stick to the individual allocations in 2012 sinc e there would be little time to ensure the availability of credits or time to invest to reduce emissions to create credits ? It is also unclear to some reviewers whether the delay of the assurance penalty would affect the ability to trade within or across states ; further clarification on this point would be welcome
.
8. Has EPA considered separating the rulemaking amendments along 2012 and 2014 timelines? Would EPA consider such a separation more than a technical amendment to the

### Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

2 CSAPR rulemaking? If EPA were to include language along these lines, suggested language as noted in red might be inserted in p. 15 of the draft rule: “ It is EPA’s intent, in conducting this rulemaking, to make the revisions in this proposal as well as to conduct a clearly defined, tim e - limited process by which any similarly justified revisions to the final Transport Rule state budgets for 2012 are identified and effectuated in a timely and expeditious manner. While EPA notes proposed changes for certain states’ 2014 budgets are also p resented in this draft rule and does not expect to change to these proposed 2014 budgets, the agency recognizes that there is a more immediate need to address 2012 budget adjustments and may address any necessary technical adjustments to the 2014 budget in a subsequent rulemaking. EPA requests comment on whether the possibility that 2014 budget adjustments may be addressed in a future rulemaking would alter allowance market behavior during the transition years and if so, in what manner stakeholders anticip ate the allowance market would react. ”

9. P38: Possible typo: EPA did not consider these immediate
-term conditions in its calculation of the Louisiana emission budget in the final Transport Rule. Should n’t this be Texas? 10. P42: Some reviewers s uggest sayin g more generally that stakeholders have had multiple opportunities to comment. T he NODA call for comments was fairly narrow, and focused on historical emissions and heat rates, not non
- economic dispatch restrictions . It is conceivable that some commente rs felt the NODAs, when considered individually, arguably did not reach all of the issues raised in this draft NPRM. Regardless of EPA’s belief on this point, suggest this editorial change to reflect that there were multiple opportunities to comment with or without the NODAs. 11. P. 46: Suggest EPA include percentage changes for each state’s budget relative to the final CSAPR rule in addition to the percentage changes relative to the total budget for the nation. 12. EPA mentioned in the interagency briefing th at FL also submitted comments on SCR allocations, but a discussion of SCRs does not appear in the current draft. Suggest EPA expressly request comment on the issue of its unit
- specific SCR assumptions in FL. 13. Suggest EPA clarify in general terms the drivers for the increase in the TX budget further. For instance what part of the 29% increase in the TX budget results from erroneously assuming that scrubbers exist at W. A. Parish Unit 6, J.T. Deely Unit 1, and J.T. Deely Unit 2 (and what portion of the budget for each unit), and what portion results from the assumed full flue gas treatment in existing scrubbers at Martin Lake, Monticello, Sandow, W.A. Parish, and Oklaunion facilities ? Probably not necessary to provide exact numbers in the preamble, but c ould EPA highlight where in the TSD an interested party might find this more detailed information?

### Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

3 14. A few commenters asked whether EPA has considered suspending the CSAPR rulemaking for 1 year while the agency works on technical adjustments for the b udgets. At the least, these commenters have asked whether EPA has considered the logistical implications of administering the 2012
- 2013 phase of the rule if another technical amendment is necessary, especially if there is a possibility that amendment could be made in 2012? 15. Has EPA analyzed the possible market impacts of changing states’ budget allocations? While the total for all budgets may have increased, certain individual states received significant changes to their budgets, which presumably could alter behavior in the allowance market. 16. Suggest EPA conduct further analysis (possibly an additional uncertainty analysis) and/or highlight already docketed analysis (such as from the proposed rule) to demonstrate the agency’s confidence that the removal of the assurance penalties would not lead to significant contributions to downwind states in 2012 or 2013 .