[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 21, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10342-10349]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3704]



[[Page 10341]]

Vol. 77

Tuesday,

No. 34

February 21, 2012

Part VI





Environmental Protection Agency





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





40 CFR Part 97





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

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

[[Page 10342]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 97

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491; FRL-9632-8]
RIN 2060-AR35


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action on additional revisions to 
the final Transport Rule (Federal Implementation Plans: Interstate 
Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and Correction of SIP 
Approvals published August 8, 2011). In the proposed Revisions to 
Federal Implementation Plans To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine 
Particulate Matter and Ozone, published October 14, 2011, EPA sought 
additional comment on unit-level operational information similar to the 
information supporting the proposed revisions, which specifically 
addressed post-combustion pollution control equipment and immediate-
term operational requirements necessitating non-economic generation 
based on verifiable data. Based on comments received, EPA is finalizing 
adjustments that result in revisions to 2012 and 2014 state budgets in 
Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, 
New York, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas, and 
revisions to new unit set-asides in Arkansas, Louisiana, and 
Missouri.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 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.

DATES: This rule is effective on May 21, 2012 without further notice, 
unless EPA receives significant adverse comments by March 22, 2012. If 
we receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2009-0491, by one of the following methods:
    <bullet> http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line 
instructions for submitting comments.
    <bullet> Mail: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460.
    <bullet> Hand Delivery: Air and Radiation Docket, EPA West 
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 
20460. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal 
hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for 
deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0491. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you 
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov 
or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous 
access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact 
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you 
send an email comment directly to EPA without going through 
www.regulations.gov your email address will be automatically captured 
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket 
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic 
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact 
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you 
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties 
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to 
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special 
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or 
viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the 
EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in 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, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation 
Docket, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20460. 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 and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 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#8efdfaebf8ebe0fda0e9efecfce7ebe2e2ebceebfeefa0e9e1f8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0c7f78697a69627f226b6d6e7e65696060694c697c6d226b637a">[email protected]</span></a>. Electronic copies 
of this document can be accessed through the EPA Web site at: http://epa.gov/airmarkets.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA is publishing this rule without a prior 
proposed rule because we view this as a noncontroversial action and 
anticipate no adverse comment. However, elsewhere in this issue of the 
Federal Register, we are publishing a separate document that will serve 
as the proposed rule if significant adverse comments are received on 
this direct final rule. We will not institute a second comment period 
on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this 
time. For further information about commenting on this rule, see the 
ADDRESSES section of this document.
    If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely 
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this 
direct final rule will not take effect. We would address all public 
comments in any subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule.
    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:

[[Page 10343]]



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

I. Detailed Discussion of Corresponding Rule Revisions

    EPA has determined that the following additional corrections are 
needed to the August 8, 2011 final Transport Rule, as a result of 
comments received on the proposed rule, Revisions to Federal 
Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate 
Matter and Ozone (76 FR 63860, October 14, 2011) (Revisions Rule). In 
that proposed rule, EPA took comment on several similar corrections and 
demonstrated a consistent methodology for calculating those 
corrections. EPA received no comments opposing the proposal to make 
these corrections to state budgets and new unit set-asides, and EPA 
received very few comments addressing the manner in which the 
corrections were quantified, to which EPA responded in the final 
revisions rule. EPA has calculated the corrections in this rulemaking 
in a fully consistent manner with the approach developed through public 
comment on the proposed and finalized revisions rule. See the ``Final 
Revisions Rule State Budgets and New Unit Set-Asides'' Technical 
Support Document (TSD) in the docket for this rulemaking for a 
quantitative demonstration of these revisions. For quantitative 
assessments of the relationship between final revisions to the 
Transport Rule and the original analysis, also see ``Final Revisions 
Rule Significant Contribution Assessment'' TSD in the docket for this 
rulemaking. The ``Final Revisions Rule Unit-Level Allocations under the 
FIPs,'' also in the docket for this rulemaking, present unit-level 
allocations under the FIPs.
    (1) Revise the Arkansas ozone season NO<INF>X</INF> budgets for 
2012 and 2014 and correct the ozone season new unit set-aside budget 
for an omitted planned facility.
    EPA is increasing the Arkansas 2012 and 2014 ozone-season 
NO<INF>X</INF> budget based upon comments received that demonstrate 
that the McClellan plant is in an out-of-merit-order dispatch area with 
conditions likely to necessitate what would otherwise be non-economic 
generation.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In the proposed revisions rule, EPA characterized an out-of-
merit-order dispatch area as one in which ``units * * * are 
frequently dispatched out of regional economic order as a result of 
short-run limitations on the ability to meet local electricity 
demand with generation from outside the area.'' (76 FR 63865)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA re-calculated the emissions from the McClellan plant with non-
economic generation to account for the input assumption changes. These 
calculations yield increases to the Arkansas 2012 and 2014 state 
budgets for ozone-season NO<INF>X</INF> of 73 tons. Comments on the 
revisions rule identified Turk Unit 1 as commencing commercial 
operation on or after January 1, 2010, qualifying it as a new unit 
under the final Transport Rule's unit-level allocation methodology (76 
FR 48290); however, the final Transport Rule erroneously omitted this 
unit's projected emissions from the calculation of Arkansas' ozone-
season NO<INF>X</INF> new unit set-aside. EPA is therefore revising the 
portion of the Arkansas ozone-season budget dedicated to the state's 
new unit set-aside account so that it takes into account this unit's 
projected emissions, consistent with the new unit set-aside methodology 
in the final Transport Rule. EPA is only applying this revision for 
2014 and beyond, because the Agency has already recorded (i.e., 
distributed) allowances under the Arkansas state budget for the 2012 
and 2013 control periods. Turk Unit 1 remains eligible to request 
allowance allocation from the new unit set-asides for any control 
period under the program. This revision yields an ozone-season 
NO<INF>X</INF> new unit set-aside of 8 percent for 2014 and beyond for 
Arkansas. This revision to the Arkansas new unit set-aside necessitates 
changes to allowance allocations to existing units in 2014 and beyond.
    (2) Revise the Georgia SO<INF>2</INF>, annual NO<INF>X</INF>, and 
ozone season NO<INF>X</INF> budgets for 2014.
    In the final Transport Rule, EPA explained its intent to capture 
``reductions that occur due to state rules, consent decrees, and other 
planned changes in generation patterns that occur after 2012, but 
during or prior to 2014'' in the 2014 state budgets (76 FR 48261). 
Commenters on the revisions rule noted that EPA inadvertently included 
pollution control installation requirements from a Georgia state rule 
whose deadlines at certain units actually extend beyond 2014. To 
correct the alignment of the Georgia 2014 state budgets with the 
requirements for affected units in Georgia to install controls by the 
state rule's deadlines, EPA is increasing Georgia's 2014 state budgets 
by 40,334 tons of SO<INF>2</INF>, 13,198 tons of annual NO<INF>X</INF>, 
and 5,762 tons of ozone-season NO<INF>X</INF>.
    (3) Revise the Indiana SO<INF>2</INF> budgets for 2012 and 2014.
    EPA is revising the Indiana 2012 and 2014 annual SO<INF>2</INF> 
budgets based on comments received on the proposed revisions rule (76 
FR 63860, October 14, 2011) regarding post-combustion control status at 
Gallagher Units 2 and 4. Commenters identified an erroneous assumption 
of flue gas desulphurization (FGD, or scrubber) with 86 percent removal 
at units that have actually installed dry sorbent injection (DSI) 
technology with a 60 percent removal rate and an emission rate limit of 
0.8 lbs/mmBtu established in a NSR settlement agreement. EPA has 
recalculated the projected emissions at these units, and that 
recalculation supports a 3,465 ton increase in the state's annual 
SO<INF>2</INF> budget.
    Commenters on the revisions rule also identified a facility in 
Indiana, Gibson Unit 5, which currently faces immediate-term 
limitations regarding the amount of flue gas that can be treated in its 
existing FGD. In the final Transport Rule analysis, EPA relied on the 
SO<INF>2</INF> removal efficiency that this facility reported at its 
scrubber to the Energy Information Administration (EIA). However, EPA 
has since determined that this reported value only intended to address 
the removal efficiency for the portion of the flue gas treated in the 
scrubber. EPA has recalculated the projected emissions for this unit 
using the most recent data reported by this facility to EIA on form

[[Page 10344]]

860 for 2009, which includes the scrubber's removal efficiency and the 
portion of flue gas treated. This recalculation supports an increase to 
Indiana's 2012 and 2014 SO<INF>2</INF> budget of an additional 1,873 
tons (5,338 tons total).
    (4) Revise the Kansas SO<INF>2</INF> and annual NO<INF>X</INF> 
budgets for 2012 and 2014.
    Commenters on the revisions rule provided information showing that 
one unit at the Quindaro plant in Kansas is in an out-of-merit-order 
dispatch area with conditions likely to necessitate what would 
otherwise be non-economic generation. EPA re-calculated the emissions 
from this plant with non-economic generation to account for the input 
assumption changes. These calculations yield increases to the Kansas 
2012 and 2014 state budgets for annual SO<INF>2</INF> of 452 tons and 
annual NO<INF>X</INF> of 640 tons.
    In the final Transport Rule, EPA explained its intent to capture 
``reductions that occur due to state rules, consent decrees, and other 
planned changes in generation patterns that occur after 2012, but 
during or prior to 2014'' in the 2014 state budgets (76 FR 48261). 
Commenters on the revisions rule noted that EPA inadvertently included 
an emission rate requirement from a consent decree affecting a Kansas 
facility whose deadline actually extends beyond 2014. To correct the 
alignment of the Kansas 2014 state budget with the requirements for 
affected units in Kansas to meet the emission rate limitation by the 
consent decree's deadlines, EPA is increasing the Kansas 2014 annual 
NO<INF>X</INF> budget by an additional 5,154 tons (5,794 tons total).
    (5) Revise the Louisiana ozone season NO<INF>X</INF> budgets for 
2012 and 2014 and adjust the ozone season new unit set-aside.
    EPA is increasing the Louisiana 2012 and 2014 ozone-season 
NO<INF>X</INF> budgets based on comments received on the revisions rule 
demonstrating that the Stall and Lieberman plants are in an out-of-
merit-order dispatch area with conditions likely to necessitate what 
would otherwise be non-economic generation. EPA re-calculated the 
emissions from the Stall and Lieberman plants with non-economic 
generation to account for the input assumption changes. These 
calculations yield increases to Louisiana's 2012 and 2014 state budgets 
for ozone-season NO<INF>X</INF> of 89 tons.
    Comments on the revisions rule also noted that in calculating the 
Louisiana ozone-season NO<INF>X</INF> new unit set-aside, EPA included 
projected emissions from a planned new facility, Washington Parish, 
which will not in fact come into service in Louisiana. EPA is therefore 
reducing the size of Louisiana's ozone-season NO<INF>X</INF> new unit 
set-aside in 2012 and 2014 to 2 percent (from the previous 3 percent) 
to account for the exclusion of these projected emissions from the 
relevant calculation. This revision means that fewer allowances will 
need to be held in reserve for the new unit set-aside; after this 
revision's effective date, EPA will reallocate any allowances in excess 
of the revised new unit set-aside to existing units in the state by the 
same existing unit allowance allocation methodology as previously 
finalized.
    (6) Revise the Mississippi ozone season NO<INF>X</INF> budgets for 
2012 and 2014.
    EPA is increasing the Mississippi 2012 and 2014 ozone-season 
NO<INF>X</INF> budgets based on comments received on the revisions rule 
demonstrating that the Moselle plant is in an out-of-merit-order 
dispatch area with conditions likely to necessitate what would 
otherwise be non-economic generation.
    EPA re-calculated the emissions from the Moselle plant with non-
economic generation to account for the input assumption changes. These 
calculations yield increases to Mississippi's 2012 and 2014 state 
budgets for ozone-season NO<INF>X</INF> of 115 tons.
    (7) Revise the Missouri annual and ozone season NO<INF>X</INF> 
budgets for 2012 and 2014 and correct the SO<INF>2</INF>, annual 
NO<INF>X</INF>, and ozone season NO<INF>X</INF> new unit set-aside 
budgets for an omitted operating new facility.
    EPA is increasing the Missouri 2012 and 2014 annual and ozone-
season NO<INF>X</INF> budgets to account for operational constraints at 
six plants based upon comments received on the revisions rule. The 
commenters provided information showing that these units were in out-
of-merit-order dispatch areas with conditions likely to necessitate 
what would otherwise be non-economic generation.
    EPA re-calculated the emissions from these six plants with non-
economic generation to account for the input assumption changes. These 
calculations yield increases to Missouri's 2012 and 2014 state budgets 
for annual NO<INF>X</INF> of 26 tons and ozone-season NO<INF>X</INF> of 
26 tons.
    Comments on the revisions rule identified Iatan Unit 2 as 
commencing commercial operation on or after January 1, 2010, qualifying 
it as a new unit under the final Transport Rule's unit-level allocation 
methodology (76 FR 48290); however, the final Transport Rule 
erroneously omitted this unit's projected emissions from the 
calculation of Missouri's new unit set-asides. EPA is therefore 
revising the portion of Missouri's SO<INF>2</INF>, annual 
NO<INF>X</INF>, and ozone-season NO<INF>X</INF> budgets dedicated to 
the state's new unit set-asides so that they take into account this 
unit's projected emissions, consistent with the new unit set-aside 
methodology in the final Transport Rule. EPA is only applying this 
revision for 2013 and beyond, because the Agency has already recorded 
(i.e., distributed) allowances under the Missouri state budget for the 
2012 control period. Iatan Unit 2 remains eligible to request allowance 
allocation from the new unit set-asides for any control period under 
the program. This revision yields an ozone-season NO<INF>X</INF> new 
unit set-aside of 6 percent, an annual NO<INF>X</INF> new unit set-
aside of 6 percent, and an SO<INF>2</INF> new unit set-aside of 3 
percent for 2013 and beyond for Missouri. This revision to Missouri's 
new unit set-aside necessitates changes to allowance allocations to 
existing units in 2013 and beyond.
    (8) Revise the Ohio SO<INF>2</INF>, annual NO<INF>X</INF>, and 
ozone season NO<INF>X</INF> budgets for 2012 and 2014.
    EPA is increasing Ohio's 2012 and 2014 annual SO<INF>2</INF>, 
annual NO<INF>X</INF>, and ozone-season NO<INF>X</INF> budgets to 
account for operational constraints at two plants, Conesville and 
Muskingum River, based on comments received on the revisions rule. The 
commenter provided information showing that these plants were in out-
of-merit-order dispatch areas with conditions likely to necessitate 
what would otherwise be non-economic generation.
    EPA re-calculated the emissions from these two plants with non-
economic generation to reflect the input assumption changes. These 
calculations yield increases to Ohio's 2012 and 2014 state budgets for 
annual SO<INF>2</INF> of 5,163 tons, annual NO<INF>X</INF> of 547 tons, 
and ozone-season NO<INF>X</INF> of 257 tons.
    EPA is finalizing additional adjustments to Ohio's 2012 and 2014 
annual and ozone-season NO<INF>X</INF> budgets to correct an erroneous 
assumption of an SCR at Bayshore 4. There is no SCR planned or under 
construction at this facility. This results in an additional 2,218 ton 
increase (2,765 ton total) in the state's annual NO<INF>X</INF> budget 
and a 964 ton increase (1,221 ton total) for the ozone-season 
NO<INF>X</INF> budget.
    (9) Revise the Nebraska SO<INF>2</INF> budgets for 2012 and 2014.
    EPA is finalizing revisions to the Nebraska 2012 and 2014 
SO<INF>2</INF> budgets, based on comments on the revisions rule, to 
correct assumptions regarding FGD pollution control technology at 
Whelan Energy Center Units 1 and 2 and Nebraska City Unit 2. The 
commenter noted that the technology at Nebraska Unit 2 and Whelan Unit 
2 is

[[Page 10345]]

dry FGD technology, whereas EPA had assumed wet FGD technology with a 
higher SO<INF>2</INF> removal efficiency than the actual dry FGD 
technology that those units achieve. Additionally, EPA is also revising 
its assumption of FGD technology at Whelan Energy Center Unit 1. There 
is no FGD present, planned, or under construction at the unit. These 
adjustments result in an increase of 3,110 tons to the 2012 and 2014 
annual SO<INF>2</INF> budgets for the state.
    (10) Revise the New York SO<INF>2</INF>, annual NO<INF>X</INF>, and 
ozone season NO<INF>X</INF> budgets for 2012 and 2014.
    EPA is increasing New York's 2012 and 2014 annual SO<INF>2</INF>, 
annual NO<INF>X</INF>, and ozone-season NO<INF>X</INF> budgets based on 
comments received on the revisions rule demonstrating that the East 
River plant is in an out-of-merit-order dispatch area with conditions 
likely to necessitate what would otherwise be non-economic generation. 
EPA re-calculated the emissions from this facility with out-of-merit-
order dispatch to reflect the input assumption changes. These 
calculations yield increases to New York's 2012 and 2014 state budgets 
for annual SO<INF>2</INF> of 84 tons, annual NO<INF>X</INF> of 694 
tons, and ozone-season NO<INF>X</INF> of 127 tons.
    EPA is also finalizing an adjustment of 5,360 tons to New York's 
2012 and 2014 SO<INF>2</INF> budgets based on comments received on the 
revisions rule. Commenters identified two facilities, Dunkirk and 
Huntley, with existing dry sorbent injection (DSI) technology for which 
EPA had assumed an SO<INF>2</INF> removal rate of 70 percent but which 
actually achieves a removal rate of only 53 percent. EPA recalculated 
the projected emissions for these units based on this revised 
assumption and is increasing the New York 2012 and 2014 SO<INF>2</INF> 
budgets accordingly.
    (11) Revise the Oklahoma ozone-season NO<INF>X</INF> budgets for 
2013 and 2014.
    EPA is increasing the Oklahoma 2013 \3\ and 2014 ozone-season 
NO<INF>X</INF> budget based upon comments received on the revisions 
rule demonstrating that the Comanche plant is in an out-of-merit-order 
dispatch area with conditions likely to necessitate what would 
otherwise be non-economic generation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ These changes do not apply to the Oklahoma 2012 budget 
because similar changes were already made to the affected units' 
operation in 2012, as described in the Technical Support Document 
``Determination of State Budgets for the Final Ozone Supplemental of 
the Transport Rule'' (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-485, pg. 5-7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA re-calculated the emissions from the Comanche plant with non-
economic generation to account for the input assumption changes. These 
calculations yield increases to the Oklahoma 2013 and 2014 state 
budgets for ozone-season NO<INF>X</INF> of 859 tons.
    (12) Revise the South Carolina SO<INF>2</INF> budgets for 2012 and 
2014.
    EPA is finalizing an 8,013 ton increase to South Carolina's 2012 
and 2014 annual SO<INF>2</INF> budgets based on comments received on 
the revision rule regarding post-combustion control technology at three 
units. This action revises the assumption of an FGD at the W S Lee 
Facility. There are no FGDs planned, under construction, or expected to 
be online in 2012 or 2014 at this facility.
    (13) Revise the Texas annual NO<INF>X</INF> and ozone season 
NO<INF>X</INF> budgets for 2012 and 2014.
    EPA is increasing the Texas 2012 and 2014 annual and ozone-season 
NO<INF>X</INF> budgets to account for operational constraints at six 
plants based on comments received on the revisions rule: Jones, Moore 
County, Nichols, Plant X, Knox Lee, and Wilkes. The commenters provided 
information showing that these plants were in out-of-merit-order 
dispatch areas with conditions likely to necessitate what would 
otherwise be non-economic generation.
    EPA re-calculated the emissions from these plants with non-economic 
generation to account for the input assumption changes. These 
calculations yield increases to the Texas 2012 and 2014 state budgets 
for annual NO<INF>X</INF> of 2,731 tons, and ozone-season 
NO<INF>X</INF> of 1,142 tons.

II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is a ``significant regulatory action.'' Accordingly, EPA 
submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for 
review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 
2011) and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been 
documented in the docket for this action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden. 
This action makes relatively minor revisions to the emission budgets 
and allowance allocations or allowance allocations only in certain 
states in the final Transport Rule and corrects minor technical errors 
which are ministerial. However, the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) has previously approved the information collection requirements 
contained in the final Transport Rule under the provisions of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB 
control number 2060-0667. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations 
in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small 
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined 
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of 
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a 
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is 
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated 
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this action on small 
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The small 
entities directly regulated by this action are electric power 
generators whose ultimate parent entity has a total electric output of 
4 million megawatt-hours (MWh) or less in the previous fiscal year. We 
have determined that the changes considered in this proposed rulemaking 
pose no additional burden for small entities. The proposed revision to 
the new unit set-asides in Arkansas, Missouri, and Texas would yield an 
extremely small change in unit-level allowance allocations to existing 
units, including small entities, such that it would not affect the 
analysis conducted on small entity impacts under the finalized 
Transport Rule. In all other states, the revisions 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.

[[Page 10346]]

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 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.

[[Page 10347]]

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 in 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, part 97 of chapter I of 
title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as amended elsewhere in 
this issue, is further amended as follows:

PART 97--FEDERAL NOX BUDGET TRADING PROGRAM AND CAIR NOX AND SO2 
TRADING PROGRAMS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 97 continues to read as follows:

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


0
2. Section 97.410 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(2)(iv) and (v);
0
b. Revising paragraph (a)(6), (11), (14), (16), and (20); and
0
c. Revising paragraphs (b)(2), (6), (11), (14), (16) and (20) 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) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iv) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual trading budget for 2014 and 
thereafter is 53,738 tons.
    (v) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and 
thereafter is 1,075 tons.
    (vi) * * *
* * * * *
    (6) Kansas. (i) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual trading budget for 2012 
and 2013 is 31,354 tons.
    (ii) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 
is 596 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 31,354 tons.
    (v) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and 
thereafter is 596 tons.
    (vi) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual Indian country new unit set-aside 
for 2014 and thereafter is 31 tons.
* * * * *
    (11) Missouri. (i) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual trading budget for 
2012 and 2013 is 52,400 tons.
    (ii) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual new unit set-aside for 2012 is 1,572 
tons and for 2013 is 3,144 tons.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual trading budget for 2014 and 
thereafter is 48,743 tons.
    (v) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and 
thereafter is 2,925 tons.
    (vi) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    (14) New York. (i) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual trading budget for 
2012 and 2013 is 21,722 tons.
    (ii) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 
is 412 tons.
    (iii) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual Indian country new unit set-aside 
for 2012 and 2013 is 22 tons.
    (iv) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual trading budget for 2014 and 
thereafter is 21,722 tons.
    (v) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and 
thereafter is 412 tons.
    (vi) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual Indian country new unit set-aside 
for 2014 and thereafter is 22 tons.
* * * * *
    (16) Ohio. (i) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual trading budget for 2012 
and 2013 is 95,468 tons.
    (ii) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 
is 1,909 tons.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual trading budget for 2014 and 
thereafter is 90,258 tons.
    (v) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and 
thereafter is 1,805 tons.
    (vi) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    (20) Texas. (i) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual trading budget for 2012 
and 2013 is 137,701 tons.
    (ii) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 
is 5,370 tons.
    (iii) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual Indian country new unit set-aside 
for 2012 and 2013 is 138 tons.
    (iv) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual trading budget for 2014 and 
thereafter is 137,701 tons.
    (v) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and 
thereafter is 5,370 tons.
    (vi) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual Indian country new unit set-aside 
for 2014 and thereafter is 138 tons.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual variability limit for Georgia is 
9,673 tons.
* * * * *
    (6) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual variability limit for Kansas is 5,644 
tons.
* * * * *
    (11) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual variability limit for Missouri is 
8,774 tons.
* * * * *
    (14) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual variability limit for New York is 
3,910 tons.
* * * * *

[[Page 10348]]

    (16) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual variability limit for Ohio is 16,246 
tons.
* * * * *
    (20) The NO<INF>X</INF> annual variability limit for Texas is 
24,786 tons.
* * * * *

0
2. Section 97.510 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(2);
0
b. Revising paragraphs (a)(4)(iv) and (v);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (a)(9), (12), (13), (15), (17), (18), and (22); 
and
0
d. Revising paragraphs (b)(2), (4), (9), (12), (13), (15), (17), (18), 
and (22) to read as follows:


Sec.  97.510  State NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season trading budgets, new 
unit set-asides, Indian country new unit set-aside, and variability 
limits.

    (a) * * *
    (2) Arkansas. (i) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading budget 
for 2012 and 2013 is 15,110 tons.
    (ii) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 
and 2013 is 756 tons.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading budget for 2014 and 
thereafter is 15,110 tons.
    (v) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and 
thereafter is 1,209 tons.
    (vi) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    (4) * * *
    (iv) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading budget for 2014 and 
thereafter is 24,041 tons.
    (v) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and 
thereafter is 481 tons.
    (vi) * * *
* * * * *
    (9) Louisiana. (i) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading budget 
for 2012 and 2013 is 18,115 tons.
    (ii) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 
and 2013 is 344 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 18,115 tons.
    (v) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and 
thereafter is 344 tons.
    (vi) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season Indian country new unit set-
aside for 2014 and thereafter is 18 tons.
* * * * *
    (12) Mississippi. (i) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading 
budget for 2012 and 2013 is 12,429 tons.
    (ii) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 
and 2013 is 237 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 12,429 tons.
    (v) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and 
thereafter is 237 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 22,788 tons.
    (ii) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 is 
684 tons and for 2013 is 1,367 tons.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading budget for 2014 and 
thereafter is 21,099 tons.
    (v) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and 
thereafter is 1,266 tons.
    (vi) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    (15) New York. (i) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading budget 
for 2012 and 2013 is 10,369 tons.
    (ii) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 
and 2013 is 197 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 10,369 tons.
    (v) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and 
thereafter is 197 tons.
    (vi) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season Indian country new unit set-
aside for 2014 and thereafter is 10 tons.
* * * * *
    (17) Ohio. (i) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading budget for 
2012 and 2013 is 41,284 tons.
    (ii) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 
and 2013 is 826 tons.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading budget for 2014 and 
thereafter is 39,013 tons.
    (v) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and 
thereafter is 780 tons.
    (vi) [Reserved]
    (18) Oklahoma. (i) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading budget 
for 2012 is 36,567 tons and for 2013 is 22,694 tons.
    (ii) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 is 
731 tons and for 2013 is 454 tons.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading budget for 2014 and 
thereafter is 22,694 tons.
    (v) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and 
thereafter is 454 tons.
    (vi) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    (22) Texas. (i) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading budget for 
2012 and 2013 is 65,560 tons.
    (ii) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 
and 2013 is 2,556 tons.
    (iii) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season Indian country new unit set-
aside for 2012 and 2013 is 66 tons.
    (iv) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading budget for 2014 and 
thereafter is 65,560 tons.
    (v) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and 
thereafter is 2,556 tons.
    (vi) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season Indian country new unit set-
aside for 2014 and thereafter is 66 tons.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season variability limit for Arkansas 
is 3,173 tons.
* * * * *
    (4) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season variability limit for Georgia 
is 5,049 tons.
* * * * *
    (9) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season variability limit for Louisiana 
is 3,804 tons.
* * * * *
    (12) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season variability limit for 
Mississippi is 2,610 tons.
    (13) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season variability limit for Missouri 
is 4,431 tons.
* * * * *
    (15) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season variability limit for New York 
is 2,177 tons.
* * * * *
    (17) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season variability limit for Ohio is 
8,193 tons.
    (18) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season variability limit for Oklahoma 
is 4,766 tons.
* * * * *
    (22) The NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season variability limit for Texas is 
13,768 tons.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 97.610 is amended by revising:
0
a. Paragraph (a)(2);
0
b. Paragraphs (a)(7)(ii) and (v);
0
c. Paragraphs (a)(9) and (11); and
0
d. Paragraphs (b)(2), (9), and (11) to read as follows:


Sec.  97.610  State SO2 Group 1 trading budgets, new unit set-asides, 
Indian country new unit set-aside, and variability limits.

    (a) * * *
    (2) Indiana. (i) The SO<INF>2</INF> trading budget for 2012 and 
2013 is 290,762 tons.
    (ii) The SO<INF>2</INF> new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 
8,723 tons.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The SO<INF>2</INF> trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 
166,449 tons.

[[Page 10349]]

    (v) The SO<INF>2</INF> new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter 
is 4,993 tons.
    (vi) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    (7) * * *
    (ii) The SO<INF>2</INF> new unit set-aside for 2012 is 4,149 tons 
and for 2013 is 6,224 tons.
* * * * *
    (v) The SO<INF>2</INF> new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter 
is 4,978 tons.
    (vi) * * *
* * * * *
    (9) New York. (i) The SO<INF>2</INF> trading budget for 2012 and 
2013 is 36,296 tons.
    (ii) The SO<INF>2</INF> new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 690 
tons.
    (iii) The SO<INF>2</INF> Indian country new unit set-aside for 2012 
and 2013 is 36 tons.
    (iv) The SO<INF>2</INF> trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 
27,556 tons.
    (v) The SO<INF>2</INF> new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter 
is 523 tons.
    (vi) The SO<INF>2</INF> Indian country new unit set-aside for 2014 
and thereafter is 28 tons.
* * * * *
    (11) Ohio. (i) The SO<INF>2</INF> trading budget for 2012 and 2013 
is 315,393 tons.
    (ii) The SO<INF>2</INF> new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 
6,308 tons.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The SO<INF>2</INF> trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 
142,240 tons.
    (v) The SO<INF>2</INF> new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter 
is 2,845 tons.
    (vi) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) The SO<INF>2</INF> variability limit for Indiana is 29,961 
tons.
* * * * *
    (9) The SO<INF>2</INF> variability limit for New York is 4,960 
tons.
* * * * *
    (11) The SO<INF>2</INF> variability limit for Ohio is 25,603 tons.
* * * * *

0
4. Section 97.710 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(2)(iv) and (v);
0
b. Revising paragraphs (a)(3), (5), and (6); and
0
c. Revising paragraphs (b)(2), (3), (5), and (6) to read as follows:


Sec.  97.710  State SO2 Group 2 trading budgets, new unit set-asides, 
Indian country new unit set-aside, and variability limits.

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iv) The SO<INF>2</INF> trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 
135,565 tons.
    (v) The SO<INF>2</INF> new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter 
is 2,711 tons.
    (vi) * * *
    (3) Kansas. (i) The SO<INF>2</INF> trading budget for 2012 and 2013 
is 41,980 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 
41,980 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 68,162 tons.
    (ii) The SO<INF>2</INF> new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 
2,658 tons.
    (iii) The SO<INF>2</INF> Indian country new unit set-aside for 2012 
and 2013 is 68 tons.
    (iv) The SO<INF>2</INF> trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 
68,162 tons.
    (v) The SO<INF>2</INF> new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter 
is 2,658 tons.
    (vi) The SO<INF>2</INF> Indian country new unit set-aside for 2014 
and thereafter is 68 tons.
    (6) South Carolina. (i) The SO<INF>2</INF> trading budget for 2012 
and 2013 is 96,633 tons.
    (ii) The SO<INF>2</INF> new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 
1,836 tons.
    (iii) The SO<INF>2</INF> Indian country new unit set-aside for 2012 
and 2013 is 97 tons.
    (iv) The SO<INF>2</INF> trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 
96,633 tons.
    (v) The SO<INF>2</INF> new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter 
is 1,836 tons.
    (vi) The SO<INF>2</INF> Indian country new unit set-aside for 2014 
and thereafter is 97 tons.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) The SO<INF>2</INF> variability limit for Georgia is 24,402 
tons.
    (3) The SO<INF>2</INF> variability limit for Kansas is 7,556 tons.
* * * * *
    (5) The SO<INF>2</INF> variability limit for Nebraska is 12,269 
tons.
    (6) The SO<INF>2</INF> variability limit for South Carolina is 
17,394 tons.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-3704 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>