10324 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

1 In this preamble, EPA uses the terms 

‘‘significant contribution’’ and ‘‘interference with 

maintenance’’ to refer to the emissions that must be 

prohibited pursuant to Clean Air Act section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) because they significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in another state. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 97 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0491; FRL–9631–8] 

RIN 2060–AR22 

Revisions to Federal Implementation 

Plans To Reduce Interstate Transport 

of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing revisions to 

the Transport Rule that was published 

on August 8, 2011 (76 FR 48208). These 

revisions address discrepancies in unitspecific modeling assumptions that 

affect the proper calculation of 

Transport Rule state budgets and 

assurance levels in Florida, Louisiana, 

Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, New 

Jersey, New York, Texas, and 

Wisconsin, as well as new unit setasides in Arkansas and Texas. EPA is 

also finalizing allowance allocation 

revisions to specific units covered by 

certain consent decrees that restrict the 

use of those allowances. The resulting 

budgets maintain substantial emission 

reductions from historic levels and are 

consistent with the final Transport 

Rule’s methodology for defining 

significant contribution and interference 

with maintenance.1

EPA is also finalizing the proposal to 

amend the assurance penalty provisions 

of the rule to make them effective 

beginning January 1, 2014. EPA believes 

that deferring the effective date of the 

assurance provisions will provide 

additional program confidence and will 

not compromise the air quality goals of 

the program. 

In addition, we are finalizing 

corrections of typographical errors in 

the rule. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

April 23, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. OAR–EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0491. 

All documents in the docket are listed 

on the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed on the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

http://www.regulations.gov or in hard 

copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA 

West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the Air Docket is (202) 566– 

1742. This Docket Facility is open from 

8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

Docket telephone number is (929) 566– 

1742, fax (202) 566–1741. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

general questions concerning this 

action, contact Gabrielle Stevens, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Clean Air Markets Division, MC 6204J, 

Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, 

telephone (202) 343–9252, email at 

stevens.gabrielle@epa.gov. Electronic 

copies of this document can be accessed 

through the EPA Web site at: http:// 

epa.gov/crossstaterule. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations 

The following are abbreviations of 

terms used in this final rule: 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

EGU Electric Generating Unit 

FIP Federal Implementation Plan 

FR Federal Register 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ICR Information Collection Request 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

NODA Notice of Data Availability 

NOX Nitrogen Oxides 

SIP State Implementation Plan 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PM2.5 Fine Particulate Matter, Less Than 2.5 

Micrometers 

PM Particulate Matter 

RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis 

SNPR Supplemental Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide 

TSD Technical Support Document 

II. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

Regulated Entities. Entities regulated 

by this action primarily are fossil fuelfired boilers, turbines, and combined 

cycle units that serve generators that 

produce electricity for sale or cogenerate 

electricity for sale and steam. Regulated 

categories and entities include: 

Category NAICS Code Examples of potentially regulated 

industries 

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

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

regulated by this action. This table lists 

the types of entities which EPA is now 

aware could potentially be regulated by 

this action. Other types of entities not 

listed in this table could also be 

regulated. To determine whether your 

facility, company, business, 

organization, etc., is regulated by this 

action, you should carefully examine 

the applicability criteria in §§ 97.404, 

97.504, and 97.604 of title 40 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations. If you have 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

the person listed in the preceding FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

B. Where can I get a copy of this 

document and other related 

information? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this final 

rule will also be available on the World 

Wide Web. Following signature by the 

EPA Administrator, a copy of this action 

will be posted on the transport rule Web 

site http://www.epa.gov/airtransport. 

C. How is this preamble organized? 

I. Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations 

II. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. Where can I get a copy of this document 

and other related information? 

C. How is the preamble organized? 

III. Executive Summary 

IV. Specific Revisions 

A. Budgets/New Unit Set-Aside Revisions 

and Recordation of Allowances 

B. Allowance Allocation Revisions to Units 

Covered by Existing Utility Consent 

Decrees 

C. Assurance Penalty Provisions 

D. Typographical Errors 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 10325 

2Throughout this preamble, EPA refers to a state 

budget for 2012 and 2013 as a ‘‘2012’’ state budget 

and refers to a state budget for 2014 and thereafter 

as a ‘‘2014’’ state budget. Therefore, any revision of 

a 2012 state budget would apply to the state budget 

for 2012 and 2013, and any revision of a 2014 state 

budget would apply to the state budget for 2014 and 

thereafter. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

K. Congressional Review Act 

L. Judicial Review 

III. Executive Summary 

In a previous proposal published on 

October 14, 2011 (76 FR 63860), EPA 

identified potential errors in unitspecific modeling assumptions that 

affect the proper calculation of 

Transport Rule state budgets and 

assurance levels in Florida, Louisiana, 

Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, New 

Jersey, New York, Texas, and 

Wisconsin, as well as potential errors 

affecting the proper calculation of new 

unit set-asides in Arkansas and Texas. 

EPA is now taking final action to: (1) 

Revise Michigan’s annual NOX budget 

to account for an erroneously assumed 

selective catalytic reduction (SCR) 

emission control device at one unit; (2) 

revise Nebraska’s annual NOX budget to 

account for an erroneously assumed 

SCR emission control device at one unit; 

(3) revise the Texas SO2 budget to 

account for erroneously assumed flue 

gas desulphurization (FGD, or scrubber) 

emission control devices at three units 

and revised assumptions regarding flue 

gas treatment in existing scrubbers at 

seven units; (4) revise the Arkansas 

ozone-season new unit set-aside to 

account for erroneously omitted 

projected emissions from one new unit; 

(5) revise the Texas new unit set-aside 

to account for erroneously omitted 

projected emissions for SO2, ozoneseason NOX, and annual NOX from one 

new unit; (6) revise New Jersey’s ozone 

season NOX, annual NOX, and SO2

budgets to account for erroneously 

assumed FGD and SCR emission control 

devices at one unit, and taking into 

account operational constraints likely to 

necessitate non-economic generation at 

six facilities; (7) revise Wisconsin’s SO2

and annual NOX budgets to account for 

erroneously assumed FGD and SCR 

devices at two units; (8) revise New 

York’s SO2, annual NOX, and ozone 

season NOX budgets taking into account 

operational constraints likely to 

necessitate non-economic generation at 

ten units; (9) revise Louisiana’s ozone 

season NOX budget taking into account 

operational constraints likely to 

necessitate non-economic generation at 

twelve units; (10) revise Mississippi’s 

ozone season NOX budget taking into 

account operational constraints likely to 

necessitate non-economic generation at 

four units; (11) revise the Texas annual 

NOX and ozone season NOX budgets 

taking into account operational 

constraints likely to necessitate noneconomic generation at seven units; and 

(12) revise Florida’s ozone-season NOX

budget taking into account the 

immediate-term unavailability of a 

previously operating nuclear unit. See 

section IV.A of this preamble for a 

discussion of these revisions and any 

additional changes. 

The proposed revisions to state 

budgets also entailed proposed revisions 

to the affected states’ assurance levels, 

as the variability limit component of the 

assurance level for each state is 

calculated as a percentage of the 

applicable budget. Therefore, for each 

revision EPA is finalizing to a state 

budget, EPA is also finalizing 

corresponding revisions to the 

calculation of that state’s variability 

limit and assurance level pertinent to 

that state budget. Assurance levels are 

only applicable to 2014 and beyond, 

given the 2014 effective date of the 

assurance provisions as described below 

and in section IV.C of this preamble. 

The revised budgets maintain 

substantial emission reductions from 

historic levels and are consistent with 

the final Transport Rule’s methodology 

for defining significant contribution and 

interference with maintenance.2 No 

changes to that methodology were 

proposed, and EPA did not reopen the 

methodology established in the final 

Transport Rule for public comment. 

EPA also did not propose any change to 

the levels of stringency (i.e., cost per 

ton) selected in the final Transport 

Rule’s determination of significant 

contribution and interference with 

maintenance and did not reopen that 

issue for public comment. For more 

information, see the ‘‘Final Revisions 

Rule Significant Contribution 

Assessment Technical Support 

Document’’ in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

In the proposed revisions rule, EPA 

solicited further information from the 

public that may support similar 

revisions to Transport Rule state 

budgets or new unit set-asides (76 FR 

63868). EPA believed that the scope of 

such information supporting potential 

revisions was limited, considering that 

EPA had already conducted several 

notice-and-comment processes through 

initial proposal of the Transport Rule 

and multiple notices of data availability 

(NODAs) to prompt the public to 

provide the relevant input information 

that informs the calculation of the 

Transport Rule state budgets. By 

providing, in this rulemaking, an 

additional opportunity for comment on 

aspects of Transport Rule state budgets, 

EPA also addressed some of the issues 

and concerns raised in many of the 

petitions for administrative 

reconsideration of the final Transport 

Rule. 

Based on relevant comments received 

that merited revisions, EPA is making 

additional revisions in a separate direct 

final rule with parallel proposal 

rulemaking. 

EPA also proposed revisions to 

allowance allocations at certain units in 

six states that are affected by existing 

utility consent decrees. When 

establishing the state budgets under the 

final Transport Rule, EPA accounted for 

the emission reduction requirements of 

these consent decrees; therefore, the 

Transport Rule state budgets sustain the 

environmental protection secured by 

those existing utility consent decrees. 

However, when dividing those state 

budgets into individual unit-level 

allowance allocations, EPA included 

allowance allocations to certain units 

that exceed those units’ allowable 

emissions under the terms of the 

applicable consent decree. Because EPA 

already secured the environmental 

improvements required by the consent 

decrees by incorporating their emission 

reductions into the Transport Rule state 

budgets, there is no environmental need 

to prevent the allowances from being 

used for compliance by sources subject 

to the Transport Rule, aside from those 

sources whose emissions are restricted 

by the terms of the consent decrees to 

which they are subject. Therefore, EPA 

proposed to revise Transport Rule unitlevel allowance allocations to the 

specific units affected by these consent 

decrees to reflect their maximum 

allowable emissions, such that none of 

the allowances affected by the consent 

decrees are unnecessarily removed from 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
10326 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

3For example, the same facilities for which EPA 

proposed these revisions reported higher scrubber 

SO2 removal efficiencies in 2009 on the EIA 923 

form than they reported on the same form in 2008. 

use for compliance by other units. EPA 

proposed this revision to benefit 

program implementation. EPA is 

finalizing this revision as proposed, 

with small adjustments to reflect 

provisions under existing consent 

decrees that account for extraordinary 

events. See section IV.B of this preamble 

for further explanation of Transport 

Rule units also covered by existing 

utility consent decrees. 

EPA is finalizing its proposal to revise 

the assurance penalty provisions of the 

Transport Rule to make them effective 

January 1, 2014. The revision of the 

effective date of the assurance 

provisions will promote the 

development of allowance market 

liquidity, thereby smoothing the 

transition from the Clean Air Interstate 

Rule (CAIR) programs, which were 

temporarily re-instated as of the Court’s 

action on December 30, 2011 to stay the 

Transport Rule, at such time as the 

Court lifts the stay of the Transport Rule 

and provides clarity on implementation 

dates for the Transport Rule programs. 

See section IV.C of this preamble for a 

further discussion of the assurance 

provisions effective date. 

EPA is also finalizing corrections to 

typographical errors in certain sections 

of rule text in parts 52 and 97 of the 

final Transport Rule. See section IV.D of 

this preamble for further explanation of 

these corrections. 

On December 30, 2011, the Court of 

Appeals for the DC Circuit in EME 

Homer City Generation, L.P., v. 

Environmental Protection Agency, No. 

11–1302 (EME Homer City) issued an 

Order staying the final Transport Rule. 

While this action revises that rule, it is 

consistent with and is unaffected by the 

Court’s Order staying the underlying 

final Transport Rule. Finalizing this 

action in and of itself does not impose 

any requirements on regulated units or 

states. 

IV. Specific Revisions 

A. Budget/New Unit Set-Aside Revisions 

and Recordation of Allowances 

EPA is finalizing the following 

revisions: 

(1) Increase Michigan’s 2012 and 2014 

annual NOX budgets in accordance with 

a revision to the final Transport Rule 

analysis that erroneously assumed that 

an SCR exists at Monroe Unit 2. 

EPA is finalizing revisions to 

Michigan’s 2012 and 2014 annual NOX

budgets as proposed. This action revises 

the assumption of an SCR at Monroe 

Unit 2. This SCR is planned, but is not 

expected to be online in 2012 or 2014. 

Commenters did not identify any errors 

that would invalidate EPA’s approach to 

making the proposed revisions 

addressing Monroe Unit 2. This results 

in a 5,228 ton increase in the state’s 

annual NOX budget. See ‘‘Final 

Revisions Rule State Budgets and New 

Unit Set-Asides TSD’’ in the docket for 

this rulemaking for a quantitative 

demonstration of these revisions. 

EPA adjusted Michigan’s 2012 and 

2014 ozone-season NOX budgets to 

reflect the corrections to the Monroe 

Unit 2 emissions when it included 

Michigan in the Transport Rule ozoneseason NOX program (76 FR 80760, 

December 27, 2011), as previously 

proposed (76 FR 40662, July 11, 2011). 

(2) Increase Nebraska’s 2012 and 2014 

annual NOX budgets in accordance with 

a revision to the final Transport Rule 

analysis that erroneously assumed that 

an SCR exists at Nebraska City Unit 1. 

EPA is finalizing Nebraska’s 2012 and 

2014 annual NOX budgets, as proposed, 

to correct an assumption that an SCR 

exists at Nebraska City Unit 1. There is 

no SCR that is present, planned, or 

under construction at the unit. 

Commenters did not identify any errors 

that would invalidate EPA’s approach to 

addressing Nebraska City Unit 1. This 

adjustment results in an increase of 

3,599 tons to the state’s annual NOX

budget. See ‘‘Final Revisions Rule State 

Budgets and New Unit Set-Asides TSD’’ 

in the docket for this rulemaking for a 

quantitative demonstration of these 

revisions, as well as for the impacts this 

revision has on the state’s assurance 

level, new unit set-aside, and Indian 

country new unit set-aside, and ‘‘Final 

Revisions to Unit-Level Allocations 

under the FIPs’’ in the docket to this 

rulemaking for a quantitative 

demonstration of the effect of this 

revision on unit-level allocations under 

the FIP. 

(3) Increase the Texas 2012 and 2014 

SO2 budgets in accordance with a 

revision to the final Transport Rule 

analysis that erroneously assumed that 

scrubbers exist at W.A. Parish Unit 6, 

J.T. Deely Unit 1, and J.T. Deely Unit 2, 

and that assumed full flue gas treatment 

in existing scrubbers at Martin Lake, 

Monticello, Sandow, W.A. Parish, and 

Oklaunion facilities. 

EPA is finalizing revisions to the 

modeling assumptions affecting the 

calculation of the Texas SO2 budget, 

with an adjustment described below 

based on comments received. EPA is 

finalizing increases to the Texas SO2

budget in accordance with a revision to 

the final Transport Rule analysis that 

erroneously assumed flue-gas 

desulfurization (FGD) technology is 

installed on J.T. Deely Units 1 and 2 and 

W.A. Parish Unit 6 by 2012. As 

explained in the proposal, these FGDs 

are no longer scheduled to be installed 

in 2012 (76 FR 63864). Commenters did 

not identify any errors that would 

invalidate EPA’s approach to addressing 

J.T. Deely Units 1 and 2 or W.A. Parish 

Unit 6. 

EPA is also finalizing an increase to 

the Texas SO2 budget in accordance 

with revised assumptions regarding the 

SO2 removal efficiency of existing 

scrubbers on units at the Martin Lake, 

Monticello, Sandow, W.A. Parish, and 

Oklaunion facilities. These facilities in 

Texas currently face immediate-term 

limitations regarding the amount of flue 

gas that can be treated in their existing 

FGDs. In the final Transport Rule 

analysis, EPA relied on the SO2 removal 

efficiency that these facilities reported 

at their scrubbers to the Energy 

Information Administration (EIA). 

However, EPA has since determined 

that these particular facilities’ reports 

only intended to address the removal 

efficiency for the portion of the flue gas 

treated in the scrubber. For this reason, 

that removal efficiency should not be 

applied to the total amount of sulfur 

combusted in the coal consumed (as 

some of the flue gas at these units must 

be vented without being treated in the 

scrubber as originally constructed). 

When the SO2 removal rates are 

decreased to reflect the reported 

operational constraint of each affected 

scrubber’s flue gas treatment, the 

projected emission level for Texas, after 

all significant contribution and 

interference with maintenance 

identified in the final Transport Rule is 

addressed, correspondingly rises. 

In the proposed revisions rule, EPA 

quantified this revision using these 

scrubbers’ SO2 removal efficiencies as 

reported for 2008 on EIA form 923. 

Public comments on the rule pointed 

out that data reported by these units on 

EIA form 860 offered more technically 

detailed explanation of these scrubbers’ 

SO2 removal efficiencies. In addition, 

EPA based all of its assumptions of 

existing scrubber performance in the 

final Transport Rule analysis on values 

reported by sources on EIA form 860, as 

EPA believes this data captures scrubber 

performance capability as opposed to 

performance in any particular year, 

which can vary depending on the 

frequency that a facility chooses to 

operate its FGD.3 EPA believes that 

basing the effective removal rate for 

these units on EIA 860 constitutes a 

more accurate and reliable data source 

for this rulemaking, and EPA is 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 10327 

finalizing this revision using this data as 

the basis for the recalculated projected 

emissions at these units, which inform 

the state budget. 

In accordance with the revised unitlevel input assumptions regarding 

existing scrubbers and adjustments to 

the flue gas treatment calculations at the 

Texas units described above, EPA is 

increasing the state’s 2012 and 2014 SO2

budgets each by 50,517 tons. 

See ‘‘Final Revisions Rule State 

Budgets and New Unit Set-Asides TSD’’ 

in the docket for this rulemaking for a 

quantitative demonstration of these 

revisions. 

(4) Increase Arkansas’ ozone-season 

NOX new unit set-aside in accordance 

with revisions to the final Transport 

Rule’s calculation of the new unit setaside that erroneously omitted Plum 

Point Unit 1’s projected emissions. 

EPA is finalizing an increase of 

3 percent to the portion of Arkansas’ 

ozone-season budget dedicated to the 

new unit set-aside account. This change 

yields a total new unit set-aside of 

5 percent as the portion of Arkansas’ 

ozone-season budget dedicated to the 

new unit set-aside account (as opposed 

to the 2 percent previously established 

under the final Transport Rule). The 

revision is consistent with the new unit 

set-aside methodology described in the 

final rule. As explained in the proposal, 

the updated value simply reflects the 

revised classification of Plum Point Unit 

1, which commenced commercial 

operation on or after January 1, 2010, as 

a new unit for purposes of unit-level 

allowance allocations under the final 

Transport Rule’s unit-level allocation 

methodology (76 FR 48290). 

Commenters did not identify any errors 

that would invalidate EPA’s approach to 

addressing Plum Point Unit 1. See the 

‘‘Final Revisions Rule State Budgets and 

New Unit Set-Asides TSD’’ in the 

docket for this rulemaking for a 

quantitative demonstration of these 

revisions. 

These revisions to the Arkansas new 

unit set-aside result in changes to 

allowance allocations to existing units, 

but they do not change the state’s 

overall budget. See ‘‘Final Revisions 

Rule Unit-Level Allocations under the 

FIPs’’ in the docket to this rulemaking. 

(5) Increase Texas’ ozone-season NOX, 

annual NOX, and SO2 new unit setasides in accordance with a revision to 

the final Transport Rule’s calculations 

of the new unit set-asides that 

erroneously omitted Oak Grove Unit 2’s 

projected emissions. 

EPA is finalizing a revision to the 

calculation of the new unit set-asides for 

ozone-season NOX, annual NOX, and 

SO2 in Texas to reflect the revised 

classification of one unit as a new unit 

for purposes of unit-level allowance 

allocation. As explained in the proposal, 

this unit, Oak Grove Unit 2, commenced 

commercial operation on or after 

January 1, 2010, and should be 

considered a new unit under the final 

Transport Rule’s unit-level allocation 

methodology. Including this unit’s 

projected emissions in the calculation 

yields revised new unit set-asides of 

4 percent of the state’s ozone-season 

NOX budget, 4 percent of the state’s 

annual NOX budget, and 5 percent of the 

state’s SO2 budget. Commenters did not 

identify any errors that would invalidate 

EPA’s approach to addressing Oak 

Grove Unit 2. See ‘‘Final Revisions Rule 

State Budgets and New Unit Set-Asides 

TSD’’ in the docket for this rulemaking 

for a quantitative demonstration of these 

revisions. 

These revisions to the Texas new unit 

set-asides result in changes to allowance 

allocations to existing units, but they do 

not change the state’s overall budget. 

See ‘‘Final Revisions Rule Unit-Level 

Allocations under the FIPs’’ in the 

docket to this rulemaking. 

(6) Increase New Jersey’s 2012 SO2

budget and 2012 and 2014 ozone-season 

and annual NOX budgets in accordance 

with revisions to the final Transport 

Rule analysis that erroneously assumed 

that an SCR and scrubber exist at BL 

England Unit 1 and to reflect 

operational constraints likely to 

necessitate non-economic dispatch at 

six other facilities. 

EPA is finalizing New Jersey’s ozoneseason NOX, annual NOX, and SO2

budgets to reflect revisions to assumed 

control technologies at BL England Unit 

1 (2012 only) and operational 

constraints affecting units at six other 

facilities. Commenters did not identify 

any errors that would invalidate EPA’s 

approach to making the proposed 

revisions addressing BL England Unit 1, 

which were described in the proposal 

(76 FR 63865). EPA is also finalizing 

revisions to New Jersey’s state budgets 

based on information demonstrating 

that northern New Jersey is an out-ofmerit-order dispatch area. Units at six 

New Jersey plants (Bergen, Edison, 

Essex, Kearny, Linden, and Sewaren 

Generating Stations) are frequently 

dispatched out of regional economic 

order as a result of short-run limitations 

on the ability to meet local electricity 

demand with generation from outside 

the area. EPA is making only a minor 

adjustment in the way these budget 

revisions are calculated based on public 

comments regarding the eligible sources 

of generation that would be offset by the 

assumption of increased generation at 

the identified units. Commenters argued 

that cogeneration units would be less 

likely than other generators to adjust 

their dispatch in order to maintain the 

system’s equilibrium between electricity 

supply and demand, as operation of 

these units would remain supported by 

steam demand. EPA agrees with these 

commenters and has recalculated the 

associated budget revisions while 

excluding cogeneration units from the 

calculation. 

EPA re-calculated projected emissions 

from BL England Unit 1 and the six 

plants with near-term out-of-merit-order 

generation to account for the input 

assumption changes finalized in this 

action. These calculations yield 

increases to the New Jersey 2012 state 

budgets for SO2 of 2,096 tons, annual 

NOX of 952 tons, and ozone-season NOX

of 746 tons; and 2014 state budget 

increases for annual NOX of 679 tons, 

and ozone-season NOX of 349 tons. See 

‘‘Final Revisions Rule State Budgets and 

New Unit Set-Asides TSD’’ in the 

docket for this rulemaking for a 

quantitative demonstration of these 

revisions. 

(7) Increase Wisconsin’s 2014 SO2

budget and 2012 and 2014 annual NOX

budget in accordance with a revision to 

the final Transport Rule analysis that 

erroneously assumed that an FGD exists 

at Weston Unit 3, wet FGDs (instead of 

dry FGDs) exist at Columbia Units 1 and 

2, and a SCR exists at John P. Madgett 

Unit 1. 

EPA is finalizing the proposed 

increase to Wisconsin’s SO2 budget. As 

explained in the proposal, EPA 

proposed to adjust Wisconsin’s 2014 

SO2 budget to reflect Weston Unit 3’s 

operation without an FGD in 2014; and 

dry scrubbers instead of wet scrubbers 

at Columbia Units 1 and 2. Commenters 

did not identify any errors that would 

invalidate EPA’s approach to making 

the proposed revisions addressing 

Weston Unit 3 or Columbia Units 1 and 

2. To account for these adjustments, 

EPA is increasing the Wisconsin SO2

budget by a total of 7,757 tons in 2014. 

EPA is also finalizing the proposed 

increase to Wisconsin’s annual NOX

budgets in 2012 and 2014. As explained 

in the proposal to this action, there is no 

SCR expected to be online in 2012 or 

2014 at John P. Madgett Unit 1. 

Commenters did not identify any errors 

that would invalidate EPA’s approach to 

addressing John P. Madgett Unit 1. 

Therefore, EPA is increasing 

Wisconsin’s annual NOX budgets by 

2,473 tons. 

See ‘‘Final Revisions Rule State 

Budgets and New Unit Set-Asides TSD’’ 

in the docket for this rulemaking for a 

quantitative demonstration of these 

revisions, as well as for the impacts this 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
10328 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

revision has on the state’s assurance 

level, new unit set-aside, and Indian 

country new unit set-aside, and ‘‘Final 

Revisions to Unit-Level Allocations 

under the FIPs’’ in the docket to this 

rulemaking for a quantitative 

demonstration of the effect of this 

revision on unit-level allocations under 

the FIP. 

EPA adjusted Wisconsin’s 2012 and 

2014 ozone-season NOX budgets to 

reflect the corrections to the John P. 

Madgett emissions when it included 

Wisconsin in the Transport Rule ozoneseason NOX program (76 FR 80760, 

December 27, 2011), as previously 

proposed (76 FR 40662, July 11, 2011). 

(8) Increase New York’s 2012 and 

2014 ozone-season NOX, annual NOX, 

and SO2 budgets in accordance with a 

revision to the final Transport Rule 

analysis that did not reflect operational 

constraints likely to necessitate noneconomic dispatch at four plants. 

EPA is finalizing increases to the New 

York state ozone-season NOX, annual 

NOX, and SO2 budgets in 2012 and 

2014, to satisfy three specific 

immediate-term operational constraints 

documented by the New York 

Independent System Operator (NYISO). 

These three constraints are referred to 

here as the N–1–1 Contingency, the 

Minimum Oil Burn Rules, and out-ofmerit-order dispatch conditions, which 

collectively affect the likely 2012 and 

2014 operations of specific units in the 

New York City and Long Island areas. 

See the proposal to this rule for details 

(76 FR 63865, October 14, 2011). 

Commenters did not identify any errors 

that would invalidate EPA’s approach to 

addressing the units identified by the 

proposal with near-term out-of-meritorder generation in New York State. 

EPA re-calculated projected emissions 

from the units identified in the proposal 

at Arthur Kill Generating Station, 

Ravenswood, Astoria Generating 

Station, and Northport facilities with 

near-term out-of-merit-order generation 

to account for the input assumption 

changes finalized in this action. These 

calculations yield increases to the New 

York 2012 and 2014 state budgets for 

SO2 of 3,527 tons, for annual NOX of 

3,485 tons, and for ozone-season NOX of 

1,911 tons. See ‘‘Final Revisions Rule 

State Budgets and New Unit Set-Asides 

TSD’’ in the docket for this rulemaking 

for a quantitative demonstration of these 

revisions, as well as for the impacts this 

revision has on the state’s assurance 

level, new unit set-aside, and Indian 

country new unit set-aside, and ‘‘Final 

Revisions to Unit-Level Allocations 

under the FIPs’’ in the docket to this 

rulemaking for a quantitative 

demonstration of the effect of this 

revision on unit-level allocations under 

the FIP. 

(9) Increase Louisiana’s 2012 and 

2014 ozone-season NOX budgets in 

accordance with a revision to the final 

Transport Rule analysis to reflect 

operational constraints likely to 

necessitate non-economic dispatch at 

twelve units. 

EPA is finalizing revisions to 

Louisiana’s 2012 and 2014 state ozone 

season NOX budgets based on 

assumptions regarding near-term noneconomic dispatch of certain units. As 

explained in the proposed revisions 

rule, conditions in these out-of-meritorder dispatch areas are likely to 

necessitate what would otherwise be 

non-economic generation at five 

Louisiana plants (R.S. Nelson, Nine 

Mile Point, Michoud, Little Gypsy, and 

Waterford) in the immediate future, as 

explained in detail in the proposed 

revisions rule (76 FR 63866). EPA is 

making only a minor adjustment in the 

way these budget revisions are 

calculated based on public comments 

regarding the eligible sources of 

generation that would be offset by the 

assumption of increased generation at 

the identified units. Commenters argued 

that cogeneration units would be less 

likely than other generators to adjust 

their dispatch in order to maintain the 

system’s equilibrium between electricity 

supply and demand, as operation of 

these units would remain supported by 

steam demand. EPA agrees with these 

commenters and has recalculated the 

associated budget revisions while 

excluding cogeneration units from the 

calculation. 

EPA is increasing Louisiana’s 2012 

and 2014 state budgets for ozone-season 

NOX by 4,594 tons. See ‘‘Final Revisions 

Rule State Budgets and New Unit SetAsides TSD’’ in the docket for this 

rulemaking for a quantitative 

demonstration of these revisions. 

(10) Increase Mississippi’s 2012 and 

2014 ozone-season NOX budgets in 

accordance with a revision to the final 

Transport Rule analysis to reflect 

operational constraints likely to 

necessitate non-economic dispatch at 

certain units. 

EPA is finalizing revisions to 

Mississippi’s 2012 and 2014 state ozone 

season NOX budget based on conditions 

in this out-of-merit-order dispatch area 

that are likely to necessitate what would 

otherwise be non-economic generation 

at three Mississippi plants (Rex Brown, 

Gerald Andrus, Baxter Wilson) in the 

immediate future, as explained in detail 

in the proposed revisions rule (76 FR 

63866). EPA is making only a minor 

adjustment in the way these budget 

revisions are calculated in order to 

replace the proposal’s use of an annual 

NOX rate with a more appropriate 

ozone-season NOX rate to calculate the 

revision to the state’s ozone-season NOX

budgets. 

EPA re-calculated the emissions from 

the three plants with non-economic 

generation to account for the input 

assumption changes. These calculations 

yield increases to Mississippi’s 2012 

and 2014 state budgets for ozone-season 

NOX of 2,154 tons. See ‘‘Final Revisions 

Rule State Budgets and New Unit SetAsides TSD’’ in the docket for this 

rulemaking for a quantitative 

demonstration of these revisions. 

(11) Increase the Texas 2012 and 2014 

annual and ozone-season NOX budgets 

in accordance with a revision to the 

final Transport Rule analysis to reflect 

operational constraints likely to 

necessitate non-economic dispatch at 

two plants. 

EPA is finalizing revisions to Texas’s 

2012 and 2014 state annual and ozone 

season NOX budgets as proposed. EPA 

is adjusting Texas’s emission budgets 

based on analysis projecting the 

minimum frequency units at two plants, 

Lewis Creek and Sabine, will have to 

run in the immediate-term for noneconomic purposes, according to data 

provided by the utility operating those 

units. Commenters did not identify any 

errors that would invalidate EPA’s 

approach to making the proposed 

revisions addressing the units identified 

by the proposal with near-term out-ofmerit-order generation in Texas. 

These revisions yield increases to 

Texas’s 2012 and 2014 state budgets for 

annual NOX of 1,375 tons and ozoneseason NOX of 1,375 tons. See ‘‘Final 

Revisions Rule State Budgets and New 

Unit Set-Asides TSD’’ in the docket for 

this rulemaking for a quantitative 

demonstration of these revisions. 

(12) Increase Florida’s 2012 ozoneseason NOX budget in accordance with 

a revision to the final Transport Rule 

analysis to reflect the immediate-term 

unavailability of Crystal River Unit 3, a 

nuclear unit. 

EPA is finalizing the increase of 819 

tons to Florida’s 2012 ozone-season 

NOX budget as proposed. As explained 

in the proposal, Crystal River Unit 3 is 

currently experiencing an extended 

outage that renders its nuclear 

generation unavailable in the immediate 

future (76 FR 63867). EPA received 

public comments requesting that this 

revision to Florida’s ozone-season NOX

budget be extended into 2014 and 

beyond, on the basis that future 

generation from Crystal River Unit 3 is 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 10329 

4 In 2002, during NRC-required inspections, plant 

workers discovered a football-sized cavity atop the 

reactor vessel head. The Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) ordered the plant closed and it 

stayed closed for a total of two years while 

undergoing increased NRC scrutiny. It reopened in 

2004. See http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0925/ 

ML092540084.pdf. 

5The plant operator has announced intentions to 

return the unit to service by 2014 (https://www.

progress-energy.com/company/media-room/newsarchive/press-release.page?title=Progress+

Energy+provides+update+on+Crystal+

River+Nuclear+Plant+outage&pubdate=06-27- 

2011). 

uncertain. EPA does not believe this 

revision has merit on that timeframe.4

Commenters did not provide any 

evidence that Crystal River Unit 3 

would fail to return to service upon the 

conclusion of the current extended 

outage, and the unit is in fact expected 

to return to service in 2014.5

Furthermore, EPA notes that the 

potential outage of a nuclear unit in any 

given year is a scenario that the 

Transport Rule’s assurance provisions 

were explicitly designed to 

accommodate. The final Transport 

Rule’s methodology for calculating 

variability limits (the degree to which a 

state’s emissions are permitted to 

exceed its budget in any given year 

under the program) is based on a 

decade-long observation of historic yearto-year variability in states’ heat input at 

covered units, which would capture the 

impact of disruptions at other sources of 

generation (such as a nuclear outage) on 

emissions at covered units. As EPA 

explained in the final Transport Rule, a 

state budget represents remaining 

emissions at covered units in an average 

year after the elimination of significant 

contribution and interference with 

maintenance, whereas the variability 

limit accommodates year-to-year 

fluctuation of state-level emissions 

around that average outcome consistent 

with historically observed year-to-year 

variability in state-level heat input at 

covered units. EPA believes it is 

appropriate to quantify an ‘‘average 

year’’ of projected emissions in Florida 

for 2014 and beyond to include 

projected generation from Crystal River 

Unit 3, while allowing the variability 

limit to accommodate the potential that 

such generation may be temporarily 

unavailable in any given year in that 

timeframe. As such, EPA is not 

extending this revision to Florida’s 

ozone-season NOX budget for 2014 and 

beyond. 

See ‘‘Final Revisions Rule State 

Budgets and New Unit Set-Asides TSD’’ 

in the docket for this rulemaking for a 

quantitative demonstration of these 

revisions. 

B. Allowance Allocation Revisions to 

Units Covered by Existing Utility 

Consent Decrees 

The state budgets in the August 8, 

2011 final Transport Rule (76 FR 48290) 

accurately incorporated the emission 

reduction requirements of existing 

utility consent decrees. However, after 

the final rule was published, EPA 

determined that provisions under 

certain existing utility consent decrees 

could restrict the use of Transport Rule 

allowances allocated to units subject to 

those consent decrees, such that a 

certain portion of those allocated 

allowances could be rendered 

unavailable for compliance use by any 

source under the Transport Rule 

programs. EPA determined that the sum 

of the SO2 and/or NOX allowances 

allocated to the units at certain facilities 

(or to the units included in certain 

systems) affected by these consent 

decrees exceeded the facility-wide (or 

system-wide) annual tonnage limit 

(ATL) specified in the applicable 

consent decree. The consent decrees for 

these facilities and systems include 

provisions that either require that 

allowances in excess of those necessary 

for compliance with the consent decrees 

be surrendered or place restrictions on 

the trading of such allowances. 

Therefore, excess allowances at these 

facilities (or within these systems) 

cannot be used by any Transport Rule 

program source(s) for compliance 

purposes. 

To address this issue, on October 14, 

2011, EPA proposed to add a constraint 

on Transport Rule unit-level allowance 

allocations for the facilities and systems 

in question (76 FR 63860). This action 

finalizes the proposed constraint, which 

affects a total of 82 units in six states: 

Alabama, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, 

Ohio, and Tennessee. The constraint 

reduces the number of SO2 and/or NOX

allowances allocated to each of the 82 

affected units, in order to align the 

facility-wide and system-wide 

allowance totals with the ATLs 

specified in the consent decrees. 

The unit-level allowance adjustments 

for each affected facility (or system) 

were made using the methodology 

described in the October 14, 2011 

proposed rule. First, EPA calculated the 

ratio of the facility-wide (or systemwide) ATL to the total number of 

allowances allocated to the units at the 

facility (or in the system). Then, for each 

unit, an annual tonnage limit equivalent 

(‘‘unit-level cap’’) was determined by 

multiplying this ratio by the number of 

allowances originally allocated to the 

unit. 

As previously noted, EPA took the 

requirements of existing utility consent 

decrees into account when the state 

budgets were established. Therefore, 

this final action, as it regards the 

consent decrees, does not alter the 

budget of any of the six affected states. 

Further, this action with respect to the 

consent decrees has no impact on the 

existing unit-level allocations in states 

where there are no units covered by 

consent decrees with ATLs. The excess 

allowances removed from the 82 

affected units have been reallocated to 

other covered sources in each relevant 

state using the allowance allocation 

methodology described in the October 

14, 2011 proposed rule. 

EPA received several comments on 

the proposed constraint and the unitlevel cap apportionment methodology. 

Some commenters supported the 

proposal. Other commenters expressed 

concern that EPA was inappropriately 

using its rulemaking authority to 

modify, undo, or compromise 

provisions in the negotiated consent 

decree agreements. The Agency does not 

agree that the allowance allocation 

revisions being finalized in this rule 

modify the terms of any consent decree. 

The unit-level allowance allocation caps 

applied in this rulemaking do not alter 

any obligation, timeline, or other 

requirement of the utility consent 

decrees. None of the restrictions in the 

utility consent decrees are premised on 

trading programs that employ any 

particular allocation methodology or 

distribution of unit-level allocations. 

Moreover, the utility consent decrees do 

not, and cannot, preclude any particular 

allocation methodology or distribution 

from being implemented in future 

trading programs. Finally, unit-level 

allowance allocations under existing 

trading programs, including the 

Transport Rule programs, do not 

establish unit-level emission 

constraints, because sources may obtain 

additional allowances from the 

marketplace to cover emissions that are 

above the unit-level allocations. 

Several commenters asked EPA to 

either clarify the specific consent 

decrees or exempt Transport Rule 

allowances from those restrictions and 

requirements. However, legal 

interpretations of utility consent decree 

provisions are outside the scope of this 

rulemaking. Moreover, it would be 

inappropriate for EPA to attempt to alter 

the terms of the consent decrees to 

exempt the Transport Rule allowances 

from the trading restrictions and 

allowance surrender provisions via a 

rulemaking. 

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) 

commented that the TVA consent 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
10330 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

6As discussed in the Transport Rule, with respect 

to the 1997 ozone NAAQS, for certain states EPA 

quantified the ozone-season NOX emission 

reductions that are necessary but may not be 

sufficient to eliminate all significant contribution 

and interference with maintenance (76 FR 48210). 

For such states EPA maintains that, for 2012–2013, 

the Transport Rule (as revised by this final rule) 

ensures the elimination of the quantified prohibited 

emissions. 

7http://camddataandmaps.epa.gov/gdm/ 

index.cfm?fuseaction=iss.isshome. 

8 IPM uses model run years to represent the full 

planning horizon. Mapping each year in the 

planning horizon into a representative model run 

year enables IPM to perform multiple year analyses 

while keeping the model size manageable. In this 

case, results for 2012 also apply to 2013. Modeling 

results are available in the docket for this 

rulemaking, in IPM output files named after this 

modeling scenario entitled ‘‘Final Transport Rule 

with 2014 Assurance.’’ 

decree includes a higher SO2 ATL in the 

event that a nuclear electric generating 

unit is shut down for more than 120 

days during calendar years 2012, 2013, 

or 2014. Because EPA and TVA are 

unable to predict whether such an event 

will occur, EPA is adopting, for 

purposes of allowance allocations in 

this rulemaking, the higher ATL for the 

TVA system which is based on the 

occurrence of a nuclear unit shut down. 

This change only affects TVA unit-level 

allocations in the year 2013. EPA 

reviewed the other existing utility 

consent decrees and did not find similar 

provisions in those decrees that require 

such an adjustment. 

In the proposed revisions rule, EPA 

adjusted unit-level allocations to units 

affected by the TVA consent decree in 

years for which the final Transport 

Rule’s allowance allocations to those 

units collectively exceeded that consent 

decree’s ATL that is effective in that 

year. For the affected TVA units, the 

final Transport Rule’s allowance 

allocations exceeded the consent decree 

ATL in 2013, 2018, and thereafter. TVA 

submitted comments arguing that the 

effective ATL under that consent decree 

is subject to change based on the 

potential retirement of affected units, 

which would also reduce aggregate unitlevel allowance allocations to TVA 

under the Transport Rule. TVA’s 

comments noted that the future balance 

of these two factors, which change over 

time, is uncertain. 

EPA recognizes that the relationship 

between unit-level allowance 

allocations under the FIPs and the 

applicable ATL becomes relatively less 

certain when considered over longer 

time horizons. In order to reduce the 

potential impact utility consent decree 

ATLs may have on the availability of 

Transport Rule allowances for 

compliance, EPA must account for the 

variability in utility consent decree 

ATLs in future years. Where 

information was available, EPA 

included generating unit retirements in 

its analysis of utility consent decree 

ATLs (see ‘‘Assessment of Impact of 

Consent Decree Annual Tonnage Limits 

on Transport Rule Allocations’’ in the 

Docket (EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0491) for 

the proposed revisions (76 FR 63860)). 

However, EPA agrees that the 

uncertainty becomes more pronounced 

in more distant years. Therefore, in this 

rulemaking EPA is not quantifying any 

additional adjustments to unit-level 

caps attributable to consent decree ATLs 

that become effective after 2017. In 2018 

and thereafter, EPA will continue to 

apply the ATLs effective in 2017 for the 

purpose of unit-level allocations. EPA 

notes that this timeline will provide 

states with ample opportunity, if they 

wish, to submit SIPs and establish 

alternate allocation methodologies 

where updated information on consent 

decree requirements may affect 

Transport Rule allowance use. 

C. Assurance Penalty Provisions 

EPA is finalizing its proposal to make 

the assurance provisions effective 

starting in 2014. EPA maintains that, for 

2012–2013, the Transport Rule (as 

revised by this final rule) ensures the 

elimination of each state’s significant 

contribution to nonattainment and 

interference with maintenance.6 The 

only commenters that opposed this 

proposed approach were North Carolina 

and Maryland. EPA is adopting the 

proposed approach—and rejecting 

North Carolina’s and Maryland’s 

comments in opposition—for the 

following reasons. 

EPA’s decision in this final revised 

rule to delay the effectiveness of the 

assurance provisions is based on new 

information, i.e., information that 

recently became available on states’ 

total EGU emissions in the last four 

quarters (one in 2010 and three in 2011) 

and concerns raised recently by 

commenters about the immediate-term 

viability of Transport Rule allowance 

markets during the transition from 

CAIR. The most current available 

emissions data—i.e., total emissions for 

the last quarter of 2010 and the first 

three quarters of 2011—for EGUs in the 

states subject to the Transport Rule 

trading programs show that, in the vast 

majority of states, EGUs are already 

emitting at an annual level below the 

level of the applicable 2012 state 

assurance level. Specifically, in 16 out 

of the 23 states subject to the Transport 

Rule SO2 program, 19 out of the 23 

states subject to the Transport Rule NOX

annual program, and 22 out of the 25 

states subject to the Transport Rule NOX

ozone season program, EGU emissions 

for the state for the last 12 months total 

less than the state assurance level (state 

budget plus variability limit), the level 

that reflects elimination of significant 

contribution and interference with 

maintenance.7 Moreover, in the 

remaining states, emission controls that 

EPA’s projections demonstrate will 

bring annual emissions down to the 

level of the applicable state assurance 

level are in the process of being 

installed and will be in operation in 

2012 and 2013. 

In addition, EGU owners and 

operators will know in 2012 and 2013 

that the assurance provisions will be 

taking effect in 2014 when many state 

budgets under the Transport Rule 

trading programs will be reduced. 

Owners and operators will therefore 

need to implement compliance 

strategies to meet both the requirement 

to hold allowances covering emissions 

and to avoid assurance provision 

penalties in the context of, in many 

cases, reduced state budgets. 

Consequently, EGU emissions are likely 

to decline even further during 2012– 

2013 as owners and operators make 

immediate investments in further 

emission reductions to prepare for 2014 

and beyond. As one commenter 

observed, ‘‘Moreover, the desire of 

electric generating units (EGUs) to avoid 

the increased penalties once they are 

implemented in 2014 should encourage 

compliance with the Transport Rule 

even prior to assurance penalties being 

imposed. It is likely not in a polluter’s 

interest to fail to implement emission 

reduction measures now, as it would be 

forced to decrease emissions with 

potentially unfeasible rapidity once the 

assurance penalty provisions are 

enacted, or else face extra exorbitant 

penalties’’ (Docket ID EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2009–0491–4775). 

EPA also conducted additional 

modeling of projected EGU emissions in 

2012 and 2013 under the Transport Rule 

without applying the assurance 

provisions to those years.8 This 

modeling shows that the Transport Rule 

trading programs will still result in 

emission reductions that cause total 

emissions in each state to be below the 

level of the applicable state assurance 

level, even when sources are not subject 

to the assurance provisions in those 

years. These very short-term projections 

are based on inputs that reflect 

validated, currently installed emission 

controls resulting in a higher degree of 

certainty than longer-term emission 

projections. In particular, the locations 

are known of existing EGUs with 

existing emission controls or with 

ongoing emission control retrofits to be 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 10331 

9The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) is 

another name for the Transport Rule. 

completed by 2012, and of new EGUs 

(with emission controls) to be 

completed by 2012, and the emission 

reduction capabilities of all these 

controls also are known. 

Based on the current level of EGU 

emissions and EPA’s short-term 

modeling results, EPA maintains that 

EGU emissions in 2012 and 2013 in 

each of the states subject to the 

Transport Rule—without the assurance 

provisions being applicable in those 

years—have virtually no chance of 

exceeding the applicable state assurance 

level. Consequently, imposition of the 

assurance provisions during 2012–2013 

is unnecessary and could actually be 

detrimental to smooth program 

implementation, as explained below. 

EPA believes that a limited 

postponement of the effectiveness of the 

assurance provisions is justified in order 

to achieve a seamless transition from the 

existing CAIR programs to the new 

Transport Rule programs. Under both 

CAIR and the Transport Rule, 

individual units have the flexibility to 

supplement their own emission 

reduction efforts with acquisitions from 

the market of any additional allowances 

needed to cover emissions under the 

applicable programs. Active, transparent 

markets providing broad access to CAIR 

NOX annual, CAIR NOX ozone season, 

and Acid Rain SO2 allowances have 

been in existence for many years. 

Sources covered by CAIR have relied on 

the availability of these robust markets 

when developing compliance plans. The 

Transport Rule (TR) creates new TR SO2

Group 1, TR SO2 Group 2, TR NOX

annual, and TR NOX ozone season 

allowances. Markets for these 

allowances have started up and were 

developing before the Court issued a 

stay of the rule on December 30, 2011. 

Some EGU owners and operators, 

states, and other organizations have 

expressed concern about the future 

availability of Transport Rule 

allowances in the market. For example, 

EPA received the following comment 

and several others like it: ‘‘The [Group] 

strongly supports EPA’s proposal to 

delay implementation of the assurance 

penalty provisions until January 1, 

2014. The Group has significant 

concerns regarding the viability of the 

allowance markets anticipated by 

CSAPR. Delay of the assurance penalty 

provisions may increase the likelihood 

that allowance markets will develop in 

the first CSAPR compliance period. 

Accordingly, the Group urges EPA to 

finalize its proposed amendments to the 

assurance penalty provisions * * * 

Delaying implementation of the 

assurance penalty provisions until 2014 

would reduce the risks associated with 

entering the market and encourage 

sources to engage in allowance trading’’ 

(Docket ID EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0491– 

4821).9 Indeed, such concerns are to be 

expected as new markets start up and 

develop, with the result that prices tend 

to spike during market start-up and 

eventually settle to anticipated levels. 

After a period of time, the market 

matures and increasing numbers of 

participants gain experience with, and 

confidence in, the market. 

Not only do the allowance markets 

under the Transport Rule involve the 

purchase and sale of new types of 

allowances for use in new trading 

programs, but also only the Transport 

Rule trading programs include 

assurance provisions, which were not 

included in any previous allowance 

trading programs. Many of the 

comments EPA received indicated that 

the introduction of this new and 

unfamiliar element in the Transport 

Rule trading programs has heightened 

concerns about the ability of owners and 

operators to use the new allowance 

markets to comply with the requirement 

to hold allowances covering emissions. 

Early trading activity is important for 

demonstrating market liquidity and 

assisting in price discovery to facilitate 

compliance planning by owners and 

operators of covered sources. If, out of 

immediate-term unfamiliarity with how 

the assurance provisions would be 

applied, owners and operators were to 

limit their own early trading activity, 

the assurance provisions would have 

negative impacts not only on those 

owners and operators, but also on all 

participants in the Transport Rule 

trading programs. 

EPA is delaying the effective date of 

the assurance provisions until 2014 in 

order to neutralize a key uncertainty 

facing successful and potentially rapid 

program implementation following the 

current stay, such that sources can rely 

on immediate activation of a Transport 

Rule allowance market that offers the 

cost-effective emission reduction 

flexibilities on which the rule relies to 

eliminate significant contribution and 

interference with maintenance. 

In summary, EPA concludes that, not 

only are the assurance provisions not 

necessary in 2012–2013 to ensure 

elimination of significant contribution 

and interference with maintenance, but 

also that the imposition of the assurance 

provisions in 2012–2013 would risk 

inhibiting the development and 

availability of the allowance market and 

thus raise the costs of compliance with 

Transport Rule emission reduction 

requirements. Delaying imposition of 

the assurance provisions until 2014 will 

ease the transition for covered sources 

from compliance with CAIR 

requirements to compliance with 

Transport Rule requirements by 

addressing concerns about the readiness 

of new Transport Rule allowance 

markets, facilitating progress of these 

markets, and instilling confidence that 

owners and operators can comply 

through a variety of cost-effective 

strategies that are not limited by initial 

Transport Rule unit-level allowance 

allocations. EPA maintains that this will 

result, in the aggregate in each state, in 

cost-effective emission reductions and 

total state emissions that are consistent 

with EPA’s quantification of each state’s 

obligation to eliminate significant 

contribution and interference with 

maintenance in downwind areas. 

EPA’s adoption, in the final revision 

rule, of a brief delay until 2014 in the 

imposition of the assurance provisions 

constitutes a change in the Agency’s 

approach from the approach adopted in 

the final Transport Rule. In the final 

Transport Rule, EPA decided to make 

the assurance provisions effective 

starting in 2012 ‘‘because this approach 

provides even further assurance, 

consistent with North Carolina, that 

each state’s prohibited emissions will be 

eliminated from the start of the 

Transport Rule trading programs’’ (76 

FR at 48296). Although EPA took the 

conservative approach of providing 

more assurance by adopting 2012 as the 

start of the assurance provisions, EPA 

did not conclude, in the final Transport 

Rule, that starting the assurance 

provisions in 2014 would be 

inconsistent with North Carolina or 

would result in states not eliminating 

their significant contribution or 

interference with maintenance. 

The trading programs created by the 

final Transport Rule, as modified by the 

final revision rule, are distinguishable 

from the CAIR trading programs that the 

Court reversed in North Carolina and 

meet the requirements set forth in the 

Court’s decision. In the Transport Rule, 

EPA established state-specific budgets 

and state-specific variability limits, and, 

if each state’s total EGU emissions for a 

control period do not exceed the 

applicable state budget plus variability, 

then that state’s significant contribution 

and interference with maintenance are 

eliminated for that control period. In 

contrast with the Transport Rule, in 

CAIR, EPA determined at a regional 

level the amount of required emission 

reductions. See North Carolina, 531 

F.3d at 907. Thus, the requirement— 

which was not met by CAIR—to 

determine the amount of each state’s 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
10332 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

significant contribution and interference 

with maintenance is met by the 

Transport Rule. 

Moreover, unlike the circumstances in 

CAIR, EPA determined in this 

rulemaking that information on the 

current level of EGU emissions and 

ongoing emission control installations, 

supported by the results of EPA’s shortterm modeling, demonstrates that 

without the assurance provisions being 

applicable in 2012–2013, EGU 

emissions in 2012 and 2013 in each 

state will not exceed the applicable state 

assurance level. For 2014 and thereafter 

when controls and emissions are likely 

to be different from current controls and 

emissions and modeling projections are 

correspondingly less certain, the 

Transport Rule imposes assurance 

provision requirements that penalize 

sources whose emissions result in the 

state having total EGU emissions in 

excess of the state assurance level, and 

thereby ensures that sources operate in 

a manner that results in the elimination 

of each state’s significant contribution 

and interference with maintenance. 

In contrast with the Transport Rule, 

state-level EGU emissions were not, 

when CAIR was issued, already at (or 

well on the way to meeting) the required 

reduction levels. EPA did not impose 

penalties on sources whose emissions 

resulted in a state’s failing to eliminate 

its significant contribution and 

interference with maintenance, and EPA 

relied entirely on its modeling, as 

opposed to data demonstrating states’ 

emission reductions occurring in the 

period immediately prior to the relevant 

compliance years, to show that 

significant contribution and interference 

with maintenance would be eliminated. 

See North Carolina, 531 F.3d at 907 

(stating that ‘‘CAIR only assures that the 

entire region’s significant contribution 

will be eliminated. It is possible that 

CAIR would achieve [CAA] section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)’s goals. EPA’s modeling 

shows that sources contributing to 

North Carolina’s nonattainment areas 

will at least reduce their emissions even 

after opting into CAIR’s trading 

programs * * * But EPA is not 

exercising its section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

duty unless it is promulgating a rule 

that achieves something measurable 

toward the goal of prohibiting sources 

‘within the State’ from contributing to 

nonattainment or interfering with 

maintenance ‘in any other State.’ ’’) 

In addition, in CAIR, the EPA 

modeling was for the intermediate term 

(i.e., projected in 2005 emissions for 

2009 and 2010), not for the short term 

when critical elements (such as the 

locations of existing EGUs with existing 

emission controls or with control 

retrofits to be completed by 2012 and of 

soon-to-be-completed, new EGUs with 

controls and the reduction capabilities 

of all these controls) are known. Thus, 

the Transport Rule accomplishes on a 

state-by-state basis what CAIR 

accomplished on a regional basis, i.e., 

assurance that significant contribution 

and interference with maintenance will 

be eliminated, and the requirement— 

which was not met by CAIR—that EPA 

provide such assurance is met by the 

Transport Rule. 

North Carolina’s argument that EPA is 

somehow barred from delaying the 

effectiveness of the assurance provisions 

in the Transport Rule FIPs because this 

delay ‘‘will, at least in some locations, 

lead to’’ increased emissions in some 

nonattainment or maintenance areas is 

inconsistent with the facts regarding 

emission controls installed on EGUs 

over the near term. As discussed above, 

without the assurance provisions in 

2012–2013, total EGU emissions in each 

state will still be below the state 

assurance level and therefore each state 

will meet the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) by eliminating 

the significant contribution and 

interference with maintenance 

identified in the final Transport Rule. 

North Carolina failed to show otherwise. 

On the contrary, North Carolina 

asserted that, during 2012–2013, the 

lack of assurance provisions will result 

in more emissions in ‘‘some locations’’ 

than if the assurance provisions were in 

effect and that these emissions will 

increase ambient pollutant levels in 

areas with nonattainment or 

maintenance problems. However, North 

Carolina failed to identify any such 

‘‘locations’’ and any such 

nonattainment/maintenance problem 

areas, or to provide any modeling or 

other evidence showing that these 

emission increases and ambient effects 

would occur. 

For the reasons explained above, EPA 

is revising the Transport Rule such that 

its assurance provisions are effective 

beginning in 2014. 

D. Correct Typographical Errors 

EPA is finalizing as proposed to 

correct typographical errors in certain 

sections of rule text in parts 52 and 97 

in the final Transport Rule. EPA 

received no comments on correcting 

typographical errors. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

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

‘‘significant regulatory action.’’ 

Accordingly, EPA submitted this action 

to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review under Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011) and any changes made 

in response to OMB recommendations 

have been documented in the docket for 

this action. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose any new 

information collection burden. This 

action makes relatively minor revisions 

to the emission budgets and allowance 

allocations or allowance allocations 

only in certain states in the final 

Transport Rule and corrects minor 

technical errors which are ministerial. 

However, the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) has previously approved 

the information collection requirements 

contained in the final Transport Rule 

under the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

and has assigned OMB control number 

2060–0667. The OMB control numbers 

for EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are 

listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of this rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this action on small entities, 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 10333 

I certify that this action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The small entities directly regulated by 

this action are electric power generators 

whose ultimate parent entity has a total 

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

fiscal year. We have determined that the 

changes considered in this proposed 

rulemaking pose no additional burden 

for small entities. The proposed revision 

to the new unit set-asides in Arkansas 

and Texas would yield an extremely 

small change in unit-level allowance 

allocations to existing units, including 

small entities, such that it would not 

affect the analysis conducted on small 

entity impacts under the finalized 

Transport Rule. In all other states, the 

revisions proposed in this rulemaking 

would yield additional allowance 

allocations to all units, including small 

entities, without increasing program 

stringency, such that it is not possible 

for the impact to small entities to be any 

larger than that already considered and 

reviewed in the finalized Transport 

Rule. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This rule does not contain a Federal 

mandate that may result in expenditures 

of $100 million or more for State, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or the private sector in any one year. 

This action is increasing the budgets 

and increasing the total number of 

allowances or maintaining the same 

budget but revising unit-level 

allocations in several other states in the 

Transport Rule. Thus, this rule is not 

subject to the requirements of sections 

202 or 205 of UMRA. 

In developing the final Transport 

Rule, EPA consulted with small 

governments pursuant to a plan 

established under section 203 of UMRA 

to address impacts of regulatory 

requirements in the rule that might 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. This action 

makes relatively minor revisions to the 

emissions budgets and allowance 

allocations or allowance allocations 

only in certain states in the final 

Transport Rule. Thus, Executive Order 

13132 does not apply to this rule. EPA 

did provide information to state and 

local officials during development of 

both the proposed and final Transport 

Rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). This action makes relatively 

minor revisions to the emissions 

budgets and allowance allocations in 

several states in the final Transport Rule 

and helps ease the transition from CAIR. 

Indian country new unit set-asides will 

increase slightly or remain unchanged 

in the states affected by this action. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. EPA consulted with 

tribal officials during the process of 

promulgating the final Transport Rule to 

permit them to have meaningful and 

timely input into its development. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to EO 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because 

it is not economically significant as 

defined in EO 12866, and because the 

Agency does not believe the 

environmental health or safety risks 

addressed by this action present a 

disproportionate risk to children. 

Analyses by EPA that show how the 

emission reductions from the strategies 

in the final Transport Rule will further 

improve air quality and children’s 

health can be found in the final 

Transport Rule RIA. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ as defined in Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)), because it is not likely to have 

a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

EPA believes that there is no meaningful 

impact to the energy supply beyond that 

which is reported for the Transport Rule 

program in the final Transport Rule. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

As described in section XII.I of the 

preamble to the final Transport Rule, 

the Transport Rule program requires all 

sources to meet the applicable 

monitoring requirements of 40 CFR part 

75. Part 75 already incorporates a 

number of voluntary consensus 

standards. This action does not involve 

technical standards. Therefore, EPA did 

not consider the use of any voluntary 

consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 

7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

In the Final Revisions Rule 

Significant Contribution Assessment 

Technical Support Document in the 

docket to this rulemaking, EPA assessed 

impacts of the emission changes in this 

rule on air quality throughout the 

Transport Rule region. For SO2, the 

estimated air quality impacts were 

minimal and no additional 

nonattainment or maintenance areas 

were identified. EPA also assessed the 

relationship between the NOX emission 

inventories in each affected state and 

the finalized revisions to annual and 

ozone-season NOX budgets and found 

the revisions represent small 

percentages of each state’s total 

emissions in 2014. As a result, EPA does 

not believe these technical revisions 

would affect any of the conclusions 

supported by the air quality and 

environmental justice analyses 

conducted for the final Transport Rule. 

Based on the significant contribution 

assessment in the technical support 

document for this action, EPA has 

determined that this action will not 

have disproportionately high and 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
10334 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority or low-income 

populations because it does not affect 

the level of protection provided to 

human health or the environment. EPA 

believes that the vast majority of 

communities and individuals in areas 

covered by the Transport Rule program 

inclusive of this action, including 

numerous low-income, minority, and 

tribal individuals and communities in 

both rural areas and inner cities in the 

eastern and central U.S., will see 

significant improvements in air quality 

and resulting improvements in health. 

EPA’s assessment of the effects of the 

final Transport Rule program on these 

communities is available in section XII.J 

of the preamble to the final Transport 

Rule. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A Major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

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

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

effective April 23, 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 April 23, 2012. 

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

which Federal Courts of Appeal have 

venue for petitions of review of final 

actions by EPA. This section provides, 

in part, that petitions for review must be 

filed in the Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit if (i) the 

agency action consists of ‘‘nationally 

applicable regulations promulgated, or 

final action taken, by the 

Administrator,’’ or (ii) such action is 

locally or regionally applicable, if ‘‘such 

action is based on a determination of 

nationwide scope or effect and if in 

taking such action the Administrator 

finds and publishes that such action is 

based on such a determination.’’ 

In the final Transport Rule, EPA 

determined that ‘‘[a]ny final action 

related to the Transport Rule is 

‘nationally applicable’ within the 

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

48,352. Through this rule, EPA is 

revising specific aspects of the final 

Transport Rule. This rule therefore is a 

final action related to the Transport 

Rule and as such is covered by the 

determination of national applicability 

made in the final Transport Rule. Thus, 

pursuant to section 307(b) any petitions 

for review of this action must be filed 

in the Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit within 60 days from 

the date final action is published in the 

Federal Register. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration of this action does not 

affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. In addition, 

pursuant to CAA section 307(b)(2) this 

action may not be challenged later in 

proceedings to enforce its requirements. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Air pollution control, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Regional haze, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

dioxide. 

40 CFR Part 97 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Air pollution control, 

Electric utilities, Nitrogen oxides, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxide. 

Dated: February 7, 2012. 

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 

§ 52.39 [Amended] 

■ 2. Section 52.39, paragraph (i)(1)(ii),is 

amended by removing the phrase 

‘‘Group 1’’ and adding, in its place, the 

phrase ‘‘Group 2’’. 

Subpart O—Illinois 

■ 3. Section 52.745 is redesignated as 

§ 52.731. 

■ 4. Section 52.746 is redesignated as 

§ 52.732. 

Subpart VV—Virginia 

■ 5. Section 52.2241, added at 76 FR 

48376, August 8, 2011, is redesignated 

as § 52.2441. 

PART 97—[AMENDED] 

■ 6. The authority citation for Part 97 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7403, 7410, 

7426, 7601, and 7651, et seq. 

■ 7. Section 97.406 is amended by: 

■ a. Designating the first sentence in 

paragraph (c)(3) as paragraph (c)(3)(i); 

and by removing the phrase ‘‘paragraphs 

(c)(1) and (c)(2)’’, adding in its place the 

phrase ‘‘paragraph (c)(1)’’; 

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

and 

■ c. Removing the words ‘‘or or’’ and 

adding, in its place, the word ‘‘or’’ in 

paragraph (e)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 97.406 Standard requirements. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(ii) A TR NOX Annual unit shall be 

subject to the requirements under 

paragraph (c)(2) of this section for the 

control period starting on the later of 

January 1, 2014 or the deadline for 

meeting the unit’s monitor certification 

requirements under § 97.430(b) and for 

each control period thereafter. 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Section 97.410 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 97.410 State NOX Annual trading 

budgets, new unit set-asides, Indian 

country new unit set-aside, and variability 

limits. 

(a) The State NOX Annual trading 

budgets, new unit set-asides, and Indian 

country new unit-set asides for 

allocations of TR NOX Annual 

allowances for the control periods in 

2012 and thereafter are as follows: 

(1) Alabama. (i) The NOX annual 

trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 

72,691 tons. 

(ii) The NOX annual new unit setaside for 2012 and 2013 is 1,454 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX annual trading budget 

for 2014 and thereafter is 71,962 tons. 

(v) The NOX annual new unit setaside for 2014 and thereafter is 1,439 

tons. 

(vi) [Reserved] 

(2) Georgia. (i) The NOX annual 

trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 

62,010 tons. 

(ii) The NOX annual new unit setaside for 2012 and 2013 is 1,240 tons. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 10335 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX annual trading budget 

for 2014 and thereafter is 40,540 tons. 

(v) The NOX annual new unit setaside for 2014 and thereafter is 811 tons. 

(vi) [Reserved] 

(3) Illinois. (i) The NOX annual 

trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 

47,872 tons. 

(ii) The NOX annual new unit setaside for 2012 and 2013 is 3,830 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX annual trading budget 

for 2014 and thereafter is 47,872 tons. 

(v) The NOX annual new unit setaside for 2014 and thereafter is 3,830 

tons. 

(vi) [Reserved] 

(4) Indiana. (i) The NOX annual 

trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 

109,726 tons. 

(ii) The NOX annual new unit setaside for 2012 and 2013 is 3,292 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX annual trading budget 

for 2014 and thereafter is 108,424 tons. 

(v) The NOX annual new unit setaside for 2014 and thereafter is 3,253 

tons. 

(vi) [Reserved] 

(5) Iowa. (i) The NOX annual trading 

budget for 2012 and 2013 is 38,335 tons. 

(ii) The NOX annual new unit setaside for 2012 and 2013 is 729 tons. 

(iii) The NOX annual Indian country 

new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 

38 tons. 

(iv) The NOX annual trading budget 

for 2014 and thereafter is 37,498 tons. 

(v) The NOX annual new unit setaside for 2014 and thereafter is 712 tons. 

(vi) The NOX annual Indian country 

new unit set-aside for 2014 and 

thereafter is 38 tons. 

(6) Kansas. (i) The NOX annual 

trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 

30,714 tons. 

(ii) The NOX annual new unit setaside for 2012 and 2013 is 583 tons. 

(iii) The NOX annual Indian country 

new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 

31 tons. 

(iv) The NOX annual trading budget 

for 2014 and thereafter is 25,560 tons. 

(v) The NOX annual new unit setaside for 2014 and thereafter is 485 tons. 

(vi) The NOX annual Indian country 

new unit set-aside for 2014 and 

thereafter is 26 tons. 

(7) Kentucky. (i) The NOX annual 

trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 

85,086 tons. 

(ii) The NOX annual new unit setaside for 2012 and 2013 is 3,403 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX annual trading budget 

for 2014 and thereafter is 77,238 tons. 

(v) The NOX annual new unit setaside for 2014 and thereafter is 3,090 

tons. 

(vi) [Reserved] 

(8) Maryland. (i) The NOX annual 

trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 

16,633 tons. 

(ii) The NOX annual new unit setaside for 2012 and 2013 is 333 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX annual trading budget 

for 2014 and thereafter is 16,574 tons. 

(v) The NOX annual new unit setaside for 2014 and thereafter is 331 tons. 

(vi) [Reserved] 

(9) Michigan. (i) The NOX annual 

trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 

65,421 tons. 

(ii) The NOX annual new unit setaside for 2012 and 2013 is 1,243 tons. 

(iii) The NOX annual Indian country 

new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 

65 tons. 

(iv) The NOX annual trading budget 

for 2014 and thereafter is 63,040 tons. 

(v) The NOX annual new unit setaside for 2014 and thereafter is 1,198 

tons. 

(vi) The NOX annual Indian country 

new unit set-aside for 2014 and 

thereafter is 63 tons. 

(10) Minnesota. (i) The NOX annual 

trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 

29,572 tons. 

(ii) The NOX annual new unit setaside for 2012 and 2013 is 561 tons. 

(iii) The NOX annual Indian country 

new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 

30 tons. 

(iv) The NOX annual trading budget 

for 2014 and thereafter is 29,572 tons. 

(v) The NOX annual new unit setaside for 2014 and thereafter is 561 tons. 

(vi) The NOX annual Indian country 

new unit set-aside for 2014 and 

thereafter is 30 tons. 

(11) Missouri. (i) The NOX annual 

trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 

52,374 tons. 

(ii) The NOX annual new unit setaside for 2012 and 2013 is 1,571 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX annual trading budget 

for 2014 and thereafter is 48,717 tons. 

(v) The NOX annual new unit setaside for 2014 and thereafter is 1,462 

tons. 

(vi) [Reserved] 

(12) Nebraska. (i) The NOX annual 

trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 

30,039 tons. 

(ii) The NOX annual new unit setaside for 2012 and 2013 is 1,772 tons. 

(iii) The NOX annual Indian country 

new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 

30 tons. 

(iv) The NOX annual trading budget 

for 2014 and thereafter is 30,039 tons. 

(v) The NOX annual new unit setaside for 2014 and thereafter is 1,772 

tons. 

(vi) The NOX annual Indian country 

new unit set-aside for 2014 and 

thereafter is 30 tons. 

(13) New Jersey. (i) The NOX annual 

trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 

8,218 tons. 

(ii) The NOX annual new unit setaside for 2012 and 2013 is 164 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX annual trading budget 

for 2014 and thereafter is 7,945 tons. 

(v) The NOX annual new unit setaside for 2014 and thereafter is 159 tons. 

(vi) [Reserved] 

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

trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 

21,028 tons. 

(ii) The NOX annual new unit setaside for 2012 and 2013 is 400 tons. 

(iii) The NOX annual Indian country 

new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 

21 tons. 

(iv) The NOX annual trading budget 

for 2014 and thereafter is 21,028 tons. 

(v) The NOX annual new unit setaside for 2014 and thereafter is 400 tons. 

(vi) The NOX annual Indian country 

new unit set-aside for 2014 and 

thereafter is 21 tons. 

(15) North Carolina. (i) The NOX

annual trading budget for 2012 and 2013 

is 50,587 tons. 

(ii) The NOX annual new unit setaside for 2012 and 2013 is 2,984 tons. 

(iii) The NOX annual Indian country 

new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 

51 tons. 

(iv) The NOX annual trading budget 

for 2014 and thereafter is 41,553 tons. 

(v) The NOX annual new unit setaside for 2014 and thereafter is 2,451 

tons. 

(vi) The NOX annual Indian country 

new unit set-aside for 2014 and 

thereafter is 42 tons. 

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

budget for 2012 and 2013 is 92,703 tons. 

(ii) The NOX annual new unit setaside for 2012 and 2013 is 1,854 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX annual trading budget 

for 2014 and thereafter is 87,493 tons. 

(v) The NOX annual new unit setaside for 2014 and thereafter is 1,750 

tons. 

(vi) [Reserved] 

(17) Pennsylvania. (i) The NOX annual 

trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 

119,986 tons. 

(ii) The NOX annual new unit setaside for 2012 and 2013 is 2,400 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX annual trading budget 

for 2014 and thereafter is 119,194 tons. 

(v) The NOX annual new unit setaside for 2014 and thereafter is 2,384 

tons. 

(vi) [Reserved] 

(18) South Carolina. (i) The NOX

annual trading budget for 2012 and 2013 

is 32,498 tons. 

(ii) The NOX annual new unit setaside for 2012 and 2013 is 617 tons. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
10336 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

(iii) The NOX annual Indian country 

new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 

33 tons. 

(iv) The NOX annual trading budget 

for 2014 and thereafter is 32,498 tons. 

(v) The NOX annual new unit setaside for 2014 and thereafter is 617 tons. 

(vi) The NOX annual Indian country 

new unit set-aside for 2014 and 

thereafter is 33 tons. 

(19) Tennessee. (i) The NOX annual 

trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 

35,703 tons. 

(ii) The NOX annual new unit setaside for 2012 and 2013 is 714 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX annual trading budget 

for 2014 and thereafter is 19,337 tons. 

(v) The NOX annual new unit setaside for 2014 and thereafter is 387 tons. 

(vi) [Reserved] 

(20) Texas. (i) The NOX annual 

trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 

134,970 tons. 

(ii) The NOX annual new unit setaside for 2012 and 2013 is 5,264 tons. 

(iii) The NOX annual Indian country 

new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 

135 tons. 

(iv) The NOX annual trading budget 

for 2014 and thereafter is 134,970 tons. 

(v) The NOX annual new unit setaside for 2014 and thereafter is 5,264 

tons. 

(vi) The NOX annual Indian country 

new unit set-aside for 2014 and 

thereafter is 135 tons. 

(21) Virginia. (i) The NOX annual 

trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 

33,242 tons. 

(ii) The NOX annual new unit setaside for 2012 and 2013 is 1,662 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX annual trading budget 

for 2014 and thereafter is 33,242 tons. 

(v) The NOX annual new unit setaside for 2014 and thereafter is 1,662 

tons. 

(vi) [Reserved] 

(22) West Virginia. (i) The NOX

annual trading budget for 2012 and 2013 

is 59,472 tons. 

(ii) The NOX annual new unit setaside for 2012 and 2013 is 2,974 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX annual trading budget 

for 2014 and thereafter is 54,582 tons. 

(v) The NOX annual new unit setaside for 2014 and thereafter is 2,729 

tons. 

(vi) [Reserved] 

(23) Wisconsin. (i) The NOX annual 

trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 

34,101 tons. 

(ii) The NOX annual new unit setaside for 2012 and 2013 is 2,012 tons. 

(iii) The NOX annual Indian country 

new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 

34 tons. 

(iv) The NOX annual trading budget 

for 2014 and thereafter is 32,871 tons. 

(v) The NOX annual new unit setaside for 2014 and thereafter is 1,939 

tons. 

(vi) The NOX annual Indian country 

new unit set-aside for 2014 and 

thereafter is 33 tons. 

(b) The States’ variability limits for 

the State NOX Annual trading budgets 

for the control periods in 2014 and 

thereafter are as follows: 

(1) The NOX annual variability limit 

for Alabama is 12,953 tons. 

(2) The NOX annual variability limit 

for Georgia is 7,297 tons. 

(3) The NOX annual variability limit 

for Illinois is 8,617 tons. 

(4) The NOX annual variability limit 

for Indiana is 19,516 tons. 

(5) The NOX annual variability limit 

for Iowa is 6,750 tons. 

(6) The NOX annual variability limit 

for Kansas is 4,601 tons. 

(7) The NOX annual variability limit 

for Kentucky is 13,903 tons. 

(8) The NOX annual variability limit 

for Maryland is 2,983 tons. 

(9) The NOX annual variability limit 

for Michigan is 11,347 tons. 

(10) The NOX annual variability limit 

for Minnesota is 5,323 tons. 

(11) The NOX annual variability limit 

for Missouri is 8,769 tons. 

(12) The NOX annual variability limit 

for Nebraska is 5,407 tons. 

(13) The NOX annual variability limit 

for New Jersey is 1,430 tons. 

(14) The NOX annual variability limit 

for New York is 3,785 tons. 

(15) The NOX annual variability limit 

for North Carolina is 7,480 tons. 

(16) The NOX annual variability limit 

for Ohio is 15,749 tons. 

(17) The NOX annual variability limit 

for Pennsylvania is 21,455 tons. 

(18) The NOX annual variability limit 

for South Carolina is 5,850 tons. 

(19) The NOX annual variability limit 

for Tennessee is 3,481 tons. 

(20) The NOX annual variability limit 

for Texas is 24,295 tons. 

(21) The NOX annual variability limit 

for Virginia is 5,984 tons. 

(22) The NOX annual variability limit 

for West Virginia is 9,825 tons. 

(23) The NOX annual variability limit 

for Wisconsin is 5,917 tons. 

(c) Each NOX annual trading budget 

identified in this section includes any 

tons in a new unit set aside or Indian 

country new unit set aside, but does not 

include any tons in a variability limit. 

§ 97.425 [Amended] 

■ 9. Section 97.425, paragraph (b)(1) 

introductory text, is amended by 

removing ‘‘2013’’ and adding, in its 

place, ‘‘2015’’. 

■ 10. Section 97.506 is amended by: 

■ a. Designating the first sentence in 

paragraph (c)(3) as paragraph (c)(3)(i); 

and by removing the phrase ‘‘paragraphs 

(c)(1) and (c)(2)’’, adding in its place the 

phrase ‘‘paragraph (c)(1)’’;and 

■ b. Adding a new paragraph (c)(3)(ii) to 

read as follows: 

§ 97.506 Standard requirements. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(ii) A TR NOX Ozone Season unit 

shall be subject to the requirements 

under paragraph (c)(2) of this section for 

the control period starting on the later 

of May 1, 2014 or the deadline for 

meeting the unit’s monitor certification 

requirements under § 97.530(b) and for 

each control period thereafter. 

* * * * * 

■ 11. Section 97.510 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 97.510 State NOX Ozone Season trading 

budgets, new unit set-asides, Indian 

country new unit set-aside, and variability 

limits. 

(a) 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: 

(1) Alabama. (i) The NOX ozone 

season trading budget for 2012 and 2013 

is 31,746 tons. 

(ii) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 635 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX ozone season trading 

budget for 2014 and thereafter is 31,499 

tons. 

(v) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 630 

tons. 

(vi) [Reserved] 

(2) Arkansas. (i) The NOX ozone 

season trading budget for 2012 and 2013 

is 15,037 tons. 

(ii) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 752 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX ozone season trading 

budget for 2014 and thereafter is 15,037 

tons. 

(v) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 752 

tons. 

(vi) [Reserved] 

(3) Florida. (i) The NOX ozone season 

trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 

28,644 tons. 

(ii) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 544 tons. 

(iii) The NOX ozone season Indian 

country new unit set-aside for 2012 and 

2013 is 29 tons. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 10337 

(iv) The NOX ozone season trading 

budget for 2014 and thereafter is 27,825 

tons. 

(v) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 529 

tons. 

(vi) The NOX ozone season Indian 

country new unit set-aside for 2014 and 

thereafter is 28 tons. 

(4) Georgia. (i) The NOX ozone season 

trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 

27,944 tons. 

(ii) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 559 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX ozone season trading 

budget for 2014 and thereafter is 18,279 

tons. 

(v) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 366 

tons. 

(vi) [Reserved] 

(5) Illinois. (i) The NOX ozone season 

trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 

21,208 tons. 

(ii) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 1,697 

tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX ozone season trading 

budget for 2014 and thereafter is 21,208 

tons. 

(v) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 1,697 

tons. 

(vi) [Reserved] 

(6) Indiana. (i) The NOX ozone season 

trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 

46,876 tons. 

(ii) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 1,406 

tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX ozone season trading 

budget for 2014 and thereafter is 46,175 

tons. 

(v) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 1,385 

tons. 

(vi) [Reserved] 

(7) Iowa. (i) The NOX ozone season 

trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 

16,532 tons. 

(ii) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 314 tons. 

(iii) The NOX ozone season Indian 

country new unit set-aside for 2012 and 

2013 is 17 tons. 

(iv) The NOX ozone season trading 

budget for 2014 and thereafter is 16,207 

tons. 

(v) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 308 

tons. 

(vi) The NOX ozone season Indian 

country new unit set-aside for 2014 and 

thereafter is 16 tons. 

(8) Kentucky. (i) The NOX ozone 

season trading budget for 2012 and 2013 

is 36,167 tons. 

(ii) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 1,447 

tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX ozone season trading 

budget for 2014 and thereafter is 32,674 

tons. 

(v) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 1,307 

tons. 

(vi) [Reserved] 

(9) Louisiana. (i) The NOX ozone 

season trading budget for 2012 and 2013 

is 18,026 tons. 

(ii) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 523 tons. 

(iii) The NOX ozone season Indian 

country new unit set-aside for 2012 and 

2013 is 18 tons. 

(iv) The NOX ozone season trading 

budget for 2014 and thereafter is 18,026 

tons. 

(v) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 523 

tons. 

(vi) The NOX ozone season Indian 

country new unit set-aside for 2014 and 

thereafter is 18 tons. 

(10) Maryland. (i) The NOX ozone 

season trading budget for 2012 and 2013 

is 7,179 tons. 

(ii) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 144 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX ozone season trading 

budget for 2014 and thereafter is 7,179 

tons. 

(v) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 144 

tons. 

(vi) [Reserved] 

(11) Michigan. (i) The NOX ozone 

season trading budget for 2012 and 2013 

is 28,041 tons. 

(ii) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 533 tons. 

(iii) The NOX ozone season Indian 

country new unit set-aside for 2012 and 

2013 is 28 tons. 

(iv) The NOX ozone season trading 

budget for 2014 and thereafter is 27,016 

tons. 

(v) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 513 

tons. 

(vi) The NOX ozone season Indian 

country new unit set-aside for 2014 and 

thereafter is 27 tons. 

(12) Mississippi. (i) The NOX ozone 

season trading budget for 2012 and 2013 

is 12,314 tons. 

(ii) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 234 tons. 

(iii) The NOX ozone season Indian 

country new unit set-aside for 2012 and 

2013 is 12 tons. 

(iv) The NOX ozone season trading 

budget for 2014 and thereafter is 12,314 

tons. 

(v) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 234 

tons. 

(vi) The NOX ozone season Indian 

country new unit set-aside for 2014 and 

thereafter is 12 tons. 

(13) Missouri. (i) The NOX ozone 

season trading budget for 2012 and 2013 

is 22,762 tons. 

(ii) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 683 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX ozone season trading 

budget for 2014 and thereafter is 21,073 

tons. 

(v) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 632 

tons. 

(vi) [Reserved] 

(14) New Jersey. (i) The NOX ozone 

season trading budget for 2012 and 2013 

is 4,128 tons. 

(ii) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 83 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX ozone season trading 

budget for 2014 and thereafter is 3,731 

tons. 

(v) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 75 

tons. 

(vi) [Reserved] 

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

season trading budget for 2012 and 2013 

is 10,242 tons. 

(ii) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 195 tons. 

(iii) The NOX ozone season Indian 

country new unit set-aside for 2012 and 

2013 is 10 tons. 

(iv) The NOX ozone season trading 

budget for 2014 and thereafter is 10,242 

tons. 

(v) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 195 

tons. 

(vi) The NOX ozone season Indian 

country new unit set-aside for 2014 and 

thereafter is 10 tons. 

(16) North Carolina. (i) The NOX

ozone season trading budget for 2012 

and 2013 is 22,168 tons. 

(ii) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 1,308 

tons. 

(iii) The NOX ozone season Indian 

country new unit set-aside for 2012 and 

2013 is 22 tons. 

(iv) The NOX ozone season trading 

budget for 2014 and thereafter is 18,455 

tons. 

(v) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 1,089 

tons. 

(vi) The NOX ozone season Indian 

country new unit set-aside for 2014 and 

thereafter is 18 tons. 

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

trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 

40,063 tons. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
10338 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

(ii) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 801 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX ozone season trading 

budget for 2014 and thereafter is 37,792 

tons. 

(v) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 756 

tons. 

(vi) [Reserved] 

(18) Oklahoma. (i) The NOX ozone 

season trading budget for 2012 is 36,567 

and for 2013 is 21,835 tons. 

(ii) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2012 is 731 and for 2013 is 

437 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX ozone season trading 

budget for 2014 and thereafter is 21,835 

tons. 

(v) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 437 

tons. 

(vi) [Reserved] 

(19) Pennsylvania. (i) The NOX ozone 

season trading budget for 2012 and 2013 

is 52,201 tons. 

(ii) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 1,044 

tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX ozone season trading 

budget for 2014 and thereafter is 51,912 

tons. 

(v) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 1,038 

tons. 

(vi) [Reserved] 

(20) South Carolina. (i) The NOX

ozone season trading budget for 2012 

and 2013 is 13,909 tons. 

(ii) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 264 tons. 

(iii) The NOX ozone season Indian 

country new unit set-aside for 2012 and 

2013 is 14 tons. 

(iv) The NOX ozone season trading 

budget for 2014 and thereafter is 13,909 

tons. 

(v) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 264 

tons. 

(vi) The NOX ozone season Indian 

country new unit set-aside for 2014 and 

thereafter is 14 tons. 

(21) Tennessee. (i) The NOX ozone 

season trading budget for 2012 and 2013 

is 14,908 tons. 

(ii) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 298 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX ozone season trading 

budget for 2014 and thereafter is 8,016 

tons. 

(v) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 160 

tons. 

(vi) [Reserved] 

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

trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 

64,418 tons. 

(ii) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 2,513 

tons. 

(iii) The NOX ozone season Indian 

country new unit set-aside for 2012 and 

2013 is 64 tons. 

(iv) The NOX ozone season trading 

budget for 2014 and thereafter is 64,418 

tons. 

(v) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 2,513 

tons. 

(vi) The NOX ozone season Indian 

country new unit set-aside for 2014 and 

thereafter is 64 tons. 

(23) Virginia. (i) The NOX ozone 

season trading budget for 2012 and 2013 

is 14,452 tons. 

(ii) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 723 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX ozone season trading 

budget for 2014 and thereafter is 14,452 

tons. 

(v) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 723 

tons. 

(vi) [Reserved] 

(24) West Virginia. (i) The NOX ozone 

season trading budget for 2012 and 2013 

is 25,283 tons. 

(ii) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 1,264 

tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX ozone season trading 

budget for 2014 and thereafter is 23,291 

tons. 

(v) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 1,165 

tons. 

(vi) [Reserved] 

(25) Wisconsin. (i) The NOX ozone 

season trading budget for 2012 and 2013 

is 14,784 tons. 

(ii) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 872 tons. 

(iii) The NOX ozone season Indian 

country new unit set-aside for 2012 and 

2013 is 15 tons. 

(iv) The NOX ozone season trading 

budget for 2014 and thereafter is 14,296 

tons. 

(v) The NOX ozone season new unit 

set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 844 

tons. 

(vi) The NOX ozone season Indian 

country new unit set-aside for 2014 and 

thereafter is 14 tons. 

(b) The States’ variability limits for 

the State NOX ozone season trading 

budgets for the control periods in 2014 

and thereafter are as follows: 

(1) The NOX ozone season variability 

limit for Alabama is 6,615 tons. 

(2) The NOX ozone season variability 

limit for Arkansas is 3,158 tons. 

(3) The NOX ozone season variability 

limit for Florida is 5,843 tons. 

(4) The NOX ozone season variability 

limit for Georgia is 3,839 tons. 

(5) The NOX ozone season variability 

limit for Illinois is 4,454 tons. 

(6) The NOX ozone season variability 

limit for Indiana is 9,697 tons. 

(7) The NOX ozone season variability 

limit for Iowa is 3,403 tons. 

(8) The NOX ozone season variability 

limit for Kentucky is 6,862 tons. 

(9) The NOX ozone season variability 

limit for Louisiana is 3,785 tons. 

(10) The NOX ozone season variability 

limit for Maryland is 1,508 tons. 

(11) The NOX ozone season variability 

limit for Michigan is 5,673 tons. 

(12) The NOX ozone season variability 

limit for Mississippi is 2,586 tons. 

(13) The NOX ozone season variability 

limit for Missouri is 4,425 tons. 

(14) The NOX ozone season variability 

limit for New Jersey is 784 tons. 

(15) The NOX ozone season variability 

limit for New York is 2,151 tons. 

(16) The NOX ozone season variability 

limit for North Carolina is 3,876 tons. 

(17) The NOX ozone season variability 

limit for Ohio is 7,936 tons. 

(18) The NOX ozone season variability 

limit for Oklahoma is 4,585 tons. 

(19) The NOX ozone season variability 

limit for Pennsylvania is 10,902 tons. 

(20) The NOX ozone season variability 

limit for South Carolina is 2,921 tons. 

(21) The NOX ozone season variability 

limit for Tennessee is 1,683 tons. 

(22) The NOX ozone season variability 

limit for Texas is 13,528 tons. 

(23) The NOX ozone season variability 

limit for Virginia is 3,035 tons. 

(24) The NOX ozone season variability 

limit for West Virginia is 4,891 tons. 

(25) The NOX ozone season variability 

limit for Wisconsin is 3,002 tons. 

(c) Each NOX ozone season trading 

budget in this section includes any tons 

in a new unit set aside or Indian country 

new unit set aside, but does not include 

any tons in a variability limit. 

§ 97.525 [Amended] 

■ 12. Section 97.525, paragraph (b)(1) 

introductory text, is amended by 

removing ‘‘2013’’ and adding, in its 

place, ‘‘2015.’’ 

■ 13. Section 97.606 is amended by: 

■ a. Designating the first sentence in 

paragraph (c)(3) as paragraph (c)(3)(i); 

and by removing the phrase ‘‘paragraphs 

(c)(1) and (c)(2)’’, adding in its place the 

phrase ‘‘paragraph (c)(1);’’ 

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

and 

■ c. Amending paragraph (e)(2) by 

removing the words ‘‘or or’’ and adding, 

in their place, the word ‘‘or’’ to read as 

follows: 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 10339 

§ 97.606 Standard requirements. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(ii) A TR SO2 Group 1 unit shall be 

subject to the requirements under 

paragraph (c)(2) of this section for the 

control period starting on the later of 

January 1, 2014 or the deadline for 

meeting the unit’s monitor certification 

requirements under § 97.630(b) and for 

each control period thereafter. 

* * * * * 

■ 14. Section 97.610 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 97.610 State SO2 Group 1 trading 

budgets, new unit set-asides, Indian 

country new unit set-aside, and variability 

limits. 

(a) The State SO2 trading budgets, 

new unit set-asides, and Indian country 

new unit-set asides for allocations of TR 

SO2 Group 1 allowances for the control 

periods in 2012 and thereafter are as 

follows: 

(1) Illinois. (i) The SO2 trading budget 

for 2012 and 2013 is 234,889 tons. 

(ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 

2012 and 2013 is 11,744 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 

and thereafter is 124,123 tons. 

(v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 

2014 and thereafter is 6,206 tons. 

(vi) [Reserved] 

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

for 2012 and 2013 is 285,424 tons. 

(ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 

2012 and 2013 is 8,563 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 

and thereafter is 161,111 tons. 

(v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 

2014 and thereafter is 4,833 tons. 

(vi) [Reserved] 

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

for 2012 and 2013 is 107,085 tons. 

(ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 

2012 and 2013 is 2,035 tons. 

(iii) The SO2 Indian country new unit 

set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 107 tons. 

(iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 

and thereafter is 75,184 tons. 

(v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 

2014 and thereafter is 1,429 tons. 

(vi) The SO2 Indian country new unit 

set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 75 

tons. 

(4) Kentucky. (i) The SO2 trading 

budget for 2012 and 2013 is 232,662 

tons. 

(ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 

2012 and 2013 is 13,960 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 

and thereafter is 106,284 tons. 

(v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 

2014 and thereafter is 6,377 tons. 

(vi) [Reserved] 

(5) Maryland. (i) The SO2 trading 

budget for 2012 and 2013 is 30,120 tons. 

(ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 

2012 and 2013 is 602 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 

and thereafter is 28,203 tons. 

(v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 

2014 and thereafter is 564 tons. 

(vi) [Reserved] 

(6) Michigan. (i) The SO2 trading 

budget for 2012 and 2013 is 229,303 

tons. 

(ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 

2012 and 2013 is 4,357 tons. 

(iii) The SO2 Indian country new unit 

set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 229 tons. 

(iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 

and thereafter is 143,995 tons. 

(v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 

2014 and thereafter is 2,736 tons. 

(vi) The SO2 Indian country new unit 

set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 144 

tons. 

(7) Missouri. (i) The SO2 trading 

budget for 2012 and 2013 is 207,466 

tons. 

(ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 

2012 and 2013 is 4,149 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 

and thereafter is 165,941 tons. 

(v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 

2014 and thereafter is 3,319 tons. 

(vi) [Reserved] 

(8) New Jersey. (i) The SO2 trading 

budget for 2012 and 2013 is 7,670 tons. 

(ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 

2012 and 2013 is 153 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 

and thereafter is 5,574 tons. 

(v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 

2014 and thereafter is 111 tons. 

(vi) [Reserved] 

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

budget for 2012 and 2013 is 30,852 tons. 

(ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 

2012 and 2013 is 586 tons. 

(iii) The SO2 Indian country new unit 

set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 31 tons. 

(iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 

and thereafter is 22,112 tons. 

(v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 

2014 and thereafter is 420 tons. 

(vi) The SO2 Indian country new unit 

set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 22 

tons. 

(10) North Carolina. (i) The SO2

trading budget for 2012 and 2013 is 

136,881 tons. 

(ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 

2012 and 2013 is 10,813 tons. 

(iii) The SO2 Indian country new unit 

set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 137 tons. 

(iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 

and thereafter is 57,620 tons. 

(v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 

2014 and thereafter is 4,552 tons. 

(vi) The SO2 Indian country new unit 

set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 58 

tons. 

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

for 2012 and 2013 is 310,230 tons. 

(ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 

2012 and 2013 is 6,205 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 

and thereafter is 137,077 tons. 

(v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 

2014 and thereafter is 2,742 tons. 

(vi) [Reserved] 

(12) Pennsylvania. (i) The SO2 trading 

budget for 2012 and 2013 is 278,651 

tons. 

(ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 

2012 and 2013 is 5,573 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 

and thereafter is 112,021 tons. 

(v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 

2014 and thereafter is 2,240 tons. 

(vi) [Reserved] 

(13) Tennessee. (i) The SO2 trading 

budget for 2012 and 2013 is 148,150 

tons. 

(ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 

2012 and 2013 is 2,963 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 

and thereafter is 58,833 tons. 

(v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 

2014 and thereafter is 1,177 tons. 

(vi) [Reserved] 

(14) Virginia. (i) The SO2 trading 

budget for 2012 and 2013 is 70,820 tons. 

(ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 

2012 and 2013 is 2,833 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 

and thereafter is 35,057 tons. 

(v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 

2014 and thereafter is 1,402 tons. 

(vi) [Reserved] 

(15) West Virginia. (i) The SO2 trading 

budget for 2012 and 2013 is 146,174 

tons. 

(ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 

2012 and 2013 is 10,232 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 

and thereafter is 75,668 tons. 

(v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 

2014 and thereafter is 5,297 tons. 

(vi) [Reserved] 

(16) Wisconsin. (i) The SO2 trading 

budget for 2012 and 2013 is 79,480 tons. 

(ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 

2012 and 2013 is 3,099 tons. 

(iii) The SO2 Indian country new unit 

set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 80 tons. 

(iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 

and thereafter is 47,883 tons. 

(v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 

2014 and thereafter is 1,867 tons. 

(vi) The SO2 Indian country new unit 

set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 48 

tons. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
10340 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

(b) The States’ variability limits for 

the State SO2 Group 1 trading budgets 

for the control periods in 2014 and 

thereafter are as follows: 

(1) The SO2 variability limit for 

Illinois is 22,342 tons. 

(2) The SO2 variability limit for 

Indiana is 29,000 tons. 

(3) The SO2 variability limit for Iowa 

is 13,533 tons. 

(4) The SO2 variability limit for 

Kentucky is 19,131 tons. 

(5) The SO2 variability limit for 

Maryland is 5,077 tons. 

(6) The SO2 variability limit for 

Michigan is 25,919 tons. 

(7) The SO2 variability limit for 

Missouri is 29,869 tons. 

(8) The SO2 variability limit for New 

Jersey is 1,003 tons. 

(9) The SO2 variability limit for New 

York is 3,980 tons. 

(10) The SO2 variability limit for 

North Carolina is 10,372 tons. 

(11) The SO2 variability limit for Ohio 

is 24,674 tons. 

(12) The SO2 variability limit for 

Pennsylvania is 20,164 tons. 

(13) The SO2 variability limit for 

Tennessee is 10,590 tons. 

(14) The SO2 variability limit for 

Virginia is 6,310 tons. 

(15) The SO2 variability limit for West 

Virginia is 13,620 tons. 

(16) The SO2 variability limit for 

Wisconsin is 8,619 tons. 

(c) Each SO2 trading budget in this 

section includes any tons in a new unit 

set aside or Indian country new unit set 

aside, but does not include any tons in 

a variability limit. 

§ 97.625 [Amended] 

■ 15. Section 97.625, paragraph (b)(1) 

introductory text, is amended by 

removing ‘‘2013’’ and adding, in its 

place, ‘‘2015’’. 

■ 16. Section 97.706 is amended by: 

■ a. Designating the first sentence in 

paragraph (c)(3) as paragraph (c)(3)(i); 

and by removing the phrase ‘‘paragraphs 

(c)(1) and (c)(2)’’, adding in its place the 

phrase ‘‘paragraph (c)(1)’’; 

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

and 

■ c. Amending paragraph (e)(2) by 

removing the words ‘‘or or’’ and adding, 

in their place, the word ‘‘or’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 97.706 Standard requirements. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(ii) A TR SO2 Group 2 unit shall be 

subject to the requirements under 

paragraph (c)(2) of this section for the 

control period starting on the later of 

January 1, 2014 or the deadline for 

meeting the unit’s monitor certification 

requirements under § 97.730(b) and for 

each control period thereafter. 

* * * * * 

■ 17. Section 97.710 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 97.710 State SO2 Group 2 trading 

budgets, new unit set-asides, Indian 

country new unit set-aside, and variability 

limits. 

(a) The State SO2 trading budgets, 

new unit set-asides, and Indian country 

new unit-set asides for allocations of TR 

SO2 Group 2 allowances for the control 

periods in 2012 and thereafter are as 

follows: 

(1) Alabama. (i) The SO2 trading 

budget for 2012 and 2013 is 216,033 

tons. 

(ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 

2012 and 2013 is 4,321 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 

and thereafter is 213,258 tons. 

(v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 

2014 and thereafter is 4,265 tons. 

(vi) [Reserved] 

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

for 2012 and 2013 is 158,527 tons. 

(ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 

2012 and 2013 is 3,171 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 

and thereafter is 95,231 tons. 

(v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 

2014 and thereafter is 1,905 tons. 

(vi) [Reserved] 

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

for 2012 and 2013 is 41,528 tons. 

(ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 

2012 and 2013 is 789 tons. 

(iii) The SO2 Indian country new unit 

set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 42 tons. 

(iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 

and thereafter is 41,528 tons. 

(v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 

2014 and thereafter is 789 tons. 

(vi) The SO2 Indian country new unit 

set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 42 

tons. 

(4) Minnesota. (i) The SO2 trading 

budget for 2012 and 2013 is 41,981 tons. 

(ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 

2012 and 2013 is 798 tons. 

(iii) The SO2 Indian country new unit 

set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 42 tons. 

(iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 

and thereafter is 41,981 tons. 

(v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 

2014 and thereafter is 798 tons. 

(vi) The SO2 Indian country new unit 

set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 42 

tons. 

(5) Nebraska. (i) The SO2 trading 

budget for 2012 and 2013 is 65,052 tons. 

(ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 

2012 and 2013 is 2,537 tons. 

(iii) The SO2 Indian country new unit 

set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 65 tons. 

(iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 

and thereafter is 65,052 tons. 

(v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 

2014 and thereafter is 2,537 tons. 

(vi) The SO2 Indian country new unit 

set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 65 

tons. 

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

budget for 2012 and 2013 is 88,620 tons. 

(ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 

2012 and 2013 is 1,683 tons. 

(iii) The SO2 Indian country new unit 

set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 89 tons. 

(iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 

and thereafter is 88,620 tons. 

(v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 

2014 and thereafter is 1,683 tons. 

(vi) The SO2 Indian country new unit 

set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 89 

tons. 

(7) Texas. (i) The SO2 trading budget 

for 2012 and 2013 is 294,471 tons. 

(ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 

2012 and 2013 is 14,430 tons. 

(iii) The SO2 Indian country new unit 

set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 294 tons. 

(iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 

and thereafter is 294,471 tons. 

(v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 

2014 and thereafter is 14,430 tons. 

(vi) The SO2 Indian country new unit 

set-aside for 2014 and thereafter is 294 

tons. 

(b) The States’ variability limits for 

the State SO2 Group 2 trading budgets 

for the control periods in 2014 and 

thereafter are as follows: 

(1) The SO2 variability limit for 

Alabama is 38,386 tons. 

(2) The SO2 variability limit for 

Georgia is 17,142 tons. 

(3) The SO2 variability limit for 

Kansas is 7,475 tons. 

(4) The SO2 variability limit for 

Minnesota is 7,557 tons. 

(5) The SO2 variability limit for 

Nebraska is 11,709 tons. 

(6) The SO2 variability limit for South 

Carolina is 15,952 tons. 

(7) The SO2 variability limit for Texas 

is 53,005 tons. 

(c) Each SO2 Group 2 trading budget 

in this section includes any tons 

identified under a new unit set aside or 

Indian country new unit set aside, but 

excludes any tons in a variability limit. 

§ 97.725 [Amended] 

■ 18. Section 97.725, paragraph (b)(1) 

introductory text, is amended by 

removing ‘‘2013’’ and adding, in its 

place, ‘‘2015’’. 

[FR Doc. 2012–3706 Filed 2–17–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES