34830 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

(ll) Approval—On May 26, 2010, and 

September 16, 2011, Illinois submitted a 

request to redesignate the Illinois 

portion of the St. Louis, MO–IL area to 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard. The St. Louis area includes 

Jersey, Madison, Monroe, and St. Clair 

Counties in Illinois and St. Louis City 

and Franklin, Jefferson, St. Charles and 

St. Louis Counties in Missouri. As part 

of the redesignation request, the State 

submitted a plan for maintaining the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard through 

2025 in the area as required by section 

175A of the Clean Air Act. Part of the 

section 175A maintenance plan 

includes a contingency plan. The ozone 

maintenance plan establishes 2008 

motor vehicle emissions budgets for the 

Illinois portion of the St. Louis area of 

17.27 tpd for volatile organic 

compounds (VOC) and 52.57 tpd for 

nitrogen oxides (NOX). In addition the 

maintenance plan establishes 2025 

motor vehicle emissions budgets for the 

Illinois portion of the St. Louis area of 

5.68 tpd for VOC and 15.22 tpd for NOX.

(mm) Emissions inventories for the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard— 

(1) Approval—Illinois’ 2002 

emissions inventory satisfies the 

emissions inventory requirements of 

section 182(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act for 

the Illinois portion of the St. Louis, 

MO–IL area under the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard. 

(2) [Reserved] 

PART 81—[AMENDED] 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 81 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 4. Section 81.314 is amended by 

revising the entry for St. Louis, MO–IL 

in the table entitled ‘‘Illinois-Ozone (8– 

Hour Standard)’’ to read as follows: 

§ 81.314 Illinois. 

* * * * * 

ILLINOIS—OZONE (8-HOUR STANDARD) 

Designated area 

Designation a Classification 

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type 

*******

St. Louis, MO-IL: 

Jersey County .................................................................. 6/12/2012 Attainment.

Madison County ............................................................... 6/12/2012 Attainment.

Monroe County ................................................................. 6/12/2012 Attainment.

St. Clair County ................................................................ 6/12/2012 Attainment.

*******

a Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified. 

1This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–14102 Filed 6–11–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 97 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0491; FRL–9672–4] 

RIN 2060–AR35 

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 taking final action on 

revisions to the final Transport Rule 

(Federal Implementation Plans: 

Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate 

Matter and Ozone and Correction of SIP 

Approvals, published August 8, 2011). 

EPA is revising the 2012 and 2014 state 

budgets for Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, 

Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, 

Missouri, New York, Nebraska, Ohio, 

Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas, 

and revising the new unit set-asides for 

Arkansas, Louisiana, and Missouri. 

These revisions are in addition to the 

revisions to the final Transport Rule 

published on February 21, 2012. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

August 13, 2012. 

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 http://www.regulations.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 

http://www.regulations.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: 

Jeremy Mark, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Clean Air Markets 

Division, MC 6204J, Ariel Rios Building, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460, telephone (202) 

343–9087, email at 

mark.jeremy@epa.gov. Electronic copies 

of this document can be accessed 

through the EPA Web site at: http:// 

epa.gov/airmarkets. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations 

The following are abbreviations of 

terms used in 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 

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 34831 

1Throughout 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. 

TSD Technical Support Document II. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

Regulated Entities. Entities regulated 

by this action primarily are fossil fuelfired 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. Response to General Comments 

V. Specific Revisions in This Final Action 

VI. 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 this action, EPA is revising specific 

aspects of the Transport Rule 

promulgated by EPA on July 6, 2011 (76 

FR 48208, Aug. 2, 2011) (the July 6, 

2011 final rule). Specifically, EPA is 

revising the 2012 and 2014 state budgets 

for Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, 

Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New 

York, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South 

Carolina, and Texas, revising the new 

unit set-asides for Arkansas, Louisiana, 

and Missouri, and making associated 

changes to variability limits.1 EPA 

originally proposed the Transport Rule 

on July 6, 2010, (75 FR 45210) and 

subsequently issued three related 

notices of data availability (NODAs). 

The first NODA, published on 

September 1, 2010, addressed updates 

to power sector modeling and data (75 

FR 53613). The second NODA, 

published on October 27, 2010, 

addressed updates to emissions 

inventory data (75 FR 66055). The third 

NODA, published on January 7, 2011, 

addressed the data basis for unit-level 

allowance allocation methodologies (76 

FR 1109). EPA then finalized the 

Transport Rule on July 6, 2011 (76 FR 

48208). 

After the final Transport Rule was 

published, EPA identified discrepancies 

in certain data assumptions that affected 

the calculation of a few states’ budgets 

and new unit set-asides in the July 6, 

2011, final rule; as a result, on October 

14, 2011, EPA published proposed 

revisions to Transport Rule state 

budgets in Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, 

Mississippi, Nebraska, New Jersey, New 

York, Texas, and Wisconsin, as well as 

new unit set-asides in Arkansas and 

Texas (76 FR 63860). In that October 14, 

2011, proposal, EPA provided an 

additional opportunity for commenters 

to identify information, not previously 

made available to the agency, that might 

support similar revisions to Transport 

Rule state budgets or new unit set-asides 

in addition to those specifically 

identified in that proposal (76 FR 

63868). 

After reviewing comments received 

on the October 14, 2011 proposal, EPA 

published three actions on February 21, 

2012. First, the Agency issued a final 

rule addressing the revisions 

specifically identified in the October 14, 

2011, proposal (77 FR 10324). Second, 

the Agency issued a direct final rule that 

would have made a set of similar 

revisions on the basis of new 

information supplied by commenters 

responding to the October 14, 2011, 

proposal (77 FR 10342). Specifically, the 

direct final included revisions to the 

2012 and 2014 state budgets for 

Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, 

Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New 

York, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South 

Carolina, and Texas, and revisions to 

the new unit set-asides for Arkansas, 

Louisiana, and Missouri. Third, EPA 

published a parallel proposal that 

proposed the adjustments made in the 

direct final rule. (77 FR 10350) EPA 

indicated that if it received adverse 

comment, it would withdraw the 

relevant portions of that rule and 

address all relevant comments received 

in any subsequent rule taking final 

action based on the parallel proposal. 

EPA received adverse comment on the 

February 21, 2012, direct final rule and 

the parallel proposal, and thus has taken 

a separate action to withdraw the direct 

final rule May 16, 2012. (77 FR 28785). 

EPA has reviewed all of the comments 

received and is now taking final action 

on the revisions that were proposed in 

the February 21, 2012, parallel proposal. 

See section IV of this preamble for a 

discussion of the Agency’s response to 

general comments on this action. See 

section V of this preamble for a 

discussion of the specific revisions 

being made in this final rule as well as 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
34832 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

the corresponding Response to 

Comments document contained in the 

docket for this action. 

Tables III–1 through III–6 below 

summarize the state budgets, new unit 

set-asides, Indian country new-unit setasides, and variability limits for all 

states covered by the Transport Rule, 

reflecting all of the revisions finalized in 

this action as well as those revisions 

included in a previous final rule 

published on February 21, 2012 (77 FR 

10324). 

TABLE III–1—2012–2013 SO2 BUDGETS, NEW UNIT SET-ASIDES

State 2012–2013 

Total budget 

2012 

New unit set-aside 

2013 

New unit set-aside 

2012–2013 

Indian country 

new unit set-aside 

Alabama ................................................................................... 216,033 4,321 ..............................

Georgia .................................................................................... 158,527 3,171 ..............................

Illinois ....................................................................................... 234,889 11,744 ..............................

Indiana ..................................................................................... 290,762 8,723 ..............................

Iowa ......................................................................................... 107,085 2,035 107 

Kansas ..................................................................................... 41,980 798 42 

Kentucky .................................................................................. 232,662 13,960 ..............................

Maryland .................................................................................. 30,120 602 ..............................

Michigan ................................................................................... 229,303 4,357 229 

Minnesota ................................................................................ 41,981 798 42 

Missouri .................................................................................... 207,466 4,149 6,224 ..............................

Nebraska .................................................................................. 68,162 2,658 68 

New Jersey .............................................................................. 7,670 153 ..............................

New York ................................................................................. 36,296 690 36 

North Carolina .......................................................................... 136,881 10,813 137 

Ohio ......................................................................................... 315,393 6,308 ..............................

Pennsylvania ............................................................................ 278,651 5,573 ..............................

South Carolina ......................................................................... 96,633 1,836 97 

Tennessee ............................................................................... 148,150 2,963 ..............................

Texas ....................................................................................... 294,471 14,430 294 

Virginia ..................................................................................... 70,820 2,833 ..............................

West Virginia ............................................................................ 146,174 10,232 ..............................

Wisconsin ................................................................................. 79,480 3,099 80 

TABLE III–2—2014 SO2 BUDGETS, NEW UNIT SET-ASIDES AND VARIABILITY LIMITS

State 2014 

Total budget 

2014 

New unit 

set-aside 

2014 

Indian country 

new unit 

set-aside 

2014 

Variability limit 

Alabama ................................................................................... 213,258 4,265 .............................. 38,386 

Georgia .................................................................................... 135,565 2,711 .............................. 24,402 

Illinois ....................................................................................... 124,123 6,206 .............................. 22,342 

Indiana ..................................................................................... 166,449 4,993 .............................. 29,961 

Iowa ......................................................................................... 75,184 1,429 75 13,533 

Kansas ..................................................................................... 41,980 798 42 7,556 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 34833 

TABLE III–2—2014 SO2 BUDGETS, NEW UNIT SET-ASIDES AND VARIABILITY LIMITS—Continued 

State 2014 

Total budget 

2014 

New unit 

set-aside 

2014 

Indian country 

new unit 

set-aside 

2014 

Variability limit 

Kentucky .................................................................................. 106,284 6,377 .............................. 19,131 

Maryland .................................................................................. 28,203 564 .............................. 5,077 

Michigan ................................................................................... 143,995 2,736 144 25,919 

Minnesota ................................................................................ 41,981 798 42 7,557 

Missouri .................................................................................... 165,941 4,978 .............................. 29,869 

Nebraska .................................................................................. 68,162 2,658 68 12,269 

New Jersey .............................................................................. 5,574 111 .............................. 1,003 

New York ................................................................................. 27,556 523 28 4,960 

North Carolina .......................................................................... 57,620 4,552 58 10,372 

Ohio ......................................................................................... 142,240 2,845 .............................. 25,603 

Pennsylvania ............................................................................ 112,021 2,240 .............................. 20,164 

South Carolina ......................................................................... 96,633 1,836 97 17,394 

Tennessee ............................................................................... 58,833 1,177 .............................. 10,590 

Texas ....................................................................................... 294,471 14,430 294 53,005 

Virginia ..................................................................................... 35,057 1,402 .............................. 6,310 

West Virginia ............................................................................ 75,668 5,297 .............................. 13,620 

Wisconsin ................................................................................. 47,883 1,867 48 8,619 

TABLE III–3—2012–2013 ANNUAL NOX BUDGETS, NEW UNIT SET-ASIDES

State 2012–2013 

Total budget 

2012 

New unit set-aside 

2013 

New unit set-aside 

2012–2013 

Indian country 

new unit set-side 

Alabama ................................................................................... 72,691 1,454 ..............................

Georgia .................................................................................... 62,010 1,240 ..............................

Illinois ....................................................................................... 47,872 3,830 ..............................

Indiana ..................................................................................... 109,726 3,292 ..............................

Iowa ......................................................................................... 38,335 729 38 

Kansas ..................................................................................... 31,354 596 31 

Kentucky .................................................................................. 85,086 3,403 ..............................

Maryland .................................................................................. 16,633 333 ..............................

Michigan ................................................................................... 65,421 1,243 65 

Minnesota ................................................................................ 29,572 561 30 

Missouri .................................................................................... 52,400 1,572 3,144 ..............................

Nebraska .................................................................................. 30,039 1,772 30 

New Jersey .............................................................................. 8,218 164 ..............................

New York ................................................................................. 21,722 412 22 

North Carolina .......................................................................... 50,587 2,984 51 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
34834 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE III–3—2012–2013 ANNUAL NOX BUDGETS, NEW UNIT SET-ASIDES—Continued 

State 2012–2013 

Total budget 

2012 

New unit set-aside 

2013 

New unit set-aside 

2012–2013 

Indian country 

new unit set-side 

Ohio ......................................................................................... 95,468 1,909 ..............................

Pennsylvania ............................................................................ 119,986 2,400 ..............................

South Carolina ......................................................................... 32,498 617 33 

Tennessee ............................................................................... 35,703 714 ..............................

Texas ....................................................................................... 137,701 5,370 138 

Virginia ..................................................................................... 33,242 1,662 ..............................

West Virginia ............................................................................ 59,472 2,974 ..............................

Wisconsin ................................................................................. 34,101 2,012 34 

TABLE III–4—2014 ANNUAL NOX BUDGETS, NEW UNIT SET-ASIDES AND VARIABILITY LIMITS

State 2014 

Total budget 

2014 

New unit set-side 

2014 

Indian country 

new unit set-side 

2014 

Variability limit 

Alabama ................................................................................... 71,962 1,439 .............................. 12,953 

Georgia .................................................................................... 53,738 1,075 .............................. 9,673 

Illinois ....................................................................................... 47,872 3,830 .............................. 8,617 

Indiana ..................................................................................... 108,424 3,253 .............................. 19,516 

Iowa ......................................................................................... 37,498 712 38 6,750 

Kansas ..................................................................................... 31,354 596 31 5,644 

Kentucky .................................................................................. 77,238 3,090 .............................. 13,903 

Maryland .................................................................................. 16,574 331 .............................. 2,983 

Michigan ................................................................................... 63,040 1,198 63 11,347 

Minnesota ................................................................................ 29,572 561 30 5,323 

Missouri .................................................................................... 48,743 2,925 .............................. 8,774 

Nebraska .................................................................................. 30,039 1,772 30 5,407 

New Jersey .............................................................................. 7,945 159 .............................. 1,430 

New York ................................................................................. 21,722 412 22 3,910 

North Carolina .......................................................................... 41,553 2,451 42 7,480 

Ohio ......................................................................................... 90,258 1,805 .............................. 16,246 

Pennsylvania ............................................................................ 119,194 2,384 .............................. 21,455 

South Carolina ......................................................................... 32,498 617 33 5,850 

Tennessee ............................................................................... 19,337 387 .............................. 3,481 

Texas ....................................................................................... 137,701 5,370 138 24,786 

Virginia ..................................................................................... 33,242 1,662 .............................. 5,984 

West Virginia ............................................................................ 54,582 2,729 .............................. 9,825 

Wisconsin ................................................................................. 32,871 1,939 33 5,917 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 34835 

TABLE III–5—2012–2013 OZONE-SEASON NOX BUDGETS, NEW UNIT SET-ASIDES

State 2012 

Total budget 

2013 

Total budget 

2012 

New unit set-aside 

2013 

New unit set-aside 

2012–2013 

Indian country 

new unit set-aside 

Alabama ................................................. 31,746 635 ..............................

Arkansas ................................................ 15,110 756 ..............................

Florida .................................................... 28,644 544 29 

Georgia .................................................. 27,944 559 ..............................

Illinois ..................................................... 21,208 1,697 ..............................

Indiana ................................................... 46,876 1,406 ..............................

Iowa ....................................................... 16,532 314 17 

Kentucky ................................................ 36,167 1,447 ..............................

Louisiana ................................................ 18,115 344 18 

Maryland ................................................ 7,179 144 ..............................

Michigan ................................................. 28,041 533 28 

Mississippi .............................................. 12,429 237 12 

Missouri .................................................. 22,788 684 1,367 ..............................

New Jersey ............................................ 4,128 83 ..............................

New York ............................................... 10,369 197 10 

North Carolina ........................................ 22,168 1,308 22 

Ohio ....................................................... 41,284 826 ..............................

Oklahoma ............................................... 36,567 22,694 731 454 ..............................

Pennsylvania .......................................... 52,201 1,044 ..............................

South Carolina ....................................... 13,909 264 14 

Tennessee ............................................. 14,908 298 ..............................

Texas ..................................................... 65,560 2,556 66 

Virginia ................................................... 14,452 723 ..............................

West Virginia .......................................... 25,283 1,264 ..............................

Wisconsin ............................................... 14,784 872 15 

TABLE III–6—2014 OZONE-SEASON NOX BUDGETS, NEW UNIT SET-ASIDES AND VARIABILITY LIMITS

State 2014 

Total budget 

2014 

New unit set-aside 

2014 

Indian country 

new unit set-aside 

2014 

Variability limit 

Alabama ................................................................................... 31,499 630 .............................. 6,615 

Arkansas .................................................................................. 15,110 1,209 .............................. 3,173 

Florida ...................................................................................... 27,825 529 28 5,843 

Georgia .................................................................................... 24,041 481 .............................. 5,049 

Illinois ....................................................................................... 21,208 1,697 .............................. 4,454 

Indiana ..................................................................................... 46,175 1,385 .............................. 9,697 

Iowa ......................................................................................... 16,207 308 16 3,403 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
34836 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

2Response to Comments on the Proposed 

Revisions to FIPs to Reduce Interstate Transport of 

Fine PM and Ozone (EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0491– 

4963, page 83). 

TABLE III–6—2014 OZONE-SEASON NOX BUDGETS, NEW UNIT SET-ASIDES AND VARIABILITY LIMITS—Continued 

State 2014 

Total budget 

2014 

New unit set-aside 

2014 

Indian country 

new unit set-aside 

2014 

Variability limit 

Kentucky .................................................................................. 32,674 1,307 .............................. 6,862 

Louisiana .................................................................................. 18,115 344 18 3,804 

Maryland .................................................................................. 7,179 144 .............................. 1,508 

Michigan ................................................................................... 27,016 513 27 5,673 

Mississippi ................................................................................ 12,429 237 12 2,610 

Missouri .................................................................................... 21,099 1,266 .............................. 4,431 

New Jersey .............................................................................. 3,731 75 .............................. 784 

New York ................................................................................. 10,369 197 10 2,177 

North Carolina .......................................................................... 18,455 1,089 18 3,876 

Ohio ......................................................................................... 39,013 780 .............................. 8,193 

Oklahoma ................................................................................. 22,694 454 .............................. 4,766 

Pennsylvania ............................................................................ 51,912 1,038 .............................. 10,902 

South Carolina ......................................................................... 13,909 264 14 2,921 

Tennessee ............................................................................... 8,016 160 .............................. 1,683 

Texas ....................................................................................... 65,560 2,556 66 13,768 

Virginia ..................................................................................... 14,452 723 .............................. 3,035 

West Virginia ............................................................................ 23,291 1,165 .............................. 4,891 

Wisconsin ................................................................................. 14,296 844 14 3,002 

IV. Response to General Comments 

EPA received several comments on 

the direct final rule and parallel 

proposal published on February 21, 

2012. Many commenters generally 

supported the proposed revisions to 

state budgets and new unit set-asides, 

and EPA received few comments 

addressing the manner in which the 

revisions were quantified. 

Some commenters, while supporting 

the proposed revisions, asked that 

additional revisions be made. Most of 

these comments simply re-iterated, 

often verbatim, comments that were 

previously submitted and to which EPA 

had already responded. (See, EPA’s 

Response to Comments document in the 

docket for this action.) Some of those 

comments asserted that EPA had failed 

to address specific unit level issues that 

commenters had previously raised, 

frequently in reference to unit level 

emission rates and fuel choices. EPA 

responded to all comments received on 

prior proposals in the context of those 

prior rulemakings. In some cases, EPA 

declined to make specific revisions 

requested by commenters. EPA’s 

reasoned determination that it would 

not be appropriate to make certain 

requested revisions does not, as 

commenters appear to suggest, 

demonstrate that the EPA ‘‘failed to 

address’’ issues raised in prior 

comments. 

For instance, a commenter responding 

to EPA’s October 14, 2011 proposed 

revisions rule argued that the NOX

emission rate in the IPM ‘‘TR Remedy’’ 

run was erroneously low for several 

units in Florida, including Crist Units 4 

and 5, Smith Unit 1, and Scholz Units 

1 and 2. The commenters argued that 

the rates in IPM should have reflected 

the units’ historic emission rates and 

should not have reflected the 

installation of low-NOX burners (LNBs). 

EPA evaluated these comments and 

determined that the correct rate was 

used in the TR remedy run. EPA 

explained its rationale for disagreeing 

with the comment in the Response to 

Comment document. As the Agency 

explained, ‘‘[t]he controlled NOX base 

rate modeled for these units is very 

consistent with the emission rates 

reported by the units themselves. 

However, the controlled NOX policy rate 

for these units is adjusted downward as 

a result of combustion control (e.g., 

LNB) upgrades or installation that 

would be considered economic at the 

cost thresholds modeled in the remedy 

scenario. The rates modeled are 

reflective of what other similarlyconfigured units are achieving when 

installing such controls. Therefore, the 

rates modeled are derived, but different, 

from the historic rates observed at the 

units as noted by commenter. However, 

the change is not accidental (as assumed 

by commenter) but intentional and 

explained in section VII of the final 

Transport Rule preamble and the IPM 

v.4.10 documentation.’’ 2 In this case, 

EPA did indeed address the comment, 

and its determination that the requested 

budget adjustment was not appropriate 

does not imply that it ‘‘failed to 

address’’ an issue. 

A brief summary of selected general 

comments received on the February 21, 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 34837 

3See, ‘‘Final Revisions Rule Significant 

Contribution Assessment TSD’’ (EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2009–0491–4956) where this relationship is 

evaluated by comparing Tables 37, 38, 39, and 40 

(inclusive of the revisions contained in the 

February 21, 2012 final rule (77 FR 10324) as well 

as the revisions contained in this action) with the 

columns ‘‘Without’’ budget increases in Tables 2, 3, 

4, and 5. See also, ‘‘Final June Revisions Rule 

Significant Contribution Assessment TSD,’’ Tables 

2, 3, 4, and 5. 

2012, direct final/parallel proposal 

notices follows. Responses to comments 

on specific proposed revisions are 

addressed in section V, which describes 

in greater detail the specific revisions 

finalized in this action. Additional and 

more detailed responses appear in the 

response to comments document in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

1. General Comments on Rulemaking 

Procedures 

Comment: One commenter suggests 

that, before finalizing this rule, EPA 

should prepare a ‘‘comprehensive 

proposal that includes the information 

provided in the Direct Final Rule, the 

Final Revisions Rule, the Supplemental 

Rule, and the three NODAs.’’ 

Response: EPA does not agree that an 

additional proposal is needed in these 

circumstances. EPA published the direct 

final rule and parallel proposal on 

February 21, 2012. That notice 

explicitly laid out for public comment 

all of the actions EPA is taking in this 

final action. EPA provided ample 

opportunity for comment on those 

revisions, received public comment on 

the notices, and in accordance with 

proper rulemaking procedure is now 

taking this final action. The commenter 

has not identified any specific criteria in 

the Administrative Procedures Act or 

the Clean Air Act with which it believes 

EPA did not adhere. 

Further, in this action, EPA is only 

making targeted specific revisions to 

state budgets and new unit set asides. 

EPA neither proposed, nor reopened for 

comment, any aspect of the applicability 

provisions in the final Transport Rule or 

any the methodologies established in 

that rule including those used to 

quantify each individual state’s 

significant contribution to 

nonattainment and interference with 

maintenance, to develop state budgets, 

and to allocate allowances to individual 

units. 

2. Comment Regarding Air Quality 

Modeling 

Comment: A commenter suggested 

that EPA should redo air quality 

modeling in light of the revisions. 

Response: EPA conducted 

quantitative air quality assessments 

regarding the full suite of revisions 

contained in the actions EPA published 

on February 21, 2012 (including the 

revisions in that date’s final rule as well 

as that date’s direct final rule and 

parallel proposal), with the intent of 

determining whether any of the unitlevel discrepancies addressed by those 

revisions would have affected the basis 

(informed by air quality modeling) of 

decisions EPA made in the 

promulgation of the final Transport 

Rule. That analysis evaluated the 

relationship between all of the revisions 

EPA has considered and the original air 

quality analysis conducted for the July 

6, 2011, final Transport Rule that 

informed that Rule’s determination of 

emissions that significantly contribute 

to nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in 

downwind states.3 This analysis found 

that the revisions would lead to only 

minor changes in estimated air quality 

concentrations at the receptors to which 

the states in this rule were ‘‘linked’’ in 

the final Transport Rule (76 FR 48236; 

see section V.D in the preamble to the 

final Transport Rule for an explanation 

of how upwind states are linked to 

specific downwind receptors at issue in 

the Transport Rule). 

These findings confirmed that the 

revisions at issue in this action as well 

as the revisions in the February 21, 

2012, final rule (77 FR 10324) have only 

a limited air quality impact that would 

not have changed EPA’s determination 

of the appropriate cost thresholds with 

which EPA quantified significant 

contribution or interference with 

maintenance under the final Transport 

Rule. EPA’s analysis shows that SO2

emission increases related to state 

budget increases in this action would 

not substantially affect the air quality 

component of the multifactor test and 

thus would not affect EPA’s conclusions 

in the final Transport Rule identifying 

$2,300/ton and $500/ton as the 

appropriate SO2 cost thresholds for 

‘‘Group 1’’ and ‘‘Group 2’’ states, 

respectively, and would not change 

each state’s designation as either 

‘‘Group 1’’ or ‘‘Group 2’’ as was made 

in the final Transport Rule. For more 

detail regarding this analysis, please see 

section B of the ‘‘Final June Revisions 

Rule Significant Contribution 

Assessment TSD’’ in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

The results of this analysis also show 

that the increases in annual and ozoneseason NOX related to this action’s 

revisions represent a small percentage of 

each state’s total emissions. Therefore, 

EPA believes that the impact of these 

revisions would be limited to 

comparatively small changes to the 2014 

ozone design values projected in the 

final Transport Rule air quality analysis. 

As a result, EPA does not find any basis 

on which this action’s revisions, and the 

underlying data supporting those 

revisions, would substantively impact 

the air quality modeling previously 

conducted in support of the final 

Transport Rule. 

3. Comments Regarding Power-Sector 

Modeling to Quantify State Budgets 

Comment: Some commenters 

suggested that the information 

underlying the proposed revisions 

would require EPA to re-execute full 

power sector modeling using the 

Integrated Planning Model (IPM) to 

determine state budgets. 

Response: EPA previously responded 

to comments on this topic on page 18– 

19 of the ‘‘Response to Comments on the 

Proposed Revisions to FIPs to Reduce 

Interstate Transport of Fine PM and 

Ozone.’’ (EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0491– 

4963) The state budgets are defined as 

the emissions projected to remain, in an 

average year, after all emissions that 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the relevant NAAQS in 

a downwind state are eliminated (76 FR 

48246). In developing the Transport 

Rule, EPA relied on sophisticated air 

quality analysis and power sector 

modeling in order to determine the 

appropriate cost per ton thresholds at 

which emission reductions relevant to 

significant contribution and interference 

with maintenance could be identified 

(based on the ‘‘multifactor test’’ 

described in the July 6, 2011, final 

Transport Rule). This approach was 

broad enough to necessitate a 

simultaneous examination of emissions 

across thousands of EGUs at multiple 

cost per ton levels, which EPA 

determined was best simulated with the 

assistance of IPM modeling. (See, ’’Final 

June Revisions Rule Significant 

Contribution Assessment TSD’’ and 

‘‘Final June Revisions Rule State 

Budgets TSD’’ in the docket for this 

rulemaking). 

In contrast, this action considers 

small adjustments to the quantification 

of remaining emissions at a discrete and 

limited subset of individual EGUs. 

While IPM is a powerful tool and EPA 

uses its output information when 

determining state budgets, that does not 

preclude EPA from making targeted 

adjustments to the IPM output that are 

consistent with the overall 

methodology. For example, some of the 

revisions were made due to noneconomic factors that affect near-term 

unit-level electricity dispatch in certain 

specific circumstances. In those narrow 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
34838 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

4For purposes of this rule and the February 21, 

2012, revisions rule, EPA characterizes an out-ofmerit-order dispatch area as one in which ‘‘units 

* * * are frequently dispatched out of regional 

economic order as a result of short-run limitations 

on the ability to meet local electricity demand with 

generation from outside the area.’’ See 76 FR 63865. 

cases, it is appropriate to adjust the 

output of an economic model like IPM 

to reflect these factors, as demonstrated 

in this rule’s ‘‘Final June Revisions Rule 

State Budgets and New Unit Set-Asides 

TSD’’ quantifying these out-of-meritorder dispatch adjustments, found in 

the docket for this rulemaking. As a 

result, EPA does not find it necessary to 

re-execute full power sector modeling in 

order to quantify the revisions to state 

budgets addressing the unit-level 

discrepancies the Agency identified in 

the final Transport Rule analysis as the 

basis for this rulemaking. 

4. Comments Regarding Budget 

Adjustments Based on Control 

Installation Timing 

Comment: One commenter argued 

that the Wisconsin state SO2 and NOX

budgets should be increased to account 

for the scheduling of the installation of 

controls. The commenter notes that EPA 

proposed making such an adjustment 

for controls in Georgia and believes the 

Wisconsin situation is similar. 

Response: EPA has previously 

responded to these comments (see 

Response to Comments on the Proposed 

Revisions to FIPs to Reduce Interstate 

Transport of Fine PM and Ozone; EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2009–0491–4963). Moreover, 

the commenter errs in asserting that the 

adjustments it requests are similar to the 

adjustments made to the Georgia budget. 

First, the commenter overlooks the fact 

that Georgia is a Group 2 state while 

Wisconsin is a Group 1 state. EPA 

determined in the final Transport Rule 

that implementation of all controls 

available at $500/ton would resolve the 

significant contribution and interference 

with maintenance of Group 2 states. For 

Group 1 states, however, significant 

contribution and interference with 

maintenance is not resolved unless 

controls available at $2300/ton are 

implemented. EPA acknowledges that, 

absent an independent non Transport 

Rule related requirement, no additional 

scrubbers will be installed in Group 2 

states (76 FR 48257, 48282). For this 

same reason, EPA determined that it 

could not assume that planned scrubber 

installations would be expedited in 

Group 2 states. This conclusion does not 

hold true for units in Group 1 states, 

where the $2300/cost threshold may be 

sufficient to incentivize both new 

scrubbers and the expedited installation 

of planned scrubbers. 

Second, in the case of Georgia, the 

controls would not be operating until 

the following year (i.e. 2015 instead of 

2014). The commenter acknowledges 

that this is not the case in Wisconsin as 

the controls will operate in 2014, just 

potentially not at the beginning of the 

year. The commenter’s suggestion that 

EPA should assume the controls will 

not operate at all in 2014 contradicts 

their own acknowledgement that these 

controls will be operating most of the 

year; furthermore, even if the controls 

are not installed in time to operate at the 

very beginning of the year, the plant 

will not be emitting, or emitting at low 

levels, due to outages necessary for final 

tie-in. Additionally, the flexibility of 

trading mechanisms of the Transport 

Rule allows plants to accommodate this 

type of control installation schedule 

without disrupting the state’s ability to 

meet its budget and assurance level. For 

these reasons, the requested revisions to 

the Wisconsin budget are not 

comparable to the revisions made to 

state budgets in Georgia . 

5. Petitions for Reconsideration 

EPA received a number of Petitions, 

pursuant to section 307(d)(7)(B) of the 

Clean Air Act, for Reconsideration of 

the Transport Rule. By providing, in this 

rulemaking, an additional opportunity 

for comment on aspects of Transport 

Rule state budgets, EPA has addressed 

some of the issues and concerns raised 

in many of the petitions for 

administrative reconsideration. While 

EPA is not, in this final action, taking 

action to grant or deny any such 

petitions, EPA believes this action may 

make moot some of the issues raised in 

those petitions. EPA will take separate 

action to grant or deny reconsideration 

on issues raised in the petitions to the 

extent they have not become moot. 

V. Specific Revisions in This Final 

Action 

In this rule, EPA is taking final action 

to revise the Transport Rule and the 

Transport Rule FIPs. EPA has 

determined after considering all 

comments received during the comment 

period that it is appropriate to finalize 

the revisions as proposed. This section 

describes the specific revisions made in 

this rule. Additional information 

regarding the calculations done by EPA 

to quantify the appropriate changes to 

state budgets and new unit set asides 

can be found in the ‘‘Final June 

Revisions Rule State Budgets and New 

Unit Set-Asides TSD.’’ Quantitative 

assessments of the relationship between 

final revisions to the Transport Rule and 

the original analysis can be found in the 

‘‘Final June Revisions Rule Significant 

Contribution Assessment TSD.’’ Unitlevel allocations under the revised FIPs 

appear in a document entitled ‘‘Final 

June Revisions Rule Unit-Level 

Allocations under the FIPs.’’ All of these 

documents, and additional relevant 

information including a detailed 

response to additional comments 

received during the comment period are 

in the docket for this rulemaking. 

(1) Revise the Arkansas ozone season 

NOX budgets for 2012 and 2014 and 

increase the Arkansas ozone season new 

unit set-aside budget. 

In this final action, EPA is increasing 

the Arkansas 2012 and 2014 ozoneseason NOX budgets by 73 tons. EPA is 

also increasing the ozone-season NOX

new unit set-aside for Arkansas for 2014 

and beyond. The revised ozone new 

unit set-aside is 8 percent of the ozoneseason NOX budget. 

EPA evaluated comments received in 

response to the October 14, 2011, 

proposed revisions, and determined that 

the McClellan plant is in an out-ofmerit-order dispatch area with 

conditions likely to necessitate what 

would otherwise be non-economic 

generation.4 EPA therefore recalculated 

the emissions from the McClellan plant 

with non-economic generation to 

account for the input assumption 

changes. These calculations yield 

increases to the Arkansas 2012 and 2014 

state budgets for ozone-season NOX of 

73 tons. 

EPA received comments on the 

October 14, 2011 revisions proposal that 

identified Turk Unit 1 as a unit 

commencing commercial operation on 

or after January 1, 2010. EPA evaluated 

these comments and determined that 

Turk Unit 1 qualifies as a new unit 

under the final Transport Rule’s unitlevel allocation methodology (see 76 FR 

48290 for a description of that allocation 

methodology). The final Transport Rule 

did not include this unit’s projected 

emissions in the calculation of 

Arkansas’ ozone-season NOX new unit 

set-aside. EPA is therefore revising the 

portion of the Arkansas ozone-season 

budget dedicated to the state’s new unit 

set-aside account so that it takes into 

account this unit’s projected emissions, 

consistent with the new unit set-aside 

methodology in the final Transport 

Rule. EPA is applying this revision to 

the new unit set-asides for 2014 and 

beyond. 2014 is the first year for which 

EPA has not yet recorded (i.e., 

distributed) allowances to existing units 

under the Arkansas state budget. To 

implement this revision for 2012 and 

2013, EPA would have to take back 

allocations of 2012 and 2013 allowances 

that the Agency has already distributed 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 34839 

5Because the total number of allowances 

available to all sources in a given state is limited 

to that state’s budget, adjusting the size of the new 

unit set-aside necessarily changes the size of the 

total allowance pool that is distributed as initial 

allocations to existing units. 6EPA does not collect information on when and 

how allowance trades are executed in private 

contracts; instead, EPA’s data only shows the 

physical location of allowances in accounts at a 

given point in time. 

to existing units in Arkansas.5 EPA 

received a comment suggesting that the 

revision to the 2012 and 2013 new unit 

set-asides could be made because the 

stay meant ‘‘these allocations are no 

longer distributed for use until the stay 

is lifted.’’ The premise of this comment 

is incorrect. Allowances for 2012 and 

2013 were recorded in the compliance 

accounts of existing sources in Arkansas 

prior to the December 30, 2011, stay of 

the Transport Rule. Transport Rule 

allowance allocations recorded prior to 

December 30, 2011 remain in 

circulation in the marketplace. These 

allowances are electronically 

transferable by the owners and operators 

of such sources, and therefore those 

allowances may no longer reside in the 

specific compliance accounts in which 

they were originally recorded. Further, 

allowances still in their original 

recorded accounts may already be under 

contract to be transferred at a later date 

to another entity.6 The commenter’s 

assertion that ‘‘these allocations are no 

longer distributed for use’’ is thus not 

accurate. While sources are not required 

to hold allowances for compliance at 

this time, the previously allocated 

allowances remain in circulation and 

may have already been traded. Turk 

Unit 1 remains eligible to request 

allowance allocation from the new unit 

set-asides for any control period under 

the program. In the final Transport Rule, 

EPA established a minimum amount of 

allowances (equivalent to 2 percent of 

the relevant state budget) to be supplied 

to each new unit set-aside in addition to 

any other allowances supplied to that 

set-aside on the basis of projected 

emissions from specific new units EPA 

identified at the time. As such, the new 

unit set-asides can accommodate 

allocation requests from new units that 

were not explicitly identified at the time 

EPA promulgated the Transport Rule. 

(76 FR 48291) Further, as the 

commenter acknowledges, this unit is 

not projected to start-up until late 2012 

and thus the unit will have little if any 

ozone-season emissions in 2012. It is 

likely that this unit will not need to 

hold 2012 ozone-season allowances for 

compliance. Finally, EPA notes that 

Turk Unit 1’s compliance possibilities 

are not limited to its initial allowance 

allocation; like any other unit, it may 

obtain other allowances as necessary in 

the marketplace. 

This revision yields an ozone-season 

NOX new unit set-aside of 8 percent for 

2014 and beyond for Arkansas. See the 

‘‘Final June 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 June 

Revisions Rule Unit-Level Allocations 

under the FIPs’’ in the docket to this 

rulemaking. 

(2) Revise the Georgia SO2, annual 

NOX, and ozone season NOX budgets for 

2014. 

In this final action, EPA is increasing 

the Georgia 2014 SO2 budget by 40,334 

tons, the Georgia 2014 annual NOX

budget by 13,198 tons and the Georgia 

2014 ozone-season NOX budget by 5,762 

tons. 

EPA received comments on the 

October 14, 2011, revisions proposal 

indicating that EPA erroneously 

assumed certain pollution control 

requirements would be in place by 2014 

due to requirements in a Georgia state 

rule. Other commenters with sources in 

Group 1 states (i.e., Virginia, West 

Virginia, Ohio, Wisconsin) suggested 

that similar timing issues existed for 

their units. However, in these particular 

states the 2014 scrubber installations 

were predicted due to the economic 

incentives facing Group 1 states at the 

higher cost threshold ($2,300 per ton) 

derived from EPA’s multi-factor 

analysis. EPA’s modeling projects that 

units in those states would find it costeffective to install and operate new 

scrubbers in 2014 to support Transport 

Rule emission reductions regardless of 

other pollution control incentives or 

requirements that may be on a different 

schedule. Georgia faces a lower cost 

threshold ($500 per ton) as a Group 2 

state, and while EPA believes that such 

a cost threshold is sufficient to induce 

the operation of existing scrubbers, EPA 

is not assuming that these units in 

Georgia would install new scrubbers by 

2014 purely in response to the cost 

threshold applied to their state under 

the Transport Rule. 

EPA evaluated the Georgia-specific 

comments on this issue and determined 

that the deadlines for certain units 

extend beyond 2014 in the Georgia state 

law in question. EPA also determined 

that, because Georgia is a Group 2 SO2

state, it could not demonstrate that these 

controls would be installed absent the 

Georgia state law or in advance of the 

deadlines established therein. To correct 

the alignment of the Georgia 2014 state 

budgets with the requirements for 

affected units in Georgia to install 

controls by the state rule’s deadlines, 

EPA is increasing Georgia’s 2014 state 

budgets by 40,334 tons of SO2, 13,198 

tons of annual NOX, and 5,762 tons of 

ozone-season NOX. 

(3) Revise the Indiana SO2 budgets for 

2012 and 2014. 

In this final action, EPA is increasing 

the Indiana SO2 budget for 2012 and 

2014 by 5,338 tons. 

EPA evaluated comments received in 

response to the October 14, 2011, 

proposed revisions regarding postcombustion control status at Gallagher 

Units 2 and 4. Commenters identified an 

erroneous assumption of flue gas 

desulphurization (FGD, or scrubber) 

with 86 percent removal at units that 

have actually installed dry sorbent 

injection (DSI) technology with a 60 

percent removal rate and an emission 

rate limit of 0.8 lbs/mmBtu established 

in a NSR settlement agreement. EPA 

evaluated the comments and 

determined that an adjustment was 

appropriate as it is supported by their 

data reported in EIA form 860 data and 

the legal requirements under Consent 

Decree of the Gallagher Plant. Therefore, 

EPA increased the state’s annual SO2

budget by 3,465 tons. 

Commenters on the October 14, 2011, 

revisions proposal also identified a 

facility in Indiana, Gibson Unit 5, which 

currently faces immediate-term 

limitations regarding the amount of flue 

gas that can be treated in its existing 

FGD. Commenters noted its removal rate 

should be lower than that assumed by 

EPA. EPA examined the basis for its 

assumed removal rate—the design 

capability reported for the unit in EIA 

form 860. The Gibson Unit 5 reports in 

form EIA 860 that it can only pass 98% 

of its flue gas through its scrubber, not 

100% as originally assumed by EPA. 

EPA modified the unit’s removal rate 

assumed in IPM to be consistent with its 

reported design capability and revised 

the budget accordingly. 

In the final Transport Rule analysis, 

EPA relied on the SO2 removal 

efficiency that this facility reported at 

its scrubber to the Energy Information 

Administration (EIA). However, EPA 

has since determined that this reported 

value only intended to address the 

removal efficiency for the portion of the 

flue gas treated in the scrubber. 

EPA received comments supporting 

the revised assumption regarding the 

portion of the flue gas treated in the 

scrubber, and comments opposing 

EPA’s use of the removal efficiency rate 

(95%) reported on EIA form 860. The 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
34840 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

commenter argues that EPA should 

instead use a lower removal efficiency 

rate (85%). While this removal 

efficiency rate is not a rate that was 

reported to EIA, the commenter argues 

that this rate is closer to the unit’s 

removal values reported in EIA form 

923. 

After evaluating comments on this 

topic, EPA determined that its use of the 

95% rate reported on EIA form 860 is 

appropriate. First, EPA relied on EIA 

form 860 as its default assumption for 

scrubber removal efficiency as it 

represents a consistent, conservative, 

and accurate metric (reported by the 

sources themselves). As explained in 

the Final Transport Rule Response to 

Comments, ‘‘EPA notes that where EIA 

860 reported values conflicted with 

those provided in comments, EPA 

generally relied on the EIA 860 reported 

values to promote consistent treatment 

of removal efficiencies among scrubbed 

units.’’ Among other things, there can be 

inconsistency in the suggested removal 

rates provided to EPA by commenters. 

For example, at proposal, two different 

utilities that were co-owners of the same 

unit commented separately and 

provided a suggested removal rate for 

the same unit that they co-owned. 

However, the rate each suggested was 

different (EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0491– 

2689.1, EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0491– 

2665.1). For all of the above reasons, 

EPA remains confident that the 

consistent use of EIA 860 data is 

appropriate. 

Second, the commenter’s observation 

that its comment-supplied removal rate 

more closely parallels that reported in 

EIA 923 misunderstands the parameter 

being addressed in the IPM modeling 

and misconstrues the purpose for which 

EPA conducted IPM modeling in 

support of the Transport Rule. EPA 

applied its IPM modeling to develop 

accurate and reasonable state-level 

emission projections, for which it was 

necessary to develop a consistent 

approach and data source regarding the 

emission reduction capability of all 

scrubbers throughout the fleet. The 

removal rate input parameter that EPA 

uses in its power sector modeling 

addresses scrubber capability, not a 

particular scrubber’s performance in any 

given year. The removal rate reported on 

EIA form 923 only reflects performance 

of the scrubber in a particular year, 

which can be significantly affected by 

variable operational decisions at the 

unit; conversely, the removal rate 

reported on EIA form 860 reflects design 

capability of the scrubber—that is, what 

the supplier built it to regularly 

accomplish when at full operation. 

While the commenter argues that this 

particular scrubber has performed under 

its design value, there is also evidence 

that other scrubbers have performed 

above their design values. For example, 

comparing the scrubber removal 

efficiencies reported on EIA 923 to the 

corresponding design values reported in 

EIA 860 shows that three out of the four 

units at the Petersburg plant exceeded 

their design values in 2010. Evidently, 

individual scrubber efficiency in any 

given year may vary above or below that 

scrubber’s design value; however, EPA 

does not find that any one instance of 

this type of variation, such as that 

reported by Gibson Unit 5, provides a 

sufficient basis for revising the projected 

state-level emissions on which the 

quantification of the state budget 

depends. 

Because of the conservative nature of 

design values (representing broadly 

reliable and sustainable performance 

expectations) and the consistency with 

which they are reported from year to 

year on EIA form 860 (contrary to 

reported values on EIA form 923 that 

vary significantly from year to year), 

EPA determined that the design value 

data provided on EIA form 860 provide, 

in the aggregate, a more reliable metric 

for estimating the performance 

capability of a state’s scrubbed fleet and 

thus result in reasonable and accurate 

state-level emission projections. For 

these reasons, EPA believes it is 

appropriate to use the scrubber removal 

efficiency reported on EIA form 860 for 

units modeled in IPM—including 

Gibson 5. 

EPA recalculated the projected 

emissions for this unit using the most 

recent data reported by this facility to 

EIA on form 860 for 2009, which 

includes the scrubber’s removal 

efficiency and the portion of flue gas 

treated. Based on this recalculation, 

EPA is increasing Indiana’s 2012 and 

2014 SO2 budgets by 1,873 tons (5,338 

tons total). 

(4) Revise the Kansas SO2 and annual 

NOX budgets for 2012 and 2014. 

In this final rule, EPA is increasing 

the Kansas 2012 and 2014 SO2 budgets 

by 452 tons, as well as increasing the 

2012 annual NOX budget by 640 tons 

and the 2014 annual NOX budget by 

5,794 tons. 

Commenters on the October 14, 2011, 

revisions proposal provided information 

showing that one unit at the Quindaro 

plant in Kansas is in an out-of-meritorder dispatch area with conditions 

likely to necessitate what would 

otherwise be non-economic generation. 

EPA evaluated these comments and 

determined that, based on the new 

information submitted, there were 

immediate-term local conditions that 

would likely necessitate non-economic 

generation at these units. EPA therefore 

recalculated the emissions from this 

plant with non-economic generation to 

account for the input assumption 

changes. These calculations yield 

increases to the Kansas 2012 and 2014 

state budgets for annual SO2 of 452 tons 

and annual NOX of 640 tons. 

Commenters on the October 14, 2011, 

revisions proposal also noted that EPA 

inadvertently included an emission rate 

requirement from a consent decree 

affecting a Kansas facility whose 

deadline actually extends beyond 2014. 

EPA evaluated the comment and 

determined that a revision was 

warranted because it could not establish 

that this emission rate limit would be 

met absent the consent decree or before 

the consent decree deadline. In 

particular, EPA determined that, 

because Kansas is a Group 2 SO2 state, 

EPA could not demonstrate that these 

controls would be installed absent the 

consent decree or in advance of the 

deadlines established therein. To correct 

the alignment of the Kansas 2014 state 

budget with the requirements for 

affected units in Kansas to meet the 

emission rate limitation by the consent 

decree’s deadlines, EPA is increasing 

the Kansas 2014 annual NOX budget by 

an additional 5,154 tons (5,794 tons 

total). 

(5) Revise the Louisiana ozone season 

NOX budgets for 2012 and 2014 and 

adjust the ozone season new unit setaside. 

In this final action, EPA is increasing 

the Louisiana 2012 and 2014 ozoneseason NOX budgets by 89 tons. EPA is 

also decreasing the ozone-season NOX

new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2014. 

The revised new unit set-aside is 2 

percent of the ozone-season budget. 

EPA received comments on the 

October 14, 2011, proposed revisions 

rule demonstrating that the Stall and 

Lieberman plants are in an out-of-meritorder dispatch area with conditions 

likely to necessitate what would 

otherwise be non-economic generation. 

EPA evaluated the comments and 

determined that immediate-term local 

conditions would likely necessitate noneconomic generation at these units. EPA 

recalculated the emissions from the 

Stall and Lieberman plants with noneconomic generation to account for the 

input assumption changes. These 

calculations yield increases to 

Louisiana’s 2012 and 2014 state budgets 

for ozone-season NOX of 89 tons. 

Comments on the October 14, 2011, 

revisions proposal also noted that in 

calculating the Louisiana ozone-season 

NOX new unit set-aside, EPA included 

projected emissions from a planned new 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 34841 

7Because the total number of allowances 

available to all sources in a given state is limited 

to that state’s budget, adjusting the size of the new 

unit set-aside necessarily changes the size of the 

total allowance pool that is distributed as initial 

allocations to existing units. 

facility, Washington Parish, which will 

not in fact come into service in 

Louisiana. EPA determined that 

Washington Parish’s projected 

emissions should be subtracted from 

Louisiana’s new unit set-aside 

calculations. EPA is therefore reducing 

the size of Louisiana’s ozone-season 

NOX new unit set-aside in 2012 and 

2014 to 2 percent (from the previous 3 

percent) to account for the exclusion of 

these projected emissions from the 

relevant calculation. This revision 

means that fewer allowances will need 

to be held in reserve for the new unit 

set-aside. After this revision’s effective 

date, EPA will reallocate any allowances 

in excess of the revised new unit setaside to existing units in the state by the 

same existing unit allowance allocation 

methodology as previously finalized. 

See the ‘‘Final June 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 Louisiana 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 June 

Revisions Rule Unit-Level Allocations 

under the FIPs’’ in the docket to this 

rulemaking. 

(6) Revise the Mississippi ozone 

season NOX budgets for 2012 and 2014. 

In this final action, EPA is increasing 

both the Mississippi 2012 and 2014 

ozone-season NOX budgets by 115 tons. 

EPA received comments on the 

October 14, 2011, revisions proposal 

demonstrating that the Moselle plant is 

in an out-of-merit-order dispatch area 

with conditions likely to necessitate 

what would otherwise be non-economic 

generation. EPA has determined that 

there were immediate-term local 

conditions that would likely necessitate 

non-economic generation at these units. 

Therefore, EPA recalculated the 

emissions from the Moselle plant with 

non-economic generation to account for 

the input assumption changes. These 

calculations yield increases to 

Mississippi’s 2012 and 2014 state 

budgets for ozone-season NOX of 115 

tons. 

(7) Revise the Missouri annual and 

ozone season NOX budgets for 2012 and 

2014 and revise the SO2, annual NOX, 

and ozone season NOX new unit setaside budgets. 

In this final action, EPA is increasing 

the Missouri 2012 and 2014 annual and 

ozone-season NOX budgets by 26 tons 

and increasing the size of the SO2, 

annual NOX, and ozone season NOX

new unit set-aside budgets. The revised 

set-aside budgets are 3 percent of the 

SO2 budget and 6 percent of the annual 

and ozone-season NOX budgets. 

EPA is increasing these budgets to 

account for operational constraints at 

six plants that were identified in 

comments received on the October 14, 

2011, revisions proposal. Commenters 

provided information showing that 

these units were in out-of-merit-order 

dispatch areas with conditions likely to 

necessitate what would otherwise be 

non-economic generation. EPA 

evaluated these comments and 

determined that there were immediateterm local conditions that would likely 

necessitate non-economic generation at 

these units. 

EPA recalculated the emissions from 

these six plants with non-economic 

generation to account for the input 

assumption changes. These calculations 

yield increases to Missouri’s 2012 and 

2014 state budgets for annual NOX of 26 

tons and ozone-season NOX of 26 tons. 

Comments on the October 14, 2011, 

revisions proposal also identified Iatan 

Unit 2 as commencing commercial 

operation on or after January 1, 2010. 

EPA reviewed these comments and 

determined that Iatan Unit 2 qualifies as 

a new unit under the final Transport 

Rule’s unit-level allocation methodology 

(76 FR 48290). The final Transport Rule 

omitted this unit’s projected emissions 

from the calculation of Missouri’s new 

unit set-asides. EPA is therefore revising 

the portion of Missouri’s SO2, annual 

NOX, and ozone-season NOX budgets 

dedicated to the state’s new unit setasides so that they take into account this 

unit’s projected emissions, consistent 

with the new unit set-aside 

methodology in the final Transport 

Rule. EPA is only applying this revision 

for 2013 and beyond, the first year for 

which EPA has not yet recorded (i.e., 

distributed) allowances to existing units 

under the Missouri state budget. In this 

manner, EPA will avoid any retroactive 

adjustments to allowance allocations 

that the Agency has already distributed 

to existing units in Missouri for 

Transport Rule compliance in the 2012 

and 2013 control periods.7 Allowances 

for 2012 were recorded in the 

compliance accounts of existing sources 

in Missouri prior to the December 30, 

2011, stay of the Transport Rule. 

Transport rule allowance allocations 

recorded prior to the December 30, 2011 

stay are electronically transferable by 

the owners and operators of such 

sources, and because they are 

transferable, those allowances may no 

longer reside in the compliance 

accounts in which they were originally 

recorded. Iatan Unit 2 remains eligible 

to request allowance allocation from the 

new unit set-asides for any control 

period under the program. This revision 

yields an ozone-season NOX new unit 

set-aside of 6 percent, an annual NOX

new unit set-aside of 6 percent, and an 

SO2 new unit set-aside of 3 percent for 

2013 and beyond for Missouri. See the 

‘‘Final June 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 Missouri 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 June 

Revisions Rule Unit-Level Allocations 

under the FIPs’’ in the docket to this 

rulemaking. 

(8) Revise the Ohio SO2, annual NOX, 

and ozone season NOX budgets for 2012 

and 2014. 

In this final action, EPA is increasing 

Ohio’s 2012 and 2014 annual SO2, 

annual NOX, and ozone-season NOX by 

5,163, 2,765, and 1,221 tons 

respectively. 

EPA is finalizing budget increases in 

this action account for operational 

constraints at two plants, Conesville and 

Muskingum River, that were identified 

in comments received on the October 

14, 2011, revisions proposal. The 

commenter provided information 

showing that these plants were in outof-merit-order dispatch areas with 

conditions likely to necessitate what 

would otherwise be non-economic 

generation. EPA determined there were 

immediate-term local conditions that 

would likely necessitate non-economic 

generation at these units. 

EPA recalculated the emissions from 

these two plants with non-economic 

generation to reflect the input 

assumption changes. These calculations 

yield increases to Ohio’s 2012 and 2014 

state budgets for annual SO2 of 5,163 

tons, annual NOX of 547 tons, and 

ozone-season NOX of 257 tons. 

EPA is finalizing additional 

adjustments to Ohio’s 2012 and 2014 

annual and ozone-season NOX budgets 

to correct an erroneous assumption of 

an SCR at Bayshore 4. EPA received 

comments on the October 14, 2011, 

revisions proposal arguing that EPA’s 

assumption regarding SCR at the unit 

was incorrect. EPA reviewed recent 

emissions data and verified that there is 

no SCR currently at the facility, and that 

there is no evidence contradicting the 

commenter’s recent claims that no SCR 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
34842 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

8These changes do not apply to the Oklahoma 

2012 budget because similar changes were already 

made to the affected units’ operation in 2012, as 

described in the Technical Support Document 

‘‘Determination of State Budgets for the Final Ozone 

Supplemental of the Transport Rule’’ (EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2009–0491–485, pg 5–7). 

is planned or under construction. 

Therefore, removing the SCR 

assumption results in an additional 

2,218 ton increase (2,765 ton total) in 

the state’s annual NOX budget and a 964 

ton increase (1,221 ton total) for the 

ozone-season NOX budget. 

(9) Revise the Nebraska SO2 budgets 

for 2012 and 2014. 

EPA is finalizing revisions to increase 

the Nebraska 2012 and 2014 SO2

budgets by 3,110 tons. 

EPA received comments on the 

October 14, 2011 revisions proposal 

arguing that EPA’s assumptions 

regarding FGD pollution control 

technology at Whelan Energy Center 

Units 1 and 2 and Nebraska City Unit 

2 were incorrect. The commenter noted 

that the technology at Nebraska Unit 2 

and Whelan Unit 2 is dry FGD 

technology, whereas EPA had assumed 

wet FGD technology with a higher SO2

removal efficiency than the actual dry 

FGD technology that those units 

achieve. EPA evaluated these comments 

and determined that this difference in 

control type warranted a change in the 

relevant budgets. Additionally, EPA is 

also revising its assumption of FGD 

technology at Whelan Energy Center 

Unit 1, as EPA determined that there is 

no FGD present, planned, or under 

construction at the unit. These 

adjustments result in an increase of 

3,110 tons to the 2012 and 2014 annual 

SO2 budgets for the state. 

(10) Revise the New York SO2, annual 

NOX, and ozone season NOX budgets for 

2012 and 2014. 

In this final action, EPA is increasing 

New York’s 2012 and 2014 annual SO2, 

annual NOX, and ozone-season NOX

budgets by 5,444 tons, 694 tons, and 127 

tons respectively. 

EPA received comments on the 

October 14, 2011, revisions proposal 

demonstrating that the East River plant 

is in an out-of-merit-order dispatch area 

with conditions likely to necessitate 

what would otherwise be non-economic 

generation. EPA determined that based 

on this information, the East River 

plant’s near-term operations are likely to 

yield increased emissions beyond those 

accounted for in the final Transport 

Rule’s quantification of the relevant 

state budgets. EPA recalculated the 

emissions from this facility with out-ofmerit-order dispatch to reflect the input 

assumption changes. These calculations 

yield increases to New York’s 2012 and 

2014 state budgets for annual SO2 of 84 

tons, annual NOX of 694 tons, and 

ozone-season NOX of 127 tons. 

EPA is also finalizing an adjustment 

of 5,360 tons to New York’s 2012 and 

2014 SO2 budgets based on its 

determination that the appropriate 

removal rate for two facilities, Dunkirk 

and Huntley, with existing dry sorbent 

injection (DSI). The removal rate for the 

DSI controls should be 53 percent. EPA 

had previously assumed an SO2 removal 

rate of 70 percent for these two units, as 

70% is the default value that EPA 

assumes for new DSI retrofits in IPM 

modeling. However, more recently 

reported EIA form 860 data released 

after the rule was finalized confirms the 

commenter’s reporting that the removal 

rate is less than 70%. In the 2010 EIA 

860 form, the sources reported 53% 

removal and EPA is updating its 

assumptions and budgets to reflect this 

value. This revised approach is 

consistent with EPA’s assumptions of 

scrubber SO2 removal rates, which EPA 

bases on reported values on EIA form 

860. EPA recalculated the projected 

emissions for these units based on this 

revised assumption and is increasing 

the New York 2012 and 2014 SO2

budgets accordingly. 

(11) Revise the Oklahoma ozoneseason NOX budgets for 2013 and 2014. 

EPA is increasing the Oklahoma 

2013 8 and 2014 ozone-season NOX

budgets by 859 tons. 

EPA received comments received on 

the October 14, 2011, revisions proposal 

demonstrating that the Comanche plant 

is in an out-of-merit-order dispatch area 

with conditions likely to necessitate 

what would otherwise be non-economic 

generation. EPA determined there were 

immediate-term local conditions that 

would likely necessitate non-economic 

generation at these units. This action 

also revises the assumption of an FGD 

at the W S Lee Facility. Current 

emissions data reported to EPA’s Air 

Markets Program Data (http:// 

ampd.epa.gov/ampd/) did not suggest 

any existing FGD, and EPA could not 

find any new evidence to suggest that 

FGDs were planned, under construction, 

or expected to be online in 2012 or 2014 

at this facility. 

(12) Revise the Texas annual NOX and 

ozone season NOX budgets for 2012 and 

2014. 

In this final action, EPA is increasing 

the Texas 2012 and 2014 annual and 

ozone-season NOX budgets by 2,731 and 

1,142 tons respectively. 

These revisions are made to account 

for operational constraints at six plants: 

Jones, Moore County, Nichols, Plant X, 

Knox Lee, and Wilkes. These constraints 

were identified by commenters in 

response to the October 14, 2011, 

revisions proposal. The commenters 

provided information showing that 

these plants were in out-of-merit-order 

dispatch areas with conditions likely to 

necessitate what would otherwise be 

non-economic generation. EPA 

determined that there were immediateterm local conditions that would likely 

necessitate non-economic generation at 

these units. 

EPA recalculated the emissions from 

these plants with non-economic 

generation to account for the input 

assumption changes. These calculations 

yield increases to the Texas 2012 and 

2014 state budgets for annual NOX of 

2,731 tons, and ozone-season NOX of 

1,142 tons. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and is therefore not 

subject to review under Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011). 

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. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 34843 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of this rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s action on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

The small entities directly regulated by 

this action are electric power generators 

whose ultimate parent entity has a total 

electric output of 4 million megawatthours (MWh) or less in the previous 

fiscal year. We have determined that the 

changes considered in this rulemaking 

pose no additional burden for small 

entities. The revision to the new unit 

set-asides in Arkansas, Missouri, and 

Texas would yield an extremely small 

change in unit-level allowance 

allocations to existing units, including 

small entities, such that it would not 

affect the analysis conducted on small 

entity impacts under the finalized 

Transport Rule. In all other states, the 

revisions 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 action contains no Federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538 for State, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector. 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 subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)), because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

As described in section XII.I of the 

preamble to the final Transport Rule, 

the Transport Rule program 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. 

In the ‘‘Final June Revisions Rule 

Significant Contribution Assessment 

TSD’’ in the docket to this rulemaking, 

EPA assessed impacts of the emission 

changes in this rule on air quality 

throughout the Transport Rule region. 

For SO2, the estimated air quality 

impacts were minimal and no 

additional nonattainment or 

maintenance areas were identified. EPA 

also assessed the relationship between 

the NOX emission inventories in each 

affected state and the finalized revisions 

to annual and ozone-season NOX

budgets and found the revisions 

represent small percentages of each 

state’s total emissions in 2014. As a 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
34844 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

result, EPA does not believe these 

technical revisions would affect any of 

the conclusions supported by the air 

quality and environmental justice 

analyses conducted for the final 

Transport Rule. 

Based on the significant contribution 

assessment in the technical support 

document for this action, 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 available 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 not ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule 

will be effective August 13, 2012. 

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 August 13, 2012. 

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.’’ 

In the final Transport Rule, EPA 

determined that ‘‘[a]ny final action 

related to the Transport Rule is 

‘nationally applicable’ within the 

meaning of section 307(b)(1).’’ 76 FR 

48352. Through this rule, EPA is 

revising specific aspects of the final 

Transport Rule. This rule therefore is a 

final action related to the Transport 

Rule and as such is covered by the 

determination of national applicability 

made in the final Transport Rule. Thus, 

pursuant to section 307(b) any petitions 

for review of this action 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 in 40 CFR Part 97 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Air pollution control, 

Electric utilities, Nitrogen oxides, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxide. 

Dated: June 5, 2012. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 97—[Amended] 

■ 1. 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. 

Subpart AAAAA—[Amended] 

■ 2. Section 97.410 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (a)(2)(iv) and 

(a)(2)(v); 

■ b. Revising paragraphs (a)(6), (a)(11), 

(a)(14), (a)(16), and (a)(20); and 

■ c. Revising paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(6), 

(b)(11), (b)(14), (b)(16) and (b)(20). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 97.410 State NOX Annual trading 

budgets, new unit set-asides, Indian 

country new unit set-aside, and variability 

limits. 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iv) The NOX annual trading budget 

for 2014 and thereafter is 53,738 tons. 

(v) The NOX annual new unit setaside for 2014 and thereafter is 1,075 

tons. 

* * * * * 

(6) Kansas. (i) The NOX annual 

trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 

31,354 tons. 

(ii) The NOX annual new unit setaside for 2012 and 2013 is 596 tons. 

(iii) The NOX annual Indian country 

new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 

31 tons. 

(iv) The NOX annual trading budget 

for 2014 and thereafter is 31,354 tons. 

(v) The NOX annual new unit setaside for 2014 and thereafter is 596 tons. 

(vi) The NOX annual Indian country 

new unit set-aside for 2014 and 

thereafter is 31 tons. 

* * * * * 

(11) Missouri. (i) The NOX annual 

trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 

52,400 tons. 

(ii) The NOX annual new unit setaside for 2012 is 1,572 tons and for 2013 

is 3,144 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX annual trading budget 

for 2014 and thereafter is 48,743 tons. 

(v) The NOX annual new unit setaside for 2014 and thereafter is 2,925 

tons. 

* * * * * 

(14) New York. (i) The NOX annual 

trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 

21,722 tons. 

(ii) The NOX annual new unit setaside for 2012 and 2013 is 412 tons. 

(iii) The NOX annual Indian country 

new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 

22 tons. 

(iv) The NOX annual trading budget 

for 2014 and thereafter is 21,722 tons. 

(v) The NOX annual new unit setaside for 2014 and thereafter is 412 tons. 

(vi) The NOX annual Indian country 

new unit set-aside for 2014 and 

thereafter is 22 tons. 

* * * * * 

(16) Ohio. (i) The NOX annual trading 

budget for 2012 and 2013 is 95,468 tons. 

(ii) The NOX annual new unit setaside for 2012 and 2013 is 1,909 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX annual trading budget 

for 2014 and thereafter is 90,258 tons. 

(v) The NOX annual new unit setaside for 2014 and thereafter is 1,805 

tons. 

* * * * * 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 34845 

(20) Texas. (i) The NOX annual 

trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 

137,701 tons. 

(ii) The NOX annual new unit setaside for 2012 and 2013 is 5,370 tons. 

(iii) The NOX annual Indian country 

new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 

138 tons. 

(iv) The NOX annual trading budget 

for 2014 and thereafter is 137,701 tons. 

(v) The NOX annual new unit setaside for 2014 and thereafter is 5,370 

tons. 

(vi) The NOX annual Indian country 

new unit set-aside for 2014 and 

thereafter is 138 tons. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) The NOX annual variability limit 

for Georgia is 9,673 tons. 

* * * * * 

(6) The NOX annual variability limit 

for Kansas is 5,644 tons. 

* * * * * 

(11) The NOX annual variability limit 

for Missouri is 8,774 tons. 

* * * * * 

(14) The NOX annual variability limit 

for New York is 3,910 tons. 

* * * * * 

(16) The NOX annual variability limit 

for Ohio is 16,246 tons. 

* * * * * 

(20) The NOX annual variability limit 

for Texas is 24,786 tons. 

* * * * * 

Subpart BBBBB—[Amended] 

■ 3. Section 97.510 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a)(2); 

■ b. Revising paragraphs (a)(4)(iv) and 

(a)(4)(v); 

■ c. Revising paragraphs (a)(9), (a)(12), 

(a)(13), (a)(15), (a)(17), (a)(18), and 

(a)(22); and 

■ d. Revising paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(4), 

(b)(9), (b)(12), (b)(13), (b)(15), (b)(17), 

(b)(18), and (b)(22). 

The revisions 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) * * * 

(2) Arkansas. (i) The NOX ozone 

season trading budget for 2012 and 2013 

is 15,110 tons. 

(ii) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 756 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX ozone season trading 

budget for 2014 and thereafter is 15,110 

tons. 

(v) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 1,209 

tons. 

* * * * * 

(4) * * * 

(iv) The NOX ozone season trading 

budget for 2014 and thereafter is 24,041 

tons. 

(v) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 481 

tons. 

* * * * * 

(9) Louisiana. (i) The NOX ozone 

season trading budget for 2012 and 2013 

is 18,115 tons. 

(ii) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 344 tons. 

(iii) The NOX ozone season Indian 

country new unit set-aside for 2012 and 

2013 is 18 tons. 

(iv) The NOX ozone season trading 

budget for 2014 and thereafter is 18,115 

tons. 

(v) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 344 

tons. 

(vi) The NOX ozone season Indian 

country new unit set-aside for 2014 and 

thereafter is 18 tons. 

* * * * * 

(12) Mississippi. (i) The NOX ozone 

season trading budget for 2012 and 2013 

is 12,429 tons. 

(ii) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 237 tons. 

(iii) The NOX ozone season Indian 

country new unit set-aside for 2012 and 

2013 is 12 tons. 

(iv) The NOX ozone season trading 

budget for 2014 and thereafter is 12,429 

tons. 

(v) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 237 

tons. 

(vi) The NOX ozone season Indian 

country new unit set-aside for 2014 and 

thereafter is 12 tons. 

(13) Missouri. (i) The NOX ozone 

season trading budget for 2012 and 2013 

is 22,788 tons. 

(ii) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2012 is 684 tons and for 

2013 is 1,367 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX ozone season trading 

budget for 2014 and thereafter is 21,099 

tons. 

(v) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 1,266 

tons. 

* * * * * 

(15) New York. (i) The NOX ozone 

season trading budget for 2012 and 2013 

is 10,369 tons. 

(ii) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 197 tons. 

(iii) The NOX ozone season Indian 

country new unit set-aside for 2012 and 

2013 is 10 tons. 

(iv) The NOX ozone season trading 

budget for 2014 and thereafter is 10,369 

tons. 

(v) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 197 

tons. 

(vi) The NOX ozone season Indian 

country new unit set-aside for 2014 and 

thereafter is 10 tons. 

* * * * * 

(17) Ohio. (i) The NOX ozone season 

trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 

41,284 tons. 

(ii) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 826 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX ozone season trading 

budget for 2014 and thereafter is 39,013 

tons. 

(v) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 780 

tons. 

(18) Oklahoma. (i) The NOX ozone 

season trading budget for 2012 is 36,567 

tons and for 2013 is 22,694 tons. 

(ii) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2012 is 731 tons and for 

2013 is 454 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX ozone season trading 

budget for 2014 and thereafter is 22,694 

tons. 

(v) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 454 

tons. 

* * * * * 

(22) Texas. (i) The NOX ozone season 

trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 

65,560 tons. 

(ii) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 2,556 

tons. 

(iii) The NOX ozone season Indian 

country new unit set-aside for 2012 and 

2013 is 66 tons. 

(iv) The NOX ozone season trading 

budget for 2014 and thereafter is 65,560 

tons. 

(v) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 2,556 

tons. 

(vi) The NOX ozone season Indian 

country new unit set-aside for 2014 and 

thereafter is 66 tons. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) The NOX ozone season variability 

limit for Arkansas is 3,173 tons. 

* * * * * 

(4) The NOX ozone season variability 

limit for Georgia is 5,049 tons. 

* * * * * 

(9) The NOX ozone season variability 

limit for Louisiana is 3,804 tons. 

* * * * * 

(12) The NOX ozone season variability 

limit for Mississippi is 2,610 tons. 

(13) The NOX ozone season variability 

limit for Missouri is 4,431 tons. 

* * * * * 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
34846 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

(15) The NOX ozone season variability 

limit for New York is 2,177 tons. 

* * * * * 

(17) The NOX ozone season variability 

limit for Ohio is 8,193 tons. 

(18) The NOX ozone season variability 

limit for Oklahoma is 4,766 tons. 

* * * * * 

(22) The NOX ozone season variability 

limit for Texas is 13,768 tons. 

* * * * * 

Subpart CCCCC—[Amended] 

■ 4. Section 97.610 is amended by 

revising: 

■ a. Paragraph (a)(2); 

■ b. Paragraphs (a)(7)(ii) and (a)(7)(v); 

■ c. Paragraphs (a)(9) and (a)(11); and 

■ d. Paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(9), and 

(b)(11). 

The revisions 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) * * * 

(2) Indiana. (i) The SO2 trading budget 

for 2012 and 2013 is 290,762 tons. 

(ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 

2012 and 2013 is 8,723 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 

and thereafter is 166,449 tons. 

(v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 

2014 and thereafter is 4,993 tons. 

* * * * * 

(7) * * * 

(ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 

2012 is 4,149 tons and for 2013 is 6,224 

tons. 

* * * * * 

(v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 

2014 and thereafter is 4,978 tons. 

* * * * * 

(9) New York. (i) The SO2 trading 

budget for 2012 and 2013 is 36,296 tons. 

(ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 

2012 and 2013 is 690 tons. 

(iii) The SO2 Indian country new unit 

set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 36 tons. 

(iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 

and thereafter is 27,556 tons. 

(v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 

2014 and thereafter is 523 tons. 

(vi) The SO2 Indian country new unit 

set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 28 

tons. 

* * * * * 

(11) Ohio. (i) The SO2 trading budget 

for 2012 and 2013 is 315,393 tons. 

(ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 

2012 and 2013 is 6,308 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 

and thereafter is 142,240 tons. 

(v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 

2014 and thereafter is 2,845 tons. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) The SO2 variability limit for 

Indiana is 29,961 tons. 

* * * * * 

(9) The SO2 variability limit for New 

York is 4,960 tons. 

* * * * * 

(11) The SO2 variability limit for Ohio 

is 25,603 tons. 

* * * * * 

Subpart DDDDD—[Amended] 

■ 5. Section 97.710 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (a)(2)(iv) and 

(a)(2)(v); 

■ b. Revising paragraphs (a)(3), (a)(5), 

and (a)(6); and 

■ c. Revising paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(3), 

(b)(5) and (b)(6). 

The revisions 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) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 

and thereafter is 135,565 tons. 

(v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 

2014 and thereafter is 2,711 tons. 

* * * * * 

(3) Kansas. (i) The SO2 trading budget 

for 2012 and 2013 is 41,980 tons. 

(ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 

2012 and 2013 is 798 tons. 

(iii) The SO2 Indian country new unit 

set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 42 tons. 

(iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 

and thereafter is 41,980 tons. 

(v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 

2014 and thereafter is 798 tons. 

(vi) The SO2 Indian country new unit 

set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 42 

tons. 

* * * * * 

(5) Nebraska. (i) The SO2 trading 

budget for 2012 and 2013 is 68,162 tons. 

(ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 

2012 and 2013 is 2,658 tons. 

(iii) The SO2 Indian country new unit 

set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 68 tons. 

(iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 

and thereafter is 68,162 tons. 

(v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 

2014 and thereafter is 2,658 tons. 

(vi) The SO2 Indian country new unit 

set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 68 

tons. 

(6) South Carolina. (i) The SO2 trading 

budget for 2012 and 2013 is 96,633 tons. 

(ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 

2012 and 2013 is 1,836 tons. 

(iii) The SO2 Indian country new unit 

set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 97 tons. 

(iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 

and thereafter is 96,633 tons. 

(v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 

2014 and thereafter is 1,836 tons. 

(vi) The SO2 Indian country new unit 

set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 97 

tons. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) The SO2 variability limit for 

Georgia is 24,402 tons. 

(3) The SO2 variability limit for 

Kansas is 7,556 tons. 

* * * * * 

(5) The SO2 variability limit for 

Nebraska is 12,269 tons. 

(6) The SO2 variability limit for South 

Carolina is 17,394 tons. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–14251 Filed 6–11–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Parts 390 and 396 

[Docket No. FMCSA–2011–0046] 

RIN 2126–AB34 

Inspection, Repair, and Maintenance; 

Driver-Vehicle Inspection Report for 

Intermodal Equipment 

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA), Department 

of Transportation. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: FMCSA eliminates the 

requirement for drivers operating 

intermodal equipment (IME) to 

submit—and intermodal equipment 

providers (IEPs) to retain—drivervehicle inspection reports (DVIRs) when 

the driver has neither found nor been 

made aware of any defects in the IME. 

This responds to a joint petition for 

rulemaking from the Ocean Carrier 

Equipment Management Association 

(OCEMA) and the Institute of 

International Container Lessors (IICL). 

DATES: The final rule is effective June 

12, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: For access to the docket to 

read background documents, including 

those referenced in this document, or to 

read comments received, go to: 

• Regulations.gov, http:// 

www.regulations.gov, at any time and 

insert FMCSA–2011–0046 in the 

‘‘Keyword’’ box, and then click 

‘‘Search.’’ 

• Docket Management Facility, Room 

W12–140, DOT Building, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC. 

You may view the docket online by 

visiting the facility between 9 a.m. and 

5 p.m. e.t., Monday through Friday 

except Federal holidays. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES