ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 97 

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

RIN 2060-AR22

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing revisions to the Transport Rule that was
published on August 8, 2011 (76 FR 48208).  These revisions address
discrepancies in unit-specific modeling assumptions that affect the
proper calculation of Transport Rule state budgets and assurance levels
in Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Jersey, New
York, Texas, and Wisconsin, as well as new unit set-asides in Arkansas
and Texas.  EPA is also finalizing allowance allocation revisions to
specific units covered by certain consent decrees that restrict the use
of those allowances.  

The resulting budgets maintain substantial emission reductions from
historic levels and are consistent with the final Transport Rule's
methodology for defining significant contribution and interference with
maintenance.  The changes represent the proper application of the
methodology established in the final Transport Rule.  

 EPA is also finalizing the proposal to amend the assurance penalty
provisions of the rule to make them effective beginning January 1, 2014.
 EPA believes that deferring the effective date of the assurance
provisions will provide additional program confidence and will not
compromise the air quality goals of the program.

In addition, we are finalizing corrections of typographical errors in
the rule. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS FROM DATE OF
PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. OAR-EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0491.  All documents in the docket are
listed on the  HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov" http  HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov" ://  HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"
www  HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov" .  HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov" regulations  HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov" .  HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"
gov  Web site.  Although listed on 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, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form.  Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through  HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov" http  HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov" ://  HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"
www  HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov" .  HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov" regulations  HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov" .  HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"
gov  or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room B102, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC.  The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays.  The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.
 This Docket Facility is open from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The Docket telephone number
is (929)566-1742, fax (202) 566-1741.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  For general questions concerning this
action, 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:
http://epa.gov/crossstaterule.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations

The following are abbreviations of terms used in this final rule:

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

General Information

 Does this action apply to me?

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.

	  B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?

In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this
final rule will also be available on the World Wide Web. Following
signature by the EPA Administrator, a copy of this action will be posted
on the transport rule Web site http://www.epa.gov/airtransport.

C. How is this Preamble Organized?

I.	Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations

II. 	General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?

C. How is the preamble organized?

III. Executive Summary 

IV. 	Specific Revisions

A. Budgets/New Unit Set-aside Revisions and Recordation of Allowances

B. Allowance Allocation Revisions to Units Covered by Existing Utility
Consent Decrees 

C. Assurance Penalty Provisions 

D. Typographical Errors

V. 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 (RFA)

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

K. Congressional Review Act

L. Judicial Review

III.   Executive Summary 

In a previous proposal published on October 14, 2011 (76 FR 63860), EPA
identified potential errors in unit-specific modeling assumptions that
affect the proper calculation of Transport Rule state budgets and
assurance levels in Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska,
New Jersey, New York, Texas, and Wisconsin, as well as potential errors
affecting the proper calculation of new unit set-asides in Arkansas and
Texas.  EPA is now taking final action to:  (1) revise Michigan’s
annual NOX budget to account for an erroneously assumed selective
catalytic reduction (SCR) emission control device at one unit; (2)
revise Nebraska’s annual NOX budget to account for an erroneously
assumed SCR emission control device at one unit; (3) revise the Texas
SO2 budget to account for erroneously assumed flue gas desulphurization
(FGD, or scrubber) emission control devices at three units and revised
assumptions regarding flue gas treatment in existing scrubbers at seven
units; (4) revise the Arkansas ozone-season new unit set-aside to
account for erroneously omitted projected emissions from one new unit;
(5) revise the Texas new unit set-aside to account for erroneously
omitted projected emissions for SO2, ozone-season NOX, and annual NOX
from one new unit; (6) revise New Jersey’s ozone season NOX, annual
NOX, and SO2 budgets to account for erroneously assumed FGD and SCR
emission control devices at one unit, and taking into account
operational constraints likely to necessitate non-economic generation at
six facilities; (7) revise Wisconsin’s SO2 and annual NOX budgets to
account for erroneously assumed FGD and SCR devices at two units; (8)
revise New York’s SO2, annual NOX, and ozone season NOX budgets taking
into account operational constraints likely to necessitate non-economic
generation at ten units; (9) revise Louisiana’s ozone season NOX
budget taking into account operational constraints likely to necessitate
non-economic generation at twelve units; (10) revise Mississippi’s
ozone season NOX budget taking into account operational constraints
likely to necessitate non-economic generation at four units; (11) revise
the Texas annual NOX and ozone season NOX budgets taking into account
operational constraints likely to necessitate non-economic generation at
seven units; and (12) revise Florida’s ozone-season NOX budget taking
into account the immediate-term unavailability of a previously operating
nuclear unit.  See section IV.A of this preamble for a discussion of
these revisions and any additional changes.  

The proposed revisions to state budgets also entailed proposed revisions
to the affected states' assurance levels, as the variability limit
component of the assurance level for each state is calculated as a
percentage of the applicable budget.  Therefore, for each revision EPA
is finalizing to a state budget, EPA is also finalizing corresponding
revisions to the calculation of that state’s variability limit and
assurance level pertinent to that state budget.  Assurance levels are
only applicable to 2014 and beyond, given the 2014 effective date of the
assurance provisions as described below and in section IV.C of this
preamble. 

The revised budgets maintain substantial emission reductions from
historic levels and are consistent with the final Transport Rule’s
methodology for defining significant contribution and interference with
maintenance.  The changes represent the proper application of the
methodology established in the final Transport Rule.  No changes to that
methodology were proposed, and EPA did not reopen the methodology
established in the final Transport Rule for public comment.  EPA also
did not propose any change to the levels of stringency (i.e., cost per
ton) selected in the final Transport Rule’s determination of
significant contribution and interference with maintenance and did not
reopen that issue for public comment.  For more information, see the
“Final Revisions Rule Significant Contribution Assessment Technical
Support Document” in the docket for this rulemaking.  

In the proposed revisions rule, EPA solicited further information from
the public that may support similar revisions to Transport Rule state
budgets or new unit set-asides (76 FR 63868).  EPA believed that the
scope of such information supporting potential revisions was limited,
considering that EPA had already conducted several notice-and-comment
processes through initial proposal of the Transport Rule and multiple
notices of data availability (NODAs) to prompt the public to provide the
relevant input information that informs the calculation of the Transport
Rule state budgets.  By providing, in this rulemaking, an additional
opportunity for comment on aspects of Transport Rule state budgets, EPA
also addressed some of the issues and concerns raised in many of the
petitions for administrative reconsideration of the final Transport
Rule.

Based on relevant comments received that merited revisions, EPA is
making additional revisions in a separate direct final with parallel
proposal rulemaking.  

EPA also proposed revisions to allowance allocations at certain units in
six states that are affected by existing utility consent decrees.  When
establishing the state budgets under the final Transport Rule, EPA
accounted for the emission reduction requirements of these consent
decrees; therefore, the Transport Rule state budgets sustain the
environmental protection secured by those existing utility consent
decrees.  However, when dividing those state budgets into individual
unit-level allowance allocations, EPA included allowance allocations to
certain units that exceed those units’ allowable emissions under the
terms of the applicable consent decree.  Because EPA already secured the
environmental improvements required by the consent decrees by
incorporating their emission reductions into the Transport Rule state
budgets, there is no environmental need to prevent the allowances from
being used for compliance by sources subject to the Transport Rule,
aside from those sources whose emissions are restricted by the terms of
the consent decrees to which they are subject.  Therefore, EPA proposed
to revise Transport Rule unit-level allowance allocations to the
specific units affected by these consent decrees to reflect their
maximum allowable emissions, such that none of the allowances affected
by the consent decrees are unnecessarily removed from use for compliance
by other units.  EPA proposed this revision to benefit program
implementation.  EPA is finalizing this revision as proposed, with small
adjustments to reflect provisions under existing consent decrees that
account for extraordinary events.  See section IV.B of this preamble for
further explanation of Transport Rule units also covered by existing
utility consent decrees.

EPA is finalizing its proposal to revise the assurance penalty
provisions of the Transport Rule to make them effective January 1, 2014.
 The revision of the effective date of the assurance provisions will
promote the development of allowance market liquidity, thereby smoothing
the transition from the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) programs, which
were temporarily re-instated as of the Court’s action on December 30,
2011 to stay the Transport Rule, at such time as the Court lifts the
stay of the Transport Rule and provides clarity on implementation dates
for the Transport Rule programs.  See section IV.C of this preamble for
a further discussion of the assurance provisions effective date.

EPA is also finalizing corrections to typographical errors in certain
sections of rule text in parts 52 and 97 of the final Transport Rule. 
See section IV.D of this preamble for further explanation of these
corrections.

On December 30, 2011, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in EME
Homer City Generation, L.P., v. Environmental Protection Agency, No.
11-1302 (EME Homer City) issued an Order staying the final Transport
Rule.   While this action revises that rule, it is not intended to nor
does it have any effect on the Court’s Order staying the underlying
final Transport Rule.  Specifically, for example, finalizing this action
in and of itself does not result in the imposition of any requirements
on regulated units or states.   

IV. Specific Revisions  

Budget/New Unit Set-Aside Revisions and Recordation of Allowances 

EPA is finalizing the following revisions:

Increase Michigan’s 2012 and 2014 annual NOX budgets in accordance
with a revision to the final Transport Rule analysis that erroneously
assumed that an SCR exists at Monroe Unit 2.  

EPA is finalizing revisions to Michigan’s 2012 and 2014 annual NOX
budgets as proposed.  This action revises the assumption of an SCR at
Monroe Unit 2.  This SCR is planned, but is not expected to be online in
2012 or 2014.  Commenters did not identify any errors that would
invalidate EPA's approach to making the proposed revisions addressing
Monroe Unit 2.  This results in a 5,228 ton increase in the state’s
annual 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.    

EPA adjusted Michigan’s 2012 and 2014 ozone-season NOX budgets to
reflect the corrections to the Monroe Unit 2 emissions when it included
Michigan in the Transport Rule ozone-season NOX program (76 FR 80760,
December 27, 2011), as previously proposed (76 FR 40662, July 11, 2011).

Increase Nebraska’s 2012 and 2014 annual NOX and SO2 budgets in
accordance with a revision to the final Transport Rule analysis that
erroneously assumed that an SCR exists at Nebraska City Unit 1.  

EPA is finalizing Nebraska’s 2012 and 2014 annual NOX budgets, as
proposed, to correct an assumption that an SCR exists at Nebraska City
Unit 1.  There is no SCR that is present, planned, or under construction
at the unit.  Commenters did not identify any errors that would
invalidate EPA's approach to addressing Nebraska City Unit 1.  This
adjustment results in an increase of 3,599 tons to the state’s annual
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.  

Increase the Texas 2012 and 2014 SO2 budgets in accordance with a
revision to the final Transport Rule analysis that erroneously assumed
that scrubbers exist at W. A. Parish Unit 6, J.T. Deely Unit 1, and J.T.
Deely Unit 2, and that assumed full flue gas treatment in existing
scrubbers at Martin Lake, Monticello, Sandow, W.A. Parish, and Oklaunion
facilities.

EPA is finalizing revisions to the modeling assumptions affecting the
calculation of the Texas SO2 budget, with an adjustment described below
based on comments received.  EPA is finalizing increases to the Texas
SO2 budget in accordance with a revision to the final Transport Rule
analysis that erroneously assumed flue-gas desulfurization (FGD)
technology is installed on J.T. Deely Units 1 and 2 and W.A. Parish Unit
6 by 2012.  As explained in the proposal, these FGDs are no longer
scheduled to be installed in 2012 (76 FR 63864).  Commenters did not
identify any errors that would invalidate EPA's approach to addressing
J.T. Deely Units 1 and 2 or W.A. Parish Unit 6.

EPA is also finalizing an increase to the Texas SO2 budget in accordance
with revised assumptions regarding the SO2 removal efficiency of
existing scrubbers on units at the Martin Lake, Monticello, Sandow, W.A.
Parish, and Oklaunion facilities.  These facilities in Texas currently
face immediate-term limitations regarding the amount of flue gas that
can be treated in their existing FGDs.  In the final Transport Rule
analysis, EPA relied on the SO2 removal efficiency that these facilities
reported at their scrubbers to the Energy Information Administration
(EIA).  However, EPA has since determined that these particular
facilities’ reports only intended to address the removal efficiency
for the portion of the flue gas treated in the scrubber.  For this
reason, that removal efficiency should not be applied to the total
amount of sulfur combusted in the coal consumed (as some of the flue gas
at these units must be vented without being treated in the scrubber as
originally constructed).  When the SO2 removal rates are decreased to
reflect the reported operational constraint of each affected
scrubber’s flue gas treatment, the projected emission level for Texas,
after all significant contribution and interference with maintenance
identified in the final Transport Rule is addressed, correspondingly
rises.

In the proposed revisions rule, EPA quantified this revision using these
scrubbers’ SO2 removal efficiencies as reported for 2008 on EIA form
923.  Public comments on the rule pointed out that more recent data
reported by these units for 2009 on EIA form 860 offered a more recent
and more technically detailed explanation of these scrubbers’ SO2
removal efficiencies.  In addition, EPA based all of its assumptions of
existing scrubber performance in the final Transport Rule analysis on
values reported by sources on EIA form 860, as EPA believes this data
captures scrubber performance capability as opposed to performance in
any particular year, which can vary depending on the frequency that a
facility chooses to operate its FGD.  EPA believes that basing the
effective removal rate for these units on EIA 860 constitutes a more
accurate and reliable data source for this rulemaking, and EPA is
finalizing this revision using this data as the basis for the
recalculated projected emissions at these units, which inform the state
budget.  

In accordance with the revised unit-level input assumptions regarding
existing scrubbers and adjustments to the flue gas treatment
calculations at the Texas units described above, EPA is increasing the
state’s 2012 and 2014 SO2 budgets each by 50,517 tons.  

See “Final Revisions Rule State Budgets and New Unit Set-Asides TSD”
in the docket for this rulemaking for a quantitative demonstration of
these revisions. 

 (4) Increase Arkansas’ ozone-season NOX new unit set-aside in
accordance with revisions to the final Transport Rule’s calculation of
the new unit set-aside that erroneously omitted Plum Point Unit 1’s
projected emissions.

 EPA is finalizing an increase of 3 percent to the portion of
Arkansas’ ozone-season budget dedicated to the new unit set-aside
account.  This change yields a total new unit set-aside of 5 percent as
the portion of Arkansas’ ozone-season budget dedicated to the new unit
set-aside account (as opposed to the 2 percent previously established
under the final Transport Rule).  The revision is consistent with the
new unit set-aside methodology described in the final rule.  As
explained in the proposal, the updated value simply reflects the revised
classification of Plum Point Unit 1, which commenced commercial
operation on or after January 1, 2010, as a new unit for purposes of
unit-level allowance allocations under the final Transport Rule’s
unit-level allocation methodology (76 FR 48290).  Commenters did not
identify any errors that would invalidate EPA's approach to addressing
Plum Point Unit 1.  See the “Final Revisions Rule State Budgets and
New Unit Set-Asides TSD” in the docket for this rulemaking for a
quantitative demonstration of these revisions.

These revisions to the Arkansas new unit set-aside result in changes to
allowance allocations to existing units, but they do not change the
state’s overall budget.  See “Final Revisions Rule Unit-Level
Allocations under the FIPs” in the docket to this rulemaking.

(5)	Increase Texas’ ozone-season NOX, annual NOX, and SO2 new unit
set-asides in accordance with a revision to the final Transport Rule’s
calculations of the new unit set-asides that erroneously omitted Oak
Grove Unit 2’s projected emissions.  

EPA is finalizing a revision to the calculation of the new unit
set-asides for ozone-season NOX, annual NOX, and SO2 in Texas to reflect
the revised classification of one unit as a new unit for purposes of
unit-level allowance allocation.  As explained in the proposal, this
unit, Oak Grove Unit 2, commenced commercial operation on or after
January 1, 2010, and should be considered a new unit under the final
Transport Rule’s unit-level allocation methodology.  Including this
unit’s projected emissions in the calculation yields revised new unit
set-asides of 4 percent of the state’s ozone-season NOX budget, 4
percent of the state’s annual NOX budget, and 5 percent of the
state’s SO2 budget.  Commenters did not identify any errors that would
invalidate EPA's approach to addressing Oak Grove Unit 2.  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.

These revisions to the Texas new unit set-asides result in changes to
allowance allocations to existing units, but they do not change the
state’s overall budget.  See “Final Revisions Rule Unit-Level
Allocations under the FIPs” in the docket to this rulemaking.

 

(6)	Increase New Jersey’s 2012 and 2014 ozone-season NOX, annual NOX,
and SO2 budgets in accordance with revisions to the final Transport Rule
analysis that erroneously assumed that an SCR and scrubber exist at BL
England Unit 1 and to reflect operational constraints likely to
necessitate non-economic dispatch at six other facilities in 2012.  

     EPA is finalizing New Jersey’s ozone-season NOX, annual NOX, and
SO2 budgets to reflect revisions to assumed control technologies at BL
England Unit 1 and operational constraints affecting units at six other
facilities.  Commenters did not identify any errors that would
invalidate EPA's approach to making the proposed revisions addressing BL
England Unit 1, which were described in the proposal (76 FR 63865).  EPA
is also finalizing revisions to New Jersey’s state budgets based on
information demonstrating that northern New Jersey is an
out-of-merit-order dispatch area.  Units at six New Jersey plants
(Bergen, Edison, Essex, Kearny, Linden, and Sewaren Generating Stations)
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.  EPA is making only a minor
adjustment in the way these budget revisions are calculated based on
public comments regarding the eligible sources of generation that would
be offset by the assumption of increased generation at the identified
units.  Commenters argued that cogeneration units would be less likely
than other generators to adjust their dispatch in order to maintain the
system’s equilibrium between electricity supply and demand, as
operation of these units would remain supported by steam demand.  EPA
agrees with these commenters and has recalculated the associated budget
revisions while excluding cogeneration units from the calculation.    

EPA re-calculated projected emissions from BL England Unit 1 and the six
plants with near-term out-of-merit-order generation to account for the
input assumption changes finalized in this action.  These calculations
yield increases to the New Jersey 2012 state budgets for SO2 of 2,096
tons, annual NOX of 952 tons, and ozone-season NOX of 746 tons; and 2014
state budget increases for annual NOX of 679 tons, and ozone-season NOX
of 349 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.

(7) Increase Wisconsin’s 2014 SO2 budget and 2012 and 2014 annual NOX
budget in accordance with a revision to the final Transport Rule
analysis that erroneously assumed that an FGD exists at Weston Unit 3,
wet FGDs (instead of dry FGDs) exist at Columbia Units 1 and 2, and a
SCR exists at John P. Madgett Unit 1. 

EPA is finalizing the proposed increase to Wisconsin’s SO2 budget.  As
explained in the proposal, EPA proposed to adjust Wisconsin's 2014 SO2
budget to reflect Weston Unit 3’s operation without an FGD in 2014;
and dry scrubbers instead of wet scrubbers at Columbia Units 1 and 2. 
Commenters did not identify any errors that would invalidate EPA's
approach to making the proposed revisions addressing Weston Unit 3 or
Columbia Units 1 and 2.  To account for these adjustments, EPA is
increasing the Wisconsin SO2 budget by a total of 7,757 tons in 2014.

EPA is also finalizing the proposed increase to Wisconsin’s annual NOX
budgets in 2012 and 2014.  As explained in the proposal to this action,
there is no SCR expected to be online in 2012 or 2014 at John P. Madgett
Unit 1.  Commenters did not identify any errors that would invalidate
EPA's approach to addressing John P. Madgett Unit 1.  Therefore, EPA is
increasing Wisconsin’s annual NOX budgets by 2,473 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.

EPA adjusted Wisconsin’s 2012 and 2014 ozone-season NOX budgets to
reflect the corrections to the John P. Madgett emissions when it
included Wisconsin in the Transport Rule ozone-season NOX program (76 FR
80760, December 27, 2011), as previously proposed (76 FR 40662, July 11,
2011).  

(8) Increase New York’s 2012 and 2014 ozone-season NOX, annual NOX,
and SO2 budgets in accordance with a revision to the final Transport
Rule analysis that did not reflect operational constraints likely to
necessitate non-economic dispatch at certain units. 

 

EPA is finalizing increases to the New York state ozone-season NOX,
annual NOX, and SO2 budgets in 2012 and 2014, to satisfy three specific
immediate-term operational constraints documented by the New York
Independent System Operator (NYISO).  These three constraints are
referred to here as the N-1-1 Contingency, the Minimum Oil Burn Rules,
and out-of-merit-order dispatch conditions, which collectively affect
the likely 2012 and 2014 operations of specific units in the New York
City and Long Island areas. See the proposal to this rule for details
(76 FR 63865, October 14, 2011).  Commenters did not identify any errors
that would invalidate EPA's approach to addressing the units identified
by the proposal with near-term out-of-merit-order generation in New York
State.  

EPA re-calculated projected emissions from the New York units identified
in the proposal with near-term out-of-merit-order generation to account
for the input assumption changes finalized in this action.  These
calculations yield increases to the New York 2012 and 2014 state budgets
for SO2 of 3,527 tons, for annual NOX of 3,485 tons, and for
ozone-season NOX of 1,911 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.  

 

(9) Increase Louisiana’s 2012 and 2014 ozone-season NOX budgets in
accordance with a revision to the final Transport Rule analysis to
reflect operational constraints likely to necessitate non-economic
dispatch at twelve units. 

EPA is finalizing revisions to Louisiana’s 2012 and 2014 state ozone
season NOX budgets based on assumptions regarding near-term non-economic
dispatch of certain units.  As explained in the proposed revisions rule,
conditions in these out-of-merit-order dispatch areas are likely to
necessitate what would otherwise be non-economic generation at five
Louisiana plants (R.S. Nelson, Nine Mile Point, Michoud, Little Gypsy,
and Waterford) in the immediate future, as explained in detail in the
proposed revisions rule (76 FR 63866).  EPA is making only a minor
adjustment in the way these budget revisions are calculated based on
public comments regarding the eligible sources of generation that would
be offset by the assumption of increased generation at the identified
units.  Commenters argued that cogeneration units would be less likely
than other generators to adjust their dispatch in order to maintain the
system’s equilibrium between electricity supply and demand, as
operation of these units would remain supported by steam demand.  EPA
agrees with these commenters and has recalculated the associated budget
revisions while excluding cogeneration units from the calculation.     

EPA is increasing Louisiana’s 2012 and 2014 state budgets for
ozone-season NOX by 4,594 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.  

(10) Increase Mississippi’s 2012 and 2014 ozone-season NOX budgets in
accordance with a revision to the final Transport Rule analysis to
reflect operational constraints likely to necessitate non-economic
dispatch at certain units. 

EPA is finalizing revisions to Mississippi’s 2012 and 2014 state ozone
season NOX budget based on conditions in this out-of-merit-order
dispatch area that are likely to necessitate what would otherwise be
non-economic generation at three Mississippi plants (Rex Brown, Gerald
Andrus, Baxter Wilson) in the immediate future, as explained in detail
in the proposed revisions rule (76 FR 63866).  EPA is making only a
minor adjustment in the way these budget revisions are calculated in
order to replace the proposal’s use of an annual NOX rate with a more
appropriate ozone-season NOX rate to calculate the revision to the
state’s ozone-season NOX budgets.

EPA re-calculated the emissions from the three plants 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 2,154 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.

(11) Increase the Texas 2012 and 2014 annual and ozone-season NOX
budgets in accordance with a revision to the final Transport Rule
analysis to reflect operational constraints likely to necessitate
non-economic dispatch at certain units. 

EPA is finalizing revisions to Texas’s 2012 and 2014 state annual and
ozone season NOX budgets, with some adjustments based on comments.  EPA
is adjusting Texas’s emission budgets based on analysis projecting the
minimum frequency these units will have to run in the immediate-term for
non-economic purposes, according to data provided by the utility
operating those units.  Commenters did not identify any errors that
would invalidate EPA's approach to making the proposed revisions
addressing the units identified by the proposal with near-term
out-of-merit-order generation in Texas.

EPA re-calculated the emissions from the two plants with non-economic
generation to account for the input assumption changes.  These
calculations yield increases to Texas’s 2012 and 2014 state budgets
for annual NOX of 1,375 tons and ozone-season NOX of 1,375 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. 

(12) Increase Florida’s 2012 ozone-season NOX budget in accordance
with a revision to the final Transport Rule analysis to reflect the
immediate-term unavailability of Crystal River Unit 3, a nuclear unit. 

EPA is finalizing the increase of 819 tons to Florida’s 2012
ozone-season NOX budget as proposed.  As explained in the proposal,
Crystal River Unit 3 is currently experiencing an extended outage that
renders its nuclear generation unavailable in the immediate future (76
FR 63867).  EPA received public comments requesting that this revision
to Florida’s ozone-season NOX budget be extended into 2014 and beyond,
on the basis that future generation from Crystal River Unit 3 is
uncertain.  EPA does not believe this revision has merit on that
timeframe.

Commenters did not provide any evidence that Crystal River Unit 3 would
fail to return to service upon the conclusion of the current extended
outage, and the unit is in fact expected to return to service in 2014. 
Furthermore, EPA notes that the potential outage of a nuclear unit in
any given year is a scenario that the Transport Rule’s assurance
provisions were explicitly designed to accommodate.  The final Transport
Rule’s methodology for calculating variability limits (the degree to
which a state’s emissions are permitted to exceed its budget in any
given year under the program) is based on a decade-long observation of
historic year-to-year variability in states’ heat input at covered
units, which would capture the impact of disruptions at other sources of
generation (such as a nuclear outage) on emissions at covered units.  As
EPA explained in the final Transport Rule, a state budget represents
remaining emissions at covered units in an average year after the
elimination of significant contribution and interference with
maintenance, whereas the variability limit accommodates year-to-year
fluctuation of state-level emissions around that average outcome
consistent with historically observed year-to-year variability in
state-level heat input at covered units.  EPA believes it is appropriate
to quantify an “average year” of projected emissions in Florida for
2014 and beyond to include projected generation from Crystal River Unit
3, while allowing the variability limit to accommodate the potential
that such generation may be temporarily unavailable in any given year in
that timeframe.  As such, EPA is not extending this revision to
Florida’s ozone-season NOX budget for 2014 and beyond.

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. 

B.  Allowance Allocation Revisions to Units Covered by Existing Utility
Consent Decrees

The state budgets in the August 8, 2011 final Transport Rule (76 FR
48290) accurately incorporated the emission reduction requirements of
existing utility consent decrees.  However, after the final rule was
published, EPA determined that provisions under certain existing utility
consent decrees could restrict the use of Transport Rule allowances
allocated to units subject to those consent decrees, such that a certain
portion of those allocated allowances could be rendered unavailable for
compliance use by any source under the Transport Rule programs.  EPA
determined that the sum of the SO2 and/or NOX allowances allocated to
the units at certain facilities (or to the units included in certain
systems) affected by these consent decrees exceeded the facility-wide
(or system-wide) annual tonnage limit (ATL) specified in the applicable
consent decree.  The consent decrees for these facilities and systems
include provisions that either require that allowances in excess of
those necessary for compliance with the consent decrees be surrendered
or place restrictions on the trading of such allowances.  Therefore,
excess allowances at these facilities (or within these systems) cannot
be used by any Transport Rule program source(s) for compliance purposes.
 

 To address this issue, on October 14, 2011, EPA proposed to add a
constraint on Transport Rule unit-level allowance allocations for the
facilities and systems in question (76 FR 63860).  This action finalizes
the proposed constraint, which affects a total of 82 units in six
states:  Alabama, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee.  The
constraint reduces the number of SO2 and/or NOX allowances allocated to
each of the 82 affected units, in order to align the facility-wide and
system-wide allowance totals with the ATLs specified in the consent
decrees.  

The unit-level allowance adjustments for each affected facility (or
system) were made using the methodology described in the October 14,
2011 proposed rule.  First, EPA calculated the ratio of the
facility-wide (or system-wide) ATL to the total number of allowances
allocated to the units at the facility (or in the system).  Then, for
each unit, an annual tonnage limit equivalent (“unit-level cap”) was
determined by multiplying this ratio by the number of allowances
originally allocated to the unit.  

As previously noted, EPA took the requirements of existing utility
consent decrees into account when the state budgets were established. 
Therefore, this final action, as it regards the consent decrees, does
not alter the budget of any of the six affected states.  Further, this
action with respect to the consent decrees has no impact on the existing
unit-level allocations in states where there are no units covered by
consent decrees with ATLs.  The excess allowances removed from the 82
affected units have been reallocated to other covered sources in each
relevant state using the allowance allocation methodology described in
the October 14, 2011 proposed rule.

EPA received several comments on the proposed constraint and the
unit-level cap apportionment methodology.  Some commenters supported the
proposal.  Other commenters expressed concern that EPA was
inappropriately using its rulemaking authority to modify, undo, or
compromise provisions in the negotiated consent decree agreements.  The
Agency does not agree that the allowance allocation revisions being
finalized in this rule modify the terms of any consent decree.  The
unit-level allowance allocation caps applied in this rulemaking do not
alter any obligation, timeline, or other requirement of the utility
consent decrees.  None of the restrictions in the utility consent
decrees are premised on trading programs that employ any particular
allocation methodology or distribution of unit-level allocations. 
Moreover, the utility consent decrees do not, and cannot, preclude any
particular allocation methodology or distribution from being implemented
in future trading programs.  Finally, unit-level allowance allocations
under existing trading programs, including the Transport Rule programs,
do not establish unit-level emission constraints, because sources may
obtain additional allowances from the marketplace to cover emissions
that are above the unit-level allocations.  

Several commenters asked EPA to either clarify the specific consent
decrees or exempt Transport Rule allowances from those restrictions and
requirements.  However, legal interpretations of utility consent decree
provisions are outside the scope of this rulemaking. Moreover, it would
be inappropriate for EPA to attempt to alter the terms of the consent
decrees to exempt the Transport Rule allowances from the trading
restrictions and allowance surrender provisions via a rulemaking.

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) commented that the TVA consent decree
includes a higher SO2 ATL in the event that a nuclear electric
generating unit is shut down for more than 120 days during calendar
years 2012, 2013, or 2014.  Because EPA and TVA are unable to predict
whether such an event will occur, EPA is adopting, for purposes of
allowance allocations in this rulemaking, the higher ATL for the TVA
system which is based on the occurrence of a nuclear unit shut down. 
This change only affects TVA unit-level allocations in the year 2013. 
EPA reviewed the other existing utility consent decrees and did not find
similar provisions in those decrees that require such an adjustment.

In the proposed revisions rule, EPA adjusted unit-level allocations to
units affected by the TVA consent decree in years for which the final
Transport Rule’s allowance allocations to those units collectively
exceeded that consent decree’s ATL that is effective in that year. For
the affected TVA units, the final Transport Rule’s allowance
allocations exceeded the consent decree ATL in 2013, 2018, and
thereafter.  TVA submitted comments arguing that the effective ATL under
that consent decree is subject to change based on the potential
retirement of affected units, which would also reduce aggregate
unit-level allowance allocations to TVA under the Transport Rule. 
TVA’s comments noted that the future balance of these two factors,
which change over time, is uncertain.

EPA recognizes that the relationship between unit-level allowance
allocations under the FIPs and the applicable ATL becomes relatively
less certain when considered over longer time horizons.  In order to
reduce the potential impact utility consent decree ATLs may have on the
availability of Transport Rule allowances for compliance, EPA must
account for the variability in utility consent decree ATLs in future
years.  Where information was available, EPA included generating unit
retirements in its analysis of utility consent decree ATLs (see
“Assessment of Impact of Consent Decree Annual Tonnage Limits on
Transport Rule Allocations” in the Docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491) for
the proposed revisions (76 FR 63860)).  However, EPA agrees that the
uncertainty becomes more pronounced in more distant years.  Therefore,
in this rulemaking EPA is not quantifying any additional adjustments to
unit-level caps attributable to consent decree ATLs that become
effective after 2017.  In 2018 and thereafter, EPA will continue to
apply the ATLs effective in 2017 for the purpose of unit-level
allocations.  EPA notes that this timeline will provide states with
ample opportunity, if they wish, to submit SIPs and establish alternate
allocation methodologies where updated information on consent decree
requirements may affect Transport Rule allowance use.

 

C. Assurance Penalty Provisions 

EPA is finalizing its proposal to make the assurance provisions
effective starting in 2014.  EPA maintains that, for 2012-2013, the
Transport Rule (as revised by this final rule) ensures the elimination
of each state’s significant contribution to nonattainment and
interference with maintenance.  The only commenters that opposed this
proposed approach were North Carolina and Maryland.  EPA is adopting the
proposed approach -- and rejecting North Carolina’s and Maryland’s
comments in opposition -- for the following reasons. 

EPA’s decision in this final revised rule to delay the effectiveness
of the assurance provisions is based on new information, i.e.,
information that recently became available on states’ total EGU
emissions in the last four quarters (one in 2010 and three in 2011) and
concerns raised recently by commenters about the immediate-term
viability of Transport Rule allowance markets during the transition from
CAIR.  The most current available emissions data -- i.e., total
emissions for the last quarter of 2010 and the first three quarters of
2011 -- for EGUs in the states subject to the Transport Rule trading
programs show that, in the vast majority of states, EGUs are already
emitting at an annual level below the level of the applicable 2012 state
assurance level.  Specifically, in 16 out of the 23 states subject to
the Transport Rule SO2 program, 19 out of the 23 states subject to the
Transport Rule NOX annual program, and 22 out of the 25 states subject
to the Transport Rule NOX ozone season program, EGU emissions for the
state for the last 12 months total less than the state assurance level
(state budget plus variability limit), the level that reflects
elimination of significant contribution and interference with
maintenance.  Moreover, in the remaining states, emission controls that
EPA’s projections demonstrate will bring annual emissions down to the
level of the applicable state assurance level are in the process of
being installed and will be in operation in 2012 and 2013.   

In addition, EGU owners and operators will know in 2012 and 2013 that
the assurance provisions will be taking effect in 2014 when many state
budgets under the Transport Rule trading programs will be reduced. 
Owners and operators will therefore need to implement compliance
strategies to meet both the requirement to hold allowances covering
emissions and to avoid assurance provision penalties in the context of,
in many cases, reduced state budgets.  Consequently, EGU emissions are
likely to decline even further during 2012-2013 as owners and operators
make immediate investments in further emission reductions to prepare for
2014 and beyond.  As one commenter observed, “Moreover, the desire of
electric generating units (EGUs) to avoid the increased penalties once
they are implemented in 2014 should encourage compliance with the
Transport Rule even prior to assurance penalties being imposed.  It is
likely not in a polluter’s interest to fail to implement emission
reduction measures now, as it would be forced to decrease emissions with
potentially unfeasible rapidity once the assurance penalty provisions
are enacted, or else face extra exorbitant penalties” (Docket ID
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4775).

EPA also conducted additional modeling of projected EGU emissions in
2012 and 2013 under the Transport Rule without applying the assurance
provisions to those years.  This modeling shows that the Transport Rule
trading programs will still result in emission reductions that cause
total emissions in each state to be below the level of the applicable
state assurance level, even when sources are not subject to the
assurance provisions in those years.  These very short-term projections
are based on inputs that reflect validated, currently installed emission
controls resulting in a higher degree of certainty than longer-term
emission projections.  In particular, the locations are known of
existing EGUs with existing emission controls or with ongoing emission
control retrofits to be completed by 2012, and of new EGUs (with
emission controls) to be completed by 2012, and the emission reduction
capabilities of all these controls also are known.    

Based on the current level of EGU emissions and EPA’s short-term
modeling results, EPA maintains that EGU emissions in 2012 and 2013 in
each of the states subject to the Transport Rule -- without the
assurance provisions being applicable in those years -- have virtually
no chance of exceeding the applicable state assurance level. 
Consequently, imposition of the assurance provisions during 2012-2013 is
unnecessary and could actually be detrimental to smooth program
implementation, as explained below.  

EPA believes that a limited postponement of the effectiveness of the
assurance provisions is justified in order to achieve a seamless
transition from the existing CAIR programs to the new Transport Rule
programs.  Under both CAIR and the Transport Rule, individual units have
the flexibility to supplement their own emission reduction efforts with
acquisitions from the market of any additional allowances needed to
cover emissions under the applicable programs.  Active, transparent
markets providing broad access to CAIR NOX annual, CAIR NOX ozone
season, and Acid Rain SO2 allowances have been in existence for many
years.  Sources covered by CAIR have relied on the availability of these
robust markets when developing compliance plans.  The Transport Rule
(TR) creates new TR SO2 Group 1, TR SO2 Group 2, TR NOX annual, and TR
NOX ozone season allowances.  Markets for these allowances have started
up and were developing before the Court issued a stay of the rule on
December 30, 2011.   

Some EGU owners and operators, states, and other organizations have
expressed concern about the future availability of Transport Rule
allowances in the market.  For example, EPA received the following
comment and several others like it:  “The [Group] strongly supports
EPA’s proposal to delay implementation of the assurance penalty
provisions until January 1, 2014.  The Group has significant concerns
regarding the viability of the allowance markets anticipated by CSAPR.
Delay of the assurance penalty provisions may increase the likelihood
that allowance markets will develop in the first CSAPR compliance
period.  Accordingly, the Group urges EPA to finalize its proposed
amendments to the assurance penalty provisions. . . Delaying
implementation of the assurance penalty provisions until 2014 would
reduce the risks associated with entering the market and encourage
sources to engage in allowance trading” (Docket ID
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4821).  Indeed, such concerns are to be expected as
new markets start up and develop, with the result that prices tend to
spike during market start-up and eventually settle to anticipated
levels.  After a period of time, the market matures and increasing
numbers of participants gain experience with, and confidence in, the
market.

Not only do the allowance markets under the Transport Rule involve the
purchase and sale of new types of allowances for use in new trading
programs, but also only the Transport Rule trading programs include
assurance provisions, which were not included in any previous allowance
trading programs.  Many of the comments EPA received indicated that the
introduction of this new and unfamiliar element in the Transport Rule
trading programs has heightened concerns about the ability of owners and
operators to use the new allowance markets to comply with the
requirement to hold allowances covering emissions.  Early trading
activity is important for demonstrating market liquidity and assisting
in price discovery to facilitate compliance planning by owners and
operators of covered sources.  If, out of immediate-term unfamiliarity
with how the assurance provisions would be applied, owners and operators
were to limit their own early trading activity, the assurance provisions
would have negative impacts not only on those owners and operators, but
also on all participants in the Transport Rule trading programs.

EPA is delaying the effective date of the assurance provisions until
2014 in order to neutralize a key uncertainty facing successful and
potentially rapid program implementation following the current stay,
such that sources can rely on immediate activation of a Transport Rule
allowance market that offers the cost-effective emission reduction
flexibilities on which the rule relies to eliminate significant
contribution and interference with maintenance.

In summary, EPA concludes that, not only are the assurance provisions
not necessary in 2012-2013 to ensure elimination of significant
contribution and interference with maintenance, but also that the
imposition of the assurance provisions in 2012-2013 would risk
inhibiting the development and availability of the allowance market and
thus raise the costs of compliance with Transport Rule emission
reduction requirements.  Delaying imposition of the assurance provisions
until 2014 will ease the transition for covered sources from compliance
with CAIR requirements to compliance with Transport Rule requirements by
addressing concerns about the readiness of new Transport Rule allowance
markets, facilitating progress of these markets, and instilling
confidence that owners and operators can comply through a variety of
cost-effective strategies that are not limited by initial Transport Rule
unit-level allowance allocations.  EPA maintains that this will result,
in the aggregate in each state, in cost-effective emission reductions
and total state emissions that are consistent with EPA’s
quantification of each state’s obligation to eliminate significant
contribution and interference with maintenance in downwind areas. 

EPA’s adoption, in the final revision rule, of a brief delay until
2014 in the imposition of the assurance provisions constitutes a change
in the Agency’s approach from the approach adopted in the final
Transport Rule.  In the final Transport Rule, EPA decided to make the
assurance provisions effective starting in 2012 “because this approach
provides even further assurance, consistent with North Carolina, that
each state’s prohibited emissions will be eliminated from the start of
the Transport Rule trading programs” (76 FR at 48296).  Although EPA
took the conservative approach of providing more assurance by adopting
2012 as the start of the assurance provisions, EPA did not conclude, in
the final Transport Rule, that starting the assurance provisions in 2014
would be inconsistent with North Carolina or would result in states not
eliminating their significant contribution or interference with
maintenance.  

The trading programs created by the final Transport Rule, as modified by
the final revision rule, are distinguishable from the CAIR trading
programs that the Court reversed in North Carolina and meet the
requirements set forth in the Court’s decision.  In the Transport
Rule, EPA established state-specific budgets and state-specific
variability limits, and, if each state’s total EGU emissions for a
control period do not exceed the applicable state budget plus
variability, then that state’s significant contribution and
interference with maintenance are eliminated for that control period. 
In contrast with the Transport Rule, in CAIR, EPA determined at a
regional level the amount of required emission reductions.  See North
Carolina, 531 F.3d at 907.  Thus, the requirement -- which was not met
by CAIR -- to determine the amount of each state’s significant
contribution and interference with maintenance is met by the Transport
Rule.  

Moreover, unlike the circumstances in CAIR, EPA determined in this
rulemaking that information on the current level of EGU emissions and
ongoing emission control installations, supported by the results of
EPA’s short-term modeling, demonstrates that without the assurance
provisions being applicable in 2012-2013, EGU emissions in 2012 and 2013
in each state will not exceed the applicable state assurance level.  For
2014 and thereafter when controls and emissions are likely to be
different from current controls and emissions and modeling projections
are correspondingly less certain, the Transport Rule imposes assurance
provision requirements that penalize sources whose emissions result in
the state having total EGU emissions in excess of the state assurance
level, and thereby ensures that sources operate in a manner that results
in the elimination of each state’s significant contribution and
interference with maintenance. 

In contrast with the Transport Rule, state-level EGU emissions were not,
when CAIR was issued, already at (or well on the way to meeting) the
required reduction levels. EPA did not impose penalties on sources whose
emissions resulted in a state’s failing to eliminate its significant
contribution and interference with maintenance, and EPA relied entirely
on its modeling, as opposed to data demonstrating states' emission
reductions occurring in the period immediately prior to the relevant
compliance years, to show that significant contribution and interference
with maintenance would be eliminated.  See North Carolina, 531 F.3d at
907 (stating that “CAIR only assures that the entire region’s
significant contribution will be eliminated.  It is possible that CAIR
would achieve [CAA] section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)’s goals.  EPA's
modeling shows that sources contributing to North Carolina’s
nonattainment areas will at least reduce their emissions even after
opting into CAIR’s trading programs…But EPA is not exercising its
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) duty unless it is promulgating a rule that
achieves something measurable toward the goal of prohibiting sources
‘within the State’ from contributing to nonattainment or interfering
with maintenance ‘in any other State.’")  

In addition, in CAIR, the EPA modeling was for the intermediate term
(i.e., projected in 2005 emissions for 2009 and 2010), not for the short
term when critical elements (such as the locations of existing EGUs with
existing emission controls or with control retrofits to be completed by
2012 and of soon-to-be-completed, new EGUs with controls and the
reduction capabilities of all these controls) are known.  Thus, the
Transport Rule accomplishes on a state-by-state basis what CAIR
accomplished on a regional basis, i.e., assurance that significant
contribution and interference with maintenance will be eliminated, and 
the requirement -- which was not met by CAIR -- that EPA provide such
assurance is met by the Transport Rule.     

North Carolina’s argument EPA is somehow barred from delaying the
effectiveness of the assurance provisions in the Transport Rule FIPs
because this delay “will, at least in some locations, lead to”
increased emissions in some nonattainment or maintenance areas is
fatally flawed.  As discussed above, without the assurance provisions in
2012-2013, total EGU emissions in each state will still be below the
state assurance level and therefore each state will meet the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) by eliminating the
significant contribution and interference with maintenance identified in
the final Transport Rule.  North Carolina failed to show otherwise.  

On the contrary, North Carolina simply speculated that, during
2012-2013, the lack of assurance provisions will result in more
emissions in “some locations” than if the assurance provisions were
in effect and that these emissions will increase ambient pollutant
levels in areas with nonattainment or maintenance problems.  However,
North Carolina failed to identify any such “locations” and any such
nonattainment/maintenance problem areas, much less provided any support
(beyond its assertion) that these emission increases and ambient effects
would occur.

For the reasons explained above, EPA is revising the Transport Rule such
that its assurance provisions are effective beginning in 2014.

D. Correct Typographical Errors 

EPA is finalizing as proposed to correct typographical errors in certain
sections of rule text in parts 52 and 97 in the final Transport Rule. 
EPA received no comments on correcting typographical errors. 

V. 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 this 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 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.  

EPA has determined that this action will not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or
low-income populations because it does not affect the level of
protection provided to human health or the environment.  EPA believes
that the vast majority of communities and individuals in areas covered
by the Transport Rule program inclusive of this action, including
numerous low-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 on these communities is detailed in section XII.J of the
preamble to the final Transport Rule.

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

(page 51 of 97)

Dated: ____________________

______________________________________________________

Lisa P. Jackson

Administrator.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, parts 52 and 97 of chapter I
of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations are proposed to be
amended as follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

Subpart A--General Provisions

2. Section 52.39 is amended by revising paragraph 

(i)(1)(ii) by removing the words "Group 1" and adding, in 

their place, the words "Group 2".

Subpart O--Illinois

3. Section 52.745 is redesignated as §52.731. 

4. Section 52.746 is redesignated as §52.732. 

Subpart VV--Virginia

5. Section 52.2241 is redesignated as §52.2441.

PART 97—[AMENDED]

6. The authority citation for Part 97 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7403, 7410, 7426, 7601, and 7651, et seq.

7. Section 97.406 is amended by:

a. Revising paragraph (c)(3) by removing the words “paragraphs (c)(1)
and (2)”, adding in their place the words “paragraph (c)(1)”, and
designating the first sentence as paragraph (i); 

b. Adding a new paragraph (c)(3)(ii); and

c. Revising paragraph (e)(2) by removing the words “or or” and
adding, in their place, the word “or” to read as follows:

§ 97.406  Standard requirements.

*  *  *  *  *  *

(c) *  *  *

(3) *  *  *

(ii) A TR NOX Annual unit shall be subject to the requirements under
paragraph (c)(2) of this section for the control period starting on the
later of January 1, 2014 or the deadline for meeting the unit's monitor
certification requirements under §97.430(b) and for each control period
thereafter.

8. Section 97.410 is revised to read as follows:

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

(a) Alabama. (1) The NOX annual trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is
72,691 tons.

(2) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 1,454 tons. 

(3) [Reserved]  

(4) The NOX annual trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 71,962
tons. 

(5) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 1,439
tons.  

(6) [Reserved] 

(7) The NOX annual variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 12,953
tons.

(b) Georgia. (1) The NOX annual trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is
62,010 tons.

(2) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 1,240 tons. 

(3) [Reserved] 

(4) The NOX annual trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 40,540
tons. 

(5) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 811
tons. 

(6) [Reserved] 

(7) The NOX annual variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 7,297
tons. 

(c) Illinois. (1) The NOX annual trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is
47,872 tons.

(2) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 3,830 tons. 

(3) [Reserved]  

(4) The NOX annual trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 47,872
tons. 

(5) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 3,830
tons.  

(6) [Reserved] 

(7) The NOX annual variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 8,617
tons. 

(d) Indiana. (1) The NOX annual trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is
109,726 tons.

(2) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 3,292 tons. 

(3) [Reserved]  

(4) The NOX 108,424 annual trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is
tons. 

(5) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 3,253
tons.  

(6) [Reserved] 

(7) The NOX annual variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 19,516
tons. 

(e) Iowa. (1) The NOX annual trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 38,335
tons.

(2) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 729 tons. 

(3) The NOX annual Indian country new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013
is 38 tons.   

(4) The NOX annual trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 37,498
tons. 

(5) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 712
tons.  

(6) The NOX annual Indian country new unit set-aside for 2014 and
thereafter is 38 tons.  

(7) The NOX annual variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 6,750
tons.

(f) Kansas. (1) The NOX annual trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is
30,714 tons.

(2) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 583 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 25,560
tons. 

(5) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 485
tons.  

(6) The NOX annual Indian country new unit set-aside for 2014 and
thereafter is 26 tons.  

(7) The NOX annual variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 4,601
tons.

(g) Kentucky. (1) The NOX annual trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is
85,086 tons.

(2) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 3,403 tons. 

(3) [Reserved]   

(4) The NOX annual trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 77,238
tons. 

(5) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 3,090
tons.  

(6) [Reserved]  

(7) The NOX annual variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 13,903
tons.

(h) Maryland. (1) The NOX annual trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is
16,633 tons.

(2) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 333 tons. 

(3) [Reserved]   

(4) The NOX annual trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 16,574
tons. 

(5) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 331
tons.  

(6) [Reserved]  

(7) The NOX annual variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 2,983
tons.

(i) Michigan. (1) The NOX annual trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is
65,421 tons.

(2) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 1,243 tons. 

(3) The NOX annual Indian country new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013
is 65 tons.   

(4) The NOX annual trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 63,040
tons. 

(5) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 1,198
tons.  

(6) The NOX annual Indian country new unit set-aside for 2014 and
thereafter is 63 tons.  

(7) The NOX annual variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 11,347
tons.

(j) Minnesota. (1) The NOX annual trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is
29,572 tons.

(2) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 561 tons. 

(3) The NOX annual Indian country new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013
is 30 tons.   

(4) The NOX annual trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 29,572
tons. 

(5) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 561
tons.  

(6) The NOX annual Indian country new unit set-aside for 2014 and
thereafter is 30 tons.  

(7) The NOX annual variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 5,323
tons.

(k) Missouri. (1) The NOX annual trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is
52,374 tons.

(2) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 1,571 tons. 

(3) [Reserved]   

(4) The NOX annual trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 48,717
tons. 

(5) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 1,462
tons.  

(6) [Reserved]  

(7) The NOX annual variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 8,769
tons.

(l) Nebraska. (1) The NOX annual trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is
30,039 tons.

(2) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 1,772 tons. 

(3) The NOX annual Indian country new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013
is 30 tons.   

(4) The NOX annual trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 30,039
tons. 

(5) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 1,772
tons.  

(6) The NOX annual Indian country new unit set-aside for 2014 and
thereafter is 30 tons.  

(7) The NOX annual variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 5,407
tons.

(m) New Jersey. (1) The NOX annual trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is
8,218 tons.

(2) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 164 tons. 

(3) [Reserved]   

(4) The NOX annual trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 7,945 tons.


(5) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 159
tons.  

(6) [Reserved]  

(7) The NOX annual variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 1,430
tons.

(n) New York. (1) The NOX annual trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is
21,028 tons.

(2) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 400 tons. 

(3) The NOX annual Indian country new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013
is 21 tons.   

(4) The NOX annual trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 21,028
tons. 

(5) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 400
tons.  

(6) The NOX annual Indian country new unit set-aside for 2014 and
thereafter is 21 tons.  

(7) The NOX annual variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 3,785
tons.

(o) North Carolina. (1) The NOX annual trading budget for 2012 and 2013
is 50,587 tons.

(2) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 2,984 tons. 

(3) The NOX annual Indian country new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013
is 51 tons.   

(4) The NOX annual trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 41,553
tons. 

(5) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 2,451
tons.  

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

(7) The NOX annual variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 7,480
tons.

(p) Ohio. (1) The NOX annual trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 92,703
tons.

(2) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 1,854 tons. 

(3) [Reserved]   

(4) The NOX annual trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 87,493
tons. 

(5) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 1,750
tons.  

(6) [Reserved]  

(7) The NOX annual variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 15,749
tons.

(q) Pennsylvania. (1) The NOX annual trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is
119,986 tons.

(2) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 2,400 tons. 

(3) [Reserved]   

(4) The NOX annual trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 119,194
tons. 

(5) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 2,384
tons.  

(6) [Reserved]  

(7) The NOX annual variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 21,455
tons.

(r) South Carolina. (1) The NOX annual trading budget for 2012 and 2013
is 32,498 tons.

(2) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 617 tons. 

(3) The NOX annual Indian country new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013
is 33 tons.   

(4) The NOX annual trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 32,498
tons. 

(5) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 617
tons.  

(6) The NOX annual Indian country new unit set-aside for 2014 and
thereafter is 33 tons.  

(7) The NOX annual variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 5,850
tons.

(s) Tennessee. (1) The NOX annual trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is
35,703 tons.

(2) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 714 tons. 

(3) [Reserved]   

(4) The NOX annual trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 19,337
tons. 

(5) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 387
tons.  

(6) [Reserved]  

(7) The NOX annual variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 3,481
tons.

(t) Texas. (1) The NOX annual trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is
134,970 tons.

(2) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 5,264 tons. 

(3) The NOX annual Indian country new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013
is 135 tons.   

(4) The NOX annual trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 134,970
tons. 

(5) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 5,321
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 24,295
tons.

(u) Virginia. (1) The NOX annual trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is
33,242 tons.

(2) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 1,662 tons. 

(3) [Reserved]   

(4) The NOX annual trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 33,242
tons. 

(5) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 1,662
tons.  

(6) [Reserved]  

(7) The NOX annual variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 5,984
tons.

(v) West Virginia. (1) The NOX annual trading budget for 2012 and 2013
is 59,472 tons.

(2) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 2,974 tons. 

(3) [Reserved]   

(4) The NOX annual trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 54,582
tons. 

(5) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 2,729
tons.  

(6) [Reserved]  

(7) The NOX annual variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 9,825
tons.

(w) Wisconsin. (1) The NOX annual trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is
34,101 tons.

(2) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 2,012 tons. 

(3) The NOX annual Indian country new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013
is 34 tons.   

(4) The NOX annual trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 32,871
tons. 

(5) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 1,939
tons.  

(6) The NOX annual Indian country new unit set-aside for 2014 and
thereafter is 33 tons.  

(7) The NOX annual variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 5,917
tons.

(x) The NOX annual trading budget, as such term is used in paragraphs
(a) through (w) of this section, includes any tons identified under a
new unit set aside or Indian country new unit set aside applicable
within each state for the time period in which the budget applies, but
excludes any variability limit established for the applicable state.

9. Section 97.425 is amended by, in paragraph (b)(1), removing the word
“2013” and adding, in its place, the word “2015”. 

10. Section 97.506 is amended by:

a. Revising paragraph (c)(3) by removing the words “paragraphs (c)(1)
and (2)”, adding in their place the words “paragraph (c)(1)”, and
designating the first sentence as paragraph (i); and

b. Adding a new paragraph (c)(3)(ii) to read as follows:

§ 97.506  Standard requirements.

*  *  *  *  *  *

(c) *  *  *

(3) *  *  *

(ii) A TR NOX Ozone Season unit shall be subject to the requirements
under paragraph (c)(2) of this section for the control period starting
on the later of May 1, 2014 or the deadline for meeting the unit's
monitor certification requirements under §97.530(b) and for each
control period thereafter.

11. Section 97.510 is revised 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. 

(a)  Alabama. (1) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2012 and 2013
is 31,746 tons.

(2) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 635
tons. 

(3) [Reserved] 

(4) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is
31,499 tons. 

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

(6) [Reserved] 

(7) The NOX ozone season variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is
6,615 tons.

(b) Arkansas. (1) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2012 and 2013
is 15,037 tons.

(2) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 752
tons. 

(3) [Reserved] 

(4) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is
15,037 tons. 

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

(6) [Reserved] 

(7) The NOX ozone season variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is
3,158 tons.

(c) Florida. (1) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2012 and 2013
is 28,644 tons.

(2) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 544
tons. 

(3) The NOX ozone season Indian country new unit set-aside for 2012 and
2013 is 29 tons.  

(4) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is
27,825 tons. 

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

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

(7) The NOX ozone season variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is
5,843 tons.

(d) Georgia. (1) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2012 and 2013
is 27,944 tons.

(2) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 559
tons. 

(3) [Reserved] 

(4) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is
18,279 tons. 

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

(6) [Reserved] 

(7) The NOX ozone season variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is
3,839 tons.

(e) Illinois. (1) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2012 and 2013
is 21,208 tons.

(2) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 1,697
tons. 

(3) [Reserved] 

(4) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is
21,208 tons. 

(5) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is
1,697 tons. 

(6) [Reserved] 

(7) The NOX ozone season variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is
4,454 tons.

(f) Indiana. (1) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2012 and 2013
is 46,876 tons.

(2) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 1,406
tons. 

(3) [Reserved] 

(4) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is
46,175 tons. 

(5) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is
1,385 tons. 

(6) [Reserved] 

(7) The NOX ozone season variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is
9,697 tons.

(g) Iowa. (1) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is
16,532 tons.

(2) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 314
tons. 

(3) The NOX ozone season Indian country new unit set-aside for 2012 and
2013 is 17 tons.  

(4) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is
16,207 tons. 

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

(6) The NOX ozone season Indian country new unit set-aside for 2014 and
thereafter is 16 tons.  

(7) The NOX ozone season variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is
3,403 tons.

(h) Kentucky. (1) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2012 and 2013
is 36,167 tons.

(2) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 1,447
tons. 

(3) [Reserved] 

(4) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is
32,674 tons. 

(5) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is
1,307 tons. 

(6) [Reserved] 

(7) The NOX ozone season variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is
6,862 tons.

(i) Louisiana. (1) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2012 and 2013
is 18,026 tons.

(2) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 523
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
18,026 tons. 

(5) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is
523 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
3,785 tons.

(j) Maryland. (1) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2012 and 2013
is 7,179 tons.

(2) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 144
tons. 

(3) [Reserved] 

(4) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 7,179
tons. 

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

(6) [Reserved] 

(7) The NOX ozone season variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is
1,508 tons.

(k) Michigan. (1) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2012 and 2013
is 28,041 tons.

(2) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 533
tons. 

(3) The NOX ozone season Indian country new unit set-aside for 2012 and
2013 is 28 tons.  

(4) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is
27,016 tons. 

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

(6) The NOX ozone season Indian country new unit set-aside for 2014 and
thereafter is 27 tons.  

(7) The NOX ozone season variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is
5,673 tons.

(l) Mississippi. (1) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2012 and
2013 is 12,314 tons.

(2) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 234
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
12,314 tons. 

(5) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is
234 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
2,586 tons.

(m) Missouri. (1) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2012 and 2013
is 22,762 tons.

(2) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 683
tons. 

(3) [Reserved]  

(4) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is
21,073 tons. 

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

(6) [Reserved]  

(7) The NOX ozone season variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is
4,425 tons.

(n) New Jersey. (1) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2012 and
2013 is 4,128 tons.

(2) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 83
tons. 

(3) [Reserved] 

(4) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 3,731
tons. 

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

(6) [Reserved] 

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

(o) New York. (1) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2012 and 2013
is 10,242 tons.

(2) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 195
tons. 

(3) The NOX ozone season Indian country new unit set-aside for 2012 and
2013 is 10 tons.  

(4) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is
10,242 tons. 

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

(6) The NOX ozone season Indian country new unit set-aside for 2014 and
thereafter is 10 tons.  

(7) The NOX ozone season variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is
2,151tons.

(p) North Carolina. (1) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2012 and
2013 is 22,168 tons.

(2) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 1,308
tons. 

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

(4) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is
18,455 tons. 

(5) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is
1,089 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
3,876 tons.

(q) Ohio. (1) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is
40,063 tons.

(2) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 801
tons. 

(3) [Reserved] 

(4) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is
37,792 tons. 

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

(6) [Reserved] 

(7) The NOX ozone season variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is
7,936 tons.

(r) Oklahoma. (1) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2012 is 36,567
and for 2013 is 21,835 tons.

(2) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 is 731 and for 2013
is 437 tons. 

(3) [Reserved]  

(4) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is
21,835 tons. 

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

(6) [Reserved]  

(7) The NOX ozone season variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is
4,585 tons.

(s) Pennsylvania. (1) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2012 and
2013 is 52,201 tons.

(2) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 1,044
tons. 

(3) [Reserved] 

(4) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is
51,912 tons. 

(5) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is
1,038 tons. 

(6) [Reserved] 

(7) The NOX ozone season variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is
10,902 tons.

(t) South Carolina. (1) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2012 and
2013 is 13,909 tons.

(2)  The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 264
tons. 

(3)  The NOX ozone season Indian country new unit set-aside for 2012 and
2013 is 14 tons.  

(4)  The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is
13,909 tons. 

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

(6)  The NOX ozone season Indian country new unit set-aside for 2014 and
thereafter is 14 tons.  

(7)  The NOX ozone season variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is
2,921 tons.

(u) Tennessee. (1) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2012 and 2013
is 14,908 tons.

(2) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 298
tons. 

(3) [Reserved] 

(4) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 8,016
tons. 

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

(6) [Reserved] 

(7) The NOX ozone season variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is
1,683 tons.

(v) Texas. (1) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is
64,418 tons.

(2) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 2,513
tons. 

(3) The NOX ozone season Indian country new unit set-aside for 2012 and
2013 is 64 tons.  

(4) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is
64,418 tons. 

(5) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is
2,513 tons. 

(6) The NOX ozone season Indian country new unit set-aside for 2014 and
thereafter is 64 tons.  

(7) The NOX ozone season variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is
13,528 tons.

(w) Virginia. (1) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2012 and 2013
is 14,452 tons.

(2) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 723
tons. 

(3) [Reserved] 

(4) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is
14,452 tons. 

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

(6) [Reserved] 

(7) The NOX ozone season variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is
3,035 tons.

(x) West Virginia. (1) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2012 and
2013 is 25,283 tons.

(2) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 1,264
tons. 

(3) [Reserved] 

(4) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is
23,291 tons. 

(5) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is
1,165 tons. 

(6) [Reserved] 

(7) The NOX ozone season variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is
4,891 tons.

(y) Wisconsin. (1) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2012 and 2013
is 14,784 tons.

(2) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 872
tons. 

(3) The NOX ozone season Indian country new unit set-aside for 2012 and
2013 is 15 tons.  

(4) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is
14,296 tons. 

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

(6) The NOX ozone season Indian country new unit set-aside for 2014 and
thereafter is 14 tons.  

(7) The NOX ozone season variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is
3,002 tons.

(z) The NOX ozone season trading budget, as such term is used in
paragraphs (a) through (y) of this section, includes any tons identified
under a new unit set aside or Indian country new unit set aside
applicable within each state for the time period in which the budget
applies, but excludes any variability limit established for the
applicable state.

12. Section 97.525 is amended by, in paragraph (b)(1), removing the word
“2013” and adding, in its place, the word “2015”. 

13. Section 97.606 is amended by:

a. Revising paragraph (c)(3) by removing the words “paragraphs (c)(1)
and (2)”, adding in their place the words “paragraph (c)(1)”, and
designating the first sentence as paragraph (i); 

b. Adding a new paragraph (c)(3)(ii); and

c. Revising paragraph (e)(2) by removing the words “or or” and
adding, in their place, the word “or” to read as follows:

§ 97.606  Standard requirements.

*  *  *  *  *  *

(c) *  *  *

(3) *  *  *

(ii) A TR SO2 Group 1 unit shall be subject to the requirements under
paragraph (c)(2) of this section for the control period starting on the
later of January 1, 2014 or the deadline for meeting the unit's monitor
certification requirements under §97.630(b) and for each control period
thereafter.

14. Section 97.610 is revised 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.

(a) Illinois. (1) The SO2 trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 234,889
tons.

(2) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 11,744 tons. 

(3) [Reserved] 

(4) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 124,123 tons. 

(5) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 6,206 tons. 

(6) [Reserved] 

(7) The SO2 variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 22,342 tons.

(b) Indiana. (1) The SO2 trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 285,424
tons.

(2) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 8,563 tons. 

(3) [Reserved] 

(4) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 161,111 tons. 

(5) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 4,833 tons. 

(6) [Reserved] 

(7) The SO2 variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 29,000 tons.

(c) Iowa. (1) The SO2 trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 107,085 tons.

(2) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 2,035 tons. 

(3) The SO2 Indian country new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 107
tons.  

(4) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 75,184 tons. 

(5) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 1,429 tons. 

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

(7) The SO2 variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 13,533 tons.

(d) Kentucky. (1) The SO2 trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 232,662
tons.

(2) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 13,960 tons. 

(3) [Reserved] 

(4) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 106,284 tons. 

(5) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 6,377 tons. 

(6) [Reserved] 

(7) The SO2 variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 19,131 tons.

(e) Maryland. (1) The SO2 trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 30,120
tons.

(2) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 602 tons. 

(3) [Reserved] 

(4) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 28,203 tons. 

(5) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 564 tons. 

(6) [Reserved] 

(7) The SO2 variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 5,077 tons.

(f) Michigan. (1) The SO2 trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 229,303
tons.

(2) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 4,357 tons. 

(3) The SO2 Indian country new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 229
tons. 

(4) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 143,995 tons. 

(5) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 2,736 tons. 

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

(7) The SO2 variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 25,919 tons.

(g) Missouri. (1) The SO2 trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 207,466
tons.

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

(3) [Reserved] 

(4) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 165,941 tons. 

(5) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 3,319 tons. 

(6) [Reserved] 

(7) The SO2 variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 29,869 tons.

(h) New Jersey. (1) The SO2 trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 7,670
tons.

(2) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 153 tons. 

(3) [Reserved] 

(4) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 5,574 tons. 

(5) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 111 tons. 

(6) [Reserved] 

(7) The SO2 variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 1,003 tons.

(i) New York. (1) The SO2 trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 30,852
tons.

(2) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 586 tons. 

(3) The SO2 Indian country new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 31
tons. 

(4) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 22,112 tons. 

(5) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 420 tons. 

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

(7) The SO2 variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 3,980 tons.

(j) North Carolina. (1) The SO2 trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is
136,881 tons.

(2) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 10,813 tons. 

(3) The SO2 Indian country new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 137
tons.  

(4) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 57,620 tons. 

(5) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 4,552 tons. 

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

(7) The SO2 variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 10,372 tons.

(k) Ohio. (1) The SO2 trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 310,230 tons.

(2) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 6,205 tons. 

(3) [Reserved] 

(4) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 137,077 tons. 

(5) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 2,742 tons. 

(6) [Reserved] 

(7) The SO2 variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 24,674 tons.

(l) Pennsylvania. (1) The SO2 trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is
278,651 tons.

(2) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 5,573 tons. 

(3) [Reserved] 

(4) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 112,021 tons. 

(5) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 2,240 tons. 

(6) [Reserved] 

(7) The SO2 variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 20,164 tons.

(m) Tennessee. (1) The SO2 trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 148,150
tons.

(2) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 2,963 tons. 

(3) [Reserved] 

(4) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 58,833 tons. 

(5) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 1,177 tons. 

(6) [Reserved] 

(7) The SO2 variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 10,590 tons.

(n) Virginia. (1) The SO2 trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 70,820
tons.

(2) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 2,833 tons. 

(3) [Reserved] 

(4) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 35,057 tons. 

(5) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 1,402 tons. 

(6) [Reserved] 

(7) The SO2 variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 6,310 tons.

(o) West Virginia. (1) The SO2 trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is
146,174 tons.

(2) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 10,232 tons. 

(3) [Reserved] 

(4) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 75,668 tons. 

(5) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 5,297 tons. 

(6) [Reserved] 

(7) The SO2 variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 13,620 tons.

(p) Wisconsin. (1) The SO2 trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 79,480
tons.

(2) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 3,099 tons. 

(3) The SO2 Indian country new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 80
tons. 

(4) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 47,883 tons. 

(5) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 1,867 tons. 

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

(7) The SO2 variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 8,619 tons.

(q) The SO2 trading budget, as such term is used in paragraphs (a)
through (p) of this section, includes any tons identified under a new
unit set aside or Indian country new unit set aside applicable within
each state for the time period in which the budget applies, but excludes
any variability limit established for the applicable state.

15. Section 97.625 is amended by, in paragraph (b)(1), removing the word
“2013” and adding, in its place, the word “2015”. 

16. Section 97.706 is amended by:

a. Revising paragraph (c)(3) by removing the words “paragraphs (c)(1)
and (2)”, adding in their place the words “paragraph (c)(1)”, and
designating the first sentence as paragraph (i); 

b. Adding a new paragraph (c)(3)(ii); and

c. Revising paragraph (e)(2) by removing the words “or or” and
adding, in their place, the word “or” to read as follows:

§ 97.706  Standard requirements.

*  *  *  *  *  *

(c) *  *  *

(3) *  *  *

(ii) A TR SO2 Group 2 unit shall be subject to the requirements under
paragraph (c)(2) of this section for the control period starting on the
later of January 1, 2014 or the deadline for meeting the unit's monitor
certification requirements under §97.730(b) and for each control period
thereafter.

17. Section 97.710 is revised 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.

(a) Alabama. (1) The SO2 trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 216,033
tons.

(2) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 4,321 tons. 

(3) [Reserved] 

(4) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 213,258 tons. 

(5) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 4,265 tons. 

(6) [Reserved] 

(7) The SO2 variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 38,386 tons.

(b) Georgia. (1) The SO2 trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 158,527
tons.

(2) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 3,171 tons. 

(3) [Reserved] 

(4) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 95,231 tons. 

(5) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 1,905 tons. 

(6) [Reserved] 

(7) The SO2 variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 17,142 tons.

(c) Kansas. (1) The SO2 trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 41,528 tons.

(2) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 789 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 41,528 tons. 

(5) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 789 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 7,475 tons.

(d) Minnesota. (1) The SO2 trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 41,981
tons.

(2) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 798 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 41,981 tons. 

(5) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 798 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 7,557 tons.

(e) Nebraska. (1) The SO2 trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 65,052
tons.

(2) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 2,537 tons. 

(3) The SO2 Indian country new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 65
tons.  

(4) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 65,052 tons. 

(5) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 2,537 tons. 

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

(7) The SO2 variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 11,709 tons.

(f) South Carolina. (1) The SO2 trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is
88,620 tons.

(2) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 1,683 tons. 

(3) The SO2 Indian country new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 89
tons.  

(4) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 88,620 tons. 

(5) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 1,683 tons. 

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

(7) The SO2 variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 15,952 tons.

(g) Texas. (1) The SO2 trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 294,471 tons.

(2) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 14,430 tons. 

(3) The SO2 Indian country new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 294
tons.  

(4) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 294,471 tons. 

(5) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 14,430 tons. 

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

(7) The SO2 variability limit for 2014 and thereafter is 53,005 tons.

(h) The SO2 trading budget, as such term is used in paragraphs (a)
through (g) of this section, includes any tons identified under a new
unit set aside or Indian country new unit set aside applicable within
each state for the time period in which the budget applies, but excludes
any variability limit established for the applicable state.

18. Section 97.725 is amended by, in paragraph (b)(1), removing the word
“2013” and adding, in its place, the word “2015”. 

 In this preamble, EPA uses the terms ‘‘significant
contribution’’ and ‘‘interference with maintenance’’ to
refer to the emissions that must be prohibited pursuant to Clean Air Act
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) because they significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in another
state.

 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.

 For example, the same facilities for which EPA proposed these revisions
reported higher scrubber SO2 removal efficiencies in 2009 on the EIA 923
form than they reported on the same form in 2008.

 In 2002, during NRC-required inspections, plant workers discovered a
football-sized cavity atop the reactor vessel head. The Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) ordered the plant closed and it stayed
closed for a total of two years while undergoing increased NRC scrutiny.
It reopened in 2004.  See
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0925/ML092540084.pdf

 The plant operator has announced intentions to return the unit to
service by 2014 (  HYPERLINK
"https://www.progress-energy.com/company/media-room/news-archive/press-r
elease.page?title=Progress+Energy+provides+update+on+Crystal+River+Nucle
ar+Plant+outage&pubdate=06-27-2011" 
https://www.progress-energy.com/company/media-room/news-archive/press-re
lease.page?title=Progress+Energy+provides+update+on+Crystal+River+Nuclea
r+Plant+outage&pubdate=06-27-2011 ).

 

 As discussed in the Transport Rule, with respect to the 1997 ozone
NAAQS, for certain states EPA quantified the ozone-season NOX emission
reductions that are necessary but may not be sufficient to eliminate all
significant contribution and interference with maintenance (76 FR
48210).  For such states EPA maintains that, for 2012-2013, the
Transport Rule (as revised by this final rule) ensures the elimination
of the quantified prohibited emissions.

 http://camddataandmaps.epa.gov/gdm/index.cfm?fuseaction=iss.isshome

 IPM uses model run years to represent the full planning horizon.
Mapping each year in the planning horizon into a representative model
run year enables IPM to perform multiple year analyses while keeping the
model size manageable. In this case, results for 2012 also apply to
2013.  Modeling results are available in the docket for this rulemaking,
in IPM output files named after this modeling scenario entitled “Final
Transport Rule with 2014 Assurance.”

 The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) is another name for the
Transport Rule.

 In its comments, North Carolina claimed that it is internally
inconsistent for EPA to assert both that the states will not exceed
their budgets in 2012-2013 and that imposition of the assurance
provisions during that period will inhibit cost-effective reductions by
sources.  According to North Carolina, if a state will not exceed its
budget plus variability in 2012-2013, this necessarily means that no
facility in the state will need to use the market to obtain a
significant amount of allowances in order to achieve cost-effective
compliance in 2012-2013.  However, North Carolina erroneously ignores
the difference between state-level results and source-level results. 
Individual sources (which, contrary to North Carolina’s comments, were
allocated allowances based on historical heat rate, not projected
emissions) may find that allowance purchases are an important component
of their cost-effective compliance strategy and thus may need to buy a
significant amount of allowances.  These individual source-level
allowance purchases (which may, for example, be from in-state sources
that make significant emission reductions and have allowances to sell)
can easily occur without leading the state’s emissions to exceed the
state assurance level.  In short, the mere fact that states will not
exceed their assurance levels does not mean that sources in those states
will not need to use trading in order to comply in a cost effective
manner.

*** E.O. 12866 Review_CSAPR Rule Revisions_RIN2060-AR22_FRN_2012-01-17
– Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page  PAGE 1  of  NUMPAGES 97 

