ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 97 

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

RIN 2060-AR35

Revisions to Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport
of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone:  Part II 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action on additional revisions to
the final Transport Rule (Federal Implementation Plans:  Interstate
Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and Correction of SIP
Approvals, 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).  In the proposed Revisions to
Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine
Particulate Matter and Ozone, 76 FR 63860 (October 14, 2011), EPA sought
additional comment on unit-level operational information similar to the
information supporting the proposed revisions, which specifically
addressed post-combustion pollution control equipment and immediate-term
operational requirements necessitating non-economic generation based on
verifiable data.  Based on comments received, EPA is finalizing
adjustments that result in revisions to 2012 and 2014 state budgets in
Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri,
New York, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas, and
revisions to new unit set-asides in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Missouri.

DATES:  This rule is effective on [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF
PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] without further notice, unless EPA
receives significant adverse comments by [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS FROM THE
DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].  If we receive such
comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register to
notify the public that this direct final rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491, by one of the following methods:

http:// HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov" www.regulations.gov :
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

Mail: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20460.

Hand Delivery: Air and Radiation Docket, EPA West Building, Room 3334,
1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20460.  Such deliveries
are only accepted during the Docket’s normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

Instructions:  Direct your comments to Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491.  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:// HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"
www.regulations.gov , 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 www.regulations.gov or e-mail.  The
http:// HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov" www.regulations.gov 
website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment.  If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA
without going through www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet.  If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA 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.  For additional information about EPA’s public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at
http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http:// HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov" www.regulations.gov  index.  Although
listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 
Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy.  Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically in http:// HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov" www.regulations.gov  or in hard copy at the
Air and Radiation Docket, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20460.  The Public Reading
Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays.  The telephone number for the Public Reading
Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and
Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Gabrielle Stevens, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Clean Air Markets Division, MC 6204J, Ariel Rios
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460, telephone
(202) 343-9252, e-mail at stevens.gabrielle@epa.gov. Electronic copies
of this document can be accessed through the EPA Website at:  HYPERLINK
"http://epa.gov/airmarkets" http://epa.gov/airmarkets .

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  EPA is publishing this rule without a prior
proposed rule because we view this as a noncontroversial action and
anticipate no adverse comment.  However, in the “Proposed Rules”
section of today’s Federal Register, we are publishing a separate
document that will serve as the proposed rule if significant adverse
comments are received on this direct final rule.  We will not institute
a second comment period on this action.  Any parties interested in
commenting must do so at this time.  For further information about
commenting on this rule, see the ADDRESSES section of this document.

If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in
the Federal Register informing the public that this direct final rule
will not take effect.  We would address all public comments in any
subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule.

Regulated Entities.  Entities regulated by this action primarily are
fossil fuel-fired boilers, turbines, and combined cycle units that serve
generators that produce electricity for sale or cogenerate electricity
for sale and steam.  Regulated categories and entities include:

Category	NAICS code	Examples of potentially regulated industries

Industry	2211, 2212, 2213 	Electric service providers



This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities which EPA is now aware
could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities
not listed in this table could also be regulated. To determine whether
your facility, company, business, organization, etc., is regulated by
this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in
§§ 97.404, 97.504, and 97.604 of title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

I.  Detailed Discussion of Corresponding Rule Revisions

EPA has determined that the following additional corrections are needed
to the August 8, 2011 final Transport Rule, as a result of comments
received on the proposed rule, Revisions to Federal Implementation Plans
to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (76
FR 63860, October 14, 2011)(Revisions Rule).  In that proposed rule, EPA
took comment on several similar corrections and demonstrated a
consistent methodology for calculating those corrections.  EPA received
no comments opposing the proposal to make these corrections to state
budgets and new unit set-asides, and EPA received very few comments
addressing the manner in which the corrections were quantified, to which
EPA responded in the final revisions rule.  EPA has calculated the
corrections in this rulemaking in a fully consistent manner with the
approach developed through public comment on the proposed and finalized
revisions rule. 

Revise the Arkansas ozone season NOX budgets for 2012 and 2014 and
correct the ozone season new unit set-aside budget for an omitted
planned facility.                                                       
                                       

EPA is increasing the Arkansas 2012 and 2014 ozone-season NOX budget
based upon comments received that demonstrate that the McClellan plant
is in an out-of-merit-order dispatch area with conditions likely to
necessitate what would otherwise be non-economic generation.

EPA re-calculated the emissions from the McClellan plant with
non-economic generation to account for the input assumption changes. 
These calculations yield increases to the Arkansas 2012 and 2014 state
budgets for ozone-season NOX of 73 tons.  See “Final Revisions Rule
State Budgets and New Unit Set-Asides TSD” in the docket for this
rulemaking for a quantitative demonstration of these revisions.

Comments on the revisions rule identified Turk Unit 1 as commencing
commercial operation on or after January 1, 2010, qualifying it as a new
unit under the final Transport Rule’s unit-level allocation
methodology (76 FR 48290); however, the final Transport Rule erroneously
omitted this unit’s projected emissions from the calculation of
Arkansas’ ozone-season NOX new unit set-aside.  EPA is therefore
revising the portion of the Arkansas ozone-season budget dedicated to
the state’s new unit set-aside account so that it takes into account
this unit’s projected emissions, consistent with the new unit
set-aside methodology in the final Transport Rule.  EPA is only applying
this revision for 2014 and beyond, because the Agency has already
recorded (i.e., distributed) allowances under the Arkansas state budget
for the 2012 and 2013 control periods.  Turk Unit 1 remains eligible to
request allowance allocation from the new unit set-asides for any
control period under the program.  This revision yields an ozone-season
NOX new unit set-aside of 8 percent for 2014 and beyond for Arkansas. 
See “Final Revisions Rule State Budgets and New Unit Set-Asides TSD”
in the docket for this rulemaking for a quantitative demonstration of
these revisions.  This revision to the Arkansas new unit set-aside
necessitates changes to allowance allocations to existing units in 2014
and beyond.  See the “Final Revisions Rule Unit-Level Allocations
under the FIPs” tables in the docket to this rulemaking.

Revise the Georgia SO2, annual NOX, and ozone season NOX budgets for
2014. 

In the final Transport Rule, EPA explained its intent to capture
“reductions that occur due to state rules, consent decrees, and other
planned changes in generation patterns that occur after 2012, but during
or prior to 2014” in the 2014 state budgets (76 FR 48261).  Commenters
on the revisions rule noted that EPA inadvertently included pollution
control installation requirements from a Georgia state rule whose
deadlines at certain units actually extend beyond 2014.  To correct the
alignment of the Georgia 2014 state budgets with the requirements for
affected units in Georgia to install controls by the state rule’s
deadlines, EPA is increasing Georgia’s 2014 state budgets by 40,334
tons of SO2, 13,198 tons of annual NOX, and 5,762 tons of ozone-season
NOX.  See “Final Revisions Rule State Budgets and New Unit Set-Asides
TSD” in the docket for this rulemaking for a quantitative
demonstration of these revisions.

Revise the Indiana SO2 budgets for 2012 and 2014.

EPA is revising the Indiana 2012 and 2014 annual SO2 budgets based on
comments received on the proposed revisions rule (76 FR 63860, October
14, 2011) regarding post-combustion control status at Gallagher Units 2
and 4.  Commenters identified an erroneous assumption of flue gas
desulphurization (FGD, or scrubber) with 86 percent removal at units
that have actually installed dry sorbent injection (DSI) technology with
a 70 percent removal rate.  EPA has recalculated the projected emissions
at these units, and that recalculation supports a 2,460 ton increase in
the state’s annual SO2 budget.  

Commenters on the revisions rule also identified a facility in Indiana,
Gibson Unit 5, which currently faces immediate-term limitations
regarding the amount of flue gas that can be treated in its existing
FGD.  In the final Transport Rule analysis, EPA relied on the SO2
removal efficiency that this facility reported at its scrubber to the
Energy Information Administration (EIA).  However, EPA has since
determined that this reported value only intended to address the removal
efficiency for the portion of the flue gas treated in the scrubber.  EPA
has recalculated the projected emissions for this unit using the most
recent data reported by this facility to EIA on form 860 for 2009, which
includes the scrubber’s removal efficiency and the portion of flue gas
treated.  This recalculation supports an increase to Indiana’s 2012
and 2014 budget of 1,873 tons.  See “Final Revisions Rule State
Budgets and New Unit Set-Asides TSD” in the docket for this rulemaking
for a quantitative demonstration of these revisions.   

Revise the Kansas SO2 and annual NOX budgets for 2012 and 2014. 

Commenters on the revisions rule provided information showing that one
unit at the Quindaro plant in Kansas is in an out-of-merit-order
dispatch area with conditions likely to necessitate what would otherwise
be non-economic generation.  EPA re-calculated the emissions from this
plant with non-economic generation to account for the input assumption
changes.  These calculations yield increases to the Kansas 2012 and 2014
state budgets for annual SO2 of 268 tons and annual NOX of 379 tons. 
See “Final Revisions Rule State Budgets and New Unit Set-Asides TSD”
in the docket for this rulemaking for a quantitative demonstration of
these revisions.

In the final Transport Rule, EPA explained its intent to capture
“reductions that occur due to state rules, consent decrees, and other
planned changes in generation patterns that occur after 2012, but during
or prior to 2014” in the 2014 state budgets (76 FR 48261).  Commenters
on the revisions rule noted that EPA inadvertently included an emission
rate requirement from a consent decree affecting a Kansas facility whose
deadline actually extends beyond 2014.  To correct the alignment of the
Kansas 2014 state budget with the requirements for affected units in
Kansas to meet the emission rate limitation by the consent decree’s
deadlines, EPA is increasing the Kansas 2014 annual NOX budget by 5,154
tons.  See “Final Revisions Rule State Budgets and New Unit Set-Asides
TSD” in the docket for this rulemaking for a quantitative
demonstration of these revisions.

Revise the Louisiana ozone season NOX budgets for 2012 and 2014 and
adjust the ozone season new unit set-aside. 

EPA is increasing the Louisiana 2012 and 2014 ozone-season NOX budgets
based on comments received on the revisions rule demonstrating that the
Stall and Lieberman plants are in an out-of-merit-order dispatch area
with conditions likely to necessitate what would otherwise be
non-economic generation.  EPA re-calculated the emissions from the Stall
and Lieberman plants with non-economic generation to account for the
input assumption changes.  These calculations yield increases to
Louisiana’s 2012 and 2014 state budgets for ozone-season NOX of 110
tons.  See “Final Revisions Rule State Budgets and New Unit Set-Asides
TSD” in the docket for this rulemaking for a quantitative
demonstration of these revisions.

Comments on the revisions rule also noted that in calculating the
Louisiana ozone-season NOX new unit set-aside, EPA included projected
emissions from a planned new facility, Washington Parish, which will not
in fact come into service in Louisiana.  EPA is therefore reducing the
size of Louisiana’s ozone-season NOX new unit set-aside in 2012 and
2014 to 2 percent (from the previous 3 percent) to account for the
exclusion of these projected emissions from the relevant calculation. 
This revision means that fewer allowances will need to be held in
reserve for the new unit set-aside; after this revision’s effective
date, EPA will reallocate any allowances in excess of the revised new
unit set-aside to existing units in the state by the same existing unit
allowance allocation methodology as previously finalized.  See “Final
Revisions Rule Unit-Level Allocations under the FIPs” in the docket to
this rulemaking.

Revise the Mississippi ozone season NOX budgets for 2012 and 2014. 

EPA is increasing the Mississippi 2012 and 2014 ozone-season NOX budgets
based on comments received on the revisions rule demonstrating that the
Moselle plant is in an out-of-merit-order dispatch area with conditions
likely to necessitate what would otherwise be non-economic generation.

EPA re-calculated the emissions from the Moselle plant with non-economic
generation to account for the input assumption changes.  These
calculations yield increases to Mississippi’s 2012 and 2014 state
budgets for ozone-season NOX of 115 tons.  See “Final Revisions Rule
State Budgets and New Unit Set-Asides TSD” in the docket for this
rulemaking for a quantitative demonstration of these revisions.

Revise the Missouri annual and ozone season NOX budgets for 2012 and
2014 and correct the SO2, annual NOX, and ozone season NOX new unit
set-aside budgets for an omitted operating new facility.

EPA is increasing the Missouri 2012 and 2014 annual and ozone-season NOX
budgets to account for operational constraints at six plants based upon
comments received on the revisions rule.  The commenters provided
information showing that these units were in out-of-merit-order dispatch
areas with conditions likely to necessitate what would otherwise be
non-economic generation.

EPA re-calculated the emissions from these six plants with non-economic
generation to account for the input assumption changes.  These
calculations yield increases to Missouri’s 2012 and 2014 state budgets
for annual NOX of 26 tons and ozone-season NOX of 26 tons.  See “Final
Revisions Rule State Budgets and New Unit Set-Asides TSD” in the
docket for this rulemaking for a quantitative demonstration of these
revisions.

Comments on the revisions rule identified Iatan Unit 2 as commencing
commercial operation on or after January 1, 2010, qualifying it as a new
unit under the final Transport Rule’s unit-level allocation
methodology (76 FR 48290); however, the final Transport Rule erroneously
omitted this unit’s projected emissions from the calculation of
Missouri’s new unit set-asides.  EPA is therefore revising the portion
of Missouri’s SO2, annual NOX, and ozone-season NOX budgets dedicated
to the state’s new unit set-asides so that they take into account this
unit’s projected emissions, consistent with the new unit set-aside
methodology in the final Transport Rule.  EPA is only applying this
revision for 2013 and beyond, because the Agency has already recorded
(i.e., distributed) allowances under the Missouri state budget for the
2012 control period.  Iatan Unit 2 remains eligible to request allowance
allocation from the new unit set-asides for any control period under the
program.  This revision yields an ozone-season NOX new unit set-aside of
6 percent, an annual NOX new unit set-aside of 6 percent, and an SO2 new
unit set-aside of 3 percent for 2013 and beyond for Missouri.  See
“Final Revisions Rule State Budgets and New Unit Set-Asides TSD” in
the docket for this rulemaking for a quantitative demonstration of these
revisions.  This revision to Missouri’s new unit set-aside
necessitates changes to allowance allocations to existing units in 2013
and beyond.  See the “Final Revisions Rule Unit-Level Allocations
under the FIPs” tables in the docket to this rulemaking. 

Revise the Ohio SO2, annual NOX, and ozone season NOX budgets for 2012
and 2014. 

EPA is increasing Ohio’s 2012 and 2014 annual SO2, annual NOX, and
ozone-season NOX budgets to account for operational constraints at two
plants, Conesville and Muskingum River, based on comments received on
the revisions rule.  The commenter provided information showing that
these plants were in out-of-merit-order dispatch areas with conditions
likely to necessitate what would otherwise be non-economic generation.

EPA re-calculated the emissions from these two plants with non-economic
generation to reflect the input assumption changes.  These calculations
yield increases to Ohio’s 2012 and 2014 state budgets for annual SO2
of 15,963 tons, annual NOX of 1,644 tons, and ozone-season NOX of 843
tons.  

EPA is finalizing additional adjustments to Ohio’s 2012 and 2014
annual and ozone-season NOX budgets to correct an erroneous assumption
of an SCR at Bayshore 4.  There is no SCR planned or under construction
at this facility.  This results in a 2,218 ton increase in the state’s
annual NOX budget and a 964 ton increase for the ozone-season NOX
budget.  See “Final Revisions Rule State Budgets and New Unit
Set-Asides TSD” in the docket for this rulemaking for a quantitative
demonstration of these revisions.

Revise the Nebraska SO2 budgets for 2012 and 2014.

EPA is finalizing revisions to the Nebraska 2012 and 2014 SO2 budgets,
based on comments on the revisions rule, to correct assumptions
regarding FGD pollution control technology at Whelan Energy Center Units
1 and 2 and Nebraska City Unit 2.  The commenter noted that the
technology at Nebraska Unit 2 and Whelan Unit 2 is dry FGD technology,
whereas EPA had assumed wet FGD technology with a higher SO2 removal
efficiency than the actual dry FGD technology that those units achieve. 
Additionally, EPA is also revising its assumption of FGD technology at
Whelan Energy Center Unit 1.  There is no FGD present, planned, or under
construction at the unit.  These adjustments result in an increase of
3,800 tons to the 2012 and 2014 annual SO2 budgets for the state.  See
“Final Revisions Rule State Budgets and New Unit Set-Asides TSD” in
the docket for this rulemaking for a quantitative demonstration of these
revisions. 

Revise the New York SO2, annual NOX, and ozone season NOX budgets for
2012 and 2014. 

EPA is increasing New York’s 2012 and 2014 annual SO2, annual NOX, and
ozone-season NOX budgets based on comments received on the revisions
rule demonstrating that the East River plant is in an out-of-merit-order
dispatch area with conditions likely to necessitate what would otherwise
be non-economic generation.  EPA re-calculated the emissions from this
facility with out-of-merit-order dispatch to reflect the input
assumption changes.  These calculations yield increases to New York’s
2012 and 2014 state budgets for annual SO2 of 88 tons, annual NOX of 727
tons, and ozone-season NOX of 350 tons.  

EPA is also finalizing an adjustment of 5,360 tons to New York’s 2012
and 2014 SO2 budgets based on comments received on the revisions rule. 
Commenters identified two facilities, Dunkirk and Huntley, with existing
dry sorbent injection (DSI) technology for which EPA had assumed an SO2
removal rate of 70 percent but which actually achieves a removal rate of
only 53 percent.  EPA recalculated the projected emissions for these
units based on this revised assumption and is increasing the New York
2012 and 2014 SO2 budgets accordingly.  See “Final Revisions Rule
State Budgets and New Unit Set-Asides TSD” in the docket for this
rulemaking for a quantitative demonstration of these revisions.

Revise the Oklahoma ozone-season NOX budgets for 2012 and 2014.

EPA is increasing the Oklahoma 2012 and 2014 ozone-season NOX budget
based upon comments received on the revisions rule demonstrating that
the Comanche plant is in an out-of-merit-order dispatch area with
conditions likely to necessitate what would otherwise be non-economic
generation.

EPA re-calculated the emissions from the Comanche plant with
non-economic generation to account for the input assumption changes. 
These calculations yield increases to the Oklahoma 2012 and 2014 state
budgets for ozone-season NOX of 3,006 tons.  See “Final Revisions Rule
State Budgets and New Unit Set-Asides TSD” in the docket for this
rulemaking for a quantitative demonstration of these revisions.

Revise the South Carolina SO2 budgets for 2012 and 2014. 

EPA is finalizing an 8,013 ton increase to South Carolina’s 2012 and
2014 annual SO2 budgets based on comments received on the revision rule
regarding post-combustion control technology at three units.  This
action revises the assumption of an FGD at the W S Lee Facility.  There
are no FGDs planned, under construction, or expected to be online in
2012 or 2014 at this facility.  See “Final Revisions Rule State
Budgets and New Unit Set-Asides TSD” in the docket for this rulemaking
for a quantitative demonstration of these revisions.  

Revise the Texas annual NOX and ozone season NOX budgets for 2012 and
2014.

EPA is increasing the Texas 2012 and 2014 annual and ozone-season NOX
budgets to account for operational constraints at six plants based on
comments received on the revisions rule:  Jones, Moore County, Nichols,
Plant X, Knox Lee, and Wilkes.  The commenters provided information
showing that these plants were in out-of-merit-order dispatch areas with
conditions likely to necessitate what would otherwise be non-economic
generation.

EPA re-calculated the emissions from these plants with non-economic
generation to account for the input assumption changes.  These
calculations yield increases to the Texas 2012 and 2014 state budgets
for annual NOX of 2,438 tons, and ozone-season NOX of 991 tons.  See
“Final Revisions Rule State Budgets and New Unit Set-Asides TSD” in
the docket for this rulemaking for a quantitative demonstration of these
revisions.

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), this action
is a "significant regulatory action.”  Accordingly, EPA submitted this
action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011) and any
changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in
the docket for this action.  

B.  Paperwork Reduction Act

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

C.  Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.  Small entities include small businesses, small organizations,
and small governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small entities,
small entity is defined as: (1) a small business as defined by the Small
Business Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a
small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county,
town, school district or special district with a population of less than
50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant
in its field.  

After considering the economic impacts of today’s action on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.  The small
entities directly regulated by this action are electric power generators
whose ultimate parent entity has a total electric output of 4 million
megawatt-hours (MWh) or less in the previous fiscal year.  We have
determined that the changes considered in this proposed rulemaking pose
no additional burden for small entities.  The proposed revision to the
new unit set-asides in Arkansas, Missouri, and Texas would yield an
extremely small change in unit-level allowance allocations to existing
units, including small entities, such that it would not affect the
analysis conducted on small entity impacts under the finalized Transport
Rule.  In all other states, the revisions proposed in this rulemaking
would yield additional allowance allocations to all units, including
small entities, without increasing program stringency, such that it is
not possible for the impact to small entities to be any larger than that
already considered and reviewed in the finalized Transport Rule. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year.
This action is increasing the budgets and increasing the total number of
allowances or maintaining the same budget but revising unit-level
allocations in several other states in the Transport Rule. Thus, this
rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.

In developing the final Transport Rule, EPA consulted with small
governments pursuant to a plan established under section 203 of UMRA to
address impacts of regulatory requirements in the rule that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

E.  Executive Order 13132:  Federalism

This action does not have federalism implications.  It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132.  This action makes relatively minor
revisions to the emissions budgets and allowance allocations or
allowance allocations only in certain states in the final Transport
Rule. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.   EPA did
provide information to state and local officials during development of
both the proposed and final Transport Rule.

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

This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).  This action makes
relatively minor revisions to the emissions budgets and allowance
allocations in several states in the final Transport Rule and helps ease
the transition from CAIR. Indian country new unit set-asides will
increase slightly or remain unchanged in the states affected by this
action. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.  EPA
consulted with tribal officials during the process of promulgating the
final Transport Rule to permit them to have meaningful and timely input
into its development.

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

This action is not subject to EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
because it is not economically significant as defined in EO 12866, and
because the Agency does not believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children. Analyses by EPA that show how the emission reductions from the
strategies in the final Transport Rule will further improve air quality
and children’s health can be found in the final Transport Rule RIA.

H.  Executive Order 13211:  Actions Concerning Regulations that
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

This action is not a “significant energy action” as defined in
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution,
or use of energy.  EPA believes that there is no meaningful impact to
the energy supply beyond that which is reported for the Transport Rule
program in the final Transport Rule.

I.  National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of
1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law No. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are 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 requires all sources to meet the
applicable monitoring requirements of 40 CFR part 75. Part 75 already
incorporates a number of voluntary consensus standards. This action does
not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use
of any voluntary consensus standards. 

J.  Executive Order 12898:  Federal 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 populations and low-income
populations in the United States.  

K.  Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the
rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to
each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the
rule in the Federal Register. A Major rule cannot take effect until 60
days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is a
“major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be
effective [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER].

L. Judicial Review

Petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by [INSERT
DATE 60 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION].  Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA
indicates which Federal Courts of Appeal have venue for petitions of
review of final actions by EPA.  This section provides, in part, that
petitions for review must be filed in the Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit if (i) the agency action consists of
“nationally applicable regulations promulgated, or final action taken,
by the Administrator,” or (ii) such action is locally or regionally
applicable, if “such action is based on a determination of nationwide
scope or effect and if in taking such action the Administrator finds and
publishes that such action is based on such a determination.”

Any final action related to the Transport Rule is “nationally
applicable” within the meaning of section 307(b)(1).  Through this
rule, EPA interprets section 110 of the CAA, a provision which has
nationwide applicability. In addition, the Transport Rule applies to 27
States.  The Transport Rule is also based on a common core of factual
findings and analyses concerning the transport of pollutants between the
different states subject to it.  For these reasons, the Administrator
also is determining that any final action regarding the Transport Rule
is of nationwide scope and effect for purposes of section 307(b)(1). 
Thus, pursuant to section 307(b) any petitions for review of final
actions regarding the Transport Rule must be filed in the Court of
Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days from the date final action
is published in the Federal Register.

Filing a petition for reconsideration of this action does not affect the
finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed
and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.  In
addition, pursuant to CAA section 307(b)(2) this action may not be
challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements.

List of Subjects	

40 CFR Part 52

Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
oxides, Ozone, 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.

Revisions to Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate
Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone:  Part II

(page 34 of 49)

Dated: ____________________

______________________________________________________

Lisa P. Jackson

Administrator.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part XX of chapter I of title
40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

Section 97.410 is amended by: 

Revising paragraphs (b)(4), (b)(5), and (b)(7);

Revising paragraph (f); 

Revising paragraph (k);

Revising paragraph (n);

Revising paragraph (p); and

Revising paragraph (t) to read as follows:

§97.410  State NOX Annual trading budgets, new unit set-asides, Indian
country new unit set-aside, and variability limits.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(4) The NOX annual trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 53,738
tons. 

(5) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 1,075
tons. 

(6) * * * 

(7) The NOX annual variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 9,673
tons.

* * * * *

	

(f) Kansas. (1) The NOX annual trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is
31,093 tons.

(2) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 591 tons. 

(3) The NOX annual Indian country new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013
is 31 tons.   

(4) The NOX annual trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 31,093
tons. 

(5) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 591x
tons.  

(6) The NOX annual Indian country new unit set-aside for 2014 and
thereafter is 31 tons.  

(7) The NOX annual variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 5,597
tons.

* * * * *

	(k) Missouri. (1) The NOX annual trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is
52,400 tons.

(2) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2012 is 1,572 tons and for
2013 is 3,144 tons. 

(3) [Reserved]   

(4) The NOX annual trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 48,743
tons. 

(5) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 2,925
tons.  

(6) [Reserved]  

(7) The NOX annual variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 8,774
tons.

* * * * *

n) New York. (1) The NOX annual trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is
21,755 tons.

(2) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 413 tons. 

(3) The NOX annual Indian country new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013
is 22 tons.   

(4) The NOX annual trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 21,755
tons. 

(5) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 413
tons.  

(6) The NOX annual Indian country new unit set-aside for 2014 and
thereafter is 22 tons.  

(7) The NOX annual variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 3,916
tons.	

* * * * *

(p) Ohio. (1) The NOX annual trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 96,565
tons.

(2) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 1,931 tons. 

(3) [Reserved]   

(4) The NOX annual trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 91,355
tons. 

(5) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 1,827
tons.  

(6) [Reserved]  

(7) The NOX annual variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 16,444
tons.

* * * * *

(t) Texas. (1) The NOX annual trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is
135,961 tons.

(2) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 5,302 tons. 

(3) The NOX annual Indian country new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013
is 136 tons.   

(4) The NOX annual trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 135,961
tons. 

(5) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 5,302
tons.  

(6) The NOX annual Indian country new unit set-aside for 2014 and
thereafter is 136 tons.  

(7) The NOX annual variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 24,473 
tons.

2. Section 97.510 is amended by:

a. Revising paragraph (b);

b. Revising paragraphs (d)(4),(d)(5), and (d)(7);

c. Revising paragraph (i);

d. Revising paragraph (l);

e. Revising paragraph (m); 

f. Revising paragraph (o); 

g. Revising paragraph (q);

h. Revising paragraph (r); and

i. Revising paragraph (v), to read as follows:

§97.510  State NOX Ozone Season trading budgets, new unit set-asides,
Indian country new unit set-aside, and variability limits.

* * * * *

(b) Arkansas. (1) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2012 and 2013
is 15,110 tons.

(2) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 756
tons. 

(3) [Reserved] 

(4) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is
15,110 tons. 

(5) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is
1,209 tons. 

(6) [Reserved] 

(7) The NOX ozone season variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is
3,173 tons.

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(4) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is
24,041 tons. 

(5) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is
481 tons. 

(6) * * * 

(7) The NOX ozone season variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is
5,049 tons.

* * * * *

(i) Louisiana. (1) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2012 and 2013
is 18,136 tons.

(2) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 345
tons. 

(3) The NOX ozone season Indian country new unit set-aside for 2012 and
2013 is 18 tons.  

(4) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is
18,136 tons. 

(5) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is
345 tons. 

(6) The NOX ozone season Indian country new unit set-aside for 2014 and
thereafter is 18 tons.  

(7) The NOX ozone season variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is
3,809 tons.

* * * * *

(l) Mississippi. (1) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2012 and
2013 is 12,429 tons.

(2) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 237
tons. 

(3) The NOX ozone season Indian country new unit set-aside for 2012 and
2013 is 12 tons.  

(4) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is
12,429 tons. 

(5) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is
237 tons. 

(6) The NOX ozone season Indian country new unit set-aside for 2014 and
thereafter is 12 tons.  

(7) The NOX ozone season variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is
2,610 tons.

* * * * *

(m) Missouri. (1) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2012 and 2013
is 22,788 tons.

(2) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 is 684 tons and for
2013 is 1,367 tons. 

(3) [Reserved] 

(4) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is
21,099 tons. 

(5) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is
1,266 tons. 

(6) [Reserved] 

(7) The NOX ozone season variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is
4,431 tons.

* * * * *

(o) New York. (1) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2012 and 2013
is 10,592 tons.

(2) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 201
tons. 

(3) The NOX ozone season Indian country new unit set-aside for 2012 and
2013 is 11 tons.  

(4) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is
10,592 tons. 

(5) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is
201 tons. 

(6) The NOX ozone season Indian country new unit set-aside for 2014 and
thereafter is 11 tons.  

(7) The NOX ozone season variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is
2,224 tons.

* * * * * 

(q) Ohio. (1) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is
41,870 tons.

(2) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 837
tons. 

(3) [Reserved] 

(4) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is
39,599 tons. 

(5) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is
792 tons. 

(6) [Reserved] 

(7) The NOX ozone season variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is
8,316 tons.

* * * * *

(r) Oklahoma. (1) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2012 is 39,633
tons and for 2013 is 24,901 tons.

(2) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 is 793 tons and for
2013 is 498 tons. 

(3) [Reserved] 

(4) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is
24,901 tons. 

(5) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is
498 tons. 

(6) [Reserved] 

(7) The NOX ozone season variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is
5,229 tons.

* * * * * 

(v) Texas.(1) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is
66,856 tons.

(2) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 2,607
tons. 

(3) The NOX ozone season Indian country new unit set-aside for 2012 and
2013 is 67 tons.  

(4) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is
66,856 tons. 

(5) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is
2,607 tons. 

(6) The NOX ozone season Indian country new unit set-aside for 2014 and
thereafter is 67 tons.  

(7) The NOX ozone season variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is
14,040 tons.	

3. Section 97.610 is amended by revising paragraphs (b), (g), (i), and
(k) to read as follows:

§97.610  State SO2 Group 1 trading budgets, new unit set-asides, Indian
country new unit set-aside, and variability limits.

(b) Indiana. (1) The SO2 trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 289,757
tons.

(2) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 8,693 tons. 

(3) [Reserved]  

(4) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 165,444 tons. 

(5) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 4,963 tons. 

(6) [Reserved]  

(7) The SO2 variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 29,780 tons.

* * * * *

(g) Missouri. (1) [Reserved]

(2) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 is 4,149 tons and for 2013 is
6,224 tons. 

(3) [Reserved] 

(4) [Reserved]

(5) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 4,978 tons. 

(6) [Reserved] 

(7) [Reserved]

* * * * *

(i) New York.  (1) The SO2 trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 36,300
tons.

(2) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 690 tons. 

(3) The SO2 Indian country new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 36
tons.  

(4) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 27,560 tons. 

(5) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 523 tons. 

(6) The SO2 Indian country new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is
28 tons.  

(7) The SO2 variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 4,961 tons.

* * * * *

(k) Ohio. (1) The SO2 trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 326,193 tons.

(2) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 6,524 tons. 

(3) [Reserved]  

(4) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 153,040 tons. 

(5) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 3,061 tons. 

(6) [Reserved]  

(7) The SO2 variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 27,547 tons.

* * * * *

4. Section 97.710 is amended by:

a. Revising paragraphs (b)(4), (b)(5), and (b)(7);

b. Revising paragraph (c); 

c. Revising paragraphs (e); and

d. Revising paragraphs (f); to read as follows:

§97.710  State SO2 Group 2 trading budgets, new unit set-asides, Indian
country new unit set-aside, and variability limits.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(4) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 135,565 tons. 

(5) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 2,711 tons. 

(6) * * * 

(7) The SO2 variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 24,402 tons.

* * * * *

(c) Kansas. (1) The SO2 trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 41,796 tons.

(2) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 794 tons. 

(3) The SO2 Indian country new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 42
tons.  

(4) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 41,796 tons. 

(5) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 794 tons. 

(6) The SO2 Indian country new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is
42 tons.  

(7) The SO2 variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 7,523 tons.

* * * * *

(e) Nebraska. (1) The SO2 trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 68,852
tons.

(2) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 2,685 tons. 

(3) The SO2 Indian country new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 69
tons.  

(4) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 68,852 tons. 

(5) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 2,685 tons. 

(6) The SO2 Indian country new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is
69 tons.  

(7) The SO2 variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 12,393 tons.

* * * * *

(f) South Carolina. (1) The SO2 trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is
96,633 tons.

(2) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 1,836 tons. 

(3) The SO2 Indian country new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 97
tons.  

(4) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 96,633 tons. 

(5) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 1,836 tons. 

(6) The SO2 Indian country new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is
97 tons.  

(7) The SO2 variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 17,394 tons.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 97 

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

RIN 2060-AR35

Revisions to Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport
of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone:  Part II 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing additional revisions to certain portions of
the Transport Rule (Federal Implementation Plans:  Interstate Transport
of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and Correction of SIP Approvals, 76
FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).  The final Transport Rule limits the
interstate transport of emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and sulfur
dioxide (SO2) that contribute harmful levels of fine particle matter and
ozone in downwind states.  After the final rule was published, it was
brought to our attention that there are some incorrect data assumptions
that affect a few states’ budgets or new unit set-asides in the rule
text.  EPA proposed revisions to the final Transport Rule on October 14,
2011 (76 FR 63860) based on this new information and sought comment on
additional unit-level information addressing post-combustion pollution
control equipment and operational requirements necessitating
non-economic generation of a unit.  EPA is finalizing the earlier
specifically proposed revisions in a separate action.  EPA has reviewed
the information provided in comments addressing the topics described
above and proposes to determine that the unit-level adjustments
described in the preamble to the direct final are merited. 

DATES:  Written comments must be received by [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS FROM
PUBLICATION].

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491, by mail to: Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode:
2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20460.  Comments
may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by
following the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the
direct final rule located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Gabrielle Stevens, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Clean Air Markets Division, MC 6204J, Ariel Rios
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460, telephone
(202) 343-9252, e-mail at stevens.gabrielle@epa.gov. Electronic copies
of this document can be accessed through the EPA Website at:  HYPERLINK
"http://epa.gov/airmarkets" http://epa.gov/airmarkets .

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  This document proposes to take action on
certain portions of the Transport Rule.  We finalized a rule to address
discrepancies in unit-specific modeling assumptions that affect the
proposed calculation of Transport Rule state budgets in Florida,
Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Texas
and Wisconsin, as well as new unit set-asides in Arkansas and Texas (see
76 FR 63860, October 14, 2011).  We are issuing a direct final rule, in
parallel with this proposal, based on comments received on the Revisions
Rule proposal, to amend the August 8, 2011 final regulation (76 FR
48208) by correcting annual NOX budgets in Georgia, Kansas, Missouri,
New York, Ohio, and Texas; ozone-season NOX budgets in Arkansas,
Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, and
Texas; SO2 budgets in Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, New York,
Ohio, and South Carolina; and new unit set-aside budgets in Arkansas,
Louisiana, and Missouri. 

We have explained our reasons for this action in the preamble to the
direct final rule.  If we receive no significant adverse comment, we
will not take further action on this proposed rule.  If we receive
adverse comment, we will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not
take effect.  We would address all public comments in any subsequent
final rule based on this proposed rule.

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

Revisions to Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport
of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone:  Part II

                 (page 5 of 5)

Dated: ____________________

______________________________________________________

Lisa P. Jackson

Administrator.

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

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

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866
Interagency Review.  Subject to Further Policy Review.

*** E.O. 12866 Review_CSAPR Revisions Rule: Part II DF with Parallel
NPRM_RIN 2060-AR35_FRN_2012-01-17 – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or
Release During Review***

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  1  of 49

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  6  of 5

Because it may be reasonable for someone to conclude that this
particular action, on its face, increases emissions in some areas (by
increasing emissions budgets) depending on what is considered the
relevant baseline, this needs more explanation than simply reiterating
what was said for the original CSAPR rule.  For example, because this
is primarily a technical fix to correct errors in the data used for the
original rule, it may be reasonable that EPA should still consider the
EJ impacts of the overall rule and not this technical correction – but
that should be clearly explained.  In this explanation, EPA should
consider clarifying that it has looked back at its original EJ
analysis/consideration to conclude that the initial conclusion still
holds true (and explaining how it came to this conclusion).

