80760 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA—APPROVED KANSAS SOURCE—SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS—Continued 

Name of source Permit or 

case No. 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

(4) Westar Energy, Inc .................... ........................ 2/29/08 12/27/11, [Insert Federal Register 

citation].

Certain provisions withdrawn from 

plan as identified in letter dated 

12/1/11 from Kansas. 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * (e) * * * 

EPA—APPROVED KANSAS NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS

Name of nonregulatory SIP 

provision 

Applicable geographic or nonattainment area State submittal 

date EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

(33) Regional Haze Plan for 

the first implementation period.

Statewide ............................... 11/9/09 12/27/11, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

Certain provisions withdrawn 

from plan as identified in 

letter dated 12/1/11 from 

Kansas. 

[FR Doc. 2011–32998 Filed 12–23–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 97 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0491; FRL–9609–9] 

RIN 2060–AR01 

Federal Implementation Plans for Iowa, 

Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, and 

Wisconsin and Determination for 

Kansas Regarding Interstate Transport 

of Ozone 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this final rule, EPA is 

concluding that emissions from Iowa, 

Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, 

and Wisconsin significantly contribute 

to downwind nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the 1997 ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS)in other states. Each of these 

states except Oklahoma is already 

included in the annual NOX program 

that was finalized in July 2011. 

However, this rule does not affect that 

program. 

EPA is finalizing Federal 

Implementation Plans (FIPs) to address 

the emissions in each of these states 

except for Kansas, for which EPA is not 

finalizing a FIP at this time. The FIPs 

apply the requirements of the ozone 

season NOX program in the Transport 

Rule (Federal Implementation Plans to 

Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine 

Particulate Matter and Ozone in 27 

States; Correction of SIP Approvals for 

22 States) to sources in Iowa, Michigan, 

Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin. In 

addition, this action finalizes the 

budgets; associated variability limits, 

new unit set-asides, and Indian country 

new unit set-asides; and unit-level 

allowance allocations for each state 

under the FIPs. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

January 26, 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 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

Docket telephone number is (929) 566– 

1742, fax (202) 566–1741. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

general questions concerning this 

action, contact Ms. Gabrielle Stevens, 

Clean Air Markets Division, Office of 

Atmospheric Programs, Mail Code 

6204J, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone 

number: (202) 343–9252; fax number: 

(202) 343–2356; email address: 

stevens.gabrielle@epa.gov. 

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 

SNPR Supplemental Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide 

TSD Technical Support Document 

II. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

Regulated Entities. Entities regulated 

by this action primarily are fossil fuelVerDate Mar<15>2010 14:56 Dec 23, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER1.SGM 27DER1

erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 80761 

1Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce 

Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and 

Ozone in 27 States; Correction of SIP Approvals for 

22 States: Final Rule. Available on the Web at 

http://www.epa.gov/crossstaterule. 

fired boilers, turbines, and combined 

cycle units that serve generators that 

produce electricity for sale or cogenerate 

electricity for sale and steam. Regulated 

categories and entities include: 

Category NAICS code Examples of potentially 

regulated industries 

Industry ........................................................................... 2211, 2212, 2213 ........................................................... Electric service providers. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

regulated by this action. This table lists 

the types of entities which EPA is now 

aware could potentially be regulated by 

this action. Other types of entities not 

listed in this table could also be 

regulated. To determine whether your 

facility, company, business, 

organization, etc., is regulated by this 

action, you should carefully examine 

the applicability criteria in §§ 97.404, 

97.504, and 97.604 of title 40 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations. If you have 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

the person listed in the preceding FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

B. Where can I get a copy of this 

document and other related 

information? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this 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 EPA Web site at 

http://www.epa.gov/crossstaterule. 

C. How is the preamble organized? 

I. Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations 

II. General Information 

III. Executive Summary 

A. EPA’s Authority for This Rule 

B. Finalizing FIPs To Address Significant 

Contribution to Nonattainment and 

Interference With Maintenance in: 

i. Iowa 

ii. Michigan 

iii. Missouri 

iv. Oklahoma 

v. Wisconsin 

C. Kansas 

D. Allegan County, Michigan, Receptor 

E. Ozone Season NOX Emission Budgets for 

Five States 

F. Implementation of the Transport Rule 

NOX Ozone Season Trading Program 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

K. Congressional Review Act 

L. Judicial Review 

III. Summary 

In this final rule, EPA finalizes its 

conclusion that Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, 

Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 1997 ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) in other states. These states’ 

final ozone-season NOX budgets are 

presented and discussed in section III.E 

below, and more detailed information 

can be found in the ‘‘Determination of 

State Budgets for the Final Ozone 

Supplemental of the Transport Rule’’ 

TSD found in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

In addition, EPA is finalizing FIPs to 

address the interstate transport 

requirements of the relevant NAAQS 

using a program created in the 

Transport Rule1 that was finalized on 

July 6, 2011 (76 FR 48208, August 8, 

2011). EPA is implementing the ozone 

season NOX program in the Transport 

Rule (with minor revisions) as the FIPs 

for Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, 

Oklahoma, and Wisconsin to address 

the emissions identified as significantly 

contributing to nonattainment or 

interfering with maintenance with 

respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS. With 

respect to Kansas, EPA is not finalizing 

the proposed FIP because we do not 

have the authority to do so at this time, 

as discussed in section III.C below. 

As explained in the final Transport 

Rule preamble (76 FR 48208), EPA 

improved and updated both steps of its 

significant contribution analysis from 

the Transport Rule proposal. EPA 

updated its modeling platforms and 

modeling inputs in response to public 

comments received on the proposed 

Transport Rule and subsequent Notices 

of Data Availability (NODAs), and 

performed other standard updates. It 

updated and improved the modeling 

platforms and modeling inputs used to 

identify states with contributions to 

certain downwind receptors that meet 

or exceed specified air quality 

thresholds. It also updated and 

improved its analysis for identifying any 

emissions within such states that 

constitute the state’s significant 

contribution to nonattainment or 

interference with maintenance. 

Therefore, the results of the analysis 

conducted for the final Transport Rule 

differed somewhat from the results of 

the analysis conducted for the proposal. 

With respect to the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS, the analysis EPA conducted for 

the Transport Rule proposal did not 

identify Wisconsin, Iowa, and Missouri 

as states that significantly contribute to 

nonattainment and/or interfere with 

maintenance of the ozone NAAQS in 

another state. However, the analysis 

conducted for the final Transport Rule 

showed that emissions from these three 

states interfere with maintenance of the 

ozone NAAQS in another state. The 

analysis also showed that emissions 

from Missouri significantly contribute to 

nonattainment in another state. 

Additionally, the analysis identified two 

ozone maintenance receptors that were 

not identified by the modeling 

conducted for the proposal. These two 

ozone maintenance receptor sites are 

located in Allegan County, Michigan 

and Harford County, Maryland. Five 

states (Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, 

Oklahoma, and Wisconsin), which EPA 

identified as interfering with 

maintenance problems at the Allegan 

County and/or Harford County 

receptors, based on modeling for the 

final rule, uniquely contribute to these 

receptors, i.e., absent these receptors the 

states would not be covered by the 

Transport Rule ozone-season program 

(although the states, except for 

Oklahoma, are covered by the Transport 

Rule annual programs). EPA did not 

issue FIPs with respect to the 1997 

ozone NAAQS or finalize ozone season 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
80762 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

2Notice of Data Availability Supporting Federal 

Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate 

Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone 

(75 FR 53613; September 1, 2010). This NODA 

provided additional information on an updated 

version of the power sector modeling platform and 

data inputs EPA proposed to use to support the 

final Transport Rule. 

Notice of Data Availability Supporting Federal 

Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate 

Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone: 

Revisions to Emission Inventories (75 FR 66055; 

October 27, 2010). 

Notice of Data Availability for Federal 

Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate 

Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone: 

Request for Comment on Alternative Allocations, 

Calculation of Assurance Provision Allowance 

Surrender Requirements, New-Unit Allocations in 

Indian Country, and Allocations by States (76 FR 

1109; January 7, 2011). 

NOX budgets for these states in the final 

Transport Rule. Instead, EPA published 

a supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking (76 FR 40662) to provide an 

opportunity for public comment on our 

conclusion that these states significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS. 

EPA did not change its methodology 

between the proposed Transport Rule 

and the final Transport Rule for 

identifying upwind states that 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance in other states; nor did 

EPA change its methodology for 

identifying receptors of concern with 

respect to maintenance of the 1997 

ozone NAAQS. The final Transport 

Rule’s air quality modeling identified 

the new states and new receptors 

described above based on modeling 

using updated input information 

(including emission inventories), much 

of which was provided to EPA through 

public comment on the proposal and 

subsequent NODAs. 

In the proposal for this supplemental 

rulemaking, EPA took comment only on 

(a) its conclusions that the six states 

identified above have emissions that 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment and/or interfere with 

maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS 

and (b) its decision to use the final 

Transport Rule programs as the FIPs to 

address these emissions in the six states. 

EPA did not reconsider or take 

comment on any aspect of the final 

Transport Rule, including any aspect of 

the methodology used to identify 

receptors for nonattainment; the 

methodology used to identify receptors 

for maintenance; the methodology used 

to identify any specific state’s 

significant contribution and interference 

with maintenance; the methodologies 

used to establish state budgets, 

variability limits, and state assurance 

levels; and the methodologies used to 

allocate allowances to existing units, to 

establish new unit set-asides and Indian 

country new unit set-asides, and to 

allocate allowances in these set-asides. 

EPA provided an adequate opportunity 

for public comment on all of these 

issues during the comment period for 

the proposed Transport Rule and during 

the comment periods for the associated 

NODAs.2 EPA received numerous 

comments on the proposed Transport 

Rule and on the associated NODAs and 

considered all significant comments 

received during the comment periods 

for these actions before finalizing the 

Transport Rule. Responses to those 

comments are available in the public 

docket for the final Transport Rule. 

In the proposal for this rulemaking, 

EPA also did not reconsider or take 

comment on the emission inventories 

used for the final Transport Rule 

modeling, including the emission 

inventories for the six states identified 

above. EPA provided ample opportunity 

for comment on these inventories 

during the comment period for the 

proposed Transport Rule and the 

comment periods for the NODAs 

associated with that proposal. 

Inventories for all states included in the 

modeling domain were made available 

for public comment during that process. 

The public had ample reason to 

comment on the inventories for these 

six states, moreover, not only because 

these inventories affect the modeling for 

all states in the modeling domain, but 

also because EPA was proposing to 

include all six states in at least one of 

the Transport Rule trading programs 

and the inventories were used in the 

analysis supporting that proposal. For 

instance, EPA proposed to include 

Kansas and Michigan in the ozoneseason NOX, annual NOX, and annual 

SO2 programs; proposed to include 

Oklahoma in the ozone-season NOX

program; and proposed to include Iowa, 

Missouri, and Wisconsin in the SO2 and 

annual NOX programs. Commenters 

therefore had reason to look closely at 

all of the emission data for all six states 

that EPA made available in the proposal 

and the NODAs. Ultimately, EPA made 

numerous changes to these inventories 

in response to public comments. 

A. EPA’s Authority for this Rule 

The statutory authority for this action 

is provided by the CAA, as amended, 42 

U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Section 110(a)(2)(D) 

of the CAA, often referred to as the 

‘‘good neighbor’’ provision of the Act, 

requires states to prohibit certain 

emissions because of their impact on air 

quality in downwind states. 

Specifically, it requires all states, within 

3 years of promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS, to submit SIPs that 

prohibit certain emissions of air 

pollutants because of the impact they 

would have on air quality in other 

states. 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(D). Section 

301(a)(1) of the CAA gives the 

Administrator of EPA general authority 

to prescribe such regulations as are 

necessary to carry out her functions 

under the Act. 42 U.S.C. 7601(a)(1). 

Section 110(c)(1) requires the 

Administrator to promulgate a FIP at 

any time within 2 years after the 

Administrator (a) finds that a state has 

failed to make a required SIP 

submission or that such a submission is 

incomplete or (b) disapproves a SIP 

submission, unless the state corrects the 

deficiency and the Administrator 

approves the SIP revision. 42 U.S.C. 

7410(c)(1). Tribes are not required to 

submit state implementation plans. 

However, as explained in EPA’s 

regulations outlining Tribal Clean Air 

Act authority, EPA is authorized to 

promulgate FIPs for Indian country as 

necessary or appropriate to protect air 

quality if a tribe does not submit and 

obtain EPA approval of an 

implementation plan. See 40 CFR 

49.11(a). 

For each FIP in this rule, EPA either 

(a) found that the state has failed to 

make a required section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

SIP submission or (b) disapproved a SIP 

submission. In addition, EPA has 

determined, in each case, that there has 

been no approval by the Administrator 

of a SIP submission correcting the 

deficiency prior to promulgation of the 

FIP. EPA’s obligation to promulgate a 

FIP arose when the finding of failure to 

submit or disapproval was made, and in 

no case has it been relieved of that 

obligation. (The specific findings made 

and actions taken by EPA are described 

in greater detail in the TSD entitled 

‘‘Status of CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIPs 

Supplemental Rule TSD,’’ which is 

available in the public docket for this 

rule.) 

As noted in the SNPR, EPA proposed 

a SIP Call under CAA 110(k)(5) for 

Kansas (76 FR 763, January 6, 2011), 

based on its conclusion that Kansas 

significantly contributes to 

nonattainment or interferes with 

maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 

On March 9, 2007, EPA approved a 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) SIP submission 

from the state of Kansas for the 1997 

ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS (72 FR 

10608, March 9, 2007). This SIP 

submission did not rely on compliance 

with the Clean Air Interstate Rule 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 80763 

3Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine 

Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate 

Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to 

the NOX SIP Call promulgated May 12, 2005 (70 FR 

25162). 

4See the Air Quality Modeling Final Rule TSD 

(EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0491–4140). The estimated 

average and maximum design values for the 

receptors in Brazoria and Harris Counties (monitor 

identification numbers 480391004, 482010051, 

482010055) in the final air quality modeling of the 

control scenario were 84.4, 86.5 ppb; 84.1, 88.6 ppb; 

and 91.1, 93.2 ppb, respectively. Thus, the first two 

receptors were estimated to have residual 

maintenance issues, while the latter receptor is 

estimated to have a residual nonattainment issue. 

Missouri contributes at or above the one percent 

contribution threshold to all three of these 

receptors. (Note that average design values are used 

to assess attainment/nonattainment and maximum 

design values are used to assess maintenance.) 

(CAIR) 3 to satisfy the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). The analysis 

for the proposed Transport Rule, 

however, demonstrated that emissions 

from Kansas significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS 

in other states. Because the approved 

Kansas SIP does not prohibit these 

emissions, EPA proposed to find it 

substantially inadequate to meet the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 

EPA intends to take final action on this 

proposal concurrent with this action or 

shortly thereafter. See section C below 

for more information on Kansas. 

The five states addressed in this final 

rule for which EPA’s analysis identifies 

the state’s full reduction responsibility 

under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with 

respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS are 

Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Oklahoma, and 

Wisconsin. The one state addressed in 

this final rule for which EPA’s analysis 

identifies reductions that are necessary 

but may not be sufficient to satisfy 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS is Missouri. 

This is because, in the final Transport 

Rule air quality modeling control 

scenario in 2014, Missouri is estimated 

to be significantly contributing to 

residual nonattainment and/or 

interfering with residual maintenance at 

receptors in Brazoria and Harris 

Counties (Houston) in Texas, and 

Houston is the only area projected to 

remain in nonattainment in 2014. As 

described in the final Transport Rule 

(TR) preamble (e.g., Page 48210) 76 FR 

48208, August 8, 2011, only one area 

(Houston) is projected to remain in 

nonattainment for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS in 2014 with the Transport 

Rule in place. For the upwind states 

linked to the receptors in this area 

(including Missouri), additional 

reductions may be necessary to fully 

eliminate each state’s significant 

contribution to nonattainment and/or 

interference with maintenance. 

.Missouri was also found to contribute 

above the threshold to the new 

maintenance receptor, Allegan County, 

Michigan.4

EPA has not yet determined whether 

additional reductions in ozone-forming 

emissions are necessary to address 

Missouri’s significant contribution to 

downwind nonattainment and 

interference with maintenance, which 

may not be fully quantified in this 

rulemaking with respect to the 1997 

ozone NAAQS. Additional technical 

analysis will be necessary to complete 

this determination. See section B.iii 

below for further discussion. 

B. Finalizing FIPs to Address Significant 

Contribution to Nonattainment and 

Interference with Maintenance 

EPA concludes in this final rule that 

application of the methodologies to 

identify nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors and to determine 

significant contribution to 

nonattainment and interference with 

maintenance with respect to the 1997 

ozone NAAQS, as described in the final 

Transport Rule, demonstrates that Iowa, 

Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, 

and Wisconsin significantly contribute 

to nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS 

in other states. EPA also concludes in 

this final rule that the Transport Rule 

NOX Ozone Season Trading Program set 

forth in the final Transport Rule (with 

minor revisions discussed in section 

III.F of this preamble) should be used as 

the FIP for five of the six states with 

regard to the 1997 ozone NAAQS. As 

discussed below, EPA received 

comments concerning whether, and in 

what amount, some of the states 

significantly contribute or interfere with 

maintenance. EPA did not receive any 

comments claiming that EPA should not 

use the Transport Rule NOX Ozone 

Season Trading Program as the FIP if the 

state is found to significantly contribute 

or interfere with maintenance. 

i. Iowa 

EPA is finalizing a FIP for Iowa that, 

through implementation of the 

Transport Rule ozone season program, 

limits power plant NOX emissions 

starting in the 2012 ozone season. 

The analysis for the final Transport 

Rule identified Iowa as a state that 

interferes with maintenance of the 1997 

ozone NAAQS only for a newlyidentified maintenance receptor in 

Allegan County, Michigan. EPA 

specifically requested comment in the 

proposed notice for this supplemental 

action on whether there are errors in the 

Agency’s application of the Transport 

Rule methodologies with respect to 

Iowa’s significant contribution to 

nonattainment and/or interference with 

maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 

There were no public comments that 

identified any errors in EPA’s 

determination of state budgets for Iowa, 

which demonstrated EPA’s 

quantification of emission reductions 

necessary to eliminate significant 

contribution and interference with 

maintenance. 

One commenter noted that inclusion 

of Iowa is justified. Another commenter 

questioned the Allegan County, 

Michigan receptor. For more 

information on the Allegan receptor, see 

section D below in this preamble. Other 

comments concerning the 2005 baseline, 

and ‘‘sunk costs’’, are outside the scope 

of the proposed rule in this rulemaking, 

and, while these issues are not reopened 

in this rulemaking, EPA notes the issues 

have been addressed in the record of the 

final Transport Rule. See the docket for 

this rulemaking at www.regulations.gov, 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0491. 

ii. Michigan 

EPA is finalizing a FIP for Michigan 

that, through implementation of the 

Transport Rule ozone season program, 

limits power plant NOX emissions 

starting in the 2012 ozone season. 

In its 2010 Transport Rule proposal, 

EPA proposed to determine that 

Michigan significantly contributes to 

nonattainment or interferes with 

maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS 

and also proposed to include Michigan 

in the Transport Rule ozone-season NOX

program. In the analysis conducted for 

the final Transport Rule, Michigan is 

linked only to a newly-identified ozone 

maintenance receptor in Harford 

County, Maryland. EPA specifically 

requested comment in the proposed 

notice for this supplemental action on 

whether there are errors in the Agency’s 

application of the Transport Rule 

methodologies with respect to 

Michigan’s interference with 

maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 

There were two major comments 

relating to Michigan. One comment 

regarded the use of the FIP and 

requested a delay for a minimum of 18 

months so the state could submit an 

approvable SIP. The matter of EPA’s 

authority under the Clean Air Act is 

discussed in detail in the final 

Transport Rule and above in section 

III.A. The second comment addressed 

the Indian country new unit set-aside 

and suggested that the state is the 

appropriate authority to allocate new 

source allowances, even to units located 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
80764 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

5Recent price estimates provided in the 

subscription publication Argus Air Daily, an 

international provider of price data related to the 

energy sector. Also see the Regulatory Impact 

Assessment for the final Transport Rule at http:// 

www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQOAR-2009-0491-4547. 

on tribal lands. The comment, 

concerning the authority to allocate 

allowances from the Indian country new 

unit set-aside, is outside the scope of the 

proposed rule in this rulemaking, and, 

while issues concerning the Indian 

country new unit set-aside are not 

reopened in this rulemaking, EPA notes 

the issues have been addressed in the 

preamble to the final Transport Rule at 

76 FR 48317 and 48293. 

iii. Missouri 

EPA is finalizing the FIP for Missouri 

that, through implementation of the 

Transport Rule ozone season program, 

limits power plant NOX emissions 

starting in the 2012 ozone season. 

The analysis for the final Transport 

Rule identified Missouri as a state that 

significantly contributes to 

nonattainment and/or interferes with 

maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS 

in Harris County, Texas, Brazoria 

County, Texas, and Allegan County, 

Michigan. EPA requested comment in 

the proposed notice for this 

supplemental action specifically on 

whether there are errors in the Agency’s 

application of the Transport Rule 

methodologies with respect to 

Missouri’s significant contribution to 

nonattainment and interference of the 

1997 ozone NAAQS. 

One commenter challenged the 

methodology used by EPA to quantify 

significant contribution, arguing that it 

was flawed because EPA’s base year 

does not include CAIR and does not 

represent current air quality. As 

explained in the proposal, EPA did not 

reopen for comment the methodology 

developed in the final Transport Rule to 

quantify emissions that significantly 

contribute to or interfere with 

maintenance in another state. These 

comments are outside the scope of the 

proposed rule in this rulemaking, and, 

while these issues are not reopened in 

this rulemaking, the issues have been 

addressed in the record of the final 

Transport Rule. 

One commenter stated that the 

proposal for this action would not 

require full elimination of Missouri’s 

significant contribution. EPA stated in 

the preamble to this rule’s proposal that 

for Missouri, our analysis identifies 

reductions that are necessary but may 

not be sufficient to satisfy section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 

1997 ozone NAAQS. This is because 

Missouri is estimated to be significantly 

contributing to nonattainment and/or 

interfering with maintenance in 

Brazoria and Harris Counties in Texas, 

as demonstrated in the final Transport 

Rule air quality modeling of the control 

scenario in 2014 (see the Air Quality 

Modeling Final Rule TSD in the docket 

to this rulemaking, for additional 

details). 

EPA intends to conduct further 

analysis and provide appropriate 

guidance and/or rulemaking to address 

any remaining significant contribution 

to nonattainment and interference with 

maintenance with respect to the 1997 

ozone NAAQS for any state (e.g., 

Missouri) identified in the final 

Transport Rule and in the associated 

supplemental notice, for which EPA 

was unable to fully quantify the 

emissions that must be prohibited to 

satisfy the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 

1997 ozone NAAQS. 

A commenter questioned whether the 

compliance deadline established by 

EPA in the FIP with regard to the 1997 

ozone season NAAQS is feasible or 

valid in light of, among other things, the 

commenter’s suggestion that the 

Transport Rule NOX ozone season 

allowance market will not be viable. 

EPA has determined it is feasible for 

sources in Missouri to meet the 2012 

budget finalized in this rule. The 2012 

budget relies on control strategies that 

Missouri sources are already preparing 

to implement for the annual NOX

program. These include running 

existing or already planned controls and 

making changes in dispatch (how 

electricity is distributed across units at 

a facility) that could include shifting 

generation from higher emitting units to 

lower emitting units. Sources also have 

further flexibility through the 

opportunity to purchase allowances. 

Twenty states have already been 

finalized as participants in the 

Transport Rule ozone season program 

and NOX ozone season allowances have 

already been traded. Trading began 

prior to the formal distribution of 

allowances, and trading volume has 

increased since distribution, with prices 

steadily decreasing. This market is 

following a common pattern of emission 

allowance markets in their introductory 

stages—prices are initially high and 

then drop as parties become familiar 

with the characteristics of the market 

through repeated iterations of bids, 

offers, and trades. Observed market 

allowance prices for the NOX ozone 

season program are trending toward the 

projected equilibrium values included 

in EPA’s analysis of the final Transport 

Rule.5

iv. Oklahoma 

EPA is finalizing the FIP for 

Oklahoma that, through implementation 

of the Transport Rule ozone season 

program, limits power plant NOX

emissions starting in the 2012 ozone 

season. 

In its 2010 Transport Rule proposal, 

EPA proposed to determine that 

Oklahoma significantly contributes to 

nonattainment or interferes with 

maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS 

and also proposed to include Oklahoma 

in the Transport Rule ozone-season 

program. In the analysis conducted for 

the final Transport Rule, Oklahoma was 

linked only to a newly-identified ozone 

maintenance receptor in Allegan 

County, Michigan. Oklahoma was not 

linked to any nonattainment receptors. 

EPA specifically requested comment in 

the proposed notice for this 

supplemental action on whether there 

are errors in the Agency’s application of 

the Transport Rule methodologies with 

respect to Oklahoma’s significant 

contribution to nonattainment and/or 

interference with maintenance of the 

1997 ozone NAAQS. 

Several commenters generally 

question the validity of EPA’s 

conclusion that Oklahoma interferes 

with maintenance of the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS in downwind states, especially 

regarding the Allegan County, Michigan 

receptor. See the discussion of the 

Allegan receptor below in section III.D. 

Other comments regarding the CAMx air 

quality model, emissions inventory 

data, and choice of base year are outside 

the scope of the proposed rule in this 

rulemaking, and, while these issues are 

not reopened in this rulemaking, the 

issues have been addressed in the 

record of the final Transport Rule and 

this supplemental rule. 

EPA also received comments 

regarding the size of the proposed ozone 

season NOX budget for Oklahoma. Some 

commenters argued the Oklahoma 

ozone season budget was incorrectly 

calculated because it assumed 

reductions that could not be feasibly 

achieved by the 2012 ozone season. The 

analysis conducted for the proposal 

showed that reductions in Oklahoma 

could be achieved through, among other 

actions, installation of low-NOX burners 

(LNBs) at about 4.4 gigawatts (GW) of 

coal-fired generation capacity in the 

state, and the shifting of dispatch to 

cleaner generators. Commenters 

disputed the ability of sources in 

Oklahoma to effect sufficient reductions 

through either of these strategies in time 

to meet the proposed 2012 state budget. 

Each identified issue is addressed 

below. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 80765 

6Because, in the case of Oklahoma, physical 

installation of LNBs during the latter portion of the 

6-month period would occur during the summer 

peak demand period, this conclusion concerning 

Oklahoma is distinguishable from EPA’s general 

conclusion that installation of LNBs in 6 months is 

technically feasible. See EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– 

0491–4529. Physical installation of LNBs near the 

end of a 6-month period and outside of the summer 

peak demand period will not threaten achievement 

of target planning reserve margins and, thus, 

electric reliability. 

As to the LNBs, in the final Transport 

Rule, EPA found that it is technically 

feasible to install LNBs within a 6- 

month period. The shutdown of a unit 

and physical installation of LNBs at the 

unit necessarily occurs near the end of 

the 6-month period. Because of the 

timing of this final action, the units in 

Oklahoma would have to shut down to 

install the LNBs during the ozone 

season—the summer peak demand 

period for electricity in Oklahoma. 

Taking these units off-line during the 

summer peak demand period would 

reduce the amount of available capacity 

in the reliability subregion of the 

Southwest Power Pool that includes 

Oklahoma. EPA’s policy case modeling 

suggests that this reduction in available 

capacity could shift this subregion 

below its assured planning reserve 

margin which is based on North 

American Electricity Reliability 

Corporation (NERC) planning reserve 

margins. See ‘‘Determination of State 

Budgets for the Final Ozone 

Supplemental of the Transport Rule’’ 

TSD. Because physical installation of 

the LNBs during the 2012 summer peak 

on units in Oklahoma could potentially 

cause the region to miss this important 

reliability target, EPA concludes that 

installation of these LNBs during the 

ozone season is not technically 

feasible.6 Therefore, EPA is assuming 

that no low-NOX burners can be 

installed in Oklahoma prior to or during 

the 2012 ozone-season and is setting the 

Oklahoma 2012 ozone season NOX

budget at a level that reflects emission 

reductions achievable through actions 

(such as changes in generation unit 

dispatch) that do not include additional 

LNB installations. EPA is setting the 

Oklahoma ozone season NOX budget for 

2013 and beyond at the level that was 

proposed, i.e., to reflect NOX levels 

achievable with additional LNB 

installations that can be completed 

before the 2013 ozone season without 

necessitating the shutdown of units 

during the summer peak demand period 

in 2012. 

EPA does not believe that this issue 

relating to LNB installation timing 

applies to the other four states for which 

EPA is finalizing a FIP in this action. 

Because those four states are already 

required to meet Transport Rule annual 

NOX reduction requirements (which 

start January 2012), and were notified of 

that requirement with the July 6, 2011 

finalization of the Transport Rule, 

physical installation of LNBs near the 

end of the 6-month period for LNBs are 

not expected to occur during peak 

electricity demand periods. Moreover, 

information in the record indicates that, 

for units in Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, 

and Wisconsin, LNBs were already 

planned and are in the process of being 

installed. Therefore, EPA believes that 

the issue raised is unique to Oklahoma 

and does not justify adjusting the 2012 

ozone season budgets for the four other 

states subject to this final action. As 

discussed below, EPA is finalizing the 

2012 ozone season budgets as proposed 

for the four states, except for a few 

corrections in the Michigan and 

Wisconsin budgets addressed in section 

III.E, below. 

Some commenters also argued that 

EPA erred in assuming emissions from 

oil/gas steam units could be 

significantly reduced by the 2012 ozone 

season. Including Oklahoma, there are a 

total of five ozone-season-only states 

subject to the Transport Rule—that is, 

five states that are subject to the ozoneseason NOX program without also being 

subject to the annual NOX program. The 

ozone-season budgets for the four other 

states (Mississippi, Arkansas, Florida, 

and Louisiana) were finalized in the 

final Transport Rule which was signed 

and widely disseminated in July 2011. 

EPA did not finalize an ozone-season 

budget for Oklahoma at that time. EPA 

is finalizing the ozone-season budget for 

Oklahoma more than 5 months after the 

budgets for the other states included in 

the ozone-season program were 

finalized and less than six months 

before the start of the 2012 ozone 

season. In this respect, therefore, 

Oklahoma is uniquely situated. 

EPA believes that units in Oklahoma 

will have sufficient time for compliance 

planning to include modest adjustments 

of NOX emissions at covered sources in 

Oklahoma (e.g., fine-tuning of existing 

combustion controls). However, EPA 

agrees that Oklahoma utilities may not 

have time between finalization of this 

rule and the 2012 ozone season to 

realign firm power supply to dispatch 

cleaner, more cost-effective sources of 

generation to meet local electricity 

demand that is currently being met by 

oil/gas steam generators. Therefore, EPA 

is adjusting the Oklahoma state budget 

for the 2012 ozone season specifically 

on the basis of revised projected 

emissions at oil/gas steam generators 

reflecting an immediate-term dispatch 

pattern that maintains the firm power 

supply arrangements already in place to 

serve local electricity demand. In light 

of Oklahoma’s unique situation, EPA is 

assuming for the purposes of this 

adjustment that projected 2012 

emissions from oil/gas steam units in 

Oklahoma will be consistent with 

recently observed dispatch of this class 

of units in the state. EPA believes this 

situation is unique to Oklahoma due to 

the fact that sources in the other states 

covered by this rulemaking are already 

covered by a pre-existing Transport Rule 

FIP addressing NOX emission control, 

and that these sources will have had 

substantially more compliance planning 

time to consider adjustments to dispatch 

in advance of the 2012 ozone season. 

EPA believes that the original 

projections of Oklahoma EGU emissions 

of ozone-season NOX at the Transport 

Rule’s threshold cost-per-ton level 

remain achievable, through a 

combination of reduction measures, 

including LNB installations and 

increased dispatch of cleaner generating 

sources, in time for compliance in the 

2013 ozone season and beyond, under 

the state budget as proposed. EPA is 

only adjusting the final Oklahoma state 

budget for the 2012 ozone season. See 

the technical support document, 

‘‘Determination of 2012 Ozone Season 

State Emission Budgets for the Final 

Transport Rule Ozone Supplemental,’’ 

in the docket to this rulemaking for 

more details. 

v. Wisconsin 

EPA is finalizing the FIP for 

Wisconsin that, through implementation 

of the Transport Rule ozone season 

program, limits power plant NOX

emissions starting in the 2012 ozone 

season. 

The analysis for the final Transport 

Rule identified Wisconsin as a state that 

interferes with maintenance only for a 

newly-identified 1997 ozone NAAQS 

maintenance receptor in Allegan 

County, Michigan. EPA specifically 

requested comment in the proposed 

notice for this supplemental action on 

whether there are errors in the Agency’s 

application of the Transport Rule 

methodologies with respect to 

Wisconsin’s significant contribution to 

nonattainment and interference of the 

1997 ozone NAAQS. There were no 

comments with respect to Wisconsin’s 

significant contribution to 

nonattainment and/or interference of 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS or with respect 

to EPA’s proposed use of the Transport 

Rule ozone season program as the FIP. 

C. Kansas 

EPA is finalizing its determination 

that Kansas significantly contributes to 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
80766 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

nonattainment or interferes with 

maintenance in another state with 

respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS. EPA 

is not finalizing the proposed FIP for 

Kansas at this time. As explained below, 

EPA intends to take final action on its 

proposed SIP Call for Kansas concurrent 

with this action or shortly thereafter. If 

Kansas fails to submit a SIP that meets 

the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

with respect to the 1997 ozone 

standards by any deadline established 

in any final SIP Call, EPA would take 

action as appropriate to satisfy its 

obligation to promulgate a FIP to 

address the statutory requirements. 

The analysis for the final Transport 

Rule and the analysis for the 2010 

proposal both identified Kansas as a 

state that interferes with maintenance of 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS in another state. 

In its 2010 Transport Rule proposal, 

EPA proposed to determine that Kansas 

significantly contributes to 

nonattainment or interferes with 

maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS 

and thus proposed to include Kansas in 

the Transport Rule ozone-season NOX

program. The analysis conducted for the 

final Transport Rule, demonstrated that 

Kansas is linked only to a newlyidentified ozone maintenance receptor 

in Allegan County, Michigan. As noted 

above, EPA decided to provide an 

additional opportunity to comment on 

its conclusions with respect to states 

that were linked, in the final Transport 

Rule analysis, only to receptors that 

were identified for the first time in that 

analysis. In that supplemental proposal, 

EPA specifically requested comment in 

the proposed notice to this 

supplemental action on whether there 

are errors in the Agency’s application of 

the Transport Rule methodologies with 

respect to Kansas’s significant 

contribution to nonattainment and 

interference of the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 

After a review of comments received, 

EPA has concluded that Kansas 

interferes with maintenance of the 1997 

ozone NAAQS in Allegan County, 

Michigan. 

This action does not take final action 

on the portion of the proposal relating 

to whether to use the Transport Rule 

ozone season program as the FIP for 

Kansas. In the 2010 Transport Rule 

proposal, EPA summarized the status of 

the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP for 

the state of Kansas with regard to the 

1997 ozone NAAQS. As explained 

therein, EPA had previously approved a 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) SIP submission 

from the state of Kansas for the 1997 

ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS on March 

9, 2007 (72 FR 10608). That SIP 

submission did not rely on the unlawful 

CAIR trading programs or rely in any 

way on the conclusion in CAIR that 

compliance with CAIR was sufficient to 

satisfy a state’s 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

obligations with respect to the 1997 

ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. Kansas is 

unique in this regard because no other 

state covered by the Transport Rule or 

this action has an approved SIP that did 

not rely on the CAIR requirements, 

which the DC Circuit held were not 

sufficient to satisfy the requirements of 

110(a)(2(D)((I)(I) of the Act. For these 

reasons, EPA does not have an 

obligation under section 110(c)(1) of the 

Act to promulgate a FIP for Kansas at 

this time. Therefore, in a separate 

action, EPA proposed a SIP Call under 

CAA section 110(k)(5) for Kansas (76 FR 

763, January 6, 2011), and proposed to 

find the Kansas SIP substantially 

inadequate to meet the requirements of 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 

1997 ozone NAAQS. This proposal was 

based on the proposed conclusion that 

emissions from Kansas are significantly 

contributing to nonattainment or 

interfering with maintenance of the 

1997 ozone NAAQS in another state. 

EPA intends to take final action on the 

proposed SIP Call concurrently with 

this action or shortly thereafter. 

D. Allegan County, Michigan, Receptor 

The final Transport Rule air quality 

modeling identified a new maintenance 

receptor in Allegan County, Michigan, 

to which upwind states interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS. 

Some commenters noted that EPA 

took final action on September 24, 2010 

to redesignate the Allegan County, 

Michigan nonattainment area to 

attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard. 75 FR 58312; September 24, 

2010. Moreover, commenters noted that 

EPA in the same action approved 

Michigan’s ‘‘maintenance plan’’ for 

maintaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

through 2021 in the same area. Based on 

this observation, these commenters 

asserted that EPA should not consider 

Allegan County to be a ‘‘maintenance 

receptor’’ for purposes of the Transport 

Rule. Accordingly, these commenters 

believed that EPA should not be 

requiring emission reductions from 

upwind states on the basis of the 

contributions to Allegan County, 

Michigan. 

EPA agrees that the nonattainment 

area containing Allegan County, 

Michigan was redesignated by EPA on 

September 24, 2010, and that EPA 

approved the state of Michigan’s 

maintenance plan for the area. The area, 

therefore, is currently considered to be 

a maintenance area and not a 

nonattainment area. 

EPA, however, disagrees with 

commenters’ conclusion that a 

maintenance area (i.e., an area that has 

been redesignated and is thus subject to 

a maintenance plan) should not be 

considered a maintenance receptor in 

EPA’s analysis for a number of reasons. 

First, EPA notes that ozone values at the 

Allegan location, historically and in the 

future, are strongly influenced by 

interstate transport. Second, the 

methodology for identifying 

‘‘maintenance’’ receptors relevant to 

upwind state contributions in the 

Transport Rule is a unique test designed 

to satisfy the ‘‘interfere with 

maintenance’’ prong of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I); 

EPA believes this methodology 

responds to the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the DC Circuit in the July 20, 2008 

decision in North Carolina v. EPA, 531 

F.3d 896, ruling on the deficiency of 

CAIR with regard to this 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

obligation. Finally, as stated in the 

preamble to the final Transport Rule, 

EPA’s test for identifying ‘‘maintenance 

receptors’’ for the Transport Rule 

appropriately differs from, and is not 

dependent on, recent monitoring data, 

including data used to re-designate an 

area as being in attainment. 

1. Nature of the Ozone Problem for the 

Allegan County, Michigan Location 

Allegan County is a mostly rural 

county located in southwestern 

Michigan along Lake Michigan. EPA 

source apportionment modeling for 

2012 shows that for the ozone monitor 

in Allegan County, 96 percent of ozone 

is attributable to out-of-state emissions. 

As such, Allegan Country provides a 

particularly compelling example of the 

limited ability of any individual state to 

unilaterally control air quality outcomes 

within its borders. See Air Quality 

Modeling Final Rule TSD, EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2009–0491–4140 for details. 

Table III.D–1 provides more 

information on the nature of ozone at 

this site. In many years in the available 

data set, there are a few days with 

markedly higher ozone values than are 

measured for the remainder of the year. 

Whether those values lead to 

exceedances of the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS is dependent on whether that 

phenomenon extends to the 4th highest 

day of the season and on the degree to 

which this occurs in consecutive years. 

Accordingly, this site’s ozone design 

value can experience significant 

variability from year to year. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 80767 

TABLE III.D–1—RECENT OBSERVED OZONE CONCENTRATIONS AT THE ALLEGAN COUNTY OZONE MONITOR (AIRS ID 

260050003) 

Year 1st High 2nd High 3rd High 4th High Design Value 

(DV) Period 

DV 

(average of 

4th high 

over 

3-yr period) 

2003 ............................................................................. 106 102 97 95 ........................ ....................

2004 ............................................................................. 107 84 81 79 ........................ ....................

2005 ............................................................................. 113 107 95 94 2003–2005 89 

2006 ............................................................................. 99 91 91 91 2004–2006 88 

2007 ............................................................................. 109 108 98 94 2005–2007 93 

2008 ............................................................................. 100 77 74 73 2006–2008 86 

2009 ............................................................................. 92 83 79 76 2007–2009 81 

2010 ............................................................................. 77 76 75 73 2008–2010 74 

2011 ............................................................................. 98 96 96 87 *2009–2011 *78 

* 2011 is based on preliminary data for year to date through 9/5/11; see: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/deq-aqd-mm-ozone8hrhighestcurrent_256060_7.pdf. 

Table III.D–1 shows that the 1st high 

annual measured value over the last 9 

years has ranged from 92–113 ppb, 

except in 2010 when the 1st high value 

was only 77 ppb. The 4th high values 

have ranged between 73 and 95 ppb. 

There were three consecutive years with 

low 4th high values below 80 ppb 

(2007–2009) and there was one period 

(2005–2007) with consecutive 4th high 

values greater than 90 ppb. The fact that 

the 4th high value dropped from 94 ppb 

in 2007 to 73 ppb 2008, and then 

increased again from 73 ppb in 2010 to 

87 ppb in 2011 shows that the pattern 

of regional transport and meteorology 

are the primary factors in the year to 

year variability of the observed design 

value at this site. The magnitude of the 

year-to-year changes is too large to be 

caused solely by emission reductions or 

increases in Allegan County, or even in 

upwind states. Based on EPA’s CAMx 

source apportionment modeling, if 

emission reductions were solely 

responsible for the improvement in 

ozone concentrations in Allegan County 

from 2007 to 2008, all of the NOX

emissions in the upwind states of 

Illinois, Indiana, and Missouri would 

have to have dropped by greater than 50 

percent between those years. Since that 

is clearly not the case, the data show 

that meteorological conditions and 

regional transport patterns may still 

effect substantial changes in ozone in 

Allegan County, which supports its 

identification as a receptor whose 

maintenance of the NAAQS may be 

jeopardized without further emission 

reductions in upwind states. 

2. Emission Analysis Conducted in 

Approving Michigan’s Maintenance 

Plan for Allegan 

EPA’s rationale for approving the 

maintenance plan for Allegan County is 

described in the proposed approval 

notice (75 FR 42018; July 20, 2010). A 

number of tables in that proposed 

approval compared current emissions to 

future emissions for VOC and NOX

sources located within the Allegan 

County nonattainment area. The 

analysis concluded that projected 

emission levels, for sources within the 

nonattainment area, were decreasing 

throughout the maintenance period. The 

ozone redesignation and maintenance 

plan analysis completed by Michigan 

meets EPA guidance but uses a different 

test and data that are less current than 

what were applied in the Transport 

Rule. The maintenance plan test for the 

local SIP requires an analysis to show 

that emissions in the local area will not 

increase, thereby showing that the area 

will be able to maintain the ozone 

NAAQS. The redesignation is based on 

having current air quality data which 

shows that the area is attaining the 

NAAQS and the area meets all other 

Clean Air Act requirements for 

redesignation. 

3. Maintenance Approach in the 

Transport Rule 

In the North Carolina decision 

concerning CAIR, the Court directed 

EPA to give independent meaning to the 

‘‘interfere with maintenance’’ prong of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and to 

separately identify upwind sources that 

interfere with downwind maintenance. 

In particular, the Court expressed 

concern that CAIR did not adequately 

protect areas that find themselves barely 

in attainment by the statutory deadline 

and suggested that EPA needed to take 

into account the historic variability of a 

downwind area’s ozone levels in 

determining whether an upwind source 

would cause that downwind area to 

have trouble maintaining the NAAQS. 

Accordingly, EPA in the Transport 

Rule explicitly gave independent 

meaning to the ‘‘interfere with 

maintenance’’ prong of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) by evaluating 

contributions to maintenance receptors 

as well as contributions to identified 

nonattainment receptors. The 

maintenance methodology used an 

approach that examined multiple design 

value periods (from 2003–2007) 

projected to 2012. This allowed an 

estimate of variability in future design 

values, based on past measured 

variability. A detailed discussion of 

EPA’s new approach, rationale, and 

responses to comments on the approach, 

including the methodology for 

identifying maintenance receptors, is 

found in section V.C.2 of the preamble 

to the final Transport Rule (76 FR 

48227). 

In the application in the final 

Transport Rule of that approach, 

Allegan County was identified as a 

maintenance receptor but not as a 

nonattainment receptor. That is, for 

Allegan County, EPA projected that, 

under ‘‘average’’ conditions that would 

take place in the relevant area in the 

future, Allegan County would not 

exceed the ozone NAAQS in 2012. On 

the other hand, EPA projected, under 

conditions reflecting the maximum 

design values in the relevant area during 

2003–2007, that Allegan County could 

exceed the ozone NAAQS. EPA’s 

analysis took into account the fact that 

previously experienced meteorological 

conditions (e.g., dominant wind 

direction, temperatures, and air mass 

patterns) promoting ozone formation 

may reoccur in the relevant area in the 

future. Consistently applying this 

approach throughout the relevant area, 

EPA found that Allegan County 

exceeded the threshold for inclusion as 

a maintenance receptor. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
80768 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

7This issue was discussed in the preamble to the 

NOX SIP Call (see 63 FR 57375, October 27, 1998, 

footnote 25), and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

DC Circuit’s decision in Michigan v. EPA, 213 F.3d 

663 (2000), further supports the position that 

determinations of significant contribution or 

interference with maintenance under CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) should not be based on an area’s 

attainment designation. 

8 Data for 2011 is incomplete at the time of 

finalization of this rulemaking. 

9The applicability provisions for determining 

covered units in the named six states for the 

Transport Rule ozone season NOX program are the 

same as those described in section VII.B, 

‘‘Applicability,’’ of the preamble to the final 

Transport Rule. 

10This table reflects ozone-season NOX budgets 

and variability limits as currently effective based on 

finalization of the Transport Rule published on July 

6, 2011 and finalization of this supplemental action. 

In a separate action, EPA has proposed revisions to 

certain state budgets and new unit set-asides that 

are not reflected in these tables, as they are not yet 

finalized. That action may be reviewed at 76 FR 

63860, October 14, 2011. 

4. Relationship between EPA’s 

‘‘Maintenance Receptor’’ Analysis for 

the Transport Rule and EPA’s Approval 

of Michigan’s ‘‘Maintenance Plan’’ 

EPA’s methodology for identifying 

nonattainment and maintenance 

receptors is based on modeled 

projections of measured air quality at 

specific monitors, not on the 

designation status of an area.7 EPA 

believes this approach is appropriate for 

the reasons explained in section V.C.2 

of the preamble to the final Transport 

Rule. 76 FR 48230. EPA does not believe 

it would be appropriate to rely on the 

designation status of an area to 

determine air quality or for determining 

whether one state is contributing 

significantly to nonattainment or 

interfering with maintenance of another 

state under CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). The CAA does not 

require EPA to do so. As EPA explained 

in the proposal to designate Allegan 

County as an attainment area, an area’s 

transport requirements under section 

110(a)(2)(D) are not linked to an area’s 

attainment designation and continue to 

apply regardless of an area’s designation 

status. 75 FR 42018, 42023. The U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit’s 

decision in Michigan v. EPA, 213 F.3d 

663 (2000), further supports the position 

that determinations of significant 

contribution or interference with 

maintenance under CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) is most appropriately 

based on current air quality and 

modeling, rather than an area’s 

attainment designation. In fact, it would 

be impractical given the timing of when 

designations are made and 

nonattainment SIPs due to base such a 

determination on an area’s attainment or 

maintenance designation, suggesting 

that Congress did not intend section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIPs to be linked in any 

way to designation status. Further, even 

areas that have never been in 

nonattainment or have been redesignated to attainment (including 

those where the majority of pollution 

comes from out of state) continue to be 

at risk for falling into nonattainment as 

a result of emissions from upwind 

states, as the North Carolina court 

recognized, 531 F.3d at 910. 

Generally, in judging whether to redesignate a given area, EPA evaluates 

local emissions as part of the 

‘‘maintenance plan.’’ However, if EPA 

proposes to re-designate areas to 

attainment, this does not remove the 

need to address emissions in upwind 

states which could interfere with the 

maintenance plan. Without a cap on 

emissions in upwind states with a 

significant impact, upwind state 

emissions might in fact grow, increasing 

the possibility that the area being 

evaluated will not be able to maintain 

attainment. Furthermore, since upwind 

states are not required to have 

contingency measures under a 

downwind state’s SIP, it is incumbent 

on EPA to ensure that states with 

significant impacts are appropriately 

controlled. 

Additionally, EPA notes that the 

Transport Rule was based upon newer 

and more extensive information than 

was available at the time of our approval 

of Michigan’s ‘‘maintenance plan’’ for 

Allegan County, and the more recent 

information suggests Allegan County 

may have difficulty maintaining 

attainment, notwithstanding its 2010 

redesignation. EPA believes that the 

maintenance requirements in the 

Transport Rule serve to reinforce and 

supplement the state’s maintenance 

plan, providing important support by 

greatly decreasing the probability that 

emissions from upwind states could 

lead to future nonattainment. As 

discussed above, EPA’s projections for 

2012 indicate that 96 percent of ozone 

at the Allegan County receptor is 

created by precursor emissions 

originating from states other than 

Michigan. Clearly, the ability to 

maintain the ozone NAAQS in Allegan 

Country is largely influenced by upwind 

state emissions. 

5. Recent Air Quality Data 

Commenters in Oklahoma noted that 

EPA should use actual monitoring data, 

‘‘which reflects CAIR reductions,’’ to 

demonstrate that Allegan County would 

remain in attainment. They cited 

ambient measurements of 74 ppb for the 

3-year average for 2008–2010. Recent 

preliminary air quality data for 2011 

serve to reinforce EPA’s view that the 

variability in meteorology is a 

significant issue for the Allegan 

receptor’s ability to maintain the 

NAAQS. In 2011, there were four 

ambient values exceeding the 85 ppb 

level of the 1997 NAAQS, with a high 

value of 98 ppb. In other words, the 4th 

high value for 2011 exceeded the 

NAAQS. These values do not yet lead to 

a conclusion that the area is in 

nonattainment because the preliminary 

2009–2011 design value—the average of 

the 4th high values for 2009, 2010, and 

2011 8—remains below 85 ppb. 

However, if the 4th high ambient values 

for 2012 and 2013 were the same as the 

preliminary values for 2011, the area 

would be in violation of the NAAQS. 

But even with relatively lower ozone 

concentrations across much of the 

country in the 2008–2010 period, the 

preliminary 2011 data show that 

Allegan County clearly continues to 

experience high ozone days, suggesting 

that this location may have maintenance 

problems that may eventually lead to 

violations of the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 

The data illustrate the highly variable 

nature of ozone at the Allegan location 

and reinforce the wisdom of taking 

variability into account in our 

‘‘maintenance’’ analysis. 

E. Ozone Season NOX Emission Budgets 

for Five States 

EPA is finalizing state ozone season 

NOX emission budgets for covered units 

(generally large electric generating 

units) 9 in Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, 

Oklahoma, and Wisconsin under the 

FIPs for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. As 

noted above, EPA is not taking final 

action on the proposed Kansas FIP at 

this time. 

EPA is finalizing these budgets, 

adjusted if necessary based on 

comments received, as part of the FIPs 

for these five states. These budgets and 

the associated variability limits are 

presented in Table III.E–1. Note that 

EPA has proposed, in a separate 

rulemaking (76 FR 63860), to revise the 

effective date of the assurance penalty 

provisions so that they start on January 

1, 2014 instead of January 1, 2012. If 

EPA finalizes that revision, the 

assurance provisions and variability 

limits below would not apply for 2012 

and 2013. The new unit set-asides and 

Indian country new unit set-aside, if 

applicable, for these five states are 

presented in Table III.E–2. For 

illustrative purposes only, in order to 

provide a complete picture of the 

Transport Rule ozone season program, 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 80769 

10This table reflects ozone-season NOX budgets 

and variability limits as currently effective based on 

finalization of the Transport Rule published on July 

6, 2011 and finalization of this supplemental action. 

In a separate action, EPA has proposed revisions to 

certain state budgets and new unit set-asides that 

are not reflected in these tables, as they are not yet 

finalized. That action may be reviewed at 76 FR 

63860, October 14, 2011. 

Tables III.E–1 and III.E–2 also include 

information concerning the other states 

in that program. However, the proposed 

rule did not reconsider or request 

comment on any issues concerning the 

other states, and neither the proposed 

rule nor this final rule reopens any 

issues concerning these other states. 

TABLE III.E–1—STATE BUDGETS 10 AND VARIABILITY LIMITS FOR 2012–2013, 2014 AND THEREAFTER

State 

NOX Ozone 

Season 

trading budget for 

2012 and 2013 

(tons) * 

NOX Ozone 

Season 

trading budget for 

2014 and thereafter 

(tons) * 

Variability 

limits for 

2012 and 2013 

Variability 

limits for 

2014 and thereafter 

Alabama ........................................................................... 31,746 31,499 6,667 6,615 

Arkansas .......................................................................... 15,037 15,037 3,158 3,158 

Florida .............................................................................. 27,825 27,825 5,843 5,843 

Georgia ............................................................................ 27,944 18,279 5,868 3,839 

Illinois ............................................................................... 21,208 21,208 4,454 4,454 

Indiana ............................................................................. 46,876 46,175 9,844 9,697 

Iowa ................................................................................. 16,532 16,207 3,472 3,403 

Kentucky .......................................................................... 36,167 32,674 7,595 6,862 

Louisiana .......................................................................... 13,432 13,432 2,821 2,821 

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

Michigan ........................................................................... 28,041 27,016 5,889 5,673 

Mississippi ........................................................................ 10,160 10,160 2,134 2,134 

Missouri ............................................................................ 22,762 21,073 4,780 4,425 

New Jersey ...................................................................... 3,382 3,382 710 710 

New York ......................................................................... 8,331 8,331 1,750 1,750 

North Carolina .................................................................. 22,168 18,455 4,655 3,876 

Ohio ................................................................................. 40,063 37,792 8,413 7,936 

Oklahoma ** ..................................................................... 36,567 21,835 21,835 7,679 4,585 4,585 

Pennsylvania .................................................................... 52,201 51,912 10,962 10,902 

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

Tennessee ....................................................................... 14,908 8,016 3,131 1,683 

Texas ............................................................................... 63,043 63,043 13,239 13,239 

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

West Virginia .................................................................... 25,283 23,291 5,309 4,891 

Wisconsin ......................................................................... 14,784 14,296 3,105 3,002 

* Variability limits are discussed in the preamble to the final Transport Rule, section VI.E. 

** Data in this table is presented for Oklahoma separately for the years 2012 and 2013, as its state budget and variability limits are not the 

same in each of those years. 

In section III.B.iv, EPA explained that 

this final rule adjusts the Oklahoma 

state budget only for the 2012 ozone 

season, reflecting revised emission 

projections that do not include LNB 

installation or the redispatching of oil/ 

gas steam units by the 2012 ozone 

season. For 2013 onwards, the 

Oklahoma ozone season budget remains 

at the level EPA proposed. 

In the October 6, 2011 proposed 

Revisions to the Transport Rule (also 

known as the Cross-State Air Pollution 

Rule), EPA proposed, and invited 

comment on, adjustments to the annual 

NOX emission budgets for both 

Michigan and Wisconsin. For both 

states, the budget was proposed to be 

increased based on revised assumptions 

regarding Selective Catalytic Reduction 

(SCR) technology previously assumed to 

be installed and operating at specific 

units in 2012. In the case of Michigan, 

the budget was proposed to be increased 

to account for Monroe Unit 2 not having 

a SCR in 2012 or 2014. For Wisconsin, 

a similar adjustment was proposed to 

account for JP Madgett Unit 1 not 

having a SCR in 2012 or 2014. EPA 

recognized that these revised input 

assumptions would also affect the 

calculation of the states’ ozone-season 

budgets, and EPA is now applying that 

information to the determination of 

these states’ ozone season NOX budgets 

in this final rule. Applying the updated 

information regarding Monroe Unit 2 in 

Michigan and JP Madgett Unit 1 in 

Wisconsin results in budgets for 

Michigan and Wisconsin that are 2,289 

tons and 1,080 tons, respectively, larger 

than the proposed budgets for these 

states. The final budgets are reflected in 

Table III.E–1. 

As noted above, EPA is finalizing for 

the five states the ozone season new 

unit set-asides for allowance allocations 

to new units, determined in the same 

manner as for the other states covered 

in the Transport Rule ozone season NOX

program. This approach is described in 

section VII.D.2, ‘‘Allocations to New 

Units,’’ of the preamble to the final 

Transport Rule. Table III.E–2 shows the 

new unit set-aside for Iowa, Michigan, 

Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin as 

a percent of state ozone season NOX

emissions. Table III.E–3 shows the new 

unit set-aside and Indian country new 

unit set-aside, as appropriate, for the 

five states and, for the reasons discussed 

above, the other states in the Transport 

Rule ozone season program. 

In addition, as described in section 

VII.D.2, ‘‘Allocations to New Units,’’ of 

the preamble to the final Transport 

Rule, EPA is providing a mechanism to 

make allowances available in the future 

for new units built in Indian country. 

Table III.E–3 shows the Indian country 

set-asides EPA is finalizing to set aside 

Transport Rule ozone-season allowances 

from the budgets of the states addressed 

in this final rule that have Indian 

country within their borders (i.e., Iowa, 

Michigan, Missouri, and Wisconsin). As 

explained in the final Transport Rule, 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
80770 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

11This table reflects ozone-season NOX budgets 

and variability limits as currently effective based on 

finalization of the Transport Rule published on July 

6, 2011 and finalization of this supplemental action. 

In a separate action, EPA has proposed revisions to 

certain state budgets and new unit set-asides that 

are not reflected in these tables, as they are not yet 

finalized. That action may be reviewed at 76 FR 

63860, October 14, 2011. 

EPA will administer these Indian 

country new unit set-asides regardless 

of whether a state replaces its Transport 

Rule FIP with an approved SIP. EPA 

received one comment from a state 

regarding the size of its Indian Country 

new unit set-aside. However, there was 

no information submitted showing that 

EPA’s calculations or methodologies 

were in error. Therefore, EPA is 

finalizing the new unit set-asides and 

Indian country new unit set-asides, as 

proposed, with adjustments to reflect 

any revisions to the appropriate 

budgets, for the five states in this final 

action. 

TABLE III.E–2—STATE NEW UNIT SETASIDES AS A PERCENT OF STATE

NOX OZONE SEASON TRADING

BUDGETS

NOX ozone 

season 

new unit 

set-aside 

(percent) 

Iowa .......................................... 2 

TABLE III.E–2—STATE NEW UNIT SETASIDES AS A PERCENT OF STATE

NOX OZONE SEASON TRADING

BUDGETS—Continued 

NOX ozone 

season 

new unit 

set-aside 

(percent) 

Michigan ................................... 2 

Missouri .................................... 3 

Oklahoma ................................. 2 

Wisconsin ................................. 6 

TABLE III.E–3—NEW UNIT SET-ASIDES AND INDIAN COUNTRY NEW UNIT SET-ASIDES FOR 2012–2013; 2014 AND

THEREAFTER 11

State 

New unit set-aside 

for 2012 and 2013 

(tons) 

New unit set-aside 

for 2014 and 

thereafter 

(tons) 

Indian country new 

unit set-aside for 

2012 and 2013 

(tons) 

Indian country new 

unit set-aside for 

2014 and thereafter 

(tons) 

Alabama ........................................................................... 635 630 ................................ ................................

Arkansas .......................................................................... 301 301 ................................ ................................

Florida .............................................................................. 529 529 28 28 

Georgia ............................................................................ 559 366 ................................ ................................

Illinois ............................................................................... 1,697 1,697 ................................ ................................

Indiana ............................................................................. 1,406 1,385 ................................ ................................

Iowa ................................................................................. 314 308 17 16 

Kentucky .......................................................................... 1,447 1,307 ................................ ................................

Louisiana .......................................................................... 390 390 13 13 

Maryland .......................................................................... 144 144 ................................ ................................

Michigan ........................................................................... 533 513 28 27 

Mississippi ........................................................................ 193 193 10 10 

Missouri ............................................................................ 683 632 ................................ ................................

New Jersey ...................................................................... 68 68 ................................ ................................

New York ......................................................................... 242 242 8 8 

North Carolina .................................................................. 1,308 1,089 22 18 

Ohio ................................................................................. 801 756 ................................ ................................

Oklahoma ......................................................................... 731 437 437 ................................ ................................

Pennsylvania .................................................................... 1,044 1,038 ................................ ................................

South Carolina ................................................................. 264 264 14 14 

Tennessee ....................................................................... 298 160 ................................ ................................

Texas ............................................................................... 1,828 1,828 63 63 

Virginia ............................................................................. 723 723 ................................ ................................

West Virginia .................................................................... 1,264 1,165 ................................ ................................

Wisconsin ......................................................................... 872 844 15 14 

Finally, EPA is finalizing the unitlevel allocations of Transport Rule NOX

ozone season allowances under the FIP 

to existing covered units in Iowa, 

Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, and 

Wisconsin. These allocations are 

presented in the TSD entitled ‘‘Final 

Unit-Level Ozone Season NOX

Allowance Allocations to Existing Units 

in Five States: Supplemental Final Rule 

TSD,’’ which is available in the public 

docket for this rule and on the Web at 

http://www.epa.gov/crossstaterule. The 

methodology and procedures used for 

allocations to existing units covered by 

the Transport Rule ozone season NOX

program are specified in section VII.D, 

‘‘Allocation of Emission Allowances,’’ 

of the preamble to the final Transport 

Rule and in the TSD entitled 

‘‘Allowance Allocation Final Rule 

TSD,’’ which is available in the public 

docket for this rule. The TSD entitled 

‘‘Final Unit-Level Ozone Season NOX

Allowance Allocations to Existing Units 

in Five States: Supplemental Final Rule 

TSD’’ also describes how to access 

publicly available downloadable Excel 

spreadsheets with the unit-level 

allowance allocations and the 

supporting data EPA used in applying 

the final Transport Rule existing unit 

allocation methodology to eligible units 

in each of the five states in this final 

rule on the Web at http://www.epa.gov/ 

crossstaterule. 

F. Implementation of the Transport Rule 

NOX Ozone Season Trading Program 

As discussed above, EPA concludes in 

this final rule that the Transport Rule 

NOX Ozone Season Trading Program set 

forth in the final Transport Rule should 

be used as the FIP for Iowa, Michigan, 

Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin 

with regard to the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 

In the SNPR, EPA proposed that the 

implementation of the Transport Rule 

ozone season program be identical for 

these five states to implementation for 

the other states subject to this program. 

Under this final rule, the 

implementation of this program for 

these five states is the same as for the 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 80771 

12Similarly, the deadline for recordation by the 

Administrator of 2012 existing-unit allocations and, 

in the absence of a notice by a state of intent to 

submit a SIP revision with 2013 allocations, of 2013 

existing-unit allocations is moved for the five states 

to the date 90 days after publication of this final 

rule in the Federal Register. The analogous 

deadline for the other states in the Transport Rule 

ozone season program was November 7, 2011, 

which was set as the date 90 days after publication 

of the final Transport Rule and precedes the 

issuance and publication of this final rule. 

13For more information, please see the final 

Transport Rule Regulatory Impact Analysis in the 

docket for this rulemaking (EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– 

0491–4409). 

other states, except for the deadlines for 

submission of allocations for existing 

units for 2013. 

Under the Transport Rule, states have 

the option of submitting three types of 

SIP revisions that, if approved, change 

certain provisions of the Transport Rule 

NOX Ozone Season Trading Program. 

First, a state may submit a SIP revision 

setting forth allocations to existing units 

for 2013. Second, a state may submit an 

abbreviated SIP that replaces the 

allowance allocation provisions in the 

FIP to existing and new units starting in 

2014 or any year thereafter. Third, a 

state may submit a full SIP that replaces 

the FIP entirely (except for any 

provisions concerning units in any 

Indian country within the borders of the 

state) but substantively changes only the 

allowance allocation provisions starting 

in 2014 or any year thereafter. 

With regard to the first type of SIP 

revision, involving only 2013 

allocations to existing units, the final 

Transport Rule set a series of deadlines 

concerning submission, approval, and 

implementation of state-determined 

2013 existing-unit allocations. 

Specifically, states under the final 

Transport Rule were required to inform 

EPA of their intent to submit 2013 

allocations for existing units by 

November 7, 2011 and must submit 

these allocations by April 1, 2012, and 

the Administrator will record the 

allocations, if approved, by October 1, 

2012. Because this series of sequential 

deadlines began about six months before 

the issuance and the publication of this 

final rule, EPA is revising the final 

Transport Rule (including the Transport 

Rule NOX Ozone Season Trading 

Program) to establish an analogous 

series—only for Iowa, Michigan, 

Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin—of 

deadlines for 2013 allocations of 

Transport Rule NOX Ozone Season 

allowances using dates that are about 

six months later than the dates in the 

generally applicable series of 2013 

allocation-related deadlines. For 

example, the five states must inform 

EPA of their intent to submit 2013 

allocations for existing units by the date 

70 days after publication of this final 

rule in the Federal Register and must 

submit these allocations by October 1, 

2012, and the Administrator will record 

the allocations, if approved, by April 15, 

2013.12

With regard to the other two types of 

SIP revisions (abbreviated SIPs and full 

SIPs), all of the deadlines for SIP 

submission and for submission of 

allocations (or results of auctions, if 

any) for the other states in the Transport 

Rule ozone season program are about 11 

months or more after the issuance or the 

publication of the final Transport Rule, 

and no commenters suggested changing 

these deadlines for Iowa, Michigan, 

Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin. 

Consequently, EPA is finalizing these 

deadlines related to abbreviated SIPs 

and full SIPs. The submission deadlines 

and process for abbreviated SIPs and 

full SIPs for all states (including the five 

states covered by this final rule) in the 

Transport Rule ozone season program 

are found in section X, ‘‘Transport Rule 

State Implementation Plans,’’ of the 

preamble to the final Transport Rule. 

Finally, under the final Transport 

Rule, the first Transport Rule ozone 

season trading program runs from May 

1, 2012 through September 30, 2012. For 

the reasons discussed above, the FIPs 

for Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, 

Oklahoma, and Wisconsin apply the 

Transport Rule ozone-season NOX

requirements to sources in those states 

in the same manner the requirements 

are applied to sources in other states 

covered by Transport Rule ozone-season 

provisions. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a 

‘‘significant regulatory action.’’ 

Accordingly, EPA submitted this action 

to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review under Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011) and any changes made 

in response to OMB recommendations 

have been documented in the docket for 

this action. This action has also been 

determined to be economically 

significant. EPA’s regulatory impacts 

analysis (RIA) of the July 2011 final 

Transport Rule included modeling of 

ozone-season NOX reductions for the 

states covered in this final rulemaking. 

While the results of that analysis cannot 

be disaggregated to isolate the impacts 

of this rulemaking alone, that analysis 

does include a comprehensive and fully 

detailed accounting of the costs and 

benefits of the Transport Rule programs, 

inclusive of the impacts of this 

rulemaking.13

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

EPA is required to document the 

information collection burden imposed 

by the Transport Rule program on 

industry, States, and EPA in an 

information collection request (ICR). 

The ICR describes the information 

collection requirements associated with 

the final Transport Rule program 

inclusive of this proposal and estimates 

the incremental costs of compliance 

with all such requirements, such as the 

requirement for industry to monitor, 

record, and report emissions data to 

EPA. 

The ICR for the Transport Rule 

Program inclusive of this supplemental 

rule was submitted for approval to OMB 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and was approved 

under OMB control number 2060–0667. 

EPA believes that there are no 

information collection requirements or 

burden beyond those reported in the 

Transport Rule program inclusive of this 

supplemental rule. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of this final 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. For the 

electric power generation industry, the 

small business size standard is an 

ultimate parent entity defined as having 

a total electric output of 4 million 

megawatt-hours (MW-hour) or less in 

the previous fiscal year. 

(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 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
80772 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

14 76 FR 1109 (January 7, 2011). 

independently owned and operated and 

is not dominant in its field. 

TABLE IV.C–1—POTENTIALLY REGULATED CATEGORIES AND ENTITIES a

Category NAICS Code b Examples of potentially regulated entities 

Industry ..................................................................................... 221112 Fossil-fuel-fired electric utility steam generating units. 

Federal Government ................................................................. c 221112 Fossil-fuel-fired electric utility steam generating units owned 

by the federal government. 

State/Local Government ........................................................... c 221112 Fossil-fuel-fired electric utility steam generating units owned 

by municipalities. 

Tribal Government .................................................................... 921150 Fossil-fuel-fired electric utility steam generating units in Indian Country. 

a Include NAICS categories for source categories that own and operate electric generating units only. 

b North American Industry Classification System. 

cFederal, state, or local government-owned and operated establishments are classified according to the activity in which they are engaged. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of the Transport Rule program 

inclusive of this supplemental rule on 

small entities, as described in section 

XII.C of the preamble to the final 

Transport Rule, EPA certifies that this 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities (No SISNOSE). 

This certification is based on the 

economic impact of the final Transport 

Rule inclusive of this supplemental rule 

on all affected small entities across all 

industries affected. EPA assessed the 

potential impact of the final Transport 

Rule on small entities and found that 

there are about 660 potentially affected 

small units (i.e., greater than 25 MW and 

generating less than 4MM MWh) out of 

3,625 existing units in the TR region. 

The majority of these EGUs are owned 

by entities that do not meet the small 

entity definition. The remaining 271 of 

the 660 EGUs are owned by 108 

potentially affected small entities and 

are likely to be affected by this rule. 

EPA estimates that 24 of the 108 

identified small entities will have 

annualized costs greater than 1 percent 

of their revenues, and the other 84 are 

projected to incur costs less than 1 

percent of revenues. Eleven small 

entities out of 108—only about 10 

percent—are estimated to have 

annualized costs greater than 3 percent 

of their revenues, which factors into 

EPA’s finding of no SISNOSE. EPA 

believes that the provisions of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act are covered 

by and reported in section XII.C of the 

preamble to the final Transport Rule. 

Although this final rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the 

impact of this rule on small entities. In 

EPA’s modeling, most of the cost 

impacts for these small entities and 

their associated units are driven by 

lower electricity generation relative to 

the base case. Another main driver of 

small entity impacts are higher fuel 

costs, which the affected units would 

incur irrespective of whether they had 

to comply with this rule. In addition, 

EPA’s decision to exclude units smaller 

than 25 MWe has already significantly 

reduced the burden on hundreds of 

small entities. Hence, EPA has 

concluded that there is no SISNOSE for 

this rule. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538, requires federal agencies, 

unless otherwise prohibited by law, to 

assess the effects of their regulatory 

actions on state, local, and tribal 

governments and the private sector. The 

Transport Rule program inclusive of this 

supplemental rule contains a Federal 

mandate that may result in expenditures 

of $100 million or more for state, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or the private sector in any one year. 

Accordingly, EPA has prepared under 

section 202 of the UMRA a written 

statement that is summarized in section 

XII.D of the preamble to the final 

Transport Rule. 

Consistent with the intergovernmental 

consultation provisions of section 204 of 

the UMRA, EPA held consultations with 

the governmental entities affected by the 

final Transport Rule and this 

supplemental rule. As detailed in 

section XII.D of the preamble to the final 

Transport Rule, EPA participated in 

informational calls with the 

Environmental Council of the States 

(ECOS) and the National Governors 

Association to provide information 

about the January 7, 2011 NODA 14

directly to state and local officials and 

conducted consultations with federally 

recognized tribes prior to finalizing the 

final Transport Rule and issuing the 

supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking for the action being 

finalized here for inclusion of six 

additional states (of which only three 

being finalized today—Iowa, Michigan, 

and Wisconsin—have Indian country 

within their boundaries). 

EPA believes that no unfunded 

mandates have been created by the 

Transport Rule program inclusive of this 

action. Neither the final Transport Rule 

nor the provisions in this SNPR have 

regulatory requirements that might 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

As described in section XII.E of the 

preamble to the final Transport Rule, 

EPA has concluded that the Transport 

Rule program inclusive of this 

supplemental rule does not have 

federalism implications. Thus, 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to the final Transport Rule or to this 

SNPR. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Under Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), EPA may not 

issue a regulation that has tribal 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by tribal governments, or 

EPA consults with tribal officials early 

in the process of developing the 

proposed regulation and develops a 

tribal summary impact statement. EPA 

has concluded that this action may have 

tribal implications. As described in 

section XII.F of the preamble to the final 

Transport Rule, EPA believes that there 

has been proper consultation and 

coordination with Indian tribal 

governments for the Transport Rule 

program inclusive of this supplemental 

rule. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 80773 

As required by section 7(a) of the 

Executive Order, EPA’s Tribal 

Consultation Official has certified that 

the requirements of the Executive Order 

have been met in a meaningful and 

timely manner. A copy of the 

certification is included in the docket 

for the final Transport Rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19,885, 

April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: 

(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under EO 12866, 

and (2) concerns an environmental 

health or safety risk that EPA has reason 

to believe may have a disproportionate 

effect on children. If the regulatory 

action meets both criteria, the Agency 

must evaluate the environmental health 

or safety effects of this planned rule on 

children, and explain why this planned 

regulation is preferable to other 

potentially effective and reasonably 

feasible alternatives considered by the 

Agency. 

As described in section XII.G of the 

preamble to the final Transport Rule, 

the Transport Rule program inclusive of 

this supplemental rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 because it does 

not involve decisions that increase 

environmental health or safety risks that 

may disproportionately affect children. 

The EPA believes that the emissions 

reductions from the strategies in the 

Transport Rule program inclusive of this 

action will further improve air quality 

and will further improve children’s 

health. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, 

May 22, 2001) provides that agencies 

shall prepare and submit to the 

Administrator of the Office of 

Regulatory Affairs, OMB, a Statement of 

Energy Effects for certain actions 

identified as ‘‘significant energy 

actions.’’ Section 4(b) of Executive 

Order 13211 defines ‘‘significant energy 

action’’ as ‘‘any action by an agency 

(normally published in the Federal 

Register) that promulgates or is 

expected to lead to the promulgation of 

a final rule or regulation, including 

notices of inquiry, advance notices of 

proposed rulemaking, and notices of 

proposed rulemaking: (1)(i) That is a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866 or any successor 

order, and (ii) is likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy; or (2) that 

is designated by the Administrator of 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs as a significant energy action.’’ 

This rule is a significant regulatory 

action under Executive Order 12866, 

and this rule is likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. EPA 

prepared a Statement of Energy Effects 

for the Transport Rule program 

inclusive of this supplemental rule 

which appears in section XII.H of the 

preamble to the final Transport Rule. 

EPA believes that there is no impact 

to the energy supply beyond that which 

is reported for the Transport Rule 

program inclusive of this supplemental 

rule in the final Transport Rule. 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. As described in 

section XII.I of the preamble to the final 

Transport Rule, the Transport Rule 

program inclusive of this supplemental 

rule will require all sources to meet the 

applicable monitoring requirements of 

40 CFR part 75. Part 75 already 

incorporates a number of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 

7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority, lowincome, and Tribal populations in the 

United States. During development of 

this Transport Rule program inclusive of 

this supplemental rule, EPA considered 

its impacts on low-income, minority, 

and tribal communities in several ways 

and provided multiple opportunities for 

these communities to meaningfully 

participate in the rulemaking process. 

As described in section XII.J of the 

preamble to the final transport Rule, 

EPA believes that the final remedy in 

the Transport Rule program inclusive of 

this supplemental rule addresses 

potential environmental justice 

concerns about localized hot spots and 

reduces ambient concentrations of 

pollution where they are most needed 

by sensitive and vulnerable populations. 

EPA believes that the vast majority of 

communities and individuals in areas 

covered by the Transport Rule program 

inclusive of this 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 inclusive 

of this supplemental rule on these 

communities is detailed in section XII.J 

of the preamble to the final Transport 

Rule. Based on this assessment, EPA 

concludes that we do not expect 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority, low-income, or tribal 

populations in the United States as a 

result of implementing the Transport 

Rule program inclusive of this action. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A Major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined 

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

effective February 27, 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 February 27, 2012. 

Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA indicates 

which Federal Courts of Appeal have 

venue for petitions of review of final 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
80774 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

actions by EPA. This section provides, 

in part, that petitions for review must be 

filed in the Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit if (i) the 

agency action consists of ‘‘nationally 

applicable regulations promulgated, or 

final action taken, by the 

Administrator,’’ or (ii) such action is 

locally or regionally applicable, if ‘‘such 

action is based on a determination of 

nationwide scope or effect and if in 

taking such action the Administrator 

finds and publishes that such action is 

based on such a determination.’’ 

Any final action related to the 

Transport Rule is ‘‘nationally 

applicable’’ within the meaning of 

section 307(b)(1). Through this rule, 

EPA interprets section 110 of the CAA, 

a provision which has nationwide 

applicability. In addition, the Transport 

Rule applies to 27 States. The Transport 

Rule is also based on a common core of 

factual findings and analyses 

concerning the transport of pollutants 

between the different states subject to it. 

For these reasons, the Administrator 

also is determining that any final action 

regarding the Transport Rule is of 

nationwide scope and effect for 

purposes of section 307(b)(1). Thus, 

pursuant to section 307(b) any petitions 

for review of final actions regarding the 

Transport Rule must be filed in the 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit within 60 days from 

the date final action is published in the 

Federal Register. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration of 

this action does not affect the finality of 

this rule for the purposes of judicial 

review nor does it extend the time 

within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. In addition, pursuant to CAA 

section 307(b)(2) this action may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Air pollution control, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Regional haze, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

dioxide. 

40 CFR Part 97 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Air pollution control, 

Electric utilities, Nitrogen oxides, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxide. 

Dated: December 15, 2011. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, parts 52 and 97 of chapter I 

of title 40 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations are amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart A—General Provisions 

§ 52.38 [Amended] 

■ 2. Section 52.38 is amended by: 

■ a. In paragraph (b)(2), add, after the 

word ‘‘Indiana’’, the word ‘‘Iowa’’, add, 

after the word ‘‘Maryland’’, the word 

‘‘Michigan’’, add after the word 

‘‘Mississippi’’, the word ‘‘Missouri’’, 

add after the word ‘‘Ohio’’, the word 

‘‘Oklahoma’’, and remove the words 

‘‘and West Virginia’’ and add, in their 

place, the words ‘‘West Virginia, and 

Wisconsin’’; 

■ b. In paragraph (b)(3)(v)(A), add, after 

the words ‘‘October 17, 2011’’, the 

words ‘‘or, for Iowa, Michigan, 

Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin, 

March 6, 2012’’ and add, after the words 

‘‘April 1, 2012’’, the words ‘‘or, for Iowa, 

Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, and 

Wisconsin, October 1, 2012’’; and 

■ c. In paragraph (b)(3)(v)(B), add, after 

the words ‘‘April 1, 2012’’, the words 

‘‘or, for Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, 

Oklahoma, and Wisconsin, October 1, 

2012’’. 

Subpart Q—Iowa 

■ 3. Section 52.840 is amended by 

adding a new paragraph (b) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.840 Interstate pollutant transport 

provisions; What are the FIP requirements 

for decreases in emissions of nitrogen 

oxides? 

* * * * * 

(b)(1) The owner and operator of each 

source and each unit located in the State 

of Iowa and Indian country within the 

borders of the State and for which 

requirements are set forth under the TR 

NOX Ozone Season Trading Program in 

subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter 

must comply with such requirements. 

The obligation to comply with such 

requirements with regard to sources and 

units in the State will be eliminated by 

the promulgation of an approval by the 

Administrator of a revision to Iowa’s 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) as 

correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is 

the basis for the TR Federal 

Implementation Plan under § 52.38(b), 

except to the extent the Administrator’s 

approval is partial or conditional. The 

obligation to comply with such 

requirements with regard to sources and 

units located in Indian country within 

the borders of the State will not be 

eliminated by the promulgation of an 

approval by the Administrator of a 

revision to Iowa’s SIP. 

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section, if, at the 

time of the approval of Iowa’s SIP 

revision described in paragraph (b)(1) of 

this section, the Administrator has 

already started recording any allocations 

of TR NOX Ozone Season allowances 

under subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this 

chapter to units in the State for a control 

period in any year, the provisions of 

subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter 

authorizing the Administrator to 

complete the allocation and recordation 

of TR NOX Ozone Season allowances to 

units in the State for each such control 

period shall continue to apply, unless 

provided otherwise by such approval of 

the State’s SIP revision. 

Subpart X—Michigan 

■ 4. Section 52.1186 is amended by 

adding a new paragraph (e) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.1186 Interstate pollutant transport 

provisions; What are the FIP requirements 

for decreases in emissions of nitrogen 

oxides? 

* * * * * 

(e)(1) The owner and operator of each 

source and each unit located in the State 

of Michigan and Indian country within 

the borders of the State and for which 

requirements are set forth under the TR 

NOX Ozone Season Trading Program in 

subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter 

must comply with such requirements. 

The obligation to comply with such 

requirements with regard to sources and 

units in the State will be eliminated by 

the promulgation of an approval by the 

Administrator of a revision to 

Michigan’s State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency 

that is the basis for the TR Federal 

Implementation Plan under § 52.38(b), 

except to the extent the Administrator’s 

approval is partial or conditional. The 

obligation to comply with such 

requirements with regard to sources and 

units located in Indian country within 

the borders of the State will not be 

eliminated by the promulgation of an 

approval by the Administrator of a 

revision to Michigan’s SIP. 

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of 

paragraph (e)(1) of this section, if, at the 

time of the approval of Michigan’s SIP 

revision described in paragraph (e)(1) of 

this section, the Administrator has 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 80775 

already started recording any allocations 

of TR NOX Ozone Season allowances 

under subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this 

chapter to units in the State for a control 

period in any year, the provisions of 

subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter 

authorizing the Administrator to 

complete the allocation and recordation 

of TR NOX Ozone Season allowances to 

units in the State for each such control 

period shall continue to apply, unless 

provided otherwise by such approval of 

the State’s SIP revision. 

Subpart AA—Missouri 

■ 5. Section 52.1326 is amended by 

adding a new paragraph (b) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.1326 Interstate pollutant transport 

provisions; What are the FIP requirements 

for decreases in emissions of nitrogen 

oxides? 

* * * * * 

(b)(1) The owner and operator of each 

source and each unit located in the State 

of Missouri and for which requirements 

are set forth under the TR NOX Ozone 

Season Trading Program in subpart 

BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter must 

comply with such requirements. The 

obligation to comply with such 

requirements will be eliminated by the 

promulgation of an approval by the 

Administrator of a revision to Missouri’s 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) as 

correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is 

the basis for the TR Federal 

Implementation Plan under § 52.38(b), 

except to the extent the Administrator’s 

approval is partial or conditional. 

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section, if, at the 

time of the approval of Missouri’s SIP 

revision described in paragraph (b)(1) of 

this section, the Administrator has 

already started recording any allocations 

of TR NOX Ozone Season allowances 

under subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this 

chapter to units in the State for a control 

period in any year, the provisions of 

subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter 

authorizing the Administrator to 

complete the allocation and recordation 

of TR NOX Ozone Season allowances to 

units in the State for each such control 

period shall continue to apply, unless 

provided otherwise by such approval of 

the State’s SIP revision. 

Subpart LL—Oklahoma 

■ 6. Section 52.1930 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.1930 Interstate pollutant transport 

provisions; What are the FIP requirements 

for decreases in emissions of nitrogen 

oxides? 

(a) The owner and operator of each 

source and each unit located in the State 

of Oklahoma and Indian country within 

the borders of the State and for which 

requirements are set forth under the TR 

NOX Ozone Season Trading Program in 

subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter 

must comply with such requirements. 

The obligation to comply with such 

requirements with regard to sources and 

units in the State will be eliminated by 

the promulgation of an approval by the 

Administrator of a revision to 

Oklahoma’s State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency 

that is the basis for the TR Federal 

Implementation Plan under § 52.38(b), 

except to the extent the Administrator’s 

approval is partial or conditional. The 

obligation to comply with such 

requirements with regard to sources and 

units located in Indian country within 

the borders of the State will not be 

eliminated by the promulgation of an 

approval by the Administrator of a 

revision to Oklahoma’s SIP. 

(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of 

paragraph (a) of this section, if, at the 

time of the approval of Oklahoma’s SIP 

revision described in paragraph (a) of 

this section, the Administrator has 

already started recording any allocations 

of TR NOX Ozone Season allowances 

under subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this 

chapter to units in the State for a control 

period in any year, the provisions of 

subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter 

authorizing the Administrator to 

complete the allocation and recordation 

of TR NOX Ozone Season allowances to 

units in the State for each such control 

period shall continue to apply, unless 

provided otherwise by such approval of 

the State’s SIP revision. 

Subpart YY—Wisconsin 

■ 7. Section 52.2587 is amended by 

adding a new paragraph (e) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.2587 Interstate pollutant transport 

provisions; What are the FIP requirements 

for decreases in emissions of nitrogen 

oxides? 

* * * * * 

(e)(1) The owner and operator of each 

source and each unit located in the State 

of Wisconsin and Indian country within 

the borders of the State and for which 

requirements are set forth under the TR 

NOX Ozone Season Trading Program in 

subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter 

must comply with such requirements. 

The obligation to comply with such 

requirements with regard to sources and 

units in the State will be eliminated by 

the promulgation of an approval by the 

Administrator of a revision to 

Wisconsin’s State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency 

that is the basis for the TR Federal 

Implementation Plan under § 52.38(b), 

except to the extent the Administrator’s 

approval is partial or conditional. The 

obligation to comply with such 

requirements with regard to sources and 

units located in Indian country within 

the borders of the State will not be 

eliminated by the promulgation of an 

approval by the Administrator of a 

revision to Wisconsin’s SIP. 

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of 

paragraph (e)(1) of this section, if, at the 

time of the approval of Wisconsin’s SIP 

revision described in paragraph (e)(1) of 

this section, the Administrator has 

already started recording any allocations 

of TR NOX Ozone Season allowances 

under subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this 

chapter to units in the State for a control 

period in any year, the provisions of 

subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter 

authorizing the Administrator to 

complete the allocation and recordation 

of TR NOX Ozone Season allowances to 

units in the State for each such control 

period shall continue to apply, unless 

provided otherwise by such approval of 

the State’s SIP revision. 

PART 97—[AMENDED] 

■ 8. 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. 

■ 9. Section 97.510 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 97.510 State NOX Ozone Season trading 

budgets, new unit set-asides, Indian 

country new unit set-aside, and variability 

limits. 

(a) The State NOX Ozone Season 

trading budgets, new unit set-asides, 

and Indian country new unit set-asides 

for allocations of TR NOX Ozone Season 

allowances for the control periods in 

2012 and thereafter are as follows: 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
80776 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

State 

NOX Ozone 

Season trading budget 

(tons) * 

for 2012 and 

2013 

New unit setaside (tons) 

for 2012 and 

2013 

Indian country 

new unit setaside (tons) 

for 2012 and 

2013 

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

Arkansas ...................................................................................................................................... 15,037 301 ........................

Florida .......................................................................................................................................... 27,825 529 28 

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 ...................................................................................................................................... 13,432 390 13 

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

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

Mississippi .................................................................................................................................... 10,160 193 10 

Missouri ........................................................................................................................................ 22,762 683 ........................

New Jersey .................................................................................................................................. 3,382 68 ........................

New York ..................................................................................................................................... 8,331 242 8 

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

Ohio ............................................................................................................................................. 40,063 801 ........................

Oklahoma ..................................................................................................................................... 36,567 

21,835 

731 

437 

........................

........................

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

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

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

Texas ........................................................................................................................................... 63,043 1,828 63 

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

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

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

State 

NOX Ozone 

Season trading budget 

(tons) * for 

2014 and 

thereafter 

New unit setaside (tons) 

for 2014 and 

thereafter 

Indian country 

new unit setaside (tons) 

for 2014 and 

thereafter 

Alabama ....................................................................................................................................... 31,499 630 ........................

Arkansas ...................................................................................................................................... 15,037 301 ........................

Florida .......................................................................................................................................... 27,825 529 28 

Georgia ........................................................................................................................................ 18,279 366 ........................

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

Indiana ......................................................................................................................................... 46,175 1,385 ........................

Iowa ............................................................................................................................................. 16,207 308 16 

Kentucky ...................................................................................................................................... 32,674 1,307 ........................

Louisiana ...................................................................................................................................... 13,432 390 13 

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

Michigan ....................................................................................................................................... 27,016 513 27 

Mississippi .................................................................................................................................... 10,160 193 10 

Missouri ........................................................................................................................................ 21,073 632 ........................

New Jersey .................................................................................................................................. 3,382 68 ........................

New York ..................................................................................................................................... 8,331 242 8 

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

Ohio ............................................................................................................................................. 37,792 756 ........................

Oklahoma ..................................................................................................................................... 21,835 437 ........................

Pennsylvania ................................................................................................................................ 51,912 1,038 ........................

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

Tennessee ................................................................................................................................... 8,016 160 ........................

Texas ........................................................................................................................................... 63,043 1,828 63 

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

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

Wisconsin ..................................................................................................................................... 14,296 844 14 

* Each trading budget includes the new unit set-aside and, where applicable, the Indian country new unit set-aside and does not include the 

variability limit. 

(b) The States’ variability limits for 

the State NOX Ozone Season trading 

budgets for the control periods in 2012 

and thereafter are as follows: 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 80777 

State 

Variability 

limits for 

2012 and 

2013 

Variability 

limits for 

2014 and 

thereafter 

Alabama ................................................................................................................................................................... 6,667 6,615 

Arkansas .................................................................................................................................................................. 3,158 3,158 

Florida ...................................................................................................................................................................... 5,843 5,843 

Georgia .................................................................................................................................................................... 5,868 3,839 

Illinois ....................................................................................................................................................................... 4,454 4,454 

Indiana ..................................................................................................................................................................... 9,844 9,697 

Iowa ......................................................................................................................................................................... 3,472 3,403 

Kentucky .................................................................................................................................................................. 7,595 6,862 

Louisiana .................................................................................................................................................................. 2,821 2,821 

Maryland .................................................................................................................................................................. 1,508 1,508 

Michigan ................................................................................................................................................................... 5,889 5,673 

Mississippi ................................................................................................................................................................ 2,134 2,134 

Missouri .................................................................................................................................................................... 4,780 4,425 

New Jersey .............................................................................................................................................................. 710 710 

New York ................................................................................................................................................................. 1,750 1,750 

North Carolina .......................................................................................................................................................... 4,655 3,876 

Ohio ......................................................................................................................................................................... 8,413 7,936 

Oklahoma ................................................................................................................................................................. 7,679 

4,585 

4,585 

Pennsylvania ............................................................................................................................................................ 10,962 10,902 

South Carolina ......................................................................................................................................................... 2,921 2,921 

Tennessee ............................................................................................................................................................... 3,131 1,683 

Texas ....................................................................................................................................................................... 13,239 13,239 

Virginia ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3,035 3,035 

West Virginia ............................................................................................................................................................ 5,309 4,891 

Wisconsin ................................................................................................................................................................. 3,105 3,002 

§ 97.521 [Amended] 

■ 10. Section 97.521 is amended by: 

■ a. In paragraph (a) add, after the words 

‘‘November 7, 2011’’, the words ‘‘or, 

with regard to units in Iowa, Michigan, 

Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin, 

March 26, 2012’’; 

■ b. In paragraph (b) introductory text, 

add, after the words ‘‘November 7, 

2011’’, the words ‘‘or, with regard to 

units in Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, 

Oklahoma, and Wisconsin, March 26, 

2012’’, add, after the words ‘‘October 17, 

2011’’, the words ‘‘or, with regard to TR 

NOX Ozone Season units in Iowa, 

Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, and 

Wisconsin, March 6, 2012’’, and add, 

after the words ‘‘April 1, 2012’’, the 

words ‘‘or, with regard to units in Iowa, 

Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, and 

Wisconsin, October 1, 2012’’; 

■ c. In paragraph (b)(1), add, after the 

words ‘‘April 1, 2012’’, the words ‘‘or, 

with regard to TR NOX Ozone Season 

units in Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, 

Oklahoma, and Wisconsin, by October 

1, 2012’’, and add, after the words 

‘‘April 15, 2012’’, the words ‘‘or, with 

regard to units in Iowa, Michigan, 

Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin, 

October 15, 2012’’; 

■ d. In paragraph (b)(2), add, after the 

words ‘‘April 1, 2012’’, the words ‘‘or, 

with regard to units in Iowa, Michigan, 

Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin, 

October 1, 2012’’, and add, after the 

words ‘‘by October 1, 2012’’ whenever 

they appear, the words ‘‘or, with regard 

to units in Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, 

Oklahoma, and Wisconsin, April 1, 

2013’’; and 

■ e. In paragraph (b)(3), add, after the 

words ‘‘April 1, 2012’’, the words ‘‘or, 

with regard to units in Iowa, Michigan, 

Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin, 

October 1, 2012’’, and add, after the 

words ‘‘by October 1, 2012’’ whenever 

they appear, the words ‘‘or, with regard 

to units in Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, 

Oklahoma, and Wisconsin, April 1, 

2013’’. 

[FR Doc. 2011–32821 Filed 12–23–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 62 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2011–0006(a); FRL– 

9611–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Plans for Designated Facilities and 

Pollutants; State of Florida; Control of 

Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste 

Incinerator (HMIWI) Emissions From 

Existing Facilities 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) section 111(d)/129 state 

plan (the Plan) submitted by the Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection 

(FDEP) for the State of Florida on 

December 21, 2010, for implementing 

and enforcing the Emissions Guidelines 

(EGs) applicable to existing Hospital/ 

Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators 

(HMIWIs). These EGs apply to devices 

that combust any amount of hospital 

waste and/or medical/infectious waste. 

DATES: This direct final rule is effective 

February 27, 2012 without further 

notice, unless EPA receives adverse 

comment by January 26, 2012. If EPA 

receives such comments, it will publish 

a timely withdrawal of the direct final 

rule in the Federal Register and inform 

the public that the rule will not take 

effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R04–OAR–2011–0006 by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: garver.daniel@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9095. 

4. Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2011–0006, 

Daniel Garver, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth 

Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Mr. 

Daniel Garver, Air Toxics Assessment 

and Implementation Section, Air Toxics 

and Monitoring Branch, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES