Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules 1109 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 51, 52, 72, 78, and 97 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0491; FRL–9249–6] 

RIN 2060–AP50 

Notice of Data Availability for Federal 

Implementation Plans To Reduce 

Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate 

Matter and Ozone: Request for 

Comment on Alternative Allocations, 

Calculation of Assurance Provision 

Allowance Surrender Requirements, 

New-Unit Allocations in Indian 

Country, and Allocations by States 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of data availability 

(NODA) for the proposed Transport 

Rule and request for comment. 

SUMMARY: EPA has supplemented the 

Transport Rule docket with additional 

information relevant to the rulemaking, 

including unit-level SO2 Group 1 and 

Group 2, NOX annual, and NOX ozone 

season allowances for existing units 

calculated using two alternative 

methodologies and data supporting 

those calculations. This NODA requests 

public comment on these two 

alternative allocation methodologies for 

existing units, on the unit-level 

allocations calculated using those 

alternative methodologies, on the data 

supporting the calculations, and on any 

resulting implications for the proposed 

assurance provisions. This NODA also 

requests comment on information about: 

An alternative approach to calculation 

of assurance provision allowance 

surrender requirements; allocations for 

new units locating in Indian country in 

the proposed Transport Rule region in 

the future; and provisions for states to 

submit State Implementation Plans 

providing for State allocation of 

allowances in the proposed Transport 

Rule trading programs. 

DATES: Comments on this NODA must 

be received on or before February 7, 

2011. 

Please refer to SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION for additional information 

on submitting comments. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2009–0491, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the online instructions for submitting 

comments. Attention Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0491. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744. Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– 

0491. 

• Mail: EPA Docket Center, EPA West 

(Air Docket), Attention Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0491, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. 

Please include 2 copies. In addition, 

please mail a copy of your comments on 

the information collection provisions to 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for 

EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, 

DC 20503. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA West (Air 

Docket), 1301 Constitution Avenue, 

NW., Room 3334, Washington, DC 

20004, Attention Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2009–0491. 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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 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 e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

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, avoid 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 and 

Information Center, EPA/DC, EPA East 

Building, Room 3334, 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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions regarding this Notice of Data 

Availability and the additional 

allocations information placed in the 

docket contact Brian Fisher, Clean Air 

Markets Division, USEPA Headquarters, 

Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, NW., Mail Code: 6204J, 

Washington, DC 20460; telephone 

number: (202) 343–9633; fax number: 

(202) 343–2359; e-mail 

fisher.brian@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Detailed 

background information describing the 

proposed rulemaking may be found in a 

previously published notice: Federal 

Implementation Plans to Reduce 

Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate 

Matter and Ozone (proposed Transport 

Rule); Proposed Rule, 75 FR 45210; 

August 2, 2010. 

The information placed in the docket 

is also available for public review on the 

Web site for this rulemaking at http:// 

www.epa.gov/airtransport/. If additional 

relevant supporting information 

becomes available in the future, EPA 

will place this information in the docket 

and make it available for public review 

on this Web site. This NODA does not 

extend the comment period for the 

proposed Transport Rule, which ended 

on October 1, 2010. This NODA also 

does not extend the comment period for 

the two NODAs supporting the 

proposed Transport Rule that were 

previously published in the Federal 

Register. The comment period for the 

NODA published September 1, 2010 

closed on October 15, 2010. The 

comment period for the NODA 

published October 27, 2010 closed on 

November 26, 2010. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
1110 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

I. Additional Information on 

Submitting Comments 

A. How can I help EPA ensure that my 

comments are reviewed quickly? 

To expedite review of your comments 

by Agency staff, you are encouraged to 

send a separate copy of your comments, 

in addition to the copy you submit to 

the official docket, to Brian Fisher, 

Clean Air Markets Division, USEPA 

Headquarters, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Mail Code: 

6204J, Washington, DC 20460; 

telephone number: (202) 343–9633; fax 

number: (202) 343 2359; e-mail address 

fisher.brian@epa.gov. 

B. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through EDOCKET, 

regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark 

the part or all of the information that 

you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD ROM the specific information that is 

claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. Send or deliver 

information identified as CBI only to the 

following address: Gene Sun, Clean Air 

Markets Division, USEPA Headquarters, 

Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, NW., Mail Code: 6204J, 

Washington, DC 20460; telephone 

number: (202) 343–9119; fax number: 

(202) 343–2359. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: i. Identify the NODA by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

ii. Follow directions—The Agency 

may ask you to respond to specific 

questions or organize comments by 

referencing a Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) part or section 

number. 

iii. Explain your comments, why you 

agree or disagree; suggest alternatives 

and substitute language for your 

requested changes. 

iv. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

v. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

vi. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

vii. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

viii. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. Web Site for Rulemaking 

Information 

The EPA has previously established a 

Web site for the proposed rulemaking at 

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

Web site includes the proposed 

rulemaking actions and other related 

information that the public may find 

useful in addition to a link to this 

NODA. 

III. What is this Notice of Data 

Availability? 

In the Transport Rule Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), EPA 

proposed that, until states submit and 

the Administrator approves State 

Implementation Plans (SIPs), Transport 

Rule Federal Implementation Plans 

(FIPs) would provide backstops to 

prohibit emissions in upwind states that 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of certain National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) in downwind states in 

compliance with section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). This Notice of Data Availability 

(NODA) provides an opportunity for 

public comment on five issues related to 

the proposed Transport Rule and on 

data relevant to those issues. The 

relevant data has been placed in the 

rulemaking docket (Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2009–0491) and on the Web 

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

Specifically, EPA is providing an 

opportunity for additional public 

comment on two methodologies for 

allocating allowances under the remedy 

proposed by EPA in the proposed 

Transport Rule and on supplemental 

data and information concerning the 

two allocation methodologies. EPA is 

also providing an opportunity for 

comment on: The implications of the 

alternative allocation methodologies for 

the proposed assurance provisions; an 

alternative approach to calculation of 

assurance provision allowance 

surrender requirements at the 

designated representative (DR) level; a 

methodology for allocating allowances 

to new units that choose to locate in 

Indian country in the Transport Rule 

region; and possible options for states 

wishing to submit State Implementation 

Plans (SIPs) providing for State 

allocation of allowances in the proposed 

Transport Rule trading programs. 

The first issue on which EPA is 

soliciting comment relates to allowance 

allocations under the proposed limited 

interstate trading remedy. In the 

Transport Rule NPR, EPA proposed FIPs 

with a limited interstate trading remedy 

and requested comment on alternative 

remedies including intrastate trading 

and direct control. To implement the 

proposed limited interstate trading 

remedy, EPA would, among other 

things, require sources to hold 

emissions allowances equal to their 

emissions of certain air pollutants 

during each compliance period. Because 

EPA proposed FIPs in the Transport 

Rule, EPA also proposed a methodology 

for distributing (allocating) the 

allowances to individual existing units 

based on a combination of adjusted 

historic and projected emissions data 

and requested comment on possible 

alternative allocation methodologies. 

This NODA describes two specific 

alternative allocation methodologies 

that would potentially be used to 

allocate allowances under FIPs in the 

final Transport Rule. These alternatives 

rely largely on historic heat input data 

to determine unit-level allocations. The 

NODA provides the underlying data, 

calculations, and resulting unit-level 

allocations obtained when each 

alternative is applied to the State 

budgets in the proposed Transport Rule. 

These alternative allocation 

methodologies could be used to 

implement the proposed interstate 

trading remedy or the intrastate trading 

remedy set forth in the proposed 

Transport Rule. In developing the final 

Transport Rule, EPA will consider these 

alternative allocation methodologies, as 

well as the allocation methodologies 

presented in the proposed Transport 

Rule. Further, issuance of this NODA 

does not preclude EPA from finalizing 

any of the remedies in the Transport 

Rule proposal, including limited 

interstate trading, intrastate trading, or 

direct control. 

EPA received numerous public 

comments on the methodology in the 

proposed Transport Rule for allocating 

SO2 Group 1, SO2 Group 2, NOX annual, 

and NOX ozone season allowances to 

existing units. Many commenters 

suggested alternative allocation 

approaches. A number of commenters 

requested that EPA publish allocations 

and underlying data for any potential 

alternative allocation methodologies 

before issuing a final Transport Rule. 

The public comments received are 

available in the docket for the Transport 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules 1111 

Rule (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2009–0491). 

This NODA describes the two 

alternative allocation methodologies for 

existing units. Classification of units as 

existing units is discussed in section IV 

in this NODA. Units that are not 

classified as existing units would 

receive allocations of allowances based 

on the provisions for new unit 

allocations in the proposed Transport 

Rule. Note that the proposed Transport 

Rule does not discuss allocations to new 

units in Indian country; see section VII 

in this NODA for information on a 

potential allocation methodology for 

such units. 

The alternative methodologies for 

existing unit allocations described in 

this NODA emerge from comments that 

EPA received during the comment 

period on the proposed Transport Rule. 

This NODA explains the two alternative 

allocation methodologies and identifies 

the unit-level data that serve as inputs 

for these alternative methodologies and 

the resulting existing-unit-level 

allocations obtained when the 

methodologies are applied to the State 

budgets provided in the proposal. 

Section V in this NODA lays out key 

issues that EPA encourages commenters 

to consider when submitting comments 

on the alternative allocation 

methodologies. 

The unit-level allocations in this 

NODA are based on State emissions 

budgets in the proposed Transport Rule. 

It is important to note that final State 

budgets may differ from the proposed 

budgets because EPA is still in the 

process of updating its emissions 

inventories and modeling in response to 

public comments, including comments 

on the Integrated Planning Model (IPM). 

The final budgets will be based on the 

updated inventories and modeling. 

Thus, unit-level allocations in this 

NODA provide an indication of the 

proportional share of a State’s budget 

that would be allocated to individual 

existing units if the alternative 

methodologies would be used. Any final 

allocations in the final Transport Rule 

would be based on the final State 

budgets and allocation methodology 

employed in the final rule. Because the 

unit-level allocations in the proposed 

Transport Rule and the unit-level 

allocations in this NODA are based on 

the same State budgets (i.e., the budgets 

in the proposed Transport Rule), this 

approach allows commenters to 

compare how the allocation 

methodologies impact the distribution 

of allowances within a state. 

This NODA only provides illustrative 

allocations to potential existing 

Transport Rule units. For purposes of 

this NODA, potential existing Transport 

Rule units are units that potentially 

meet the applicability criteria in the 

Transport Rule NPR (proposed 

§§ 97.404, 97.504, 97.604, and 97.704) 

and began commercial operation prior 

to January 1, 2009. Any unit that meets 

the proposed applicability criteria and 

began commercial operation on or after 

January 1, 2009 would be considered a 

new unit and receive allocations 

through the new unit set-aside 

described in the Transport Rule NPR 

because the unit would not have a full 

year of baseline data available at the 

time the Agency anticipates determining 

allocations to existing units. Such a new 

unit would not be reflected in the list of 

potential existing units for which 

illustrative allocations are presented in 

this NODA. 

This NODA presents allocations based 

on the existing-unit portions of the state 

budgets under the proposed Transport 

Rule. In the proposal, the existing-unit 

portion of a state budget would be 

calculated as 97% of the total state 

budget in order to allot 3% to the new 

unit set-aside. EPA recognizes that the 

revised classification of units as existing 

units presented with these alternative 

allocation methodologies might affect 

the methodology used in the proposal 

that would establish the size of the new 

unit set-aside. EPA will consider 

comments submitted during this 

NODA’s comment period when 

finalizing FIP allocations in the final 

Transport Rule and will address the 

issue of any effect of the finalized 

allocation methodology on the size of 

the new unit set-aside. 

This NODA also requests public 

comment on four other issues. 

Specifically, the NODA requests 

comment on: an alternative approach to 

the calculation of assurance provision 

allowance surrender requirements 

(calculation at the DR level); the 

implications that the alternative 

allocation methods might have for the 

proposed assurance provisions; 

allocations to any new units that choose 

to locate in Indian country in a 

proposed Transport Rule state; and 

provisions for a state to participate in 

the Transport Rule trading programs 

through submission of a SIP (referred to 

as a full SIP) or to determine unit-level 

allocations under a FIP through 

submission of a SIP revision addressing 

only allocations (referred to as an 

abbreviated SIP). 

EPA has placed in the docket for the 

proposed Transport Rule (Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0491) additional 

information relevant to the rulemaking, 

including illustrative unit-level 

allocations based on the state budgets 

provided in the Transport Rule proposal 

and supporting data discussed in this 

NODA. The information placed in the 

docket is also available for public 

review on the Web site for this 

rulemaking at http://www.epa.gov/ 

airtransport. 

It is also important to note that EPA 

is neither proposing any changes to nor 

accepting comment on the approach 

that will be used to identify each state’s 

significant contribution and interference 

with maintenance and each state’s 

emissions budget. EPA took comment 

on this approach and the resulting state 

budgets in the proposed Transport Rule. 

EPA also took comment on related 

modeling and emissions inventories in 

two subsequent NODAs (75 FR 53613; 

September 1, 2010, and 75 FR 66055; 

October 27, 2010). 

For example, EPA is accepting 

comment on the alternative allowance 

allocation methodologies presented in 

this NODA, but not on whether EPA 

should use a remedy that requires the 

allocation of allowances. The 

allowances that are allocated to 

individual units are a tool that would be 

used to implement two of the remedies 

discussed in the proposed Transport 

Rule—the proposed limited interstate 

trading remedy and the alternative 

intrastate trading remedy; the allocation 

methodologies detailed in this NODA 

are simply variations on approaches for 

distributing those allowances to 

individual units. 

Similarly, while EPA is accepting 

comment on discrete issues relating to 

implementation of the assurance 

provisions, EPA is not accepting 

comments on the need to have 

assurance provisions. The EPA took 

comment on this in the proposed 

Transport Rule and is now only 

requesting comment on discrete 

implementation issues concerning the 

assurance provisions. In particular, EPA 

is requesting comment on the 

implications that the alternative 

allocations methods might have for the 

assurance provisions and on the 

alternative of calculating assurance 

provision surrender on a DR-by-DR, 

rather than an owner-by-owner basis. 

This latter alternative of implementing 

the assurance provisions on a DR-by-DR 

basis is simply a variation in 

implementation of the proposed 

assurance provisions. 

In summary, this NODA provides the 

public with the opportunity to comment 

on: 

a. The two alternative allocation 

methodologies (described in section V 

in this NODA), including the major 

components of each alternative (e.g., the 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
1112 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1 In NEEDS, the combustion turbine and steam 

turbine associated with a single CC plant are 

generally represented as two separate generating 

units. The steam turbine at a CC does not combust 

fuel, though, and should not be included in the list 

of potential existing Transport Rule units. 

baseline period and formulas to be used 

in calculating allocations); 

b. The underlying unit-level data and 

resulting allowance allocations for the 

alternative allocation methodologies 

based on the proposal’s state budgets; 

and 

c. The list of units used in applying 

the alternative allocation 

methodologies, including the 

classification of ‘‘existing’’ units. 

This NODA also provides the public 

with the opportunity to comment on: 

• The alternative of implementing the 

proposed assurance provisions on a DRby-DR, rather than owner-by-owner 

basis (section VI in this NODA); 

• The implications that the 

alternative allocation methodologies 

might have concerning the proposed 

assurance provisions of the Transport 

Rule and the reasonableness of using the 

proposed assurance provisions with 

these alternative allocation 

methodologies; 

• Information regarding unit-level 

allowance allocations for any new units 

that choose to locate in Indian country 

in the proposed Transport Rule region 

in the future (section VII in this NODA); 

and 

• Information regarding provisions 

for a state in the proposed Transport 

Rule region to participate in the 

Transport Rule trading programs 

through submission of a full SIP or to 

determine the unit-level allocations 

under a FIP through submission of an 

abbreviated SIP addressing only 

allocations (section VIII in this NODA). 

During the comment period for this 

NODA, EPA will accept comments only 

on the issues explicitly addressed in 

this NODA. EPA is not requesting, and 

will not consider, comments on other 

aspects of the proposed Transport Rule 

(such as determinations concerning 

states’ significant contribution and 

interference with maintenance and state 

budgets). EPA is not extending the 

comment period of the proposed 

Transport Rule, which closed on 

October 1, 2010. EPA also is not 

extending the comment period of the 

NODA published September 1, 2010, 

which closed on October 15, 2010, or 

the comment period of the NODA 

published on October 27, 2010, which 

closed on November 26, 2010. 

IV. What are the sources of data in this 

NODA? 

A. List of Potential Existing Transport 

Rule Units 

Under the proposed Transport Rule, a 

covered Transport Rule unit is generally 

any stationary, fossil-fuel-fired boiler or 

stationary, fossil-fuel-fired combustion 

turbine located in a proposed Transport 

Rule state and serving at any time, since 

the later of November 15, 1990 or the 

start-up of the unit’s combustion device, 

a generator with a nameplate capacity 

greater than 25 MWe producing 

electricity for sale. The proposed 

Transport Rule would exclude certain 

cogeneration units and solid waste 

incineration units from being covered 

Transport Rule units. 

This NODA provides for comment on 

unit-level allocations (based on the 

budgets in the proposed Transport Rule) 

to potential existing covered units. For 

purposes of this NODA, a potential 

existing unit is assumed to be a unit that 

would potentially meet the proposed 

applicability criteria (i.e., the criteria in 

proposed §§ 97.404, 97.504, 97.604, and 

97.704 in the proposed Transport Rule) 

for covered units and that commenced 

commercial operation prior to January 1, 

2009. This cutoff date was chosen for 

existing units because it assured that at 

least 1 full year of historic data would 

be available to determine each existing 

unit’s allocation. This NODA contains a 

list of, and sets forth allocations under 

the two alternative methodologies to, 

units that potentially meet the covered 

and existing unit criteria discussed 

above based on EPA’s best available 

data. 

To identify the potential existing 

Transport Rule units, EPA relied largely 

on data reported to EPA. To develop the 

list of potential existing Transport Rule 

units, EPA first included any fossil-fuelfired unit serving a generator greater 

than 25 MWe producing electricity for 

sale that is in a proposed Transport Rule 

state and on line prior to January 1, 

2009 and that reported emissions data 

in 2010 under at least one of the 

following ongoing EPA trading 

programs: Clean Air Interstate Rule 

(CAIR) NOX or CAIR SO2 annual trading 

program, Acid Rain Program (ARP), and 

CAIR NOX ozone Season in 

Massachusetts, Connecticut, or 

Arkansas. Data reported to EPA under 

the CAIR and ARP programs meets the 

requirements of part 75 and has been 

certified as to its accuracy and 

completeness by the source’s designated 

representative. 

Next, EPA supplemented the list of 

units by using data from the Integrated 

Planning Model (IPM) v.4.10 to identify 

potential existing Transport Rule units 

that were not included in emissions 

data reported to EPA. Specifically, 

IPM’s National Electric Energy Data 

System (NEEDS) was used to identify 

and obtain data for a subset of fossilfuel-fired units serving generators 

greater than 25 MWe producing 

electricity for sale that are in a proposed 

Transport Rule state and were not 

reporting under one of the 

aforementioned ongoing EPA trading 

programs. NEEDS is a representation of 

all units capable of supplying electricity 

to the U.S. electric grid. This subset of 

units identified through NEEDS was 

then screened to remove units that were 

not potential existing Transport Rule 

units and thus not eligible to obtain 

allocations under one of the two 

alterative allocation methodologies 

discussed in this NODA. 

In particular, if the unit was retired or 

in cold storage in 2010 or is a steam 

turbine at a combined cycle (CC) plant, 

then it was not included as a unit in the 

list of potential existing Transport Rule 

units.1 The remaining units in this 

subset of units were added to the list. 

For instance, there were units in 

Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma that 

were identified through NEEDS as being 

potential existing Transport Rule units 

that were not currently reporting under 

one or more of the aforementioned 

ongoing EPA trading programs because 

the units were not ARP units and were 

not in a CAIR state. Finally, a small 

number of units were added to or 

removed from the list based on 

comment and supporting data 

previously submitted to the EPA during 

the comment period on the proposed 

Transport Rule by the unit owner or 

operator. 

As described above, the list of 

potential existing Transport Rule units 

is based on EPA and NEEDS data. Units 

identified using the EPA and NEEDS 

databases were included in the list of 

potential existing Transport Rule units 

if they were in one of the following 

states covered by the proposed 

Transport Rule: Arkansas, Alabama, 

Connecticut, Delaware, District of 

Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, 

Iowa, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, 

Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, 

Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, 

Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New 

York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Ohio, 

Pennsylvania, South Carolina, 

Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West 

Virginia, and Wisconsin. 

EPA notes that inclusion of a unit in, 

or exclusion of a unit from, the list of 

potential existing Transport Rule units 

presented in this NODA reflects only a 

preliminary assessment of the 

applicability of the proposed Transport 

Rule and in no way suggests that EPA 

has made a determination about the 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules 1113 

2CAA section 302(y) defines the term ‘‘Federal 

implementation plan’’ as follows: 

Federal implementation plan.—The term ‘‘Federal 

implementation plan’’ means a plan (or portion 

thereof) promulgated by the Administrator to fill all 

or a portion of a gap or otherwise correct all or a 

portion of an inadequacy in a State implementation 

plan, and which includes enforceable emission 

limitations or other control measures, means or 

techniques (including economic incentives, such as 

marketable permits or auctions of emissions 

allowances), and provides for attainment of the 

relevant national ambient air quality standard. 

applicability of the proposed Transport 

Rule to any unit. As discussed above, 

the list of units developed for this 

NODA enables EPA to calculate 

illustrative allowance allocations for 

potential existing units based on the 

alternative methodologies presented. 

Moreover, this list may be used by EPA 

to calculate unit-level allocations in the 

final Transport Rule. While allocations 

calculated for the final Transport Rule 

would be based on the best available 

data provided to EPA by the time of the 

calculation, the applicability of the final 

Transport Rule to an individual unit 

would be determined based on all 

relevant data, whether or not EPA 

would have such data at the time that 

allocations would be calculated. In fact, 

because any list of units developed for 

purposes of allowance allocation may 

not be entirely consistent with 

applicability determinations made in 

the future, the proposed Transport Rule 

(proposed §§ 97.411(c), 97.511(c), 

97.611(c), and 97.711(c)) would 

establish procedures to be applied when 

the Administrator would determine that 

a unit allocated allowances would turn 

out not to actually be a proposed 

Transport Rule unit. For example, under 

these proposed procedures, if such a 

determination would be made after 

EPA’s recordation of the allowance 

allocation but before EPA’s deduction of 

allowances for compliance with the 

requirement to hold allowances 

covering emissions, the Administrator 

would deduct the recorded allowances 

and transfer them to a new unit setaside for the appropriate state. 

If owners and operators believe that 

their units that are included in the list 

of potential existing units should not be 

included, these owners and operators 

should submit comments on this NODA 

informing EPA why the units should not 

be in the list. If owners and operators 

believe that their units should be, but 

are not, treated as potential existing 

Transport Rule units and included in 

the list of such units provided by this 

NODA, these owners and operators 

should submit comments on this NODA, 

informing EPA that the units should be 

added to the list and allocated 

allowances and providing support for 

this addition to the list. The data 

necessary for calculating allowance 

allocations under the two alternative 

allocation methodologies should also be 

provided. A unit that would not be 

allocated allowances as an existing unit 

because of the unit’s exclusion from the 

list of potential existing Transport Rule 

units could ultimately be determined to 

be a Transport Rule unit. Under the 

proposed Transport rule, each Transport 

Rule unit would be subject to the 

allowance-holding requirements of the 

Transport Rule regardless of whether 

the unit would be allocated any 

allowances as an existing unit. 

B. Historic Heat Input and Emissions 

Data Used in the Allowance Allocation 

The alternative allocation 

methodologies presented in this NODA 

draw on historic heat input and historic 

emissions for potential existing 

Transport Rule units. For units subject 

to one of the aforementioned ongoing 

EPA trading programs and included in 

the list of potential existing Transport 

Rule units, EPA used reported heatinput data from the EPA database for the 

years 2005 through 2009. For these same 

units, EPA used reported emissions 

from the EPA database for the years 

2003 to 2009. These data are publicly 

available through EPA’s data and maps 

at http://camddataandmaps.epa.gov/ 

gdm/. 

For units included in the list of 

potential existing Transport Rule units 

that were not reporting under one of the 

aforementioned ongoing EPA trading 

programs, EPA used historic heat input 

and emissions data from Energy 

Information Administration (EIA) forms 

767, 860, 906, 920, and 923. These data 

are publicly available at http:// 

www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/ 

data.html. 

V. What are the alternative allocation 

methodologies and on what is EPA 

requesting comment? 

(a) Why is EPA considering heat inputbased allocation methodologies? 

In the proposed Transport Rule, EPA 

proposed a methodology for allocating 

allowances to potential existing 

Transport Rule units. That methodology 

is based on a combination of adjusted 

historic and adjusted projected 

emissions data. EPA received a large 

number of public comments from a 

variety of commenters suggesting 

alternative allocation methodologies. 

One of the most frequently suggested 

metrics for allocation was historic heat 

input. Commenters stated that using 

historic heat input as the basis for 

allocations has the following 

advantages: 

(i) Historic heat input data are more 

likely to be accurate at a unit level than 

projected unit-level emissions and are 

generally based on quality-assured data 

reported by sources from continuous 

monitoring systems. 

(ii) Historic heat input data are fuelneutral. 

(iii) Historic heat input data are 

emissions-control-neutral and thus do 

not yield reduced allocations for units 

that installed or are projected to install 

pollution control technology. 

EPA is considering the above-listed 

points made by commenters regarding 

heat-input based allocations. 

Numerous commenters also noted 

that EPA has broad authority to 

implement alternative allocation 

methodologies under sections 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 302(y) of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA).2 EPA agrees with 

commenters that the Agency has 

significant discretion in this area. 

Neither the CAA nor the D.C. Circuit 

Court’s opinion in North Carolina v. 

EPA (531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), 

specifies a particular methodology that 

EPA must use to allocate allowances to 

individual units. The statute focuses on 

prohibiting emissions within the state 

that significantly contribute to or 

interfere with maintenance. Under CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), states have 

significant discretion to develop a 

control program in a SIP that achieves 

this objective and EPA has similarly 

wide latitude when issuing a FIP. 

Moreover, the definition of FIP in 

section 302(y) of the Act clarifies that a 

FIP may include ‘‘enforceable emission 

limitations or other control measures, 

means or techniques (including 

economic incentives, such as 

marketable permits or auctions of 

emissions allowances)’’ but does not 

require EPA to use any particular 

methodology to allocate allowances 

under a FIP trading program. In light of 

this lack of direction concerning 

allowance allocation, EPA has 

significant discretion to select an 

allocation methodology that is 

reasonable and consistent with the goals 

of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the 

Act, including improving long-term air 

quality and encouraging cost-effective 

emissions reductions. 

EPA believes the allocation 

methodologies presented in the 

proposed Transport Rule as well as 

those presented in this NODA all meet 

that test. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the 

CAA requires that emissions ‘‘within a 

state’’ that significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance in another state be 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
1114 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

prohibited. In the proposed Transport 

Rule, EPA analyzed each individual 

state’s significant contribution and 

interference with maintenance and 

calculated budgets that represent each 

state’s emissions after the elimination of 

those prohibited emissions. The 

methodology used to allocate 

allowances to individual units in a 

particular state has no impact on that 

state’s budget or on the requirement that 

the state’s emissions not exceed that 

budget plus variability. Regardless of 

the allocation methodology used, all 

emissions in each covered state that 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance in another state will be 

prohibited. In sum, the allocation 

methodology has no impact on the 

rule’s ability to satisfy the statutory 

mandate of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to eliminate significant 

contribution and interference with 

maintenance in downwind states. 

EPA believes that a historic-heatinput-based allocation methodology is 

consistent with the goals of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). The proposed 

Transport Rule would set state budgets 

reflecting the overall emission 

reductions necessary for each respective 

state to eliminate significant 

contribution and interference with 

maintenance in downwind states. The 

initial allocation of allowances under 

each state budget to existing units on 

the basis of the units’ historic heat input 

would yield a distribution of allowances 

putting relatively greater burden on the 

higher-emission-rate units to reduce 

emissions or purchase additional 

allowances in order for the units to be 

in compliance with the proposed 

Transport Rule trading programs. This 

pattern would result because heat-inputbased allocations would provide the 

same share of allowances to units with 

the same heat input even though the 

higher-emission-rate units would 

require more allowances in order to 

cover their emissions than would loweremission-rate units. EPA believes that, 

because higher-emission-rate units 

generally are responsible for a greater 

share of a state’s total emissions and 

thus bear greater responsibility for a 

states’ significant contribution and 

interference with maintenance, this 

distribution of burden is consistent with 

the goals of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 

The proposed Transport Rule 

includes four trading programs (SO2

Group 1, SO2 Group 2, NOX annual, and 

NOX ozone season). EPA requests 

comment on whether the allocation 

methodology chosen for each of the four 

trading programs must be the same or 

whether it would be reasonable to 

allocate using different methodologies 

for the different programs. EPA also 

requests comment on rationales for 

using different methodologies for the 

different trading programs. 

(b) What are the alternative heat input 

allocation methodologies and how 

would they be applied? 

This NODA provides an opportunity 

for public comment on the two 

alternative allocation methodologies 

described below. To make it easier for 

commenters to compare the 

methodologies presented in this NODA 

with the methodology proposed in the 

proposed Transport Rule, EPA is 

providing in the rulemaking docket for 

the Transport Rule (and on the EPA Web 

site) data showing the unit-level 

allocations that would result if the 

methodologies were applied to allocate 

allowances from the state budgets in the 

proposed Transport Rule. As noted 

above, these budgets may be revised in 

the final Transport Rule and thus the 

unit-level allocations (based on 97% of 

the respective state budgets) in this 

NODA would not necessarily be the 

unit-level allocations in the final rule. 

The alternative allocation 

methodologies described in this NODA 

represent two variations of historic-heatinput-based allocations. For each 

alternative allocation methodology, the 

underlying data and resulting 

allocations are set forth in allocation 

tables located at http://www.epa.gov/ 

airquality/transport/actions.html and in 

the public docket for the Transport 

Rule. The calculations used to derive 

the unit-by-unit allocations for each 

alternative option are described below. 

Option 1 described below would 

allocate a state’s existing unit budget 

(i.e., 97% of its budget) based on each 

unit’s proportionate share of the state’s 

total historic heat input. 

Option 2 would yield the same initial 

allocation pattern as Option 1 (based on 

historic heat input) but would then add 

a constraint (i.e., a limit on allocations) 

premised on a unit’s reasonably 

foreseeable maximum emissions under 

the proposed Transport Rule trading 

programs. 

Option 1—Historic Heat Input 

Approach 

This option would establish a 

baseline historic heat input value for 

each potential existing Transport Rule 

unit and allocate to that unit a share of 

available allowances under each 

proposed Transport Rule program equal 

to the unit’s percentage share of the total 

baseline historic heat input for all 

potential existing Transport Rule units 

in the state. As with all allocation 

approaches under consideration by 

EPA, this option would be applied to 

each state separately using the portion 

of that state’s budget available for 

potential existing Transport Rule units 

in that state. Allocations under this 

approach for each existing unit would 

be determined by applying the 

following steps. 

1. For each unit in the list of potential 

existing Transport Rule units, annual 

heat input values for the baseline period 

of 2005 through 2009 would be 

identified using data reported to EPA or, 

where EPA data is unavailable, EIA. As 

discussed above, for purposes of this 

NODA, potential existing Transport 

Rule units are units that potentially 

meet the applicability criteria in the 

proposed Transport Rule and began 

commercial operation prior to January 1, 

2009. A number of units would not have 

non-zero data for one or more of the 

baseline years (e.g., a unit that came on 

line after 2005 but before 2009) and 

would be assigned a zero value for each 

of those years in the baseline. (Step 2 

explains how such zero values would be 

treated in the calculations.) This option 

would use a five-year baseline in order 

to improve representation of a unit’s 

normal operating conditions over time. 

EPA requests comment on the existingunit cut-off date of January 1, 2009 for 

purposes of this NODA. 

2. For each unit, the three highest, 

non-zero annual heat input values 

within the 5 year baseline would be 

selected and averaged. Selecting the 

three highest, non-zero annual heat 

input values within the five-year 

baseline would reduce the likelihood 

that any particular single year’s 

operations (which might be negatively 

affected by outages or other unusual 

events) would determine a unit’s 

allocation. If a unit would not have 

three non-zero heat input values during 

the 5 year baseline period, EPA would 

average only those years for which a 

unit does have non-zero heat input 

values. For example, if a unit has only 

reported data for 2008 and 2009 among 

the baseline years and the reported heat 

input values are 2 and 4 mmbtus 

respectively, then the unit’s average 

heat input used to determine its pro-rata 

share of the state budget would be 

(2+4)/2 = 3. 

3. Each unit would be assigned a 

baseline heat input value calculated as 

described in step 2 above. This baseline 

heat input value is referred to in the 

data tables in the rulemaking docket and 

on the Web site referenced previously, 

and in the remainder of this NODA, as 

the ‘‘three-year average heat input’’. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules 1115 

3As identified in EPA’s documentation of EPA 

Base Case v.4.10 model available at http:// 

www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/epa-ipm/docs/ 

v410/Chapter5.pdf. These emission rates are based 

on the floor rates used in IPM modeling and are 

intended to reflect the lower bound of emission 

rates that suppliers are willing to guarantee when 

installing state-of-the-art pollution control 

equipment (selective catalytic reduction (SCR) and 

flue-gas desulfurization (FGD)). 

4Capacity factors were determined as follows. 

(1) Using data reported to EPA by source owners 

and operators under the aforementioned ongoing 

EPA trading programs, EPA determined, for units 

reporting electrical output, the capacity factor for 

each unit for each year of operation during 2000– 

2009 by dividing gross electrical output by 

maximum hourly load times 8,760 hours/year and, 

for units reporting steam output (KLBsteam), 

dividing total mass of steam produced by the 

maximum rate times 8,760 hours; (2) EPA then 

identified each unit’s plant type based on how the 

unit was listed in NEEDS in IPM version 4.10 (e.g., 

coal steam, combined cycle, combustion turbine, 

oil/gas steam, and ‘‘other’’). ‘‘Other’’ comprised fossil 

waste, biomass, tires, and landfill gas. (3) Using the 

units’ calculated annual capacity factors, EPA 

identified the 95th percentile value of capacity 

factor for each plant type. Resulting values are in 

Table 1 above. This analysis is based largely on the 

same data and methodology used in the Capacity 

Factor Analysis Technical Support Document 

located at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/transport/ 

pdfs/ 

TSD_capacity_factors_analysis_for_new_units_7–6– 

10.pdf. However, in this analysis EPA expanded the 

data set to include all units, whereas the previous 

analysis had examined solely CAIR units online 

after 1999 because its focus had been on new units. 

4. The three-year average heat inputs 

of all potential existing Transport Rule 

units in a state would be summed to 

obtain that state’s total ‘‘three-year 

average heat input’’. 

5. Each unit’s three-year average heat 

input would be divided by the state’s 

total three-year average heat input to 

determine that unit’s share of the state’s 

total three-year average heat input. 

6. Each unit’s share of the state’s total 

three-year average heat input would be 

multiplied by the state’s existing-unit 

portion of the state budget (i.e., 97% of 

the state budget) to determine that unit’s 

allocation. 

Option 2—Emissions-Rate-Informed 

Historic Heat Input Approach 

This option retains the historic-heatinput-based approach but adds a 

constraint premised on a unit’s 

reasonably foreseeable maximum 

emissions under the proposed Transport 

Rule trading programs. For the majority 

of units, the historic heat input-based 

allocation will not be sufficient to cover 

historic emission levels; this reflects the 

shared burden on units to reduce 

emissions in order to eliminate the 

state’s significant contribution and 

interference with maintenance. Heat 

input-based allocations only exceed 

historic emissions for units at the lower 

end of the range of historic emission 

rates for the pollutant involved. For 

these lower-emission rate units, this 

option would establish, based on 

historic data, a reasonably foreseeable 

maximum emissions level reflecting a 

reasonable upper-bound capacity 

utilization factor and a well-controlled 

emission rate that all units (regardless of 

the type of fuel they combust) can meet 

for the pollutant. For those units whose 

heat-input-based allocations would 

exceed historic emissions, this option 

would limit the historic-heat-inputbased allocations to this maximum 

emissions level so that the units would 

not be allocated allowances in excess of 

their reasonably foreseeable maximum 

emissions. EPA believes that this 

approach would result in a reasonable 

initial distribution of allowances that is 

consistent with the goals of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 

1. The same 6 steps outlined above in 

Option 1 would be applied to each unit. 

2. A seven-year (2003 through 2009) 

historic emissions baseline would be 

established for SO2, NOX, and ozone 

season NOX based on data reported to 

EPA or, where EPA data is unavailable, 

EIA data. This approach would use this 

seven-year historic emissions baseline 

in order to reflect unit-level emissions 

before and after the promulgation of the 

CAIR. 

3. For each unit, the maximum annual 

historic SO2 and NOX emissions would 

be identified within the seven-year 

baseline. Similarly, the maximum ozone 

season NOX emissions from the sevenyear baseline for each unit would be 

identified. These values are referred to 

as the ‘‘maximum historic baseline 

emissions’’ for each unit. 

4. For each unit whose historic-heatinput-based allocation exceeds its 

maximum historic baseline emissions, 

EPA would determine an emission level 

(referred to as the ‘‘well-controlled-rate 

maximum’’ for each unit) calculated as: 

a. For a unit reporting maximum 

hourly heat input to EPA, the reported 

figure multiplied by a well-controlled 

emission rate of 0.06 lbs/mmBtu for SO2

and 0.06 lbs/mmBtu for NOX. For a unit 

that does not report maximum hourly 

heat input to EPA, EPA would estimate 

the unit’s maximum hourly heat input 

by multiplying the unit’s heat rate and 

capacity values (from NEEDS in IPM 

version 4.10). These well-controlled 

emission rates of 0.06 lbs/mmBtu for 

SO2 and NOX represent the lowest 

annual emission rates assumed 

achievable when state-of-the-art 

pollution control technologies are 

installed at coal units in the IPM 

modeling.3

b. The unit’s maximum hourly heat 

input determined in step 4.a above 

would be multiplied by 8,760 hours 

(annual) or 3,672 hours (ozone season) 

to get an annual or ozone season 

emissions level at 100% utilization. 

c. The unit’s emissions level at 100% 

utilization determined in step 4.b above 

would be multiplied by the reasonable 

upper-bound capacity factor for each 

technology type. These upper-bounds 

would be calculated as the utilization 

values at the 95th percentile in each 

technology class.4 These 95th percentile 

values are set forth in the table below. 

TABLE I—SUMMARY OF CAPACITY

FACTORS AT 95TH PERCENTILE

[‘‘Reasonable Upper-Bound Capacity Factor’’] 

Technology class Annual Ozone 

season 

Coal-fired boiler ................ 0.87 0.89 

Combined cycle ................ 0.70 0.73 

Combustion turbine .......... 0.14 0.22 

Oil or gas fired boiler ........ 0.46 0.55 

Other ................................. 0.71 0.75 

5. If a unit identified in step 4 has an 

historic-heat-input-based allocation 

greater than both its maximum historic 

baseline emissions (as determined in 

step 3) and its well-controlled-rate 

maximum (as determined in step 4), 

then its allocation (referred to as the 

unit’s ‘‘reasonable foreseeable maximum 

emissions level’’) would equal the 

higher of these two values. 

6. The difference (if positive) under 

step 5 between a unit’s historic-heatinput-based allocation and its 

‘‘reasonable foreseeable maximum 

emissions level’’ would be 

reapportioned on the same basis as 

described in step 1 to units whose 

historic-heat-input-based allocations are 

not revised under step 5. Steps 4, 5, and 

6 would be repeated with each revised 

allocation distribution until the entire 

existing-unit portion of the state budget 

(i.e., 97% of the state budget) would be 

allocated. 

The table below provides an example 

of application of the steps in Option 2. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
1116 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE II—DEMONSTRATION OF ALLOCATIONS USING OPTION 2 IN A TWO-UNIT STATE WITH A 30-TON STATE BUDGET

Step 1 Step 2 & 3 Step 4 Step 5 

(greater of step 

3 result or 

step 4 result) 

Step 6 

Heat-inputbased 

allocation 

Historic 

maximum 

baseline 

emissions 

Wellcontrolled-rate 

maximum 

Reasonable 

foreseeable 

maximum 

emissions 

level 

Final allocation 

Unit A ............................................................................... 10 4 6 6 6 

Unit B ............................................................................... 20 40 N/A N/A 24 

(c) What allocations-related data and 

information are the EPA making 

available for review and comment? 

EPA has used the best available data 

to develop a list of potential existing 

Transport Rule units and to calculate 

illustrative allowance allocations for 

each such unit under the two alternative 

allocation methodologies discussed in 

this NODA. However, through the 

NODA, EPA is giving unit owners and 

operators and the public in general the 

opportunity to offer comments on 

individual units’ inclusion in or 

exclusion from such list and—for units 

that EPA included on the list or that 

commenters believe should be included 

on the list—on the data needed for 

allocation calculations (including any 

necessary data that EPA has not 

provided in this NODA) under the two 

alternative allocation methodologies 

and the allocations that result or should 

result from such calculations. 

For units on the list of potential 

existing Transport Rule units, EPA is 

providing for the years 2003 through 

2009 the relevant EPA-reported heat 

input and emissions data under the 

aforementioned ongoing EPA trading 

programs and, for those units not 

reporting under these programs, heat 

input and fuel data in EIA databases. 

EPA is also providing the Agency’s 

calculations using these data in the two 

alternative allocation methodologies 

described in this NODA. 

In addition to comments on the list of 

potential existing Transport Rule units, 

allocation-related data, and calculations 

of allocations, EPA requests comments 

on the appropriateness of the alternative 

allocation methodologies and their 

implications for rule implementation. In 

particular, EPA encourages commenters 

to address the following: 

• Are the alternative allocation 

methodologies clear and easy to 

understand? 

• Do these alternative methodologies 

raise any implementation concerns, 

such as concerns about feasibility of 

implementing the methodology? 

• How are these methodologies 

consistent with the goals of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)? 

• Do these alternative methodologies 

yield a reasonable distribution of 

allowances? 

• Should the same methodology be 

used for each of the proposed Transport 

Rule trading programs, or should a 

different methodology be used for one 

or more such trading programs? 

(d) Why is the EPA providing 

opportunity to comment on these 

allocation-related data and 

information? 

Through this NODA, EPA is providing 

owners and operators, states and the 

public in general the opportunity to 

comment on the allocations-related data 

and information described above in 

order to ensure that we use the best 

available data in the Transport Rule FIP 

allocation process. For example, the 

heat input and emissions data used to 

calculate allocations came from data 

reported to EPA and EIA, and a unit 

owner or operator (or other member of 

the public) should comment if he or she 

sees any discrepancy between the data 

reported for the unit and the heat input 

and emissions data used in calculating 

the allocations in this NODA. Such 

comment should include the data that 

the commenter believes EPA should use 

and the source of that data and where 

else the data may be reported to the 

Federal government. EPA is also 

providing an opportunity to comment 

on the calculations using the alternative 

allocation methodologies and the data 

in order to ensure the accuracy of the 

calculations. 

The allocations presented in this 

NODA are also based on the list of 

potential existing Transport Rule units 

developed using data currently available 

to EPA. As discussed above, a unit’s 

inclusion on or exclusion from this list 

does not constitute a determination of 

the applicability of the proposed 

Transport Rule to the unit, but rather 

reflects EPA’s preliminary application 

of the applicability provisions in the 

proposed Transport Rule. In order to 

ensure the accuracy of the allocation 

calculations, the EPA is providing this 

opportunity for source owners and 

operators, and the public in general, to 

(1) comment on units’ inclusion in, or 

exclusion from, the allocation tables in 

the NODA and the data on which the 

inclusion or exclusion is or should be 

based, (2) comment on the heat input 

and other data used or that should be 

used to calculate the allocations and the 

resulting allocations, and (3) submit 

corrections of the data or supplementary 

data. While EPA requests that owners 

and operators, states, and other 

members of the public who believe that 

a unit has been incorrectly included in 

or excluded from the allocation tables 

submit a comment (including any 

supporting data). EPA is not requesting, 

and will not consider, any comments on 

the proposed applicability provisions 

themselves (proposed §§ 97.404, 97.504, 

97.604, and 97.704). 

The addition or removal of existing 

units to or from a state’s list of potential 

existing Transport Rule units will not 

impact the size of the state budget. 

EPA’s responses to comments on this 

NODA concerning the list of potential 

existing Transport Rule units and the 

data to be used to allocate to specific 

units and EPA’s updated modeling and 

responses to comments on the proposed 

Transport Rule concerning the proposed 

state budgets may result in the 

individual units receiving different 

shares of the applicable state budget 

than reflected in the allocation tables. 

(e) What supporting documentation do 

I need to provide with my comments? 

While we will consider all comments 

on issues that are within the scope of 

this NODA, these comments should be 

supported with appropriate 

documentation. Supporting 

documentation can include, but is not 

limited to, spreadsheets, explanations of 

why you believe the data on such 

spreadsheets are accurate (e.g., the 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules 1117 

5Under proposed §§ 97.413, 97.513, 97.613, and 

97.713, the owners and operators of a source could 

designate one individual as the DR, who would 

represent and legally bind them in all matters 

concerning the proposed Transport Rule trading 

programs. Under these provisions, these owners 

and operators also could designate another 

individual as the alternate designated 

representative, who could act on behalf of the DR 

and would legally bind the DR and thus the owners 

and operators. EPA notes that the concept of 

requiring representation of source owners and 

operators by a DR has been used in prior EPA 

trading programs, including the ARP and CAIR 

trading programs. 

quality assurance of the data), and 

information on the data source. 

In general, we do not anticipate 

revisions to unit heat input and 

emissions data reported to EPA under 

the ARP and CAIR programs since, in 

submitting the data under these 

programs, a source’s DR has already 

certified the accuracy and completeness 

of the data. However, we will consider 

any comments. For example, a source’s 

DR may provide evidence that we 

improperly calculated heat input at the 

unit-level if the heat input was actually 

measured at another location (such as a 

common stack). As a further example, a 

source’s DR may demonstrate that the 

data provided in this NODA are not 

consistent with the data reported to EPA 

for compliance with the ARP or CAIR 

programs. In that case, the commenter 

should explain why the data values in 

EPA’s data files are incorrect and should 

document and explain the new data 

values. 

Similarly, in general, we do not 

anticipate revisions to data reported to 

EIA since such data were submitted to 

meet regulatory reporting requirements. 

However, we will consider any 

comments on the data as reported, as 

well as on any calculation in which we 

used the data for purposes of this 

NODA. 

VI. On what aspects of the proposed 

assurance provisions is EPA requesting 

comment? 

(a) Whether the Assurance Provision 

Allowance Surrender Requirement 

Should be Calculated on a Designated 

Representative Basis 

Under the proposed Transport Rule, 

the assurance provisions would be 

triggered for a state for a given year if 

total emissions for covered units in the 

state for the year exceed the state 

assurance level (i.e., the state budget 

plus the state’s variability limit). As 

proposed, if this level were exceeded, 

the assurance provision allowance 

surrender requirement would be 

imposed on certain owners of covered 

units in the state and calculated on an 

owner-by-owner basis. Specifically, 

each owner whose share of the state’s 

total covered-unit emissions exceeded 

the owner’s share of the state assurance 

level would have to surrender a 

proportionate share of the state’s 

exceedance. In this NODA, EPA is 

requesting comment on whether the 

surrender requirement should be 

imposed on certain owners and 

operators of covered units in the state 

but calculated on a DR-by-DR basis, 

rather than on an owner-by-owner basis. 

Under this alternative approach, the 

calculation of shares of covered-unit 

emissions and of the state budget plus 

variability would be performed for each 

group of covered units having a 

common DR. EPA would use the DR as 

of the allowance transfer deadline for a 

given control period (generally March 1 

following the control period for the 

proposed Transport Rule NOX and SO2

annual trading programs and December 

1 following the control period for the 

proposed Transport Rule NOX ozone 

season trading program) for determining 

assurance provision surrender 

requirements. In order to be treated as 

a group of covered units for this 

purpose, the units would have to be 

located at sources in the state with the 

same individual as their DR (not 

alternate designated representative).5

For each such group of covered units 

in the state, the DR’s share of the state’s 

covered-unit emissions (i.e., the total 

emissions of the covered units at the 

group of covered sources having that 

DR) for the year and the DR’s share of 

the state assurance level (i.e., the total 

allocations for the covered units at such 

sources plus the units’ proportionate 

share of the state variability limit) 

would be calculated. The owners and 

operators represented by a common DR 

whose share of state covered-unit 

emissions exceeded his or her share of 

the state assurance level would all be 

subject to the DR’s proportionate share 

of the proposed assurance provision 

allowance surrender requirement (i.e., 

the requirement that one allowance be 

surrendered for each ton by which the 

state’s total covered-unit emissions 

would exceed the state assurance level). 

The DR’s share of the surrender 

requirement would equal the amount by 

which the DR’s share of the state’s total 

covered-unit emissions exceeded the 

DR’s share of the state assurance level, 

divided by the sum of all such 

exceedances for all DRs for covered 

units in the state. The owners and 

operators would be collectively and 

individually liable for making this 

allowance surrender and would 

determine themselves how to divide up 

the actual surrender. This would be 

similar to the way that all owners and 

operators of a covered source that fails 

to hold allowances covering the source’s 

emissions are collectively and 

individually liable for an excess 

emissions penalty. The owners and 

operators subject to the allowance 

surrender requirement would be 

required to transfer the necessary 

amount of allowances by the specified 

deadline to an assurance account 

created by EPA for these owners and 

operators. 

EPA believes that imposing the 

proposed assurance provision allowance 

surrender requirement at the DR level, 

rather than owner level, is more 

straightforward and consistent with 

information already provided to EPA 

and potentially provides owners and 

operators with more flexibility than 

under the approach in the proposed 

Transport Rule. Other requirements 

under the proposed Transport Rule 

trading programs (e.g., the requirement 

to monitor and report emissions and to 

hold allowances covering emissions) 

would be imposed on a unit-by-unit or 

source-by-source basis. Consequently, 

EPA would not generally obtain detailed 

ownership information (such as 

percentage ownership in individual 

units) and would have to collect such 

information only in order to implement 

the owner-by-owner approach in the 

assurance provisions in the proposed 

Transport Rule. The DR approach for 

calculating the assurance provision 

surrender requirements would eliminate 

the need to collect detailed ownership 

information and would also avoid the 

complications arising from having to 

divide up units’ emissions and 

allocations among partial owners of the 

units. In addition, the DR approach 

would apply to units with a common 

DR even in the case where the units 

involved did not have a common owner 

or operator. This would allow owners 

and operators to designate a common 

DR for all of the sources at which their 

units are located and thereby obtain the 

increased flexibility of having the 

assurance provisions apply to the entire 

group. Like the proposed approach of 

calculating the assurance provision 

surrender requirements on an owner-byowner basis, the alternative approach of 

calculating such requirements on a DRby-DR basis could be applied under any 

of the allocation methods under 

consideration. In developing the final 

Transport Rule, EPA will consider both 

approaches. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
1118 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

(b) Whether the Overall Assurance 

Provision Approach Should Be 

Maintained if One of the Alternative 

Allocation Methodologies Is Used in the 

Final Transport Rule 

EPA received several comments on 

the proposed Transport Rule concerning 

whether the proposed assurance 

provisions should be changed if the 

proposed allocation methodology were 

changed. For the reason discussed 

below, EPA does not believe that a 

change in allocation methodology 

would necessitate any changes in the 

assurance provisions set forth in the 

proposed Transport Rule. In the 

unlikely event that a state exceeds its 

state assurance level, only the owners 

and operators whose shares (or the 

owners and operators whose common 

DR’s share) of the state’s emissions 

exceed the owners’ and operators’ (or 

the common DR’s) share of the state 

assurance level would be subject to the 

allowance surrender requirement. 

While EPA believes the likelihood of 

triggering assurance provisions would 

be low for the reasons provided in the 

proposed Transport Rule (75 FR 45314), 

the assurance provisions must have an 

enforcement mechanism to be effective. 

The assurance provision allowance 

surrender requirements exist to ensure 

that the state budgets plus variability 

limits (the state assurance levels) would 

not be exceeded in any state. These 

surrender requirements identify what 

penalties would apply if the assurance 

level were to be exceeded. 

EPA believes that a change to the 

allocation methodology would not 

necessitate any changes to the assurance 

provisions in the proposed Transport 

Rule for the following reason. The 

proposed Transport Rule explained that, 

in the event that a state’s total emissions 

would exceed the state budget plus 

variability, those groups of units 

(whether grouped by owner as in the 

proposal or by common DR as discussed 

in this NODA) with an analogous 

exceedance (i.e., those groups of units 

with total emissions exceeding their 

total allowance allocations plus their 

shares of state variability) would 

reasonably be viewed as accounting for 

the state’s exceedance and thus should 

be subject to proportionate shares of the 

allowance surrender penalty calculated 

as one allowance to be surrendered for 

each ton of the state’s exceedance. Even 

under a different allowance allocation 

methodology than the allocation 

methodology proposed in the Transport 

Rule, it would continue to be the case 

that groups of units with greater 

emissions than their allocations plus 

share of state variability would 

reasonably be held responsible for the 

state’s excess of emissions over the state 

assurance level. EPA believes that any 

state that would exceed its state 

assurance level would likely do so 

because not all units would have made 

the reductions necessary to eliminate 

the state’s contribution to 

nonattainment or interference with 

maintenance. Moreover, the groups of 

units with emissions exceeding their 

allocations plus share of variability 

would be the units that were most likely 

to have contributed to the state’s 

exceedance of its state assurance level 

and thus to the state’s triggering of the 

assurance provisions. Consequently, it 

would be reasonable to penalize those 

groups of units (whether grouped by 

owner or by common DR)—through 

application of the assurance provision 

allowance surrender requirement—for 

the state’s exceedance. 

EPA received comments that 

proposed assurance provision penalties 

should be delinked from allocations and 

that a different method of imposing 

such penalties should be applied. 

However, as discussed above, the 

Agency still believes that the proposed 

assurance provisions provide a 

reasonable way of identifying those 

sources within a state that most likely 

contributed to, and share responsibility 

for, any triggering of the assurance 

provisions. EPA also believes that the 

proposed assurance provisions, with 

calculation of the allowance surrender 

requirements made on an owner-byowner basis (as proposed) or on a DRby-DR basis (under the alternative 

discussed in this NODA) provide a 

reasonable way of distributing 

proportionate shares of the 

responsibility for eliminating a state’s 

significant contribution and interference 

with maintenance. However, EPA is 

requesting comment in this NODA on 

the implications of retaining the 

proposed assurance provisions (with the 

surrender requirements calculated on an 

owner-by-owner or DR-by-DR basis) in 

conjunction with the alternative 

allocation methodologies presented. 

While EPA believes that the overall 

approach for the assurance provisions 

would still be appropriate with an 

alternative allocation methodology, the 

Agency may reevaluate some of the 

details of those provisions, for example, 

the proposed variability limits for each 

state, the treatment of new units that 

have not yet been allocated allowances, 

and the allowance surrender levels 

when it promulgates the final Transport 

Rule. 

VII. Allocations to New Covered Units 

in Indian Country in the Future 

EPA received comments that it did 

not adequately consider opportunities 

for Indian tribes to enter into any of the 

trading programs in the Transport Rule 

proposal. This section explains and 

provides an opportunity to comment on 

some options for allocating allowances 

to covered units that might in the future 

be constructed in Indian country. In 

addition, EPA has initiated a process to 

consult with any interested tribes on 

issues related to the proposed Transport 

Rule and will conclude this 

consultation before making any final 

decisions on this issue. EPA will take 

into consideration additional input it 

receives as part of the tribal consultation 

process. 

In the Tribal Authority Rule, EPA 

determined that it was appropriate to 

treat eligible Indian tribes in the same 

manner as states for purposes of the 

prohibitions and authority contained in 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D). See 63 FR 

7254, 7260; February 12, 1998. Tribes 

are not, however, required to submit 

implementation plans. As explained in 

EPA’s regulations outlining Tribal Clean 

Air Act authority, EPA is authorized to 

promulgate FIPs for Indian country as 

necessary or appropriate to protect air 

quality if a tribe does not submit and get 

EPA approval of an implementation 

plan. See 40 CFR 49.11(a). Presently, 

there are no covered sources located in 

Indian country in the region covered by 

the proposed Transport Rule. In the 

event of the planned construction of 

such a source in Indian country in the 

proposed Transport Rule region, EPA 

intends to work with the relevant Tribal 

government to ensure that Tribal 

concerns regarding allocations are 

addressed and, at the same time, that 

emissions from the source do not violate 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In the 

case of a covered source locating in the 

future in Indian country in the proposed 

Transport Rule region, the EPA 

anticipates that the Transport Rule FIPs 

would require the covered source to 

meet the requirements of the proposed 

EPA administered Transport Rule 

trading programs if those programs are 

finalized. 

EPA also anticipates that any covered 

units at a covered source locating in 

Indian country in the proposed 

Transport Rule region would be eligible 

to receive allowances from the EPAadministered new unit set-aside under 

the FIPs for the proposed Transport 

Rule state in which the area of Indian 

country is located. Identical to the 

approach proposed in the Transport 

Rule for other new covered units, the 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules 1119 

owner or operator of units in Indian 

country in the proposed Transport Rule 

region could request allocations from 

the EPA-administered new unit setaside by a specified deadline each year. 

The allocations distributed by EPA 

under the FIPs would equal that unit’s 

emissions for the control period in the 

preceding year (75 FR 45322). EPA has 

not currently identified a basis for 

treating new units locating in Indian 

country without initial SO2 or NOX

allowance allocations differently from 

new units locating elsewhere in the 

Transport Rule region without initial 

allowance allocations. 

As part of this NODA, EPA is 

requesting comment on all aspects of 

how allowances for covered units 

locating on tribal lands should be 

allocated. Specifically, EPA requests 

comment on how, in the final Transport 

Rule FIPs, EPA should allocate 

allowances to any covered units that are 

constructed in Indian country in the 

proposed Transport Rule region in the 

future. EPA is also requesting comment 

on how any such allowance allocation 

methodology should, if at all, affect state 

budgets or allowance allocations to 

existing units and what further action, 

if any, EPA should take to work with 

Tribes and affected states to resolve this 

issue in the event any covered units are 

constructed in Indian Country in the 

proposed Transport Rule region. 

Finally, EPA requests comment on how 

such allocations should be addressed in 

a state that has submitted a SIP 

providing for state allocation of 

allowances in the proposed Transport 

Rule trading programs. 

VIII. Provisions for States To Submit 

Transport Rule SIPs or Abbreviated 

SIPs Providing for State Allocation of 

Allowances in Proposed Transport Rule 

Trading Programs 

The proposed Transport Rule explains 

that ‘‘by promulgating these Transport 

Rule FIPs, EPA would in no way affect 

the right of states to submit, for review 

and approval, a SIP that replaces the 

Federal requirements of the FIP with 

state requirements. In order to replace 

the FIP in a state, the state’s SIP must 

provide adequate provisions to prohibit 

NOX and SO2 emissions that contribute 

significantly to nonattainment or 

interfere with maintenance [of the 1997 

ozone and 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS] in another state or states * * * 

EPA is taking comment on all aspects of 

how a state could replace the Transport 

Rule FIP with a SIP and on what the SIP 

approval criteria should be.’’ 75 FR 

45342. 

EPA received comments suggesting 

that EPA allow states to replace EPA’s 

allowance allocation provisions in the 

proposed Transport Rule trading 

programs by state-developed allocation 

provisions. Commenters referenced the 

two alternatives provided to states by 

EPA in the CAIR trading programs 

where: (1) EPA adopted a rule and 

model trading regulations under which 

states that adopted, as state SIP trading 

programs, the model regulations (with 

only certain limited changes allowed, 

e.g., in the allocation provisions) could 

participate in the EPA-administered 

CAIR trading programs; and (2) EPA 

adopted a rule allowing states to adopt 

in SIPs provisions replacing only certain 

provisions in the CAIR FIPs (e.g., the 

allocation provisions) and to remain in 

the CAIR trading programs under the 

CAIR FIPs. Under both approaches, the 

covered units in the state participated in 

the CAIR trading programs, albeit with 

state-, rather than EPA-, determined 

allocations. 

In the comment period on the 

proposed Transport Rule FIP, EPA 

received comments supporting these 

two types of approaches for allowing 

states to replace EPA allocations under 

the proposed Transport Rule trading 

programs by state allocations. EPA is 

therefore requesting comment—in 

conjunction with comment on the 

alternative allocation methodologies— 

on both of the following two 

approaches, which are analogous to the 

approaches adopted under the CAIR 

trading programs. These approaches 

would allow states to—and would 

provide the only ways that states 

could—allocate allowances and 

participate in the proposed Transport 

Rule trading programs. 

Under the first approach, EPA would 

adopt new provisions, as part of the 

proposed Transport Rule FIP that would 

allow a state to submit a SIP (referred as 

an abbreviated SIP) that would modify 

specified provisions of the proposed 

Transport Rule FIP trading programs. 

Specifically, the abbreviated SIP would 

substitute state allocation provisions 

(for entities other than opt-in units)— 

for control periods in years after 2012 

and applicable to a proposed Transport 

Rule FIP trading program—in lieu of the 

current allocation provisions (except 

those for opt-in units) under those 

proposed Transport Rule FIP program. 

The Transport Rule FIP provisions that 

could be replaced would be proposed 

§§ 97.411(a) and (b) and 97.412 (in the 

proposed TR NOX Annual Trading 

Program), proposed §§ 97.511(a) and (b) 

and 97.512 (in the TR NOX Ozone 

Season Trading Program), proposed 

§§ 97.611(a) and (b) and 97.612 (in the 

TR SO2 Group 1 Trading Program), and 

proposed §§ 97.711(a) and (b) and 

97.712 (in the TR SO2 Group 2 Trading 

Program). The abbreviated SIP could 

provide for this substitution of state 

allocations in one or more of the 

proposed Transport Rule FIP trading 

programs applicable to the state. 

If the state allocation provisions met 

certain requirements and the 

abbreviated SIP did not change any 

other provisions in the respective 

proposed Transport Rule FIP trading 

program, then EPA would approve the 

abbreviated SIP. In the substitute state 

allocation provisions, the state could 

allocate allowances to Transport Rule 

units (whether existing or new units) or 

other entities (such as renewable energy 

facilities) or could auction some or all 

of the allowances. For EPA approval, 

the state allocation provisions would 

have to meet the following 

requirements. First, the provisions 

would have to provide that, for each 

year for which the state allocation 

provisions would apply, the total 

amount of control period (annual or 

ozone season) allowances allocated and, 

where applicable, auctioned could not 

exceed the applicable state budget for 

that year under the relevant proposed 

Transport Rule FIP trading program. 

Second, to the extent the state 

provisions would provide for 

allocations for, or auctions open to, 

existing units (i.e., units covered by 

proposed § 97.411(a), § 97.511(a), 

97.611(a), or 97.711(a), as applicable), 

the provisions would have to provide 

that the permitting authority under title 

V of the CAA for the state would issue 

final allocations and, if applicable, 

auction results by May 1 (or January 1 

with regard to the NOX ozone season 

program) of the year two years before 

the year of the control period for which 

the allowances would be distributed. To 

the extent the provisions would provide 

for allocations for or auctions open to 

new units (i.e., units covered by 

proposed § 97.411(b) and 97.412, 

§ 97.511(b) and 97.512, 97.611(b) and 

97.612, or 97.711(b) and 97.712, as 

applicable) or any other entities, the 

provisions would also have to provide 

that the permitting authority would 

issue final allocations and, if applicable, 

auction results by August 1 (or May 1 

with regard to the NOX ozone season 

program) of the year of the control 

period for which the allowances would 

be distributed. The allocation (or 

auction) of allowances would be final 

and could not be subject to modification 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
1120 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

6 If any auctions were to be conducted, the 

provisions would have to specify the auction 

procedures that the permitting authority would use. 

7However, if auctions were to be conducted, the 

abbreviated SIP would have to provide that any 

allowance auctioned to a covered unit or source 

would be treated as an allocated allowance, solely 

for purposes of applying the assurance provisions 

in the proposed Transport Rule FIP. 

8 In addition, the requirements for state allocation 

provisions in full SIPs would apply to any 

auctioned allowances in the same way that is 

described above with regard to any allowances to 

be auctioned under abbreviated SIPs. 

(e.g., through an allowance surrender 

adjusting the allocation).6

Third, the state provisions could not 

change any other provisions of the 

proposed Transport Rule FIP trading 

programs with regard to the allowances 

(e.g., the deadlines for allocation 

recordation, requirements for transfer or 

use of allowances, and allocation and 

recordation of allowances for opt-in 

units) or any other aspect of such 

trading programs.7

Under the second approach, EPA 

would adopt a new rule that would 

provide that, if a state submitted a SIP 

(referred to as a full SIP) that adopted 

trading program regulations meeting 

certain requirements for control period 

in years after 2012, then EPA would 

approve the full SIP as correcting the 

deficiency under CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in the state’s SIP that 

was the basis for issuance of the 

comparable proposed Transport Rule 

FIP. In the state allocation provisions, 

the state could allocate allowances to 

Transport Rule units (whether existing 

or new units, except for opt-in units) or 

other entities (such as renewable energy 

facilities) or could auction allowances. 

As a result of EPA approval of the 

state’s full SIP under this second 

approach, the state’s trading program set 

forth in the SIP would be integrated 

with the comparable proposed 

Transport Rule FIP trading program 

(whether or not modified by an 

abbreviated SIP) covering other states. 

Moreover, covered sources in the state 

could participate in the integrated 

trading program, and the allowances 

issued under the state trading program 

would be interchangeable with the 

allowances issued in the comparable 

proposed Transport Rule trading 

program. 

Like the abbreviated SIP discussed 

above, a full SIP providing for state 

participation in the integrated trading 

program could include only limited 

differences from the provisions of the 

proposed Transport Rule FIP trading 

program. First, the only differences that 

the full SIP could adopt would be in the 

allocation provisions (other than those 

for opt-in units). Second, the revised 

state allocation provisions in the full 

SIP would have to meet the same 

requirements as state allocation 

provisions in an abbreviated SIP. For 

example, the full SIP would have to 

provide that, for each year, the total 

amount of control period (annual or 

ozone season) allocations would not 

exceed the applicable state budget for 

that year. Further, to the extent the full 

SIP would provide for allocations for 

existing units, the SIP would have to 

provide that the permitting authority 

would issue final allocations by May 1 

(or January 1 with regard to the NOX

ozone season program) of the year two 

years before the year of the control 

period for which the allowances would 

be distributed. To the extent the full SIP 

would provide for allocations for new 

units or any other entities, the SIP 

would also have to provide that the 

permitting authority would issue final 

allocations by August 1 (or May 1 with 

regard to the NOX ozone season 

program) of the year of the control 

period for which the allowances would 

be distributed. The allocation of 

allowances would be final and could 

not be subject to modification.8

It is important to note that, of course, 

each state would still have the ability to 

submit other types of SIPs using 

emissions reduction approaches other 

than the proposed Transport Rule 

trading programs to correct the 

deficiency under CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in the state’s SIP that 

was the basis for the proposed Transport 

Rule FIPs. The EPA would review such 

SIP submissions on a case-by-case basis 

and intends to provide guidance to 

states that want to develop and submit 

such SIPs. However, in order for the 

state to use the proposed Transport Rule 

trading programs to correct that 

deficiency in the SIP, the state would 

have to submit a full SIP in accordance 

with this second approach. 

In order for a state’s allocation 

provisions in an abbreviated SIP or a 

full SIP to replace EPA’s allocation 

provisions for a control period in a 

given year under these two approaches, 

a state would have to submit the 

abbreviated SIP or full SIP meeting the 

requirements of these approaches by a 

deadline that would provide EPA 

sufficient time to review and approve 

the SIP provisions and to record the 

unit-by-unit allocations or auction 

results. EPA would need about 6 

months—starting from the date of 

receipt of an abbreviated or full SIP—to 

complete its review and approval 

process, which would have to provide 

an opportunity for public comment on 

the approval (or disapproval) action. 

The following tables show, for the 

allocations or auction results for the 

control periods in 2012 through 2018, 

the deadlines that would apply for 

submission of an abbreviated or full SIP, 

for submission of the unit-by-unit 

allocations or auction results for 

recordation by EPA, and for recordation. 

These tables assume: Allocation (or 

auction) and recordation of allowances 

for existing units under the Transport 

Rule trading programs one year at a time 

and about one and one-half years ahead 

of the year for which the allocations (or 

auctions) apply; and allocation (or 

auction) and recordation of allowances 

for new units and other entities one year 

at a time and six months after the 

commencement of the control period for 

which the allocations (or auction) apply. 

Because EPA anticipates issuing the 

final Transport Rule around mid-2011, 

there would not be sufficient time for 

states to develop and submit 

abbreviated or full SIPs with allowance 

allocation provisions, and for EPA to 

review and approve such SIP 

submissions, before September 2011 

when EPA would record allocations to 

existing units for 2012 and 2013. 

Consequently, the tables assume that the 

first year for which state allocations 

might be used, in lieu of EPA allocation, 

would be 2014. 

TABLE III—DEADLINES FOR SUBMISSION OF ABBREVIATED OR FULL SIPS AND UNIT-BY-UNIT ALLOCATIONS OR AUCTION

RESULTS AND FOR RECORDATION; ANNUAL TRADING PROGRAMS

First TR control period 

for which allowances 

would be allocated or 

auctioned 

Deadline for State 

submitting abbreviated or full SIP 

Deadline for State 

submitting allocations 

or auction results for 

existing units 

Deadline for State 

submitting allocations 

or auction results for 

new units and others 

Deadline for EPA 

recording allocations 

or auction results for 

existing units 

Deadline for EPA 

recording allocations 

or auction results for 

new units and others 

2012 ........................... NA ............................. NA ............................. NA ............................. September 1, 2011 ... September 1, 2012. 

2013 ........................... NA ............................. NA ............................. NA ............................. September 1, 2011 ... September 1, 2013. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules 1121 

TABLE III—DEADLINES FOR SUBMISSION OF ABBREVIATED OR FULL SIPS AND UNIT-BY-UNIT ALLOCATIONS OR AUCTION

RESULTS AND FOR RECORDATION; ANNUAL TRADING PROGRAMS—Continued 

First TR control period 

for which allowances 

would be allocated or 

auctioned 

Deadline for State 

submitting abbreviated or full SIP 

Deadline for State 

submitting allocations 

or auction results for 

existing units 

Deadline for State 

submitting allocations 

or auction results for 

new units and others 

Deadline for EPA 

recording allocations 

or auction results for 

existing units 

Deadline for EPA 

recording allocations 

or auction results for 

new units and others 

2014 ........................... November 1, 2011 .... May 1, 2012 .............. August 1, 2014 ......... June 1, 2012 ............. September 1, 2014. 

2015 ........................... November 1, 2012 .... May 1, 2013 .............. August 1, 2015 ......... June 1, 2013 ............. September 1, 2015. 

2016 ........................... November 1, 2012 .... May 1, 2014 .............. August 1, 2016 ......... June 1, 2014 ............. September 1, 2016. 

2017 ........................... November 1, 2014 .... May 1, 2015 .............. August 1, 2017 ......... June 1, 2015 ............. September 1, 2017. 

2018 ........................... November 1, 2015 .... May 1, 2016 .............. August 1, 2018 ......... June 1, 2016 ............. September 1, 2018. 

TABLE IV—DEADLINES FOR SUBMISSION OF ABBREVIATED OR FULL SIPS AND UNIT-BY-UNIT ALLOCATIONS OR AUCTION

RESULTS AND FOR RECORDATION; OZONE SEASON TRADING PROGRAMS

First TR control period 

for which allowances 

would be allocated or 

auctioned 

Deadline for State 

submitting abbreviated or full SIP 

Deadline for State 

submitting allocations 

or auction results for 

existing units 

Deadline for State 

submitting allocations 

or auction results for 

new units and others 

Deadline for EPA 

recording allocations 

or auction results for 

existing units 

Deadline for EPA 

recording allocations 

or auction results for 

new units and others 

2012 ........................... NA ............................. NA ............................. NA ............................. September 1, 2011 ... June 1, 2012. 

2013 ........................... NA ............................. NA ............................. NA ............................. September 1, 2011 ... June 1, 2013. 

2014 ........................... November 1, 2011 .... May 1, 2012 .............. May 1, 2014 .............. June 1, 2012 ............. June 1, 2014. 

2015 ........................... November 1, 2012 .... May 1, 2013 .............. May 1, 2015 .............. June 1, 2013 ............. June 1, 2015. 

2016 ........................... November 1, 2013 .... May 1, 2014 .............. May 1, 2016 .............. June 1, 2014 ............. June 1, 2016. 

2017 ........................... November 1, 2014 .... May 1, 2015 .............. May 1, 2017 .............. June 1, 2015 ............. June 1, 2017. 

2018 ........................... November 1, 2015 .... May 1, 2016 .............. May 1, 2018 .............. June 1, 2016 ............. June 1, 2018. 

As discussed above, a trading program 

adopted by a state in a full SIP and 

approved by EPA under the second 

approach would be fully integrated with 

any comparable proposed Transport 

Rule FIP trading program (i.e., the 

proposed TR NOX Annual, TR NOX

Ozone Season, TR SO2 Group 1, or TR 

SO2 Group 2 Trading Program 

respectively) for other states. This 

would apply whether the comparable 

proposed Transport Rule FIP program 

for other states was modified by an 

abbreviated SIP approved by EPA under 

the first approach or was not modified 

by an abbreviated SIP. The integration 

of these three types of trading programs 

would be accomplished primarily 

through the definitions of the terms, ‘‘TR 

NOX Annual allowance’’, ‘‘TR NOX

Ozone Season allowancerdquo;, ‘‘TR 

SO2 Group 1 allowance’’, and ‘‘TR SO2

Group 2 allowance’’ in the full SIPs 

approved by EPA and the proposed TR 

FIP trading programs (whether or not 

the programs were modified by 

abbreviated SIPs). ‘‘TR NOX Annual 

allowance’’ would be defined in the 

state and proposed Transport Rule FIP 

trading programs as including 

allowances issued under any of the 

following trading programs: The 

comparable EPA-approved state trading 

programs; the comparable proposed 

Transport Rule FIP trading program 

with EPA-approved state allocation 

provisions; and the proposed Transport 

Rule FIP trading program with EPA 

allocation provisions. Similarly, the 

definitions in the state and Transport 

Rule FIP trading programs of ‘‘TR NOX

Ozone Season allowance’’, ‘‘TR SO2

Group 1 allowance’’, and ‘‘TR SO2 Group 

2 allowance’’ respectively would 

include allowances issued under all 

three types of trading programs. As a 

result, allowances issued in one 

approved state trading program would 

be interchangeable with allowances 

issued in the comparable Transport Rule 

FIP trading program (whether or not 

modified by an abbreviated SIP), and all 

these allowances could be used for 

compliance with the allowance-holding 

requirements (to cover emissions and to 

meet assurance provision requirements) 

in all three types of trading programs. 

The integration of state and the 

proposed Transport Rule FIP trading 

programs would also be reflected in the 

definitions of ‘‘TR NOX Annual Trading 

Program,’’ ‘‘TR NOX Ozone Season 

Trading Program’’, ‘‘TR SO2 Group 1 

Trading Program’’, and ‘‘TR SO2 Group 

2 Trading Program’’. Each of these 

definitions in the state and Transport 

Rule FIP trading programs would 

expressly encompass the comparable 

proposed Transport Rule FIP trading 

programs (whether or not modified by 

an abbreviated SIP) and the comparable 

EPA-approved state full SIP trading 

program. 

Dated: December 30, 2010. 

Brian McLean, 

Director, Office of Atmospheric Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2011–109 Filed 1–6–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 67 

[Docket ID FEMA–2010–0003; Internal 

Agency Docket No. FEMA–B–1170] 

Proposed Flood Elevation 

Determinations 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on 

the proposed Base (1% annual-chance) 

Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed 

BFE modifications for the communities 

listed in the table below. The purpose 

of this notice is to seek general 

information and comment regarding the 

proposed regulatory flood elevations for 

the reach described by the downstream 

and upstream locations in the table 

below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are 

a part of the floodplain management 

measures that the community is 

required either to adopt or to show 

evidence of having in effect in order to 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1