[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 21, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10324-10340]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3706]



[[Page 10323]]

Vol. 77

Tuesday,

No. 34

February 21, 2012

Part V





Environmental Protection Agency





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





40 CFR Parts 52 and 97





Revisions to Federal Implementation Plans To Reduce Interstate 
Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone; Final Rule

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

[[Page 10324]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 unit-specific modeling assumptions that affect the 
proper calculation of Transport Rule state budgets and assurance levels 
in Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Jersey, New 
York, Texas, and Wisconsin, as well as new unit set-asides in Arkansas 
and Texas. EPA is also finalizing allowance allocation revisions to 
specific units covered by certain consent decrees that restrict the use 
of those allowances. The resulting budgets maintain substantial 
emission reductions from historic levels and are consistent with the 
final Transport Rule's methodology for defining significant 
contribution and interference with maintenance.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3241465744575c411c555350405b575e5e57725742531c555d44"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="aad9decfdccfc4d984cdcbc8d8c3cfc6c6cfeacfdacb84cdc5dc">[email protected]</span></a>. 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
NO<INF>X</INF> Nitrogen Oxides
SIP State Implementation Plan
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Fine Particulate Matter, Less Than 2.5 Micrometers
PM Particulate Matter
RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis
SNPR Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
SO<INF>2</INF> 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 fuel-fired boilers, turbines, and combined cycle units that 
serve generators that produce electricity for sale or cogenerate 
electricity for sale and steam. Regulated categories and entities 
include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Category                       NAICS Code          Examples of potentially regulated industries
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.............................  2211, 2212, 2213.......  Electric service providers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide 
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. This table lists the types of entities which EPA is now aware 
could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities 
not listed in this table could also be regulated. To determine whether 
your facility, company, business, organization, etc., is regulated by 
this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in 
Sec. Sec.  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

[[Page 10325]]

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act
    L. Judicial Review

III. Executive Summary

    In a previous proposal published on October 14, 2011 (76 FR 63860), 
EPA identified potential errors in unit-specific modeling assumptions 
that affect the proper calculation of Transport Rule state budgets and 
assurance levels in Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, 
Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Texas, and Wisconsin, as well as 
potential errors affecting the proper calculation of new unit set-
asides in Arkansas and Texas. EPA is now taking final action to: (1) 
Revise Michigan's annual NO<INF>X</INF> budget to account for an 
erroneously assumed selective catalytic reduction (SCR) emission 
control device at one unit; (2) revise Nebraska's annual NO<INF>X</INF> 
budget to account for an erroneously assumed SCR emission control 
device at one unit; (3) revise the Texas SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF>, ozone-season 
NO<INF>X</INF>, and annual NO<INF>X</INF> from one new unit; (6) revise 
New Jersey's ozone season NO<INF>X</INF>, annual NO<INF>X</INF>, and 
SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> and annual 
NO<INF>X</INF> budgets to account for erroneously assumed FGD and SCR 
devices at two units; (8) revise New York's SO<INF>2</INF>, annual 
NO<INF>X</INF>, and ozone season NO<INF>X</INF> budgets taking into 
account operational constraints likely to necessitate non-economic 
generation at ten units; (9) revise Louisiana's ozone season 
NO<INF>X</INF> budget taking into account operational constraints 
likely to necessitate non-economic generation at twelve units; (10) 
revise Mississippi's ozone season NO<INF>X</INF> budget taking into 
account operational constraints likely to necessitate non-economic 
generation at four units; (11) revise the Texas annual NO<INF>X</INF> 
and ozone season NO<INF>X</INF> budgets taking into account operational 
constraints likely to necessitate non-economic generation at seven 
units; and (12) revise Florida's ozone-season NO<INF>X</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Throughout this preamble, EPA refers to a state budget for 
2012 and 2013 as a ``2012'' state budget and refers to a state 
budget for 2014 and thereafter as a ``2014'' state budget. 
Therefore, any revision of a 2012 state budget would apply to the 
state budget for 2012 and 2013, and any revision of a 2014 state 
budget would apply to the state budget for 2014 and thereafter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the proposed revisions rule, EPA 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 unit-level allowance allocations to the 
specific units affected by these consent decrees to reflect their 
maximum allowable emissions, such that none of the allowances affected 
by the consent decrees are unnecessarily removed from

[[Page 10326]]

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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 
budgets to reflect the corrections to the Monroe Unit 2 emissions when 
it included Michigan in the Transport Rule ozone-season NO<INF>X</INF> 
program (76 FR 80760, December 27, 2011), as previously proposed (76 FR 
40662, July 11, 2011).
    (2) Increase Nebraska's 2012 and 2014 annual NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 
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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> budget, with an adjustment 
described below based on comments received. EPA is finalizing increases 
to the Texas SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 
budget in accordance with revised assumptions regarding the 
SO<INF>2</INF> 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 
SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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' SO<INF>2</INF> 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' SO<INF>2</INF> 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

[[Page 10327]]

finalizing this revision using this data as the basis for the 
recalculated projected emissions at these units, which inform the state 
budget.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For example, the same facilities for which EPA proposed 
these revisions reported higher scrubber SO<INF>2</INF> removal 
efficiencies in 2009 on the EIA 923 form than they reported on the 
same form in 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with the revised unit-level input assumptions 
regarding existing scrubbers and adjustments to the flue gas treatment 
calculations at the Texas units described above, EPA is increasing the 
state's 2012 and 2014 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> new unit set-
aside in accordance with revisions to the final Transport Rule's 
calculation of the new unit set-aside that erroneously omitted Plum 
Point Unit 1's projected emissions.
    EPA is finalizing an increase of 3 percent to the portion of 
Arkansas' ozone-season budget dedicated to the new unit set-aside 
account. This change yields a total new unit set-aside of 5 percent as 
the portion of Arkansas' ozone-season budget dedicated to the new unit 
set-aside account (as opposed to the 2 percent previously established 
under the final Transport Rule). The revision is consistent with the 
new unit set-aside methodology described in the final rule. As 
explained in the proposal, the updated value simply reflects the 
revised classification of Plum Point Unit 1, which commenced commercial 
operation on or after January 1, 2010, as a new unit for purposes of 
unit-level allowance allocations under the final Transport Rule's unit-
level allocation methodology (76 FR 48290). Commenters did not identify 
any errors that would invalidate EPA's approach to addressing Plum 
Point Unit 1. See the ``Final Revisions Rule State Budgets and New Unit 
Set-Asides TSD'' in the docket for this rulemaking for a quantitative 
demonstration of these revisions.
    These revisions to the Arkansas new unit set-aside result in 
changes to allowance allocations to existing units, but they do not 
change the state's overall budget. See ``Final Revisions Rule Unit-
Level Allocations under the FIPs'' in the docket to this rulemaking.
    (5) Increase Texas' ozone-season NO<INF>X</INF>, annual 
NO<INF>X</INF>, and SO<INF>2</INF> new unit set-asides in accordance 
with a revision to the final Transport Rule's calculations of the new 
unit set-asides that erroneously omitted Oak Grove Unit 2's projected 
emissions.
    EPA is finalizing a revision to the calculation of the new unit 
set-asides for ozone-season NO<INF>X</INF>, annual NO<INF>X</INF>, and 
SO<INF>2</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> budget, 4 percent of the state's 
annual NO<INF>X</INF> budget, and 5 percent of the state's 
SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> budget and 2012 and 
2014 ozone-season and annual NO<INF>X</INF> 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 ozone-season NO<INF>X</INF>, annual 
NO<INF>X</INF>, and SO<INF>2</INF> 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-of-merit-order 
dispatch area. Units at six New Jersey plants (Bergen, Edison, Essex, 
Kearny, Linden, and Sewaren Generating Stations) are frequently 
dispatched out of regional economic order as a result of short-run 
limitations on the ability to meet local electricity demand with 
generation from outside the area. EPA is making only a minor adjustment 
in the way these budget revisions are calculated based on public 
comments regarding the eligible sources of generation that would be 
offset by the assumption of increased generation at the identified 
units. Commenters argued that cogeneration units would be less likely 
than other generators to adjust their dispatch in order to maintain the 
system's equilibrium between electricity supply and demand, as 
operation of these units would remain supported by steam demand. EPA 
agrees with these commenters and has recalculated the associated budget 
revisions while excluding cogeneration units from the calculation.
    EPA re-calculated projected emissions from BL England Unit 1 and 
the six plants with near-term out-of-merit-order generation to account 
for the input assumption changes finalized in this action. These 
calculations yield increases to the New Jersey 2012 state budgets for 
SO<INF>2</INF> of 2,096 tons, annual NO<INF>X</INF> of 952 tons, and 
ozone-season NO<INF>X</INF> of 746 tons; and 2014 state budget 
increases for annual NO<INF>X</INF> of 679 tons, and ozone-season 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> budget and 2012 and 
2014 annual NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
SO<INF>2</INF> budget. As explained in the proposal, EPA proposed to 
adjust Wisconsin's 2014 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 
SO<INF>2</INF> budget by a total of 7,757 tons in 2014.
    EPA is also finalizing the proposed increase to Wisconsin's annual 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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

[[Page 10328]]

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 NO<INF>X</INF> 
budgets to reflect the corrections to the John P. Madgett emissions 
when it included Wisconsin in the Transport Rule ozone-season 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF>, 
annual NO<INF>X</INF>, and SO<INF>2</INF> budgets in accordance with a 
revision to the final Transport Rule analysis that did not reflect 
operational constraints likely to necessitate non-economic dispatch at 
four plants.
    EPA is finalizing increases to the New York state ozone-season 
NO<INF>X</INF>, annual NO<INF>X</INF>, and SO<INF>2</INF> budgets in 
2012 and 2014, to satisfy three specific immediate-term operational 
constraints documented by the New York Independent System Operator 
(NYISO). These three constraints are referred to here as the N-1-1 
Contingency, the Minimum Oil Burn Rules, and out-of-merit-order 
dispatch conditions, which collectively affect the likely 2012 and 2014 
operations of specific units in the New York City and Long Island 
areas. See the proposal to this rule for details (76 FR 63865, October 
14, 2011). Commenters did not identify any errors that would invalidate 
EPA's approach to addressing the units identified by the proposal with 
near-term out-of-merit-order generation in New York State.
    EPA re-calculated projected emissions from the 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 SO<INF>2</INF> of 3,527 tons, for 
annual NO<INF>X</INF> of 3,485 tons, and for ozone-season 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 
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 NO<INF>X</INF> budgets based on assumptions regarding 
near-term non-economic dispatch of certain units. As explained in the 
proposed revisions rule, conditions in these out-of-merit-order 
dispatch areas are likely to necessitate what would otherwise be non-
economic generation at five Louisiana plants (R.S. Nelson, Nine Mile 
Point, Michoud, Little Gypsy, and Waterford) in the immediate future, 
as explained in detail in the proposed revisions rule (76 FR 63866). 
EPA is making only a minor adjustment in the way these budget revisions 
are calculated based on public comments regarding the eligible sources 
of generation that would be offset by the assumption of increased 
generation at the identified units. Commenters argued that cogeneration 
units would be less likely than other generators to adjust their 
dispatch in order to maintain the system's equilibrium between 
electricity supply and demand, as operation of these units would remain 
supported by steam demand. EPA agrees with these commenters and has 
recalculated the associated budget revisions while excluding 
cogeneration units from the calculation.
    EPA is increasing Louisiana's 2012 and 2014 state budgets for 
ozone-season NO<INF>X</INF> by 4,594 tons. See ``Final Revisions Rule 
State Budgets and New Unit Set-Asides TSD'' in the docket for this 
rulemaking for a quantitative demonstration of these revisions.
    (10) Increase Mississippi's 2012 and 2014 ozone-season 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> rate with a more appropriate ozone-season NO<INF>X</INF> 
rate to calculate the revision to the state's ozone-season 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> of 2,154 tons. See ``Final 
Revisions Rule State Budgets and New Unit Set-Asides TSD'' in the 
docket for this rulemaking for a quantitative demonstration of these 
revisions.
    (11) Increase the Texas 2012 and 2014 annual and ozone-season 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 non-economic purposes, according to data 
provided by the utility operating those units. Commenters did not 
identify any errors that would invalidate EPA's approach to making the 
proposed revisions addressing the units identified by the proposal with 
near-term out-of-merit-order generation in Texas.
    These revisions yield increases to Texas's 2012 and 2014 state 
budgets for annual NO<INF>X</INF> of 1,375 tons and ozone-season 
NO<INF>X</INF> of 1,375 tons. See ``Final Revisions Rule State Budgets 
and New Unit Set-Asides TSD'' in the docket for this rulemaking for a 
quantitative demonstration of these revisions.
    (12) Increase Florida's 2012 ozone-season NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> budget be extended into 2014 
and beyond, on the basis that future generation from Crystal River Unit 
3 is

[[Page 10329]]

uncertain. EPA does not believe this revision has merit on that 
timeframe.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 year-to-year variability in states' heat input 
at covered units, which would capture the impact of disruptions at 
other sources of generation (such as a nuclear outage) on emissions at 
covered units. As EPA explained in the final Transport Rule, a state 
budget represents remaining emissions at covered units in an average 
year after the elimination of significant contribution and interference 
with maintenance, whereas the variability limit accommodates year-to-
year fluctuation of state-level emissions around that average outcome 
consistent with historically observed year-to-year variability in 
state-level heat input at covered units. EPA believes it is appropriate 
to quantify an ``average year'' of projected emissions in Florida for 
2014 and beyond to include projected generation from Crystal River Unit 
3, while allowing the variability limit to accommodate the potential 
that such generation may be temporarily unavailable in any given year 
in that timeframe. As such, EPA is not extending this revision to 
Florida's ozone-season NO<INF>X</INF> budget for 2014 and beyond.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The plant operator has announced intentions to return the 
unit to service by 2014 (https://www.progress-energy.com/company/media-room/news-archive/press-release.page?title=Progress+Energy+provides+update+on+Crystal+River+Nuclear+Plant+outage&pubdate=06-27-2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 SO<INF>2</INF> and/or 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> and/or NO<INF>X</INF> 
allowances allocated to each of the 82 affected units, in order to 
align the facility-wide and system-wide allowance totals with the ATLs 
specified in the consent decrees.
    The unit-level allowance adjustments for each affected facility (or 
system) were made using the methodology described in the October 14, 
2011 proposed rule. First, EPA calculated the ratio of the facility-
wide (or system-wide) ATL to the total number of allowances allocated 
to the units at the facility (or in the system). Then, for each unit, 
an annual tonnage limit equivalent (``unit-level cap'') was determined 
by multiplying this ratio by the number of allowances originally 
allocated to the unit.
    As previously noted, EPA took the requirements of existing utility 
consent decrees into account when the state budgets were established. 
Therefore, this final action, as it regards the consent decrees, does 
not alter the budget of any of the six affected states. Further, this 
action with respect to the consent decrees has no impact on the 
existing unit-level allocations in states where there are no units 
covered by consent decrees with ATLs. The excess allowances removed 
from the 82 affected units have been reallocated to other covered 
sources in each relevant state using the allowance allocation 
methodology described in the October 14, 2011 proposed rule.
    EPA received several comments on the proposed constraint and the 
unit-level cap apportionment methodology. Some commenters supported the 
proposal. Other commenters expressed concern that EPA was 
inappropriately using its rulemaking authority to modify, undo, or 
compromise provisions in the negotiated consent decree agreements. The 
Agency does not agree that the allowance allocation revisions being 
finalized in this rule modify the terms of any consent decree. The 
unit-level allowance allocation caps applied in this rulemaking do not 
alter any obligation, timeline, or other requirement of the utility 
consent decrees. None of the restrictions in the utility consent 
decrees are premised on trading programs that employ any particular 
allocation methodology or distribution of unit-level allocations. 
Moreover, the utility consent decrees do not, and cannot, preclude any 
particular allocation methodology or distribution from being 
implemented in future trading programs. Finally, unit-level allowance 
allocations under existing trading programs, including the Transport 
Rule programs, do not establish unit-level emission constraints, 
because sources may obtain additional allowances from the marketplace 
to cover emissions that are above the unit-level allocations.
    Several commenters asked EPA to either clarify the specific consent 
decrees or exempt Transport Rule allowances from those restrictions and 
requirements. However, legal interpretations of utility consent decree 
provisions are outside the scope of this rulemaking. Moreover, it would 
be inappropriate for EPA to attempt to alter the terms of the consent 
decrees to exempt the Transport Rule allowances from the trading 
restrictions and allowance surrender provisions via a rulemaking.
    Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) commented that the TVA consent

[[Page 10330]]

decree includes a higher SO<INF>2</INF> ATL in the event that a nuclear 
electric generating unit is shut down for more than 120 days during 
calendar years 2012, 2013, or 2014. Because EPA and TVA are unable to 
predict whether such an event will occur, EPA is adopting, for purposes 
of allowance allocations in this rulemaking, the higher ATL for the TVA 
system which is based on the occurrence of a nuclear unit shut down. 
This change only affects TVA unit-level allocations in the year 2013. 
EPA reviewed the other existing utility consent decrees and did not 
find similar provisions in those decrees that require such an 
adjustment.
    In the proposed revisions rule, EPA adjusted unit-level allocations 
to units affected by the TVA consent decree in years for which the 
final Transport Rule's allowance allocations to those units 
collectively exceeded that consent decree's ATL that is effective in 
that year. For the affected TVA units, the final Transport Rule's 
allowance allocations exceeded the consent decree ATL in 2013, 2018, 
and thereafter. TVA submitted comments arguing that the effective ATL 
under that consent decree is subject to change based on the potential 
retirement of affected units, which would also reduce aggregate unit-
level allowance allocations to TVA under the Transport Rule. TVA's 
comments noted that the future balance of these two factors, which 
change over time, is uncertain.
    EPA recognizes that the relationship between unit-level allowance 
allocations under the FIPs and the applicable ATL becomes relatively 
less certain when considered over longer time horizons. In order to 
reduce the potential impact utility consent decree ATLs may have on the 
availability of Transport Rule allowances for compliance, EPA must 
account for the variability in utility consent decree ATLs in future 
years. Where information was available, EPA included generating unit 
retirements in its analysis of utility consent decree ATLs (see 
``Assessment of Impact of Consent Decree Annual Tonnage Limits on 
Transport Rule Allocations'' in the Docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491) for 
the proposed revisions (76 FR 63860)). However, EPA agrees that the 
uncertainty becomes more pronounced in more distant years. Therefore, 
in this rulemaking EPA is not quantifying any additional adjustments to 
unit-level caps attributable to consent decree ATLs that become 
effective after 2017. In 2018 and thereafter, EPA will continue to 
apply the ATLs effective in 2017 for the purpose of unit-level 
allocations. EPA notes that this timeline will provide states with 
ample opportunity, if they wish, to submit SIPs and establish alternate 
allocation methodologies where updated information on consent decree 
requirements may affect Transport Rule allowance use.

C. Assurance Penalty Provisions

    EPA is finalizing its proposal to make the assurance provisions 
effective starting in 2014. EPA maintains that, for 2012-2013, the 
Transport Rule (as revised by this final rule) ensures the elimination 
of each state's significant contribution to nonattainment and 
interference with maintenance.\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ As discussed in the Transport Rule, with respect to the 1997 
ozone NAAQS, for certain states EPA quantified the ozone-season 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 SO<INF>2</INF> program, 19 out of the 23 states 
subject to the Transport Rule NO<INF>X</INF> annual program, and 22 out 
of the 25 states subject to the Transport Rule NO<INF>X</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ http://camddataandmaps.epa.gov/gdm/index.cfm?fuseaction=iss.isshome.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 10331]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 NO<INF>X</INF> annual, CAIR 
NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season, and Acid Rain SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 
Group 1, TR SO<INF>2</INF> Group 2, TR NO<INF>X</INF> annual, and TR 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) is another name 
for the Transport Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 10332]]

significant contribution and interference with maintenance is met by 
the Transport Rule.
    Moreover, unlike the circumstances in CAIR, EPA determined in this 
rulemaking that information on the current level of EGU emissions and 
ongoing emission control installations, supported by the results of 
EPA's short-term modeling, demonstrates that without the assurance 
provisions being applicable in 2012-2013, EGU emissions in 2012 and 
2013 in each state will not exceed the applicable state assurance 
level. For 2014 and thereafter when controls and emissions are likely 
to be different from current controls and emissions and modeling 
projections are correspondingly less certain, the Transport Rule 
imposes assurance provision requirements that penalize sources whose 
emissions result in the state having total EGU emissions in excess of 
the state assurance level, and thereby ensures that sources operate in 
a manner that results in the elimination of each state's significant 
contribution and interference with maintenance.
    In contrast with the Transport Rule, state-level EGU emissions were 
not, when CAIR was issued, already at (or well on the way to meeting) 
the required reduction levels. EPA did not impose penalties on sources 
whose emissions resulted in a state's failing to eliminate its 
significant contribution and interference with maintenance, and EPA 
relied entirely on its modeling, as opposed to data demonstrating 
states' emission reductions occurring in the period immediately prior 
to the relevant compliance years, to show that significant contribution 
and interference with maintenance would be eliminated. See North 
Carolina, 531 F.3d at 907 (stating that ``CAIR only assures that the 
entire region's significant contribution will be eliminated. It is 
possible that CAIR would achieve [CAA] section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)'s 
goals. EPA's modeling shows that sources contributing to North 
Carolina's nonattainment areas will at least reduce their emissions 
even after opting into CAIR's trading programs * * * But EPA is not 
exercising its section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) duty unless it is 
promulgating a rule that achieves something measurable toward the goal 
of prohibiting sources `within the State' from contributing to 
nonattainment or interfering with maintenance `in any other State.' '')
    In addition, in CAIR, the EPA modeling was for the intermediate 
term (i.e., projected in 2005 emissions for 2009 and 2010), not for the 
short term when critical elements (such as the locations of existing 
EGUs with existing emission controls or with control retrofits to be 
completed by 2012 and of soon-to-be-completed, new EGUs with controls 
and the reduction capabilities of all these controls) are known. Thus, 
the Transport Rule accomplishes on a state-by-state basis what CAIR 
accomplished on a regional basis, i.e., assurance that significant 
contribution and interference with maintenance will be eliminated, and 
the requirement--which was not met by CAIR--that EPA provide such 
assurance is met by the Transport Rule.
    North Carolina's argument 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,

[[Page 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 megawatt-hours 
(MWh) or less in the previous fiscal year. We have determined that the 
changes considered in this proposed rulemaking pose no additional 
burden for small entities. The proposed revision to the new unit set-
asides in Arkansas and Texas would yield an extremely small change in 
unit-level allowance allocations to existing units, including small 
entities, such that it would not affect the analysis conducted on small 
entity impacts under the finalized Transport Rule. In all other states, 
the revisions proposed in this rulemaking would yield additional 
allowance allocations to all units, including small entities, without 
increasing program stringency, such that it is not possible for the 
impact to small entities to be any larger than that already considered 
and reviewed in the finalized Transport Rule.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in 
expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. 
This action is increasing the budgets and increasing the total number 
of allowances or maintaining the same budget but revising unit-level 
allocations in several other states in the Transport Rule. Thus, this 
rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.
    In developing the final Transport Rule, EPA consulted with small 
governments pursuant to a plan established under section 203 of UMRA to 
address impacts of regulatory requirements in the rule that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 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 SO<INF>2</INF>, the estimated 
air quality impacts were minimal and no additional nonattainment or 
maintenance areas were identified. EPA also assessed the relationship 
between the NO<INF>X</INF> emission inventories in each affected state 
and the finalized revisions to annual and ozone-season NO<INF>X</INF> 
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

[[Page 10334]]

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]

0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart A--General Provisions


Sec.  52.39  [Amended]

0
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

0
3. Section 52.745 is redesignated as Sec.  52.731.

0
4. Section 52.746 is redesignated as Sec.  52.732.

Subpart VV--Virginia

0
5. Section 52.2241, added at 76 FR 48376, August 8, 2011, is 
redesignated as Sec.  52.2441.

PART 97--[AMENDED]

0
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.


0
7. Section 97.406 is amended by:
0
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)'';
0
b. Adding a new paragraph (c)(3)(ii); and
0
c. Removing the words ``or or'' and adding, in its place, the word 
``or'' in paragraph (e)(2) to read as follows:


Sec.  97.406  Standard requirements.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (ii) A TR NO<INF>X</INF> 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 Sec.  
97.430(b) and for each control period thereafter.
* * * * *

0
8. Section 97.410 is revised to read as follows:


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

    (a) The State NO<INF>X</INF> Annual trading budgets, new unit set-
asides, and Indian country new unit-set asides for allocations of TR 
NO<INF>X</INF> Annual allowances for the control periods in 2012 and 
thereafter are as follows:
    (1) Alabama. (i) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual trading budget for 2012 
and 2013 is 72,691 tons.
    (ii) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 
is 1,454 tons.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual trading budget for 2014 and 
thereafter is 71,962 tons.
    (v) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and 
thereafter is 1,439 tons.
    (vi) [Reserved]
    (2) Georgia. (i) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual trading budget for 2012 
and 2013 is 62,010 tons.
    (ii) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 
is 1,240 tons.

[[Page 10335]]

    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual trading budget for 2014 and 
thereafter is 40,540 tons.
    (v) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and 
thereafter is 811 tons.
    (vi) [Reserved]
    (3) Illinois. (i) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual trading budget for 2012 
and 2013 is 47,872 tons.
    (ii) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 
is 3,830 tons.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual trading budget for 2014 and 
thereafter is 47,872 tons.
    (v) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and 
thereafter is 3,830 tons.
    (vi) [Reserved]
    (4) Indiana. (i) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual trading budget for 2012 
and 2013 is 109,726 tons.
    (ii) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 
is 3,292 tons.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual trading budget for 2014 and 
thereafter is 108,424 tons.
    (v) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and 
thereafter is 3,253 tons.
    (vi) [Reserved]
    (5) Iowa. (i) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual trading budget for 2012 and 
2013 is 38,335 tons.
    (ii) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 
is 729 tons.
    (iii) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual Indian country new unit set-aside 
for 2012 and 2013 is 38 tons.
    (iv) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual trading budget for 2014 and 
thereafter is 37,498 tons.
    (v) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and 
thereafter is 712 tons.
    (vi) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual Indian country new unit set-aside 
for 2014 and thereafter is 38 tons.
    (6) Kansas. (i) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual trading budget for 2012 
and 2013 is 30,714 tons.
    (ii) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 
is 583 tons.
    (iii) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual Indian country new unit set-aside 
for 2012 and 2013 is 31 tons.
    (iv) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual trading budget for 2014 and 
thereafter is 25,560 tons.
    (v) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and 
thereafter is 485 tons.
    (vi) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual Indian country new unit set-aside 
for 2014 and thereafter is 26 tons.
    (7) Kentucky. (i) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual trading budget for 2012 
and 2013 is 85,086 tons.
    (ii) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 
is 3,403 tons.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual trading budget for 2014 and 
thereafter is 77,238 tons.
    (v) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and 
thereafter is 3,090 tons.
    (vi) [Reserved]
    (8) Maryland. (i) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual trading budget for 2012 
and 2013 is 16,633 tons.
    (ii) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 
is 333 tons.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual trading budget for 2014 and 
thereafter is 16,574 tons.
    (v) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and 
thereafter is 331 tons.
    (vi) [Reserved]
    (9) Michigan. (i) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual trading budget for 2012 
and 2013 is 65,421 tons.
    (ii) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 
is 1,243 tons.
    (iii) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual Indian country new unit set-aside 
for 2012 and 2013 is 65 tons.
    (iv) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual trading budget for 2014 and 
thereafter is 63,040 tons.
    (v) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and 
thereafter is 1,198 tons.
    (vi) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual Indian country new unit set-aside 
for 2014 and thereafter is 63 tons.
    (10) Minnesota. (i) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual trading budget for 
2012 and 2013 is 29,572 tons.
    (ii) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 
is 561 tons.
    (iii) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual Indian country new unit set-aside 
for 2012 and 2013 is 30 tons.
    (iv) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual trading budget for 2014 and 
thereafter is 29,572 tons.
    (v) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and 
thereafter is 561 tons.
    (vi) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual Indian country new unit set-aside 
for 2014 and thereafter is 30 tons.
    (11) Missouri. (i) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual trading budget for 
2012 and 2013 is 52,374 tons.
    (ii) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 
is 1,571 tons.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual trading budget for 2014 and 
thereafter is 48,717 tons.
    (v) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and 
thereafter is 1,462 tons.
    (vi) [Reserved]
    (12) Nebraska. (i) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual trading budget for 
2012 and 2013 is 30,039 tons.
    (ii) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 
is 1,772 tons.
    (iii) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual Indian country new unit set-aside 
for 2012 and 2013 is 30 tons.
    (iv) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual trading budget for 2014 and 
thereafter is 30,039 tons.
    (v) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and 
thereafter is 1,772 tons.
    (vi) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual Indian country new unit set-aside 
for 2014 and thereafter is 30 tons.
    (13) New Jersey. (i) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual trading budget for 
2012 and 2013 is 8,218 tons.
    (ii) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 
is 164 tons.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual trading budget for 2014 and 
thereafter is 7,945 tons.
    (v) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and 
thereafter is 159 tons.
    (vi) [Reserved]
    (14) New York. (i) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual trading budget for 
2012 and 2013 is 21,028 tons.
    (ii) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 
is 400 tons.
    (iii) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual Indian country new unit set-aside 
for 2012 and 2013 is 21 tons.
    (iv) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual trading budget for 2014 and 
thereafter is 21,028 tons.
    (v) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and 
thereafter is 400 tons.
    (vi) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual Indian country new unit set-aside 
for 2014 and thereafter is 21 tons.
    (15) North Carolina. (i) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual trading budget 
for 2012 and 2013 is 50,587 tons.
    (ii) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 
is 2,984 tons.
    (iii) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual Indian country new unit set-aside 
for 2012 and 2013 is 51 tons.
    (iv) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual trading budget for 2014 and 
thereafter is 41,553 tons.
    (v) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and 
thereafter is 2,451 tons.
    (vi) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual Indian country new unit set-aside 
for 2014 and thereafter is 42 tons.
    (16) Ohio. (i) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual trading budget for 2012 
and 2013 is 92,703 tons.
    (ii) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 
is 1,854 tons.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual trading budget for 2014 and 
thereafter is 87,493 tons.
    (v) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and 
thereafter is 1,750 tons.
    (vi) [Reserved]
    (17) Pennsylvania. (i) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual trading budget for 
2012 and 2013 is 119,986 tons.
    (ii) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 
is 2,400 tons.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual trading budget for 2014 and 
thereafter is 119,194 tons.
    (v) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and 
thereafter is 2,384 tons.
    (vi) [Reserved]
    (18) South Carolina. (i) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual trading budget 
for 2012 and 2013 is 32,498 tons.
    (ii) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 
is 617 tons.

[[Page 10336]]

    (iii) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual Indian country new unit set-aside 
for 2012 and 2013 is 33 tons.
    (iv) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual trading budget for 2014 and 
thereafter is 32,498 tons.
    (v) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and 
thereafter is 617 tons.
    (vi) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual Indian country new unit set-aside 
for 2014 and thereafter is 33 tons.
    (19) Tennessee. (i) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual trading budget for 
2012 and 2013 is 35,703 tons.
    (ii) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 
is 714 tons.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual trading budget for 2014 and 
thereafter is 19,337 tons.
    (v) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and 
thereafter is 387 tons.
    (vi) [Reserved]
    (20) Texas. (i) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual trading budget for 2012 
and 2013 is 134,970 tons.
    (ii) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 
is 5,264 tons.
    (iii) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual Indian country new unit set-aside 
for 2012 and 2013 is 135 tons.
    (iv) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual trading budget for 2014 and 
thereafter is 134,970 tons.
    (v) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and 
thereafter is 5,264 tons.
    (vi) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual Indian country new unit set-aside 
for 2014 and thereafter is 135 tons.
    (21) Virginia. (i) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual trading budget for 
2012 and 2013 is 33,242 tons.
    (ii) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 
is 1,662 tons.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual trading budget for 2014 and 
thereafter is 33,242 tons.
    (v) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and 
thereafter is 1,662 tons.
    (vi) [Reserved]
    (22) West Virginia. (i) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual trading budget 
for 2012 and 2013 is 59,472 tons.
    (ii) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 
is 2,974 tons.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual trading budget for 2014 and 
thereafter is 54,582 tons.
    (v) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and 
thereafter is 2,729 tons.
    (vi) [Reserved]
    (23) Wisconsin. (i) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual trading budget for 
2012 and 2013 is 34,101 tons.
    (ii) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 
is 2,012 tons.
    (iii) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual Indian country new unit set-aside 
for 2012 and 2013 is 34 tons.
    (iv) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual trading budget for 2014 and 
thereafter is 32,871 tons.
    (v) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and 
thereafter is 1,939 tons.
    (vi) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual Indian country new unit set-aside 
for 2014 and thereafter is 33 tons.
    (b) The States' variability limits for the State NO<INF>X</INF> 
Annual trading budgets for the control periods in 2014 and thereafter 
are as follows:
    (1) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual variability limit for Alabama is 
12,953 tons.
    (2) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual variability limit for Georgia is 
7,297 tons.
    (3) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual variability limit for Illinois is 
8,617 tons.
    (4) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual variability limit for Indiana is 
19,516 tons.
    (5) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual variability limit for Iowa is 6,750 
tons.
    (6) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual variability limit for Kansas is 4,601 
tons.
    (7) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual variability limit for Kentucky is 
13,903 tons.
    (8) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual variability limit for Maryland is 
2,983 tons.
    (9) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual variability limit for Michigan is 
11,347 tons.
    (10) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual variability limit for Minnesota is 
5,323 tons.
    (11) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual variability limit for Missouri is 
8,769 tons.
    (12) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual variability limit for Nebraska is 
5,407 tons.
    (13) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual variability limit for New Jersey is 
1,430 tons.
    (14) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual variability limit for New York is 
3,785 tons.
    (15) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual variability limit for North Carolina 
is 7,480 tons.
    (16) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual variability limit for Ohio is 15,749 
tons.
    (17) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual variability limit for Pennsylvania 
is 21,455 tons.
    (18) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual variability limit for South Carolina 
is 5,850 tons.
    (19) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual variability limit for Tennessee is 
3,481 tons.
    (20) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual variability limit for Texas is 
24,295 tons.
    (21) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual variability limit for Virginia is 
5,984 tons.
    (22) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual variability limit for West Virginia 
is 9,825 tons.
    (23) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual variability limit for Wisconsin is 
5,917 tons.
    (c) Each NO<INF>X</INF> 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.


Sec.  97.425  [Amended]

0
9. Section 97.425, paragraph (b)(1) introductory text, is amended by 
removing ``2013'' and adding, in its place, ``2015''.

0
10. Section 97.506 is amended by:
0
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
0
b. Adding a new paragraph (c)(3)(ii) to read as follows:


Sec.  97.506  Standard requirements.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (ii) A TR NO<INF>X</INF> 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 Sec.  97.530(b) and 
for each control period thereafter.
* * * * *

0
11. Section 97.510 is revised to read as follows:


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

    (a) The State NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading budgets, new unit 
set-asides, and Indian country new unit-set asides for allocations of 
TR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season allowances for the control periods in 
2012 and thereafter are as follows:
    (1) Alabama. (i) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading budget for 
2012 and 2013 is 31,746 tons.
    (ii) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 
and 2013 is 635 tons.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading budget for 2014 and 
thereafter is 31,499 tons.
    (v) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and 
thereafter is 630 tons.
    (vi) [Reserved]
    (2) Arkansas. (i) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading budget 
for 2012 and 2013 is 15,037 tons.
    (ii) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 
and 2013 is 752 tons.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading budget for 2014 and 
thereafter is 15,037 tons.
    (v) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and 
thereafter is 752 tons.
    (vi) [Reserved]
    (3) Florida. (i) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading budget for 
2012 and 2013 is 28,644 tons.
    (ii) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 
and 2013 is 544 tons.
    (iii) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season Indian country new unit set-
aside for 2012 and 2013 is 29 tons.

[[Page 10337]]

    (iv) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading budget for 2014 and 
thereafter is 27,825 tons.
    (v) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and 
thereafter is 529 tons.
    (vi) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season Indian country new unit set-
aside for 2014 and thereafter is 28 tons.
    (4) Georgia. (i) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading budget for 
2012 and 2013 is 27,944 tons.
    (ii) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 
and 2013 is 559 tons.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading budget for 2014 and 
thereafter is 18,279 tons.
    (v) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and 
thereafter is 366 tons.
    (vi) [Reserved]
    (5) Illinois. (i) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading budget 
for 2012 and 2013 is 21,208 tons.
    (ii) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 
and 2013 is 1,697 tons.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading budget for 2014 and 
thereafter is 21,208 tons.
    (v) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and 
thereafter is 1,697 tons.
    (vi) [Reserved]
    (6) Indiana. (i) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading budget for 
2012 and 2013 is 46,876 tons.
    (ii) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 
and 2013 is 1,406 tons.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading budget for 2014 and 
thereafter is 46,175 tons.
    (v) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and 
thereafter is 1,385 tons.
    (vi) [Reserved]
    (7) Iowa. (i) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading budget for 
2012 and 2013 is 16,532 tons.
    (ii) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 
and 2013 is 314 tons.
    (iii) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season Indian country new unit set-
aside for 2012 and 2013 is 17 tons.
    (iv) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading budget for 2014 and 
thereafter is 16,207 tons.
    (v) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and 
thereafter is 308 tons.
    (vi) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season Indian country new unit set-
aside for 2014 and thereafter is 16 tons.
    (8) Kentucky. (i) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading budget 
for 2012 and 2013 is 36,167 tons.
    (ii) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 
and 2013 is 1,447 tons.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading budget for 2014 and 
thereafter is 32,674 tons.
    (v) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and 
thereafter is 1,307 tons.
    (vi) [Reserved]
    (9) Louisiana. (i) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading budget 
for 2012 and 2013 is 18,026 tons.
    (ii) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 
and 2013 is 523 tons.
    (iii) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season Indian country new unit set-
aside for 2012 and 2013 is 18 tons.
    (iv) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading budget for 2014 and 
thereafter is 18,026 tons.
    (v) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and 
thereafter is 523 tons.
    (vi) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season Indian country new unit set-
aside for 2014 and thereafter is 18 tons.
    (10) Maryland. (i) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading budget 
for 2012 and 2013 is 7,179 tons.
    (ii) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 
and 2013 is 144 tons.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading budget for 2014 and 
thereafter is 7,179 tons.
    (v) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and 
thereafter is 144 tons.
    (vi) [Reserved]
    (11) Michigan. (i) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading budget 
for 2012 and 2013 is 28,041 tons.
    (ii) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 
and 2013 is 533 tons.
    (iii) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season Indian country new unit set-
aside for 2012 and 2013 is 28 tons.
    (iv) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading budget for 2014 and 
thereafter is 27,016 tons.
    (v) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and 
thereafter is 513 tons.
    (vi) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season Indian country new unit set-
aside for 2014 and thereafter is 27 tons.
    (12) Mississippi. (i) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading 
budget for 2012 and 2013 is 12,314 tons.
    (ii) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 
and 2013 is 234 tons.
    (iii) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season Indian country new unit set-
aside for 2012 and 2013 is 12 tons.
    (iv) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading budget for 2014 and 
thereafter is 12,314 tons.
    (v) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and 
thereafter is 234 tons.
    (vi) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season Indian country new unit set-
aside for 2014 and thereafter is 12 tons.
    (13) Missouri. (i) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading budget 
for 2012 and 2013 is 22,762 tons.
    (ii) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 
and 2013 is 683 tons.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading budget for 2014 and 
thereafter is 21,073 tons.
    (v) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and 
thereafter is 632 tons.
    (vi) [Reserved]
    (14) New Jersey. (i) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading budget 
for 2012 and 2013 is 4,128 tons.
    (ii) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 
and 2013 is 83 tons.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading budget for 2014 and 
thereafter is 3,731 tons.
    (v) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and 
thereafter is 75 tons.
    (vi) [Reserved]
    (15) New York. (i) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading budget 
for 2012 and 2013 is 10,242 tons.
    (ii) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 
and 2013 is 195 tons.
    (iii) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season Indian country new unit set-
aside for 2012 and 2013 is 10 tons.
    (iv) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading budget for 2014 and 
thereafter is 10,242 tons.
    (v) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and 
thereafter is 195 tons.
    (vi) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season Indian country new unit set-
aside for 2014 and thereafter is 10 tons.
    (16) North Carolina. (i) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading 
budget for 2012 and 2013 is 22,168 tons.
    (ii) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 
and 2013 is 1,308 tons.
    (iii) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season Indian country new unit set-
aside for 2012 and 2013 is 22 tons.
    (iv) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading budget for 2014 and 
thereafter is 18,455 tons.
    (v) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and 
thereafter is 1,089 tons.
    (vi) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season Indian country new unit set-
aside for 2014 and thereafter is 18 tons.
    (17) Ohio. (i) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading budget for 
2012 and 2013 is 40,063 tons.

[[Page 10338]]

    (ii) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 
and 2013 is 801 tons.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading budget for 2014 and 
thereafter is 37,792 tons.
    (v) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and 
thereafter is 756 tons.
    (vi) [Reserved]
    (18) Oklahoma. (i) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading budget 
for 2012 is 36,567 and for 2013 is 21,835 tons.
    (ii) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 is 
731 and for 2013 is 437 tons.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading budget for 2014 and 
thereafter is 21,835 tons.
    (v) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and 
thereafter is 437 tons.
    (vi) [Reserved]
    (19) Pennsylvania. (i) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading 
budget for 2012 and 2013 is 52,201 tons.
    (ii) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 
and 2013 is 1,044 tons.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading budget for 2014 and 
thereafter is 51,912 tons.
    (v) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and 
thereafter is 1,038 tons.
    (vi) [Reserved]
    (20) South Carolina. (i) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading 
budget for 2012 and 2013 is 13,909 tons.
    (ii) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 
and 2013 is 264 tons.
    (iii) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season Indian country new unit set-
aside for 2012 and 2013 is 14 tons.
    (iv) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading budget for 2014 and 
thereafter is 13,909 tons.
    (v) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and 
thereafter is 264 tons.
    (vi) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season Indian country new unit set-
aside for 2014 and thereafter is 14 tons.
    (21) Tennessee. (i) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading budget 
for 2012 and 2013 is 14,908 tons.
    (ii) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 
and 2013 is 298 tons.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading budget for 2014 and 
thereafter is 8,016 tons.
    (v) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and 
thereafter is 160 tons.
    (vi) [Reserved]
    (22) Texas. (i) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading budget for 
2012 and 2013 is 64,418 tons.
    (ii) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 
and 2013 is 2,513 tons.
    (iii) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season Indian country new unit set-
aside for 2012 and 2013 is 64 tons.
    (iv) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading budget for 2014 and 
thereafter is 64,418 tons.
    (v) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and 
thereafter is 2,513 tons.
    (vi) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season Indian country new unit set-
aside for 2014 and thereafter is 64 tons.
    (23) Virginia. (i) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading budget 
for 2012 and 2013 is 14,452 tons.
    (ii) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 
and 2013 is 723 tons.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading budget for 2014 and 
thereafter is 14,452 tons.
    (v) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and 
thereafter is 723 tons.
    (vi) [Reserved]
    (24) West Virginia. (i) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading 
budget for 2012 and 2013 is 25,283 tons.
    (ii) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 
and 2013 is 1,264 tons.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading budget for 2014 and 
thereafter is 23,291 tons.
    (v) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and 
thereafter is 1,165 tons.
    (vi) [Reserved]
    (25) Wisconsin. (i) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading budget 
for 2012 and 2013 is 14,784 tons.
    (ii) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 
and 2013 is 872 tons.
    (iii) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season Indian country new unit set-
aside for 2012 and 2013 is 15 tons.
    (iv) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading budget for 2014 and 
thereafter is 14,296 tons.
    (v) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and 
thereafter is 844 tons.
    (vi) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season Indian country new unit set-
aside for 2014 and thereafter is 14 tons.
    (b) The States' variability limits for the State NO<INF>X</INF> 
ozone season trading budgets for the control periods in 2014 and 
thereafter are as follows:
    (1) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season variability limit for Alabama 
is 6,615 tons.
    (2) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season variability limit for Arkansas 
is 3,158 tons.
    (3) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season variability limit for Florida 
is 5,843 tons.
    (4) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season variability limit for Georgia 
is 3,839 tons.
    (5) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season variability limit for Illinois 
is 4,454 tons.
    (6) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season variability limit for Indiana 
is 9,697 tons.
    (7) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season variability limit for Iowa is 
3,403 tons.
    (8) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season variability limit for Kentucky 
is 6,862 tons.
    (9) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season variability limit for Louisiana 
is 3,785 tons.
    (10) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season variability limit for Maryland 
is 1,508 tons.
    (11) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season variability limit for Michigan 
is 5,673 tons.
    (12) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season variability limit for 
Mississippi is 2,586 tons.
    (13) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season variability limit for Missouri 
is 4,425 tons.
    (14) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season variability limit for New 
Jersey is 784 tons.
    (15) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season variability limit for New York 
is 2,151 tons.
    (16) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season variability limit for North 
Carolina is 3,876 tons.
    (17) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season variability limit for Ohio is 
7,936 tons.
    (18) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season variability limit for Oklahoma 
is 4,585 tons.
    (19) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season variability limit for 
Pennsylvania is 10,902 tons.
    (20) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season variability limit for South 
Carolina is 2,921 tons.
    (21) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season variability limit for 
Tennessee is 1,683 tons.
    (22) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season variability limit for Texas is 
13,528 tons.
    (23) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season variability limit for Virginia 
is 3,035 tons.
    (24) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season variability limit for West 
Virginia is 4,891 tons.
    (25) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season variability limit for 
Wisconsin is 3,002 tons.
    (c) Each NO<INF>X</INF> 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.


Sec.  97.525  [Amended]

0
12. Section 97.525, paragraph (b)(1) introductory text, is amended by 
removing ``2013'' and adding, in its place, ``2015.''

0
13. Section 97.606 is amended by:
0
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);''
0
b. Adding a new paragraph (c)(3)(ii); and
0
c. Amending paragraph (e)(2) by removing the words ``or or'' and 
adding, in their place, the word ``or'' to read as follows:

[[Page 10339]]

Sec.  97.606  Standard requirements.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (ii) A TR SO<INF>2</INF> 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 Sec.  
97.630(b) and for each control period thereafter.
* * * * *

0
14. Section 97.610 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  97.610  State SO<INF>2</INF> Group 1 trading budgets, new unit 
set-asides, Indian country new unit set-aside, and variability limits.

    (a) The State SO<INF>2</INF> trading budgets, new unit set-asides, 
and Indian country new unit-set asides for allocations of TR 
SO<INF>2</INF> Group 1 allowances for the control periods in 2012 and 
thereafter are as follows:
    (1) Illinois. (i) The SO<INF>2</INF> trading budget for 2012 and 
2013 is 234,889 tons.
    (ii) The SO<INF>2</INF> new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 
11,744 tons.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The SO<INF>2</INF> trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 
124,123 tons.
    (v) The SO<INF>2</INF> new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter 
is 6,206 tons.
    (vi) [Reserved]
    (2) Indiana. (i) The SO<INF>2</INF> trading budget for 2012 and 
2013 is 285,424 tons.
    (ii) The SO<INF>2</INF> new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 
8,563 tons.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The SO<INF>2</INF> trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 
161,111 tons.
    (v) The SO<INF>2</INF> new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter 
is 4,833 tons.
    (vi) [Reserved]
    (3) Iowa. (i) The SO<INF>2</INF> trading budget for 2012 and 2013 
is 107,085 tons.
    (ii) The SO<INF>2</INF> new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 
2,035 tons.
    (iii) The SO<INF>2</INF> Indian country new unit set-aside for 2012 
and 2013 is 107 tons.
    (iv) The SO<INF>2</INF> trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 
75,184 tons.
    (v) The SO<INF>2</INF> new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter 
is 1,429 tons.
    (vi) The SO<INF>2</INF> Indian country new unit set-aside for 2014 
and thereafter is 75 tons.
    (4) Kentucky. (i) The SO<INF>2</INF> trading budget for 2012 and 
2013 is 232,662 tons.
    (ii) The SO<INF>2</INF> new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 
13,960 tons.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The SO<INF>2</INF> trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 
106,284 tons.
    (v) The SO<INF>2</INF> new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter 
is 6,377 tons.
    (vi) [Reserved]
    (5) Maryland. (i) The SO<INF>2</INF> trading budget for 2012 and 
2013 is 30,120 tons.
    (ii) The SO<INF>2</INF> new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 602 
tons.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The SO<INF>2</INF> trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 
28,203 tons.
    (v) The SO<INF>2</INF> new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter 
is 564 tons.
    (vi) [Reserved]
    (6) Michigan. (i) The SO<INF>2</INF> trading budget for 2012 and 
2013 is 229,303 tons.
    (ii) The SO<INF>2</INF> new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 
4,357 tons.
    (iii) The SO<INF>2</INF> Indian country new unit set-aside for 2012 
and 2013 is 229 tons.
    (iv) The SO<INF>2</INF> trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 
143,995 tons.
    (v) The SO<INF>2</INF> new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter 
is 2,736 tons.
    (vi) The SO<INF>2</INF> Indian country new unit set-aside for 2014 
and thereafter is 144 tons.
    (7) Missouri. (i) The SO<INF>2</INF> trading budget for 2012 and 
2013 is 207,466 tons.
    (ii) The SO<INF>2</INF> new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 
4,149 tons.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The SO<INF>2</INF> trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 
165,941 tons.
    (v) The SO<INF>2</INF> new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter 
is 3,319 tons.
    (vi) [Reserved]
    (8) New Jersey. (i) The SO<INF>2</INF> trading budget for 2012 and 
2013 is 7,670 tons.
    (ii) The SO<INF>2</INF> new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 153 
tons.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The SO<INF>2</INF> trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 
5,574 tons.
    (v) The SO<INF>2</INF> new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter 
is 111 tons.
    (vi) [Reserved]
    (9) New York. (i) The SO<INF>2</INF> trading budget for 2012 and 
2013 is 30,852 tons.
    (ii) The SO<INF>2</INF> new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 586 
tons.
    (iii) The SO<INF>2</INF> Indian country new unit set-aside for 2012 
and 2013 is 31 tons.
    (iv) The SO<INF>2</INF> trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 
22,112 tons.
    (v) The SO<INF>2</INF> new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter 
is 420 tons.
    (vi) The SO<INF>2</INF> Indian country new unit set-aside for 2014 
and thereafter is 22 tons.
    (10) North Carolina. (i) The SO<INF>2</INF> trading budget for 2012 
and 2013 is 136,881 tons.
    (ii) The SO<INF>2</INF> new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 
10,813 tons.
    (iii) The SO<INF>2</INF> Indian country new unit set-aside for 2012 
and 2013 is 137 tons.
    (iv) The SO<INF>2</INF> trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 
57,620 tons.
    (v) The SO<INF>2</INF> new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter 
is 4,552 tons.
    (vi) The SO<INF>2</INF> Indian country new unit set-aside for 2014 
and thereafter is 58 tons.
    (11) Ohio. (i) The SO<INF>2</INF> trading budget for 2012 and 2013 
is 310,230 tons.
    (ii) The SO<INF>2</INF> new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 
6,205 tons.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The SO<INF>2</INF> trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 
137,077 tons.
    (v) The SO<INF>2</INF> new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter 
is 2,742 tons.
    (vi) [Reserved]
    (12) Pennsylvania. (i) The SO<INF>2</INF> trading budget for 2012 
and 2013 is 278,651 tons.
    (ii) The SO<INF>2</INF> new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 
5,573 tons.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The SO<INF>2</INF> trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 
112,021 tons.
    (v) The SO<INF>2</INF> new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter 
is 2,240 tons.
    (vi) [Reserved]
    (13) Tennessee. (i) The SO<INF>2</INF> trading budget for 2012 and 
2013 is 148,150 tons.
    (ii) The SO<INF>2</INF> new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 
2,963 tons.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The SO<INF>2</INF> trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 
58,833 tons.
    (v) The SO<INF>2</INF> new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter 
is 1,177 tons.
    (vi) [Reserved]
    (14) Virginia. (i) The SO<INF>2</INF> trading budget for 2012 and 
2013 is 70,820 tons.
    (ii) The SO<INF>2</INF> new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 
2,833 tons.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The SO<INF>2</INF> trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 
35,057 tons.
    (v) The SO<INF>2</INF> new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter 
is 1,402 tons.
    (vi) [Reserved]
    (15) West Virginia. (i) The SO<INF>2</INF> trading budget for 2012 
and 2013 is 146,174 tons.
    (ii) The SO<INF>2</INF> new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 
10,232 tons.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The SO<INF>2</INF> trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 
75,668 tons.
    (v) The SO<INF>2</INF> new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter 
is 5,297 tons.
    (vi) [Reserved]
    (16) Wisconsin. (i) The SO<INF>2</INF> trading budget for 2012 and 
2013 is 79,480 tons.
    (ii) The SO<INF>2</INF> new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 
3,099 tons.
    (iii) The SO<INF>2</INF> Indian country new unit set-aside for 2012 
and 2013 is 80 tons.
    (iv) The SO<INF>2</INF> trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 
47,883 tons.
    (v) The SO<INF>2</INF> new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter 
is 1,867 tons.
    (vi) The SO<INF>2</INF> Indian country new unit set-aside for 2014 
and thereafter is 48 tons.

[[Page 10340]]

    (b) The States' variability limits for the State SO<INF>2</INF> 
Group 1 trading budgets for the control periods in 2014 and thereafter 
are as follows:
    (1) The SO<INF>2</INF> variability limit for Illinois is 22,342 
tons.
    (2) The SO<INF>2</INF> variability limit for Indiana is 29,000 
tons.
    (3) The SO<INF>2</INF> variability limit for Iowa is 13,533 tons.
    (4) The SO<INF>2</INF> variability limit for Kentucky is 19,131 
tons.
    (5) The SO<INF>2</INF> variability limit for Maryland is 5,077 
tons.
    (6) The SO<INF>2</INF> variability limit for Michigan is 25,919 
tons.
    (7) The SO<INF>2</INF> variability limit for Missouri is 29,869 
tons.
    (8) The SO<INF>2</INF> variability limit for New Jersey is 1,003 
tons.
    (9) The SO<INF>2</INF> variability limit for New York is 3,980 
tons.
    (10) The SO<INF>2</INF> variability limit for North Carolina is 
10,372 tons.
    (11) The SO<INF>2</INF> variability limit for Ohio is 24,674 tons.
    (12) The SO<INF>2</INF> variability limit for Pennsylvania is 
20,164 tons.
    (13) The SO<INF>2</INF> variability limit for Tennessee is 10,590 
tons.
    (14) The SO<INF>2</INF> variability limit for Virginia is 6,310 
tons.
    (15) The SO<INF>2</INF> variability limit for West Virginia is 
13,620 tons.
    (16) The SO<INF>2</INF> variability limit for Wisconsin is 8,619 
tons.
    (c) Each SO<INF>2</INF> 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.


Sec.  97.625  [Amended]

0
15. Section 97.625, paragraph (b)(1) introductory text, is amended by 
removing ``2013'' and adding, in its place, ``2015''.

0
16. Section 97.706 is amended by:
0
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)'';
0
b. Adding a new paragraph (c)(3)(ii); and
0
c. Amending paragraph (e)(2) by removing the words ``or or'' and 
adding, in their place, the word ``or'' to read as follows:


Sec.  97.706  Standard requirements.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (ii) A TR SO<INF>2</INF> 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 Sec.  
97.730(b) and for each control period thereafter.
* * * * *

0
17. Section 97.710 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  97.710  State SO<INF>2</INF> Group 2 trading budgets, new unit 
set-asides, Indian country new unit set-aside, and variability limits.

    (a) The State SO<INF>2</INF> trading budgets, new unit set-asides, 
and Indian country new unit-set asides for allocations of TR 
SO<INF>2</INF> Group 2 allowances for the control periods in 2012 and 
thereafter are as follows:
    (1) Alabama. (i) The SO<INF>2</INF> trading budget for 2012 and 
2013 is 216,033 tons.
    (ii) The SO<INF>2</INF> new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 
4,321 tons.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The SO<INF>2</INF> trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 
213,258 tons.
    (v) The SO<INF>2</INF> new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter 
is 4,265 tons.
    (vi) [Reserved]
    (2) Georgia. (i) The SO<INF>2</INF> trading budget for 2012 and 
2013 is 158,527 tons.
    (ii) The SO<INF>2</INF> new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 
3,171 tons.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The SO<INF>2</INF> trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 
95,231 tons.
    (v) The SO<INF>2</INF> new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter 
is 1,905 tons.
    (vi) [Reserved]
    (3) Kansas. (i) The SO<INF>2</INF> trading budget for 2012 and 2013 
is 41,528 tons.
    (ii) The SO<INF>2</INF> new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 789 
tons.
    (iii) The SO<INF>2</INF> Indian country new unit set-aside for 2012 
and 2013 is 42 tons.
    (iv) The SO<INF>2</INF> trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 
41,528 tons.
    (v) The SO<INF>2</INF> new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter 
is 789 tons.
    (vi) The SO<INF>2</INF> Indian country new unit set-aside for 2014 
and thereafter is 42 tons.
    (4) Minnesota. (i) The SO<INF>2</INF> trading budget for 2012 and 
2013 is 41,981 tons.
    (ii) The SO<INF>2</INF> new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 798 
tons.
    (iii) The SO<INF>2</INF> Indian country new unit set-aside for 2012 
and 2013 is 42 tons.
    (iv) The SO<INF>2</INF> trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 
41,981 tons.
    (v) The SO<INF>2</INF> new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter 
is 798 tons.
    (vi) The SO<INF>2</INF> Indian country new unit set-aside for 2014 
and thereafter is 42 tons.
    (5) Nebraska. (i) The SO<INF>2</INF> trading budget for 2012 and 
2013 is 65,052 tons.
    (ii) The SO<INF>2</INF> new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 
2,537 tons.
    (iii) The SO<INF>2</INF> Indian country new unit set-aside for 2012 
and 2013 is 65 tons.
    (iv) The SO<INF>2</INF> trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 
65,052 tons.
    (v) The SO<INF>2</INF> new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter 
is 2,537 tons.
    (vi) The SO<INF>2</INF> Indian country new unit set-aside for 2014 
and thereafter is 65 tons.
    (6) South Carolina. (i) The SO<INF>2</INF> trading budget for 2012 
and 2013 is 88,620 tons.
    (ii) The SO<INF>2</INF> new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 
1,683 tons.
    (iii) The SO<INF>2</INF> Indian country new unit set-aside for 2012 
and 2013 is 89 tons.
    (iv) The SO<INF>2</INF> trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 
88,620 tons.
    (v) The SO<INF>2</INF> new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter 
is 1,683 tons.
    (vi) The SO<INF>2</INF> Indian country new unit set-aside for 2014 
and thereafter is 89 tons.
    (7) Texas. (i) The SO<INF>2</INF> trading budget for 2012 and 2013 
is 294,471 tons.
    (ii) The SO<INF>2</INF> new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 
14,430 tons.
    (iii) The SO<INF>2</INF> Indian country new unit set-aside for 2012 
and 2013 is 294 tons.
    (iv) The SO<INF>2</INF> trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 
294,471 tons.
    (v) The SO<INF>2</INF> new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter 
is 14,430 tons.
    (vi) The SO<INF>2</INF> Indian country new unit set-aside for 2014 
and thereafter is 294 tons.
    (b) The States' variability limits for the State SO<INF>2</INF> 
Group 2 trading budgets for the control periods in 2014 and thereafter 
are as follows:
    (1) The SO<INF>2</INF> variability limit for Alabama is 38,386 
tons.
    (2) The SO<INF>2</INF> variability limit for Georgia is 17,142 
tons.
    (3) The SO<INF>2</INF> variability limit for Kansas is 7,475 tons.
    (4) The SO<INF>2</INF> variability limit for Minnesota is 7,557 
tons.
    (5) The SO<INF>2</INF> variability limit for Nebraska is 11,709 
tons.
    (6) The SO<INF>2</INF> variability limit for South Carolina is 
15,952 tons.
    (7) The SO<INF>2</INF> variability limit for Texas is 53,005 tons.
    (c) Each SO<INF>2</INF> 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.


Sec.  97.725  [Amended]

0
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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>