*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1 of 1339 6560 - 50 - P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 51, 52, 72, 78, and 97 [EPA-HQ-OAR- 2009 - 0491; FRL - 9174 - 9]

RIN 2060 -AP50 Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of

Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone AGENCY: Environmental Protect ion Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: In this action, EPA is limitin g the interstate transport of emissions of nitro gen oxides ( NOX ) and sulfur dioxide ( SO 2 ) that contribute to harmful levels of fine particle matter ( PM2.5 ) and ozone in downwind states. EPA is identifying emissions within 27 states in the eastern United States that significantly affect the ability of downwind states to attain and maintain compliance with the 1997 and 2006 fine particulate matter national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Also, EPA is limiting these emissions through Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) that regulate electric generating units (EGUs) in the 27 states. This action will substantially reduce adverse air quality impacts in downwind states from emissions transported across state lines. In conjunction with other federal and state actions, it will help assure that all but a handful of areas in the eastern part of the country achieve compliance with the current ozone and PM2.5*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 2 of 1339 NAAQS by the deadlines established in the Clean Air Act. The FIPs do not fully eliminate the prohibited emissions from certain states with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS for two remaining downwind areas and EPA is committed to identifying additional upwin d emission reductions and taking any necessary action in a future rulemaking. EPA is also issuing a supplemental proposal to request comment on applying ozone season NOX reductions in certain additional states under this rule. DATES: This final rule is e ffective on [insert date 60 days after publication in the Federal Register] . ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA
– HQ
– OAR
– 2009
– 0491. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov web site. Alt hough 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, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly avail able only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The Public Rea ding 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*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 3 of 1339 Reading Room is (202) 566

– 1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566

– 1742. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general questions concerning this action, please contact Ms. Meg Victor, Clean Air Markets Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Mail Code 6204J, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 343 - 9193; fax number: (202) 343 - 2359; e -mail address: victor.meg@epa.gov. For legal questions, please contact Ms. Sonja Rodman, U.S. EPA, Office of General Counsel, Mail Code 2344A, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, telephon e (202) 564
– 4079; e -mail address rodman.sonja@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Preamble Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations The following are abbreviations of terms used in the preamble. ARP Acid Rain Program BART Best Available Retrofit Technology BACT Best Available Control Technology CAA or Act Clean Air Act CAIR Clean Air Interstate Rule CBI Confidential Business Information CFR Code of Federal Regulations EGU Electric Generating Unit FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 4 of 1339 FGD Flue Gas Desulfu rization FIP Federal Implementation Plan FR Federal Register EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency GHG Greenhouse Gas Hg Mercury IPM Integrated Planning Model lb/ MMBtu Pounds Per Million British Thermal Unit μg/m3 Micrograms Per Cubic Meter NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NOX Nitrogen Oxides NSPS New Source Performance Standard OTAG Ozone Transport Assessment Group PUC Public Utility Commission SNCR Selective Non - catalytic Reduction SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction SIP State Implementation Plan PM2.5 Fine Particulate Matter, Less Than 2.5 Micrometers PM 10 Fine and Coarse Particulate Matter, Less Than 10 Micrometers PM Particulate Matter RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis SO 2 Sulfur Dioxide SOX Sulfur Oxides, Including Sulfur Dioxide ( SO 2 ) and Sulfur Trioxide (SO 3 )*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 5 of 1339 TIP Tribal Implementation Plan TPY Tons Per Year TSD Technical Support Document II. General Information A. Does This Action Apply to Me? This rule affects EGUs, and regulates the following g roups: Industry group NAICS a Utilities (electric, natural gas, other systems.) 2211, 2212, 2213

a North American Industry Classification System. This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for reade rs regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is aware of that could potentially be regulated. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by the proposed rule, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in proposed §§ 97.404, 97.504, and 97,604. B. How Is The Preamble Organized?
I. Preamble Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 6 of 1339 II. General Information A. Does This Action Apply to Me? B. How Is The Preamble Organized? III. Executive Summary IV. Legal Authority and Environmental Basis A. EPA’s Authority for Transport Rule B. Rulemaking History C. Air Quality Problems and NAAQS Addressed 1. Air Quality Problems and NAAQS Addressed 2. FIP Authority for each State and NAAQS Covered 3. Additional Information Regarding CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIPs for States in the Transport Rule Modeling Domain V. Analysis of Downwind Air Quality and Upwind State Emissions A. Pollutants Regulated 1. Background 2. Which Pollutants did EPA Propose to Control for Purposes of PM2.5 and Ozone Transport? 3. Comments and Responses B. Baseline for Pollution Transport Analysis C. Air Quality Modeling to Identify Downwind Nonattainment and Maintenance Receptors 1. Emission Inventories 2. Air Quality Basis for Identifying Receptors*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 7 of 1339 D. Pollution Transport from Upwind States 1. Choice of Air Quality Thresholds 2. Approach for Identifying Contributing Upwind States VI. Quantification of State Emission Reductions Required A. Cost and Air Quality Structur e for Defining Reductions 1. Summary 2. Background B. Cost of Available Emission Reductions 1. Development of Annual NOX and Ozone - Season NOX Cost Curves 2. Development of SO 2 Cost Curves 3. Amount of Reductions That Could Be Achieved by 2012 and 2014 C. Estimates of Air Qual ity Impacts 1. Development of the Air Quality Assessment Tool and Air Quality Modeling Strategy 2. Utilization of AQAT to Evaluate Control Scenarios 3. Air Quality Assessment Results D. Multi - Factor Analysis and Determination of State Emission Budgets 1. Multi - Factor Ana lysis 2. State Emission Budgets E. Approach to Power Sector Emission Variability 1. Introduction to Power Sector Variability*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 8 of 1339 2. Transport Rule Variability Limits F. Variability Limits and State Emission Budgets: State Assurance Levels G. How the State Emission Reduction Requirements are Consistent with Judicial Opinions Interpreting the Clean Air Act VII. FIP Program Structure to Achieve Reductions A. Overview of Limited Interstate Trading Programs B. Applicability C. Compliance Deadlines 1. Alignment with NAAQS Attainment Deadlines 2. Compl iance and Deployment of Pollution Control Technologies D. Allocation of Emission Allowances 1. Allocations to Existing Units 2. Allocations to New Units E. Assurance Provisions F. Penalties G. Allowance Management System H. Emissions Monitoring and Reporting I. Permitting 1. Title V Permitting 2. New Source Review*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 9 of 1339 J. How the Program Structure is Consistent with Judicial Opinions Interpreting the Clean Air Act VIII. Economic Impacts of the Transport Rule A. Emission Reductions B. The Impacts on PM2.5 and Ozone of the Final SO 2 and NOX Strategy C. Benefi ts 1. Human Health Benefit Analysis 2. Quantified and Monetized Visibility Benefits 3. Benefits of Reducing GHG Emissions 4. Total Monetized Benefits 5. How Do the Benefits in 2012 Compare to 2014? 6. How do the Benefits Compare to the Costs of this Final Rule? 7. What are the Unquantified and Non -monetized Benefits of the Transport Rule Emission Reductions? D. Costs and Employment Impacts 1. Transport Rule Costs and Employment Impacts 2. End- Use Energy Efficiency IX. Related Programs and the Transport Rule A. Transition from the Clean Air In terstate Rule 1. Key Differences Between the Transport Rule and CAIR 2. Transition from the Clean Air Interstate Rule to the Transport Rule*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 10 of 1339 B. Interactions with NOX SIP Call C. Interactions with Title IV Acid Rain Program D. Other State Implementation Plan Requirements X. Transport Rule State Implementation Plans XI. Structure and Key Elements of Transport Rule Trading Program Rules for Limited Interstate Trading XII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13 563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Regulatory Flexibility Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Action s to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 11 of 1339 1. Consideration of Environmental Justice in the Transport Rule Development Process and Response to Comments 2. Potential Environmental and Public Health Impacts among Populati ons Susceptible or Vulnerable to Air Pollution 3. Meaningful Public Participation 4. Summary K. Congressional Review Act L. Judicial Review III. Executive Summary Clean Air Act (CAA) section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires states to prohibit emissions that contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other state with respect to any primary or secondary NAAQS. In this final rule, EPA finds that emissions of SO 2 and NOX in 27 eastern, midwestern, and southern states contribute signifi cantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in one or more downwind states with respect to one or more of three air quality standards -- the annual PM2.5 NAAQS promulgated in 1997, the 24 - hour PM2.5 NAAQS promulgated in 2006, and the ozone NAAQS promulgated in 1997 (EPA uses the term “states” to include the District of Columbia in this preamble).*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 12 of 1339 These emissions are transported downwind either as SO 2 and NOX or, after transformation in the atmosphere, as fine particles or ozone. This final rule i dentifies emission reduction responsibilities of upwind states, and also promulgates enforceable Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) to achieve the required emission reductions in each state through cost effective and flexible requirements for power plants . Each state has the option of replacing these federal rules with state rules to achieve the required amount of emission reductions from sources selected by the state. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA requires the elimination of upwind state emissi ons that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of a NAAQS in another state. Elimination of these upwind state emissions may not necessarily, in itself, fully resolve nonattainment or maintenance problems at downwind state receptors. Downwind states also have control responsibilities because, among other things, the Act requires each state to adopt enforceable plans to attain and maintain air quality standards. Indeed, states have put in place measures to reduce local emi ssions that contribute to nonattainment within their borders. Section 110 (a)(2)(D)(i)(I) only requires the elimination of emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 13 of 1339 other states; it does not shi ft to upwind states the responsibility for ensuring that all areas in other states attain the NAAQS. The reductions obtained through the Transport Rule will help all but a few downwind areas come into attainment with and maintain the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQ S, the 2006 24 - hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 1997 ozone NAAQS. With respect to the annual PM2.5 NAAQS, this rule finds that 18 states have SO 2 and annual NOX emission reduction responsibilities, and this rule quantifies each state’s full emission reduction re sponsibility under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). See Table III - 1 for the list of these states. With these reductions, EPA projects that no areas will have nonattainment or maintenance concerns with respect to the annual PM2.5 NAAQS. With respect to the 24 - hour PM2.5 NAAQS, this rule finds that 22 states have SO 2 and annual NOX emission reduction responsibilities, and this rule quantifies each state’s full emission reduction responsibility under 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). See Table III - 1 for the list of these sta tes. In all, this rule requires emission reductions related to interstate transport of fine particles in 23 states. With these reductions, as discussed in section VI.D of this preamble, only one area (Liberty - Clairton) is projected to remain in nonattainment, and*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 14 of 1339 three other areas (Chicago , 1 Detroit, and Lancaster) are projected to have remaining maintenance concerns for the 24 - hour PM2.5 NAAQS. With respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS, this rule finds that 20 states have ozone - season NOX emission reduction r esponsibilities. For 10 of these states this rule quantifies the state’s full emission reduction responsibility under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 2 For 10 additional states, EPA quantifies in this rule the ozone - season NOX emission reductions that are nec essary but may not be sufficient to eliminate all significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance in other states. 3 See Table III - 1 for the complete list of 20 states required to reduce ozone - season NOX emissions in this rule. With the Transport Rule reductions, only one area (Houston) is projected to remain in nonattainment, and one area
1 This area is not currently designated as non - attainment f or the 24 - hour PM2.5 standard. EPA is portraying the recepto r s and counties in this area as a single 24 - hour maintenance area based on the annual PM2.5 non - attainment designation of Chica go - Gary Lake County, IL - IN. 2 The 10 states for which this rule quantifies the state’s full responsibility under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS are Florida, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania , South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia. 3 The 10 states for which this rule quantifies reductions that are necessary but may not be sufficient to satisfy the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS are Alabama, Arkans as, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Texas.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 15 of 1339 (Baton Rouge) to have a remaining maintenance concern with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The 10 states upwind of either of these two area s are the states for which additional reductions may be necessary to fully eliminate each state’s significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance, as discussed in section VI of this preamble. 4 As discussed further below, EPA’s analysis also demonstrates that six additional states should be required to reduce ozone - season NOX emissions. EPA is issuing a supplemental proposal to request comment on requiring ozone - season NOX reductions in these six states. For five of these six st ates, EPA’s analysis identifies the state’s full emission reduction responsibility under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), and for the remaining one state EPA’s analysis identifies reductions that are necessary but may not be sufficient to satisfy the requiremen ts of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 5

4 This preamble uses the term "significant contribution" only in the context of the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement that states prohibit emissions that "cont ribute significantly to nonattainment" in any other state with respect to any primary or secondary NAAQS. Thus, a significant contribution, as used in this preamble, is one that is significant for purposes of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) as coming from a particular state. 5 The five states addressed in the supplemental proposal for which EPA’s analysis identifies the state’s full reduction responsibility under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS are Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin. The one state addressed in the supplemental proposal*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 16 of 1339 On January 19, 2010, EPA proposed revisions to the 8 - hour ozone NAAQS that the Agency had issued March 12, 2008 (75 FR 2938); the Agency intends to finalize its reconsideration in the summer of 2011. EPA intends to propose a rul e to address transport with respect to the reconsidered 2008 ozone NAAQS as expeditiously as possible after reconsideration is completed. EPA intends to include in that proposed rule requirements to address any remaining significant contribution to nonatt ainment and interference with maintenance with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS for the states identified in this final rule, or the associated supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking, for which EPA was unable to fully quantify the emissions that must be prohibited to satisfy the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The Act requires EPA to conduct periodic reviews of each the NAAQS. When NAAQS are set or revised, the CAA requires revision of SIPs to ensure the standard s are met expeditiously and within relevant timetables in the Act. If more protective NAAQS are promulgated, in the case of pollutants for which interstate transport is important, additional emission reductions to address transported pollution may be requ ired from for which EPA’s analysis identifies reductions that are necessary but may not be sufficient to satisfy section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS is Missouri.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 17 of 1339 the power sector, from other sectors, and from sources in additional states. EPA will act promptly to promulgate any future rules addressing transport with respect to revised NAAQS. The Transport Rule requires substantial near - term emission redu ctions in every covered state to address each state’s significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance downwind. This rule achieves these reductions through FIPs that regulate the power sector using limited interstate trading pr ograms with assurance provisions to ensure that the necessary reductions will occur within every covered state. The Transport Rule’s limited interstate trading approach will assure environmental results while providing some limited flexibility to covered sources. The final rule includes four limited interstate trading programs: an annual NOX trading program, an ozone - season NOX trading program, and two separate SO 2 trading programs (“ SO 2 Group 1” and “ SO 2 Group 2”), as discussed further in sections VI and VII, below. The first phase of Transport Rule compliance commences January 1, 2012 for SO 2 and annual NOX reductions and May 1, 2012 for ozone - season NOX reductions. The second phase of Transport Rule reductions commences January 1, 2014. EPA projects that with the Transport Rule, covered electric generating units (EGU) will substantially reduce SO 2 , annual NOX and ozone - season NOX emissions, as shown in Tables III - 2 and III -*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 18 of 1339 3, below. This rule generally covers electric generating units that are fossil fuel - fired boilers and turbines producing electricity for sale, as detailed in section VII. EPA is promulgating the Transport Rule in response to the remand of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbi a Circuit (“Court”) in 2008. CAIR, promulgated May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162), required 29 states to adopt and submit revisions to their State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to eliminate SO 2 and NOX emissions that contribute significantly to downwind nonattainme nt of the PM2.5 and ozone NAAQS promulgated in July 1997. CAIR covered a similar but not identical set of states as the Transport Rule. CAIR FIPs were promulgated April 26, 2006 (71 FR 25328) to regulate electric generating units in the covered states an d achieve the emission reductions requirements established by CAIR until states could submit and obtain approval of SIPs to achieve the reductions. In July 2008, the Court found CAIR and the CAIR FIPs unlawful. North Carolina v. EPA , 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Ci r. 2008), modified on rehearing, North Carolina v. EPA , 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008). The Court’s original decision vacated CAIR. North Carolina , 531 F.3d at 929 - 30. However, the Court subsequently remanded CAIR to EPA without vacatur because it found that “allowing CAIR to remain in effect until it is*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 19 of 1339 replaced by a rule consistent with our opinion would at least temporarily preserve the environmental values covered by CAIR.” North Carolina , 550 F.3d at 1178. The CAIR requirements have remained in place while EPA has developed the Transport Rule to replace them. EPA’s approach in the Transport Rule to measure and address each state’s significant contribution to downwind nonattainment and interference with maintenance is guided by and consistent with the Court’s opinion in North Carolina and addresses the flaws in CAIR identified by the Court therein. This final rule also responds to extensive public comments and stakeholder input received during the public comment periods in response to the prop osal and subsequent Notices of Data Availability (NODAs). In this action, EPA both identifies and addresses emissions within states that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in other downwind states. In developing this rule, EPA used a state - specific methodology to identify emission reductions that must be made in covered states to address the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prohibition on emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenan ce in a downwind state. EPA believes this methodology addresses the Court’s concern that the approach used in CAIR was insufficiently state - specific. EPA used detailed air quality analysis to determine whether a state’s*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 20 of 1339 contribution to downwind air quali ty problems is above specific thresholds. A state is covered by the Transport Rule if it exceeds one of those air quality thresholds and the Agency identifies, using a multi - factor analysis that takes into account both air quality and cost considerations, emissions within the state that constitute the state’s significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance with respect to the 1997 ozone or the 1997 annual or 2006 24 - hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires states t o eliminate the emissions that constitute this “significant contribution” and “interference with maintenance.” 6 When EPA proposed this air - quality and cost -based multi factor approach to identify emissions that constitute significant contribution to nonatt ainment and interference with maintenance from upwind states with respect to the 1997 ozone, annual PM2.5 , and 2006 24 - hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the Agency indicated that the approach was designed to be applicable to both current and potential future ozone and PM2 .5 NAAQS (75 FR 45214). EPA believes that the Transport Rule's approach of using air - quality thresholds to determine upwind- to - downwind- state linkages and

6 In this preamble, EPA uses the terms “significant contribution” and “interference with maintenance” to refer to the emissions that must be prohibited pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) because they significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfer e with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 21 of 1339 using the cost - and air quality -based multi - factor approach to determine the quantity of emissions t hat each upwind state must eliminate, i.e., the state's significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance, could serve as a precedent for quantifying upwind state emission reduction responsibilities with respect to potential futur e NAAQS, as discussed further in section VI.A of this preamble. The Agency further believes that the final Transport Rule demonstrates the strong value of this approach for addressing the role of interstate transport of air pollution in communities’ abili ty to comply with current and future NAAQS. EPA thus identified specific emission reduction responsibilities for each upwind state found to significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in other states. Using that information, EPA developed individual state budgets for emissions from covered units under the Transport Rule. The Transport Rule emission budgets are based on EPA’s state -by - state analysis of each upwind state’s significant contribution to nonattainment and interferenc e with maintenance. Because each state’s budget is directly linked to this state - specific analysis of the state’s obligations pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), this approach addresses the Court’s concerns about the development of CAIR budgets.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 22 of 1339 In this rule, EPA is finalizing SO 2 and annual NOX budgets for each state covered for the 24 - hour and/or annual PM2.5 NAAQS and an ozone - season NOX budget for each state covered for the ozone NAAQS. A state’s emission budget is the quantity of emissions that will remain from covered units under the Transport Rule after elimination of significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance in an average year (i.e., before accounting for the inherent variability in power system operations). 7 Baseline power sector emissions from a state can be affected by changing weather patterns, demand growth, or disruptions in electricity supply from other units or from the transmission grid. As a consequence, emissions could vary from year to year even in a state where covered sources have installed all controls and taken all measures necessary to eliminate the state’s significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance. As described in detail in sections VI and VII of this preamble, the Transport Rule accounts for the inherent variability in power system operations through “assurance provisions” based on state - specific
7 For the states discussed above for which EPA has quantified the minimum amount of emission reductions needed to make measurable progress toward satisfying the state’s section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) responsibility, the emission budget is the quantity of emissions that will remain from covered units after removal of those emissions.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 23 of 1339 variability limits which extend above the state budgets to form each state’s “assurance level.” The state assu rance levels take into account the inherent variability in baseline emissions from year to year. The final Transport Rule FIPs will implement assurance provisions starting in 2012 as discussed in section VII, below. The emission reductions requirements (i .e., the “remedy”) EPA is promulgating in this rule respond to the Court’s concerns that in CAIR, EPA had not shown that the emission reduction requirements would get all necessary reductions within the state as required by section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). The Transport Rule FIPs include assurance provisions specifically designed to ensure that no state’s emissions are allowed to exceed that specific state’s budget plus the variability limit (i.e., the state’s assurance level). Each state’s Transport Rule SO 2 , annual NOX , or ozone - season NOX emission budget is composed of a number of emission allowances (“allowances”) equivalent to the tonnage of that specific state budget. Under the Transport Rule FIPs, EPA is distributing (“allocating”) allowances under each state’s budget to covered units in that state. In this rule, EPA analyzed each individual state’s significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance and calculated budgets that represent each state’s emissions after the eliminatio n of those*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 24 of 1339 prohibited emissions in an average year. 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 the variability limit; the allocation methodology therefore has no impact on the rule’s ability to satisfy the statutory mandate of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). The Transport Rule’s approach to allocate emission allowances to existing units is based on his toric heat - input data, as detailed in section VII of this preamble. The Transport Rule SO 2 , annual NOX , and ozone - season NOX emission allowances each authorize the emission of one ton of SO 2 , annual NOX , or ozone - season NOX emissions, respectively, during a Transport Rule control period, and are the currency in the Transport Rule’s limited interstate trading programs. As discussed in section IX below, EPA is creating these Transport Rule allowances as distinct compliance instruments with no relation to al lowances from the CAIR trading programs. EPA recognizes the administrative value of continuity under successive regulatory trading programs; however, EPA is promulgating the Transport Rule as a Court - ordered replacement for (not a successor to) CAIR’s tra ding programs. EPA will strongly consider administrative continuity of this rule’s*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 25 of 1339 trading programs under any future actions designed to address related problems of interstate transport of air pollution. A state may submit a SIP revision under which the s tate (rather than EPA) would determine allocations for one or more of the Transport Rule trading programs beginning with vintage year 2013 or later allowances. 8 Section X of this preamble discusses the final rule’s provisions for SIP submissions in detail . Table III - 1 lists states covered by the Transport Rule for PM2.5 and ozone. It also, with respect to PM2.5 , identifies whether EPA determined the state was significantly contributing to nonattainment or interfering with maintenance of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 24 - hour PM2.5 NAAQS, or both. As discussed below, the Transport Rule sorts the states required to reduce SO 2 emissions due to their contribution to PM2.5 downwind into two groups of varying reduction stringency, with “Group 1” states s ubject to greater stringency than “Group 2” states. Table III - 1 also lists which SO 2 Group each of the states is in.
Table III - 1 - States that Significantly Contribute to Nonattainment or Interfere with Maintenance of a NAAQS Downwind in the Final Transport Rule State 1997 Ozone 1997 2006 24 - SO2
8 This final rule allows states to make 2013 allowance allocations through the use of a SIP revision that is narrower in scope than the other SIP revisions states can use to replace the FIPs and/or to make allocation decisions for 2014 and beyond , as discussed in section X.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 26 of 1339 NAAQS Annual

PM2.5 NAAQS Hour PM2.5

NAAQS Group Alabama X X X 2 Arkansas X Florida X Georgia X X X 2 Illinois X X X 1 Indiana X X X 1 Iowa X X 1 Kansas X 2 Kentucky X X X 1 Louisiana X Maryland X X X 1 Michigan X X 1 Minnesota X 2 Mississippi X Missouri X X 1 Nebraska X 2 New Jersey X X 1 New York X X X 1 North Carolina X X X 1 Ohio X X X 1 Pennsylvania X X X 1 South Carolina X X 2 Tennessee X X X 1 Texas X X X 2 Virginia X X 1 West Virginia X X X 1*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 27 of 1339 Wisconsin X X 1 Number of States 20 18 22
As explained in this preamble, EPA has improved and updated both steps of its significant contribution analysis. It updated and improved the modeling platforms and modeling inputs used to identify states with contributions to certain downwind receptors that exceed specified thresholds. It also updated and improved its analysis for identifying any emissions within such states that constitute the state’s significant co ntribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance. Therefore, the results of the analysis conducted for the final rule differ somewhat from the results of the analysis conducted for the proposal. 9 With respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the ana lysis EPA conducted for the proposal did not identify Wisconsin, Iowa and Missouri as states that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the ozone NAAQS in another state. However, the analysis conducted for the final ru le shows that emissions from these states do significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
9 EPA updated its modeling platforms and modeling inputs in response to public comments received on the propo sed Transport Rule and subsequent Notices of Data Availability and performed other standard updates.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 28 of 1339 ozone NAAQS in another state. EPA is not issuing FIPs with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS or finalizing ozone season NOX budgets f or these states in this rule. EPA is publishing a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking that will provide an opportunity for public comment on our conclusion that these states significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS. In the other direction, the analysis conducted for the proposal supported EPA’s conclusion at the time that Connecticut, Delaware, and the District of Columbia significantly contributed to nonattainment or interference with maintenan ce with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS, whereas the modeling for the final rule no longer supports that conclusion for those states. Additionally, the modeling conducted for the final rule identified two ozone maintenance receptors that were not identifie d in the modeling conducted for the proposal -- Allegan County (MI) and Harford County (MD). Five states that EPA identified as significantly contributing to maintenance problems at the Allegan and/or Harford County receptors in the modeling for the final rule uniquely contribute to these receptors, i.e., absent these receptors the states would not be covered by the Transport Rule ozone - season program. The five states that uniquely contribute to these receptors are Iowa, Kansas,*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 29 of 1339 Michigan, Oklahoma, and Wi sconsin. EPA is not issuing FIPs with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS or finalizing ozone - season NOX budgets for these states in this rule. EPA is publishing a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking that will provide an opportunity for public comment on our conclusion that these states significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS. EPA did not change its methodology between the proposed Transport Rule and the final Transport Rule for identifying upwi nd states that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in other states; nor did EPA change its methodology for identifying receptors of concern with respect to maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The final rule’s air quali ty modeling identifies the new states and new receptors described above based on updated input information (including emission inventories), much of which was provided to EPA through public comment on the proposal and subsequent NODAs. Section V of this p reamble details the approach EPA used to identify contributing states and receptors of concern. With respect to the annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the analysis EPA conducted for the proposal supported EPA’s conclusion that the states of Delaware, the District of Co lumbia, Florida, Louisiana, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Virginia were significantly contributing to nonattainment and interfering with*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 30 of 1339 maintenance of the annual PM2.5 NAAQS while the final rule’s analysis does not. Also, with respect to the 24 - hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the analysis conducted for the proposal supported EPA’s conclusion that the states of Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, and Massachusetts were significantly contributing to nonattainment or interfering with maintenance in other states while the analysis conducted for the final rule did not. With respect to the annual PM2.5 NAAQS, in the proposal EPA requested comment on whether Texas should be included but did not propose specific SO 2 and NOX emission budgets for that state. The model ing conducted for the final rule supports EPA’s conclusion that Texas does significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the annual NAAQS in another state. EPA provided a full opportunity for comment on whether Texas should be included in the rule for PM2.5 , and therefore EPA is finalizing annual SO 2 and NOX emission budgets for Texas in this rule. The final rule, however, does not cover the states of Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Louisiana, or Mass achusetts for annual or 24 - hour PM2.5 as the analysis for the final rule does not support their inclusion. The Transport Rule FIPs require the 23 states covered for purposes of the 24 - hour and/or annual PM2.5 NAAQS to reduce SO 2 and annual NOX emissions b y specified amounts. The FIPs require*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 31 of 1339 the 20 states covered for purposes of the ozone NAAQS to reduce ozone - season NOX emissions by specified amounts. As discussed in detail in section VI, below, the 23 states covered for the 24 - hour and/or annual PM2.5 NAAQS are grouped in two tiers reflecting the stringency of SO 2 reductions required to eliminate that state’s significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance downwind. The more - stringent SO 2 tier (“Group 1”) is comprised of the 16 states indicated in Table III - 1, above, and the less - stringent SO 2 tier (“Group 2”) is comprised of the 7 states identified in the table. The two SO 2 trading programs are exclusive, i.e., a covered source in a Group 1 state may use only a Group 1 allowance for compliance, and likewise a source in a Group 2 state may use only a Group 2 allowance for compliance. In response to the Court’s opinion in North Carolina , EPA has coordinated the Transport Rule’s compliance deadlines with the NAAQS attainment de adlines that apply to the downwind nonattainment and maintenance areas. The Transport Rule requires that all significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance identified in this action with respect to the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 24 - hour PM2.5 NAAQS be eliminated by no later than 2014, with an initial phase of reductions starting in 2012 to ensure that reductions are made as expeditiously as practicable and, consistent with the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 32 of 1339 Court’s remand, to “preserve the environmental values covered by CAIR.” Sources must comply by January 1, 2012 and January 1, 2014 for the first and second phases, respectively. With respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the Transport Rule requires NOX reductions starting in 2012 to ensure that reduc tions are made as expeditiously as practicable to assist downwind state attainment and maintenance of the standard. Sources must comply by May 1, 2012. The Transport Rule’s compliance schedule and alignment with downwind NAAQS attainment deadlines are di scussed in detail in section VII below. Table III - 2 shows projected Transport Rule emissions compared to projected base case emissions, and Table III - 3 shows projected Transport Rule emissions compared to historical emissions (i.e., 2005 emissions), for the power sector in all Transport Rule states. The ozone - season NOX results shown in Tables III - 2 and III - 3 are based on analysis of the group of 26 states that would be covered for the ozone - season program if EPA finalizes the supplemental proposal regardi ng ozone - season requirements for Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin. Table III - 2 – Projected SO2 and NOX Electric Generating Unit Emission Reductions in Covered States with the Transport Rule Compared to Base Case without Transport R ule or CAIR (Million Tons) 2012 Base Case 2012

Transport 2012

Emission 2014

Base Case 2014

Transport 2014

Emission*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 33 of 1339 Emissions Rule

Emissions Reductions Emissions Rule Emissions Reductions
SO 2 7.0 3.0 4.0 6.2 2.4 3.9 Annual NO X 1.4 1.3 0.1 1.4 1.2 0.2
Oz one Season NO X 0.7 0.6 0.1 0.7 0.6 0.1
*Note that numbers may not sum exactly due to rounding . Notes: The SO 2 and annual NOX emissions in this table reflect EGUs in the 23 states covered by this rule for purposes of the 24 - hour and/or annual PM2.5 NAAQS (Alabama, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin). The ozone - season NOX emissions reflect EGUs in the 20 states covered by this rule for purposes of the ozone NAAQS (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsyl vania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia) and the six states that would be covered for the ozone NAAQS if EPA finalizes its supplemental proposal (Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin). Table III - 3 – Projected SO2 and NOX Electric Generating Unit Emission Reductions in Covered States with the Transport Rule

Compared to 2005 Actual Emissions

(Million Tons) 2005 Actual Emissions 2012

Transport Rule Emissions 2012

Emissions Reductions from 2005 2014

Transport Rule Emissions 2014

Emissions Reductions from 2005 SO 2 8.8 3.0 5.8 2.4 6.4 Annual NO X 2.6 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.4*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 34 of 1339 Ozone Season NO X 0.9 0.6 0.3 0.6 0.3

Notes: The SO 2 and annual NOX emissions in this table reflect EGUs in the 23 states covered by this rule for purposes of the 24 - hour and/or annual PM2.5 NAAQS (Alabama, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin). The ozone - season NOX emissions reflect EGUs in the 20 states covered by this rule for purposes of the ozone NAAQS (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia) and the six states that would be covered for the ozone NAAQS if EPA finalizes its supplemental proposal (Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Missou ri, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin). In addition to the emission reductions shown above, EPA projects other substantial benefits of the Transport Rule, as described in section VIII in this preamble. EPA used air quality modeling to quantify the improvements in PM2.5 and ozone concentrations that are expected to result from the Transport Rule emission reductions in 2014. The Agency used the results of this modeling to calculate the average and peak reduction in annual PM2.5 , 24 - hour PM2.5 , and 8 - hour ozone conce ntrations for monitoring sites in the Transport Rule covered states (including the six states for which EPA issued a supplemental proposal for ozone - season NOX requirements) in 2014.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 35 of 133 9 For annual PM2.5 , the average reduction across all monitoring sites in covered states in 2014 is 1.41 microgram per meter cubed (μg/m3 ) and the greatest reduction at a single site is 3.60 μg/m3 . For 24 - hour PM2.5 , the average reduction across all monitoring sites in covered states in 2014 is 4.3 μg/m3 and the greatest reductio n at a single site is 11.6 μg/m3 . And finally, for 8 - hour ozone, the average reduction across all monitoring sites in covered states in 2014 is 0.3 parts per billion (ppb) and the greatest is 3.9 ppb. See section VIII for further information on air quali ty improvements. EPA estimated the Transport Rule’s costs and benefits, including effects on sensitive and vulnerable and environmental justice communities. Table III - 4, below, summarizes some of these results. Further discussion of the results is provided in preamble section VIII, below, and in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA). Estimates here are subject to uncertainties discussed further in the RIA. Table III - 4. Summary of Annual Benefits, Costs, and Net Benefits of the Final Transport Rule in 2014

(Billions of 2007$) a Description Transport Rule Remedy Social costs 3 % discount rate $0.8 1 7 % discount rate $0.8 1 Total monetized benefitsb 3 % discount rate $ 120 to $ 280*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 36 of 1339 7 % discount rate $ 110 to $ 250 Net benefits (benefits - costs ) 3 % dis count rate 7 % discount rate $ 120 to $ 280 $ 100 to $ 250 a All estimates are for 2014, and are rounded to two significant figures. b The total monetized benefits reflect the human health benefits associated with reducing exposure to PM2.5 and ozone and the welfare benefits associated with improved visibility in Class I areas. The reduction in premature mortalities account for over 90 percent of total monetized PM2.5 and ozone benefits. As a result of updated analyses and in response to public comments, the final Transport Rule differs from the proposal in a number of ways. The differences between proposal and final rule are discussed throughout this preamble. Some key changes between proposal and final rule are that EPA:
 Updated emission inventories (resul ting in generally lower base case emissions). See section V.
 Updated modeling and analysis tools (including improved alignment between air quality estimates and air quality modeling results). See sections V and VI.
 Updated conclusions regarding which sta tes significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in other states. See Table III - 1 and sections V and VI.
 Recalculated state budgets and variability limits, i.e., state assurance levels, based on updated modeling. S ee section VI.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 37 of 1339  Simplified variability limits for one - year application only and adjusted calculation s to improve alignment with each state’s historic variability. See section VI.
 Revised allocation methodology for existing and new units and revised new uni t set - asides for new units in Transport Rule states and new units potentially locating in Indian country. See section VII.
 Changed start of assurance provisions to 2012 and increased assurance provision penalties. See section VII.
 Removed opt - in provisio ns. See section VII.
 Added provisions for full and abbreviated Transport Rule SIP revisions. See section X.
EPA conducted substantial stakeholder outreach in developing the Transport Rule, starting with a series of “listening sessions” in the spring of 2009 with states, nongovernmental organizations, and industry. EPA docketed stakeholder - related materials in the Transport Rule docket (Docket ID No. EPA- HQ - OAR- 2009 - 0491). The Agency conducted general teleconferences on the rule with tribal environmenta l professionals, conducted consultation with tribal governments, and hosted a webinar for communities and tribal governments. EPA continued to provide updates to regulatory partners and*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 38 of 1339 stakeholders through several conference calls with states as well as at conferences where EPA officials often made presentations. The Agency conducted additional stakeholder outreach during the public comment period. EPA responded to extensive public comments received during the public comment periods on the proposed rule and associated NODAs. This Transport Rule is one of a series of regulatory actions to reduce the adverse health and environmental impacts of the power sector. EPA is developing these rules to address judicial review of previous rulemakings and to issue rules required by environmental laws. Finalizing these rules will effectuate health and environmental protection mandated by Congress while substantially reducing uncertainty over the future regulatory obligations of power plants, which will assist the power sector in planning for compliance more cost effectively. The Agency is providing full opportunity for notice and comment for each rule. As discussed above, rules to address transport under revised NAAQS, including the reconsidered 2008 ozone NAAQS, may result in additional emission reduction requirements for the power sector. In addition, existing Clean Air Act rules establishing best available retrofit technology (BART) requirements and other requirements for addressing visibility*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 39 of 1339 and regional haze ma y also result in future state requirements for certain power plant emission reductions where needed. On May 3, 2011 ( 76 FR 24976 ) , EPA proposed national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants from coal - and oil - fired electric utility steam generat ing units under CAA section 112(d), also called Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) , and proposed revised new source performance standards for fossil fuel - fi red EGUs under section 111(b). As discussed in the EPA- led public listening sessions during February and March 2011, EPA is preparing to propose innovative, cost effective and flexible greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions performance standards under section 111 for steam electric generating units, the largest U.S. source of greenhouse gas emissions. On April 20, 2011 (76 FR 22174), EPA proposed requirements under section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act for existing power generating facilities, manufacturing and industrial facilities that withdraw more than two million gallons per day of water from waters o f the U.S. and use at least twenty - five percent of that water exclusively for cooling purposes. On June 21, 2010 (75 FR 35128), the Agency proposed to regulate coal combustion residuals (CCRs) under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act to address the risks from the disposal of CCRs generated from the combustion of coal at electric utilities and independent power producers.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 40 of 1339 EPA will coordinate utility - related air pollution rules with each other and with other actions affecting the power sector includi ng these rules from EPA’s Office of Water and its Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery to the extent consistent with legal authority in order to provide timely information needed to support regulated sources in making informed decisions. Use of a small number air pollution control technologies, widely deployed, can assist with compliance for multiple rules. EPA also notes that the flexibility inherent in the allowance - trading mechanism included in the Transport Rule affords utilities themselves a degree of latitude to determine how best to integrate compliance with the emissions reduction requirements of this rule and those of the other rules. EPA will pursue energy efficiency improvements in the use of electricity throughout the economy, along wi th other federal agencies, states and other groups, which will contribute to additional environmental and public health improvements while lowering the costs of realizing those improvements. IV. Legal Authority and Environmental Basis A. EPA’s Authority fo r Transport Rule Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA, often referred to as the “good neighbor” provision of the Act, requires states to prohibit certain emissions because of their impact on air*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 41 of 1339 quality in downwind states. Specifically, it requires all states, within 3 years of promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, to submit SIPs that prohibit certain emissions of air pollutants because of the impact they would have on air quality in other states. 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(D). This action addresses the requirement in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) regarding the prohibition of emissions within a state that will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in any other state. EPA has previously issued two rules interpreting an d clarifying the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). The NOX SIP Call, promulgated in 1998, was largely upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Michigan , 213 F.3d 663. CAIR, promulgated in 2005, was remanded by the D.C. Circui t in North Carolina , 531 F.3d 896 , modified on reh’g , 550 F.3d. 1176. These decisions provide additional guidance regarding the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and are discussed later in this notice. Section 301(a)(1) of the CAA also gives the Administrator of EPA general authority to prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out her functions under the Act. 42 U.S.C. § 7601(a)(1). Pursuant to the section, EPA has authority to clarify the applicability of CAA requirements. In this action, among other things, EPA is clarifying the applicability of*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 42 of 1339 section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) by identifying SO 2 and NOX emissions that must be prohibited pursuant to this section with respect to the PM2.5 NAAQS promulgated in 1997 and 2006 and the 8 - hour ozone NAAQS promulgated in 1997. In addition, section 110(k)(1)(A) calls for the Administrator to establish criteria for determining whether SIP submissions are complete. 42 U.S.C. sec. 7410(k)(1)(A). Among other things, this action helps to clarify wha t SIP submissions must contain to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). Section 110(c)(1) of the Act, also requires EPA to act in certain circumstances where state SIP deficiencies exist, regardless of the reason for the deficiency. EPA act ion may be required even if the SIP deficiency is not in any way the fault of the affected state, for example, if the deficiency is caused by factors beyond the state’s control. Specifically, section 110(c)(1) requires the Administrator to promulgate a FI P at any time within 2 years after the Administrator finds that a s tate has failed to make a required SIP submission, finds a SIP submission to be incomplete or disapproves a SIP submission unless the s tate corrects the deficiency, and the Administrator approves the SIP revision, before the Administrator promulgates a FIP. 42 U.S.C. sec. 7410(c)(1). B. Rulemaking History*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 43 of 1339 The Transport Rule FIPs will limit the interstate transport of emissions of NOX and SO 2 within 27 states in the eastern, midwestern, and southern United States that affect the ability of downwind states to attain and maintain compliance with the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 10 Prior to this Transport Rule, CAIR was EPA’s most recent regulatory action in a longstanding series of regulatory initiatives to address interstate transport of air pollution. The proposed Transport Rule preamble provides more information on EPA actions prior to CAIR (75 FR 45221 - 45225). CAIR, promulgated May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162), required 29 states to adopt and submit revisions to their SIPs to eliminate SO 2 and NOX emissions that contribute significantly to downwind nonattainment of the PM2.5 and ozone NAAQS promulgated in 1997. The states covered by CAIR were similar but not identical to th e states covered by the Transport Rule. The CAIR FIPs, promulgated April 26, 2006 (71 FR 25328), regulated electric generating units in the covered states and achieved CAIR’s emission reductions requirements unless or until states had approved SIPs to ach ieve the required reductions.

10 As discussed in section III of this preamble, simultaneous with this final rule, EPA is proposing to apply ozone - season NOX requirements to additional st ates. If EPA finalizes that action as proposed, the total number of states covered by the Transport Rule FIPs would be 28.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 44 of 1339 In July 2008, the D.C. Circuit Court found CAIR and the CAIR FIPs unlawful and vacated CAIR. North Carolina , 531 F.3d at 929 - 30. However, the Court subsequently remanded CAIR to EPA without vacatur in order to “at least temp orarily preserve the environmental values covered by CAIR.” North Carolina , 550 F.3d at 1178. CAIR requirements have remained in place and CAIR’s emissions trading programs have operated while EPA developed replacement rules in response to the remand. By promulgating the Transport Rule FIPs, EPA is responding to the Court’s remand of CAIR and the CAIR FIPs and replacing those rules. The approaches EPA used in the Transport Rule to measure and address each state’s significant contribution to downwind nona ttainment and interference with maintenance are guided by and consistent with the Court’s opinion in North Carolina and address the flaws in CAIR identified by the Court therein. By notice of proposed rulemaking (Federal Implementation Plans To Reduce Inte rstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone, 75 FR 45210; August 2, 2010), EPA proposed the Transport Rule to identify and limit NOX and SO 2 emissions within 32 states in the eastern, midwestern, and southern United States that affect the ability of downwind states to attain and maintain compliance with the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and the 1997 ozone NAAQS. EPA proposed to achieve the emission*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 45 of 1339 reductions under FIPs, which states may choose to replace by submitting SIPs for EPA approval. EPA prop osed to limit emissions by regulating electric generating units in the 32 states with limited interstate emissions trading programs and assurance provisions to ensure the required reductions occur in each covered state. EPA also requested comment on two al ternative FIP remedies. EPA supplemented the Transport Rule record with additional information relevant to the rulemaking in three Notices of Data Availability (NODAs) for which EPA requested comments:
 Notice of Data Availability Supporting Federal Impleme ntation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (75 FR 53613; September 1, 2010). This NODA provided an updated database of unit level characteristics of EGUs included in EPA modeling, an updated version of the power sect or modeling platform EPA used to support the final rule, and other input assumptions and data EPA provided for public review and comment.
 Notice of Data Availability Supporting Federal Implementation Plans To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone: Revisions to Emission Inventories (75 FR 66055; October 27, 2010). This NODA provided additional information relevant to the rulemaking, including updated emission inventory data for 2005, 2012*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 46 of 1339 and 2014 for several stationary and mobile source inventory components.
 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 Sur render Requirements, New - Unit Allocations in Indian Country, and Allocations by States (76 FR 1109; January 7, 2011). This NODA provided additional information relevant to the rulemaking, including emissions allowance allocations for existing units calcul ated using two alternative methodologies, data supporting those calculations, information about an alternative approach to calculation of assurance provision allowance surrender requirements, allocations for new units locating in Indian country in Transpor t Rule states in the future, and provisions for states to submit SIPs providing for state allocation of allowances in the Transport Rule trading programs. C. Air Quality Problems and NAAQS Addressed
1. Air Quality Problems and NAAQS Addressed a. Fine Part icles*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 47 of 1339 Fine particles are associated with a number of serious health effects including premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease (as indicated by increased hospital admissions, emergency room visits, health related absences from school or work, and restricted activity days), lung disease, decreased lung function, asthma attacks, and certain cardiovascular problems. In addition to effects on public health, fine particles are linked to a number of public welfare effects, inclu ding (1) reduced visibility (haze) in scenic areas, (2) effects caused by particles settling on ground or water, such as: making lakes and streams acidic, changing the nutrient balance in coastal waters and large river basins, depleting the nutrients in so il, damaging sensitive forests and farm crops, and affecting the diversity of ecosystems, and (3) staining and damaging of stone and other materials, including culturally important objects such as statues and monuments. In 1997, EPA revised the NAAQS for PM to add new annual and 24
–hour standards for fine particles, using PM2.5 as the indicator (62 FR 38652). These revisions established an annual standard of 15 μg/m3 and a 24 - hour standard of 65 μg/m3 . During 2006, EPA revised the air quality standa rds for PM2.5 . The 2006 standards decreased the level of the 24 - hour fine particle standard from 65 μg/m3 to 35 μg/m3 , and retained the annual fine particle standard at 15 μg/m3 .*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 48 of 1339 b. Ozone Short - term (1 - to 3 - hour) and prolonged (6 - to 8 - hour) exposures to ambient ozone have been linked to a number of adverse health effects. At sufficient concentrations, short term exposure to ozone can irritate the respiratory system, causing coughing, throat irritation, and chest pain. Ozone can reduce lung function and make it more difficult to breathe deeply. Breathing may become more rapid and shallow than normal, thereby limiting a person’s normal activity. Ozone also can aggravate asthma, leading to more asthma attacks that may require a doctor’s attention and t he use of additional medication. Increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits for respiratory problems have been associated with ambient ozone exposures. Longer - term ozone exposure can inflame and damage the lining of the lungs, which may lead to permanent changes in lung tissue and irreversible reductions in lung function. A lower quality of life may result if the inflammation occurs repeatedly over a long time period (such as months, years, or a lifetime). There is also epidemiological evidence indicating a correlation between short - term ozone exposure and premature mortality. In addition to causing adverse health effects, ozone affects vegetation and ecosystems, leading to reductions in agricultural crop and commercial forest yields; reduce d growth*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 49 of 1339 and survivability of tree seedlings; and increased plant susceptibility to disease, pests, and other environmental stresses (e.g., harsh weather). In long - lived species, these effects may become evident only after several years or even decades an d have the potential for long - term adverse impacts on forest ecosystems. Ozone damage to the foliage of trees and other plants can also decrease the aesthetic value of ornamental species used in residential landscaping, as well as the natural beauty of ou r national parks and recreation areas. In 1997, at the same time we revised the PM2.5 standards, EPA issued its final action to revise the NAAQS for ozone (62 FR 38856) to establish new 8

–hour standards. In this action published on July 18, 1997, we promulgated identical revised primary and secondary ozone standards that specified an 8 - hour ozone standard of 0.08 parts per million (ppm). Specifically, the standards require that the 3 - year average of the fourth highest 24 - hour maximum 8 - hour average ozone concentration may not exceed 0.08 ppm. In general, the 8 - hour standards are more protective of public health and the environment and more stringent than the pre - existing 1 - hour ozone standards. On March 12, 2008, EPA published a revision to the 8 - hour oz one standard, lowering the level from 0.08 ppm to 0.075 ppm. On September 16, 2009, EPA announced it would reconsider these 2008 ozone standards. The purpose of the reconsideration is to*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 50 of 1339 ensure that the ozone standards are clearly grounded in science, pr otect public health with an adequate margin of safety, and are sufficient to protect the environment. EPA proposed revisions to the standards on January 19, 2010 (75 FR 2938) and anticipates issu ing final standards soon. c. Which NAAQS does this rule address? This action addresses the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) as they relate to: (1) the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard, (2) the 2006 24 - hour PM2.5 standard, and (3) the 1997 ozone standard. The original CAIR and CAIR FIP rules, which pre - date d the 2006 PM2.5 standards, addressed the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5 standards only. For this proposal, In this action, EPA fully addresses, for the states covered by this rule, the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the annual PM2.5 standar d of 15 μg/m3 and the 24 - hour standard of 35 μg/m3 . For the 1997 8 - hour ozone standard of 0.08 ppm, EPA fully addresses the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for some states covered by this rule, but for the remaining states EPA is conducting fu rther analysis to determine whether further requirements are needed, as discussed in section III of this preamble.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 51 of 1339 This action does not address the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the revised ozone standards promulgated in 2008. These stan dards are currently under reconsideration. We are, however, actively conducting the technical analyses and other work needed to address interstate transport for the reconsidered ozone standard as soon as possible. We intend to issue as soon as possible a proposal to address the transport requirements with respect to the reconsidered standard. This action addresses these CAA transport requirements through reductions in annual emissions of SO 2 and NOX , and through reductions in ozone - season NOX . The ration ale for these reductions is discussed in detail later in the preamble. d. Public comments. EPA received comments on two issues related to the NAAQS regulated under the proposed FIPs. A number of commenters believed that EPA’s approach to ozone was inadequate, and that EPA should not have based the proposed requirements on the 1997 ozone NAAQS. These commenters cited EPA’s 2008 revision to the standard which lowered the standard to 75 ppb, and noted that EPA’s January 2010 proposal for reconsidered ozone NAAQS would, if finalized, further lower the primary NAAQS from 75 ppb to a value between 60 and 70 ppb. Accordingly, many of the commenters believed that EPA should*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 52 of 1339 have considered the 75 ppb level to be the maximum possible value moving forward, and tha t EPA should have used a value no greater than 75 ppb in its analysis. EPA agrees with commenters that EPA and states should address interstate transport with respect to the tighter ozone NAAQS as quickly as possible. EPA, as commenters noted, intends to propose a second rule to address interstate transport of ozone that will be appropriately configured for the revised level of the ozone NAAQS after reconsideration of the 2008 standard is finalized. EPA is mindful of the need for SIPs to provide for cont inuing ozone progress to meet the 75 ppb level of the 2008 NAAQS, or possibly lower levels based on the reconsideration. EPA believes that the ozone - season NOX requirements of this rule will provide important initial assistance to states in this regard. Some commenters questioned whether EPA had given states the opportunity to provide SIPs addressing transport under the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and thus questioned the appropriateness of the issuance of FIPs addressing those NAAQS. Those comments, and EPA’s response, are discussed in detail in section IV.C.2. 2. FIP Authority for each State and NAAQS Covered This section explains EPA’s legal responsibility and authority to impose FIPs under this final rule. As noted above, section 110(c)(1) of the Act requires EPA to act in certain*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 53 of 1339 circumstances where state SIPs are deficient. Specifically, section 110(c)(1) requires the Administrator to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) at any time within 2 years after the Administrator takes one of three distinct actions: (1) she finds that a s tate has failed to make a required SIP submission; (2) she finds a SIP submission to be incomplete; or (3) she disapproves a SIP submission. Once the Administrator has taken one of these actions with respect to a specific s tate’s 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligation with respect to a specific NAAQS, she has a legal obligation to promulgate a FIP within two years. That obligation can only be discharged by promulgating a FIP unless two events occur before the FIP is promulgated: (1) the s tate submits a SIP correcting the deficiency; and (2) the Administrator approves the SIP revision. 42 U.S.C. § 7410(c)(1). As explained in the proposal (75 FR 45218, 45226, 45285 and 45341), all states have an obligation to submit SIPs that address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2), including 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) within 3 years of promulgation or revision of a NAAQS. For all of the states covered by this rule, EPA has either found that the state has failed to make a required 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I ) SIP submission, issued a SIP Call, or disapproved a SIP submission. In addition, EPA has determined that there has been no approval by the Administrator of a SIP*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 54 of 1339 submission correcting the deficiency prior to promulgation of this FIP. The specific findin gs made and actions taken by EPA are described in greater detail in the TSD entitled “Status of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIPs . ” In 2005, EPA found that all states had failed to make submissions that address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) relate d to interstate transport of pollution with respect to the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. See 70 FR 21147 (April 25, 2005). Also in 2005, EPA promulgated CAIR, which was intended to provide states covered by the rule with a mechanism to satisfy their s ection 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations. In CAIR, EPA concluded that the states in the CAIR region would meet their section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) obligations to address “significant contribution” and “interference with maintenance” requirements by complying with CAIR requirements. Consequently, states within the CAIR region did not need to submit a separate SIP revision to satisfy the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirements provided they submitted a SIP revision to satisfy CAIR. Most CAIR states participated in the CAIR trading programs and submitted SIP revisions that EPA subsequently approved. Subsequent to those SIP approvals, CAIR was found unlawful and remanded to EPA. Among other things, the Court found that CAIR did not effectuate the statutory mandate o f section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Because the court found CAIR and*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 55 of 1339 the CAIR FIPs unlawful, and because it held that the emission reduction requirements in CAIR were not tied to the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), compliance by a state with CAIR could not be said to satisfy its 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations with respect to the 1997 ozone or 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. In other words, a CAIR SIP submission cannot be found to correct a state’s 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) deficiency. Therefore, the deficiency remains, not bec ause the state failed to comply with CAIR, but because the Court found that CAIR did not address the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) statutory mandate and thus did not correct any 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) deficiencies. For this reason, submittal and approval of the CAIR SIP s did not relieve EPA of its obligation, under CAA section 110(c)(1) to promulgate FIPs to cure the deficiencies identified in the 2005 findings of failure to submit. 11 The 2005 findings of failure to submit also remain in force for many states not covered by the original CAIR. As explained above and in the Transport Rule proposal (75 FR 45342) , EPA has an obligation and authority to promulgate a FIP for any state covered by those findings unless “the State corrects the
11 The 2005 findings of failure to submit related to state’s obligations pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). CAIR, however, addre ssed only the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). The remand of CAIR, therefore, had no impact on state SIP submissions or EPA approval of state SIP submissions pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 56 of 1339 deficiency, and the Administrator app roves the plan or plan revision, before the Administrator promulgates such Federal implementation plan.” 42 U.S.C. sec. 7410(c)(1). Thus, EPA has an obligation to promulgate FIPs for states covered by the 2005 findings that have either not yet submitted 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIPs with respect to the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS or that have not received EPA approval of SIP submittals that correct the deficiency. The plain language of 110(c)(1) states that EPA’s FIP obligation is not discharged unless the state corrects the deficiency and the Administrator approves the plan or plan revision before promulgation of a FIP. 42 U.S.C. sec. 7410. EPA recognizes its obligations under the statute. It has also made every effort to act on all 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SI P submissions received for states covered by the Transport Rule prior to promulgation of this rule. In addition, many states that submitted SIPs to address the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligation for the 2006 PM2.5 standard relied on CAIR for all or a portion of their submittal. EPA has disapproved all such SIPs as CAIR did not purport to address the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA approved the 110(a)(2)(D)(i) submission from the state of Kansas for the 1997 ozone an d 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS on March 9, 2007 (72 FR 10608). The modeling done for the proposed Transport Rule, however, demonstrated that emissions from Kansas*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 57 of 1339 significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 1997 8 - hour ozone NAAQS i n other states. Because the SIP approved for Kansas did not prohibit these emissions, EPA determined that it was not adequate to satisfy the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Therefore, EPA proposed a SIP Call under CAA 110(k)(5) for Kansas (76 FR 763, January 6, 2011), finding the state’s existing SIP substantially inadequate to meet the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS. In the proposal, EPA would allow Kansas 18 months to submit a SIP to correct the deficiency. Alternatively, Kansas could ask EPA to impose a FIP beginning in the 2012 ozone - season. Any final action regarding that SIP call will be taken under a separate action, and will establish a deadline for submission of a new 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP which EPA would review for completeness. 12 Additionally, EPA has acted to disapprove several SIPs that EPA concluded were not adequate to address CAA s ection 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS , or is acting to disapprove such SIPs simultaneously with this ac tion.

12 EPA is neither finalizing a FIP for Kansas with res pect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS nor finalizing a NOX ozone season budget for Kansas in this rule. For reasons explained therein, EPA is issuing a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking to provide an opportunity for public comment on our conclusion that Kansas significantly contributes to nonattainment or interferes with maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 58 of 1339 EPA recognizes that many of these 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submittals took place in advance of EPA’s development of the Transport Rule, which clarifies certain states’ responsibilities under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. For the states that have now been identified to be contributing significantly to nonattainment or interfering with maintenance under this rule, EPA cannot approve a 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP that does not achieve the reduction s EPA has determined are required by section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). For this reason, EPA is disapproving simultaneously with this rule a SIP for the State of Texas that was pending before the action, but has now for the reasons explained above been identifie d as inadequate. For states that did not submit transport SIPs for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, as noted in the Transport Rule proposal, EPA issued a notice finding that a number of states failed to make the required 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submissions. See 75 FR 32673, June 9, 2010. EPA issued a second notice finding that additional states had failed to make required 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submissions with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. [PLACEHOLDER FOR FEDERAL REGISTER PUBLICATION OF THIS FINDING AHEAD OF TRANSPORT RULE] . Responses to Comments*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 59 of 1339 Many commenters argued that the Transport Rule should not include FIPs and that EPA lacked authority to issue FIPs at this time. Because EPA’s legal obligation and authority to issue a FIP arises from a determin ation that an individual state SIP contains a deficiency that has not been corrected, questions regarding whether EPA has authority to issue a FIP are state specific. In this action, EPA is issuing 60 FIPs. EPA is issuing FIPs to 20 states to correct SIP deficiencies relating to the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. EPA is also issuing FIPs to 18 states to correct SIP deficiencies relating to the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. Finally, EPA is issuing FIPs to 22 states to correct SIP deficienc ies relating to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. In each case, EPA both has determined either through a finding of failure to submit, a SIP Call, or a disapproval of a SIP submission that the state SIP is deficient because it does not include provisions adequate to prohibit emissions within the state that significantly contribut e to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance with respect to the relevant NAAQS and determined that subsequent to such a determination there has been no EPA approval of a SIP that cures the deficiency. The TSD entitled “Status of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIPs” identifies each action taken by EPA with respect to the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP requirements for the states covered by*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 60 of 1339 the Transport Rule, with respect to the NAAQS for which those states a re covered. This TSD demonstrates that for each FIP promulgated in this rule, EPA has both authority and a legal obligation to promulgate a FIP to correct the identified SIP deficiency. Some commenters argued that states should be given additional time fo llowing promulgation of the Transport Rule, to submit a SIP to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and that CAIR should remain in place in the meantime. EPA does not believe it would be appropriate, in light of the Court’s decision in Nor th Carolina , to establish a lengthy transition period to the rule that will replace CAIR. Although the Court decided, on rehearing, to remand CAIR without vacatur, the Court stressed its prior decision that CAIR was deeply flawed and that EPA is obligated to remedy those flaws. North Carolina , 550 F.3d 1176. Although the Court did not set a specific deadline for corrective action, the Court took care to note that the effect of its opinion would not be delayed “indefinitely” and that petitioners could brin g a mandamus petition if EPA were to fail to modify CAIR in a manner consistent with its prior opinion. Id. Given the Court’s emphasis on remedying CAIR’s flaws expeditiously, EPA does not*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 61 of 1339 believe it would be appropriate to establish a lengthy transition period to the rule which is to replace CAIR. Many commenters also observed that states do not have enough time to submit a SIP between the time the Transport Rule is finalized and the start of its requirements and argued that EPA should restart the “FIP c lock.” 13 EPA does not interpret the Clean Air Act as giving it authority to restart the FIP clock. The language of section 110(c)(1) of the Act provides that EPA shall promulgate a FIP within 2 years after the Administrator finds that a s tate has failed t o make a required submission or after disapprov ing a s tate implementation plan submission in whole or part, unless the s tate corrects the deficiency, and the Administrator approves the plan or plan revision, before the promulgation of a FIP. See 42 U.S.C. sec. 7410(c)(1). Some also objected to EPA imposing FIPs for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS prior to the expiration of the FIP clock for that standard. CAA Section 110(c)(1) requires EPA to promulgate a FIP “at any time within 2 years” after a finding of failure not ice or a SIP disapproval. EPA is promulgating the necessary FIPs with

13 “FIP clock” is a term used to describe EPA’s responsibility found in CAA Section 110(c)(1) to promulgate a FIP within 2 years after either: finding t hat a state has not submitted a required SIP revision; that a submitted SIP revision is found incomplete; or EPA has disapproved a SIP revision.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 62 of 1339 regard to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in this final action within the statutory timeframe. There were also commenters that supported the approach proposed by EPA to replace CAIR and achieve the necessary reductions as quickly as possible. EPA agrees it is important to achieve the reductions quickly. Regarding the 1997 NAAQS specifically, commenters felt the approved CAIR SIPs satisfied the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements and that those SIPs sh ould be acted on in order for EPA to have authority to impose FIPs for those NAAQS. EPA has considered all comments and believes that it would be inconsistent with opinion of the Court in North Carolina to find that compliance with the requirements of CA IR satisfies the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. Among other things, the C ourt concluded that CAIR did not identify each upwind state’s significant contribution or demonstrate that the rule achieved “somet hing measurable toward the goal of prohibiting sources ‘within the State’ from contributing to nonattainment or interfering with maintenance ‘in any other State.’” North Carolina , 531 F.3d at 907 - 08. It would be inconsistent with this strong language for EPA to determine that a CAIR SIP submission that relied on CAIR or the CAIR modeling, satisfies the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA fully acknowledges that the CAIR SIPs*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 63 of 1339 were submitted in good faith and based on EPA’s determination in the CAIR rul e that compliance with CAIR would satisfy the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). That determination, however, was overturned by the Court , and EPA is bound by the Court’s interpretation of Clean Air Act requirements. Thus, the CAIR SIPs, even though the y were approved by EPA, do not correct the SIP deficiency identified in the findings. Therefore, the 2005 findings remain in force and EPA continues to have both the obligation and authority to promulgate the FIPs for the 1997 standards finalized in this action. 14 , 15 3 . Additional Information Regarding CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIPs for States in the Transport Rule Modeling Domain This final rule evaluates and finds out - of - state contributions for the 38 states that are fully contained within the 12 km e astern U.S. modeling domain. EPA is making no specific finding for states that are not fully contained within the e astern 12 km modeling domain. EPA did not conduct a contribution analysis or make any specific finding for New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana since they are only partially contained within the 12 km modeling domain. With regard to the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA believes 14 The “FIP clock” for the 2005 findings notice expired June 9, 2007. 15 See TSD entitled “ Status of 110(a)(2)(D) (i)(I) SIPs .”*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 64 of 1339 that states that are included in this 38 state modeling domain will meet their section 110(a)(2)(D) (i)(I) obligations to address the “significant contribution” and “interference with maintenance” requirements by complying with the requirements in this rule . With regard to the 1997 ozone NAAQS, EPA believes that states that are included in this 38 state modeling domain will meet their section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations to address the “significant contribution” and “interference with maintenance” requirements by complying with the requirements in this rule , except for the 10 states upwind of either Ho uston or Baton Rouge (i.e., Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Texas). States that are in the 38 state modeling domain, and are not found to be contributing significantly to nonattainment or int erfering with maintenance for any NAAQS evaluated in the modeling for the final rule, could rely on this analysis as technical support that their current SIP (for those states that have already submitted SIPs to address 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I ) requirements) is adequate to address the transport requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Additionally, if a s tate has never submitted an interstate transport SIP an d intends to submit a SIP, the s tate can rely on the technical analysis in this rule for its SIP submission. For example, this rule finds that South Carolina significantly contributes to nonattainment and*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 65 of 1339 interferes with maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS and the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in downwind states. The technical support for the rule does not show that South Ca rolina significantly contributes to nonattainment or interferes with maintenance of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in downwind states. EPA believes that South Carolina can make a negative declaration concluding that the State does not significantly contribute to no nattainment or interfere with maintenance in other states with regard to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. V. Analysis of Downwind Air Quality and Upwind State Emissions A. Pollutants Regulated To address interstate transport of air pollution, EPA must choose which p ollutants to regulate relevant to significant contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance of the NAAQS of concern downwind. This section of the proposal discusses the pollutants regulated under the final Transport Rule. 1. Background. Based on the understanding of scientific and technical information, as well as EPA’s air quality modeling, EPA concluded for CAIR that it was both appropriate and necessary to focus on control of SO 2 and NOX emissions as the most effective approach to redu cing the contribution of interstate transport to PM2.5 . For CAIR, EPA did not include emissions limitations that*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 66 of 1339 affect other components of PM2.5 , noting that “current information relating to sources and controls for other components identified in transpo rted PM2.5 (carbonaceous particles, ammonium, and crustal materials) does not, at this time, provide an adequate basis for regulating the regional transport of emissions responsible for these PM2.5 components” (69 FR 4582). With respect to ozone transpor t, EPA has previously concluded that it is proper to focus on ozone - season NOX emissions. For the CAIR and the NOX SIP call programs, EPA noted its reliance on the assessment of ozone transport made by the Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG) in the mi d- 1990s. The OTAG Regional and Urban Scale Modeling and Air Quality Analysis Work Groups concluded that regional NOX emission reductions are effective in producing ozone benefits and that benefits grew with increased regional NOX abatement. The relative importance of NOX and VOC in ozone formation and control varies with local and time - specific factors, including the relative amounts of VOC and NOX present. In rural areas and many urban areas with high concentrations of VOC from biogenic sources, ozone formation and control is governed by NOX . In some urban core situations, NOX concentrations can be high enough relative to VOC to suppress ozone formation locally, but still contribute to increased ozone downwind from the city. In*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 67 of 1339 such situations, VOC reducti ons are most effective at reducing ozone within the urban environment and immediately downwind. The formation of ozone increases with temperature and sunlight, which is one reason ozone levels are higher during the summer. Increased temperature also incr eases emissions of volatile man made and biogenic organics and can indirectly increase NOX as well (e.g., increased electricity generation for air conditioning). Summertime conditions also bring increased episodes of large scale stagnation of air masses, which promote the build- up of direct emissions and pollutants formed through atmospheric reactions over large regions. Authoritative assessments of ozone control approaches have concluded that, for reducing regional scale ozone transport, a NOX control st rategy is most effective, whereas VOC reductions are generally most effective locally, in more dense urbanized areas. Studies conducted since the 1970s established that ozone occurs on a regional scale (i.e., thousands of kilometers) over much of the easte rn U.S., with elevated concentrations occurring in rural as well as metropolitan areas. While substantial progress has been made in reducing ozone in many urban areas, regional scale ozone transport is still an important component of high ozone concentrati ons during the extended summer ozone season. A series of more recent progress reports discussing the effect of the NOX SIP Call reductions can be found on EPA’s Web*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 68 of 1339 site at: http :// www . epa . gov / airmarkets / progress/progress
reports.html. More recent assessments of ozone (in cluding those conducted for the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the ozone standards in 2008) continue to show the importance of NOX transport as a factor in ozone formation. For addressing interstate ozone transport in CAIR, EPA addressed NOX emissions but did not include requirements for VOCs. EPA believes that VOCs from some upwind states do indeed have an impact in some nearby downwind states, particularly over short transport distances. EPA expects that states, typically in local nonattainment plannin g, would benefit from examining the extent to which VOC emissions affect ozone pollution levels within and near urban nonattainment areas, and states may identify areas where multi state VOC strategies might assist in attainment planning for meeting the 8 - hour standard. However, EPA continues to believe that the most effective regional pollution control strategy for mitigation of interstate transport of ozone remains NOX emission reductions. 2. Which Pollutants did EPA Propose to Control for Purposes of PM2.5 and Ozone Transport? For the proposed rule, EPA concluded that its findings in CAIR regarding the nature of pollutant contributions are still appropriate. EPA proposed to continue to focus the PM2.5*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 69 of 1339 transport requirements on SO 2 and NOX emissions and to focus the ozone transport requirements on NOX emissions. In the proposal, EPA discussed and requested comment on the inclusion of southern states in the annual NOX program for PM2.5 control. 3. Comments and Responses EPA received no adverse comments on its proposal to regulate SO 2 for addressing PM2.5 transport, the proposal not to regulate direct PM2.5 or organic PM2.5 precursors, and the proposal to focus ozone - season efforts on NOX and not to regulate VOCs. One commenter questioned EPA’s regulat ion of NOX for purposes of addressing PM2.5 transport in all states (including northern states with cooler climates and higher nitrate deposition). Several commenters, representing southern state air quality agencies and regulated sources in southern stat es, disagreed with EPA’s proposed regulation of annual NOX emissions for all regulated states. These commenters, while not disagreeing with the need for regulation of SO 2 , observed that in EPA’s modeling analysis, contributions from certain southern state s’ NOX emissions to PM2.5 in downwind states were relatively small. Accordingly, these commenters argued that either (1) EPA should remove NOX as a precursor analyzed for PM contribution from those states, or (2) the required remedy for emission*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 70 of 1339 reductions in those states should not require reductions in annual NOX . For the final rule, EPA retains the approach for regulated pollutants in the proposal, which regulates annual NOX and SO 2 for states affecting downwind state PM2.5 nonattainment and maintenanc e sites, and ozone - season NOX for states impacting downwind state ozone nonattainment and maintenance. EPA considered commenters’ requests to remove some states from the annual NOX program. However, EPA believes that it is appropriate to establish a cap on these states’ annual NOX emissions, in part to ensure the continued annual operation of existing control equipment that would prevent substantial increases in NOX emissions. EPA believes that without these reductions, increased “nitrate replacement” c ould occur, a known atmospheric phenomenon whereby some of the sulfate reductions due to SO 2 emission reductions are eroded by increases in nitrate concentrations due solely to those SO 2 reductions. 16 This is an especially pertinent concern for southern st ates which have significant impacts on northern receptors in colder climates where nitrate concentrations are generally higher. For example,
16 SO 2 reductions successfully decrease atmospheric formation of ammonium sulfate, but in doing so they “free up” the ammonia component that would otherwise have reacted with SO 2 and is now free to react with NOX instead, causing a “rebound ef fect” partially eroding the improvement in PM2.5 concentrations. This effect can be mitigated with tandem NOX reductions.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 71 of 1339 Alabama and Tennessee are both linked to Washtenaw County, MI for 24 - hour PM2.5 ; North Carolina is linked to Lanca ster County, PA for 24 - hour PM2.5 ; and Texas is linked to Madison County, IL for both annual and 24 - hour PM2.5 . All of these downwind areas have appreciable nitrate deposition contributing to nonattainment and maintenance concerns for the PM2.5 NAAQS. If the states linked to those receptors made SO 2 reductions only, their beneficial impact on downwind air quality would be partially eroded by nitrate replacement. EPA therefore believes that it is reasonable to seek both SO 2 and NOX reductions from states included in the Transport Rule program for states affecting downwind state PM2.5 nonattainment and maintenance sites. In addition, EPA notes that there would be important disbenefits to effectively removing CAIR’s existing annual NOX requirements in those states. If EPA were to allow annual NOX emissions to increase for those states, there would be potentially harmful effects on visibility, nitrogen deposition, and other aspects of human and environmental health. EPA notes that for the final rule this i ssue has become moot for two states -- Florida and Louisiana . For those two states, the modeling analysis for the final rule showed their overall contributions to PM2.5 at downwind receptors of concern are below the threshold for inclusion. Accordingly, Florida and Louisiana*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 72 of 1339 are no longer covered by the Transport Rule for PM2.5 and thus are no longer included in the annual NOX program. B. Baseline for Pollution Transport Analysis Implementing the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires EPA to determine which states significantly contribute to nonattainment and interfere with maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards in other states, as well as to quantify the emissions in each state that must be eliminated. This process be gins with an analysis of baseline emissions. Baseline emissions are the emissions that would occur in each state if EPA did not promulgate the Transport Rule. To conduct such analysis, EPA generally takes into account emission limitations that are curren tly, and will continue to be, in place. From that baseline, EPA analyzes whether additional reductions beyond those already mandated by existing emission limitation requirements are necessary. For example, the base case used in CAIR reflected the reducti ons already required by the NOX SIP Call, which remained in effect even after the CAIR emission reduction requirements took effect. The unique legal situation addressed by the Transport Rule necessarily affects the quantification of baseline emissions. Sp ecifically, because the Transport Rule will replace CAIR, EPA cannot consider reductions associated with CAIR in the “base*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 73 of 1339 case” (i.e., analytical baseline emissions scenario). If EPA were to consider all reductions associated with CAIR in the “base case, ” the baseline emissions would not adequately reflect the true 2012 baseline in each state (i.e. , the emissions that would occur in each state in 2012 if the Transport Rule did not require any reductions in that state). Similarly, if EPA were to ignore th at capital investments have already been made to meet the requirements of CAIR and that these investments comprise “sunk” capital costs and not new costs, EPA’s analysis would not correctly reflect the cost of emission reductions required by the Transport Rule. As explained below, EPA’s analysis both properly considered all capital investments made in response to CAIR and properly recognized that, after CAIR is terminated, the emission limitations imposed by CAIR will cease to exist. In 2005 EPA promulgate d CAIR, which required large electric generating units in 28 states and the District of Columbia to make phase I emission reductions in NOX emissions starting in 2009, phase I emission reductions in SO 2 starting in 2010, and additional, phase II reductions in emissions of both pollutants starting in 2015. On July 11, 2008, the D.C. Court of Appeals held that CAIR had “more than several fatal flaws , ” North Carolina , 531 F.3d at 901, and remanded and vacated the rule, id. at 930. The Court subsequently gran ted EPA’s petition for*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 74 of 1339 rehearing in part and remanded CAIR without vacatur “for EPA to conduct further proceedings consistent with” the Court’s July 11, 2008 opinion. North Carolina , 550 F.3d 1176. The Court explained that it was “allowing CAIR to remain in effect until it is replaced by a rule consistent with [the July 11, 2008] opinion” because this “would at least temporarily preserve the environmental values covered by CAIR.” Id. at 1178. Moreover, the Court stated that it did not “intend to grant an indefinite stay of the effectiveness of” the July 11, 2008 order vacating CAIR. Id. In summary, the Court determined that CAIR was fatally flawed and could remain in effect only as a stopgap measure until EPA could act to replace it. Thus, unlike most other regulatory requirements (such as the Acid Rain Program under CAA Title IV, the NOX Budget Trading Program under the NOX SIP Call, New Source Performance Standards, and state laws and consent orders requiring emission reductions), the emission limitat ions contained in CAIR are only temporary. Moreover, the duration of these limitations is directly tied to the Transport Rule. The Transport Rule is to replace CAIR. Thus, the Transport Rule itself will be terminate d by emission limitations established in CAIR. For this reason, emission reductions made to comply with CAIR cannot be treated as if they were emission reductions achieved to comply with statutory provisions, rules, consent decrees, and*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 75 of 1339 the like that establish permanent emission limitations. EPA takes reductions made to comply with permanent limits into consideration when quantifying each state’s baseline emissions for the purpose of analyzing whether its emissions significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in ano ther state. However, the unique legal status of CAIR and the effect of the Transport Rule as a replacement for CAIR distinguish the emission reductions required by CAIR from those of other regulatory requirements. Since the limits and emission reduction requirements in CAIR are temporary and will be terminated by the Transport Rule , they must be excluded from the base case analysis. Some comments on the Transport Rule proposal claim that EPA’s treatment of CAIR is inconsistent with the treatment, in prior rulemakings, of the Acid Rain Program and the NOX SIP Call. Such comments ignore the unique legal status of CAIR, and EPA therefore rejects these claims. A simple example illustrates this point. Assume state Z’s emissions before CAIR were 2,000 tons and that state Z was required by CAIR to reduce its emissions to 1,000 tons. If EPA were to determine that state Z’s baseline emissions were 1,000 tons and then conclude, based on that assumption, that no additional reductions in state Z are necessary becaus e state Z does not significantly contribute to downwind nonattainment*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 76 of 1339 unless its emissions exceed 1,500 tons, then state Z would not be covered by the Transport Rule. However, the Transport Rule will terminate all CAIR requirements in all CAIR states rega rdless of whether they are covered by the Transport Rule. Thus, after promulgation of the Transport Rule, state Z would again be allowed, and would be projected in this example, to emit 2,000 tons. In other words, state Z would be allowed to significantl y contribute to nonattainment and/or interfere with maintenance in other states -- a result that would be inconsistent with the statutory mandate of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). On the other hand, if EPA assumes state Z’s baseline emissions are 2,000 t ons as projected without CAIR in place, EPA can properly determine whether, if state Z were allowed to emit that amount (i.e., the amount state Z would be projected to emit if excluded from the Transport Rule), the state would significantly contribute to n onattainment or interfere with maintenance in any other state. In other words, EPA can determine the stringency of emission limitations needed (if any) to replace those that were established by CAIR in order to ensure that state Z prohibits all emissions that significant ly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in other states. In fact, commenters’ suggestion that the Transport Rule base case should include CAIR would cause the anomalous result*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 77 of 1339 of excluding sources in a state from the Transport Rule because of their CAIR

– required emission reductions while simultaneously eliminating those CAIR- required emission reductions. If EPA’s base case analysis were to assume erroneously that reductions from CAIR would continue indefinitely, a st ate currently covered by CAIR, but not covered by the Transport Rule, would have no CAIR requirements once the Transport Rule programs began and so could have increased emissions beyond the CAIR limitations. Downwind areas that are in attainment (and are not experiencing interference with maintenance of such attainment) solely because of emission reductions required by CAIR could again face nonattainment or interference with maintenance problems because the current protection from upwind pollution from such an upwind state would not be replaced. In short, the analysis of whether a state should be included in a rule eliminating and replacing CAIR cannot logically assume that CAIR remains in place. For these reasons, EPA believes it is reasonable to use a b ase case that does not assume that the CAIR reduction requirements will continue to be achieved and so does not include CAIR- specific emission reductions. As a result, EPA’s 2012 base case shows emissions higher than current levels in some states. In the absence of the CAIR SO 2 and NOX programs that EPA has been directed to eliminate and replace, utility emissions in CAIR states will be limited only*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 78 of 1 339 by non - CAIR constraints including the Acid Rain Program, the NOX SIP Call, New Source Performance Standards , any state laws and consent order requiring emission reductions, and any other permanent and enforceable binding reduction commitments. This will lead to increased emissions in some states in the 2012 base case relative to current emissions. For example , efforts to comply with the Acid Rain Program at the least cost may occur, in some cases, without the operation of existing scrubbers through use of readily available, inexpensive Title IV allowances. It is important to note that, to the extent that emis sion reductions currently required by CAIR are also reflected in emission reduction requirements under the Acid Rain Program, the NOX SIP Call, New Source Performance Standards, any state laws and consent order s requiring emission reductions, and any other enforceable binding reduction commitments, such reductions are accounted for in EPA’s 2012 base case. Commenters’ claims that, in excluding CAIR- specific emission reductions from the base case, EPA ignores non - CAIR legal requirements (e.g., in Title V pe rmits) that may prevent sources from increasing emissions above CAIR levels, are incorrect. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, EPA accounted for any Title V permits, consent decrees, state rules, and the like that required specific sources to limit their emissions to the levels consistent with*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 79 of 1339 CAIR compliance. Commenters also assert that utilities are unlikely to dismantle or discontinue running the installed controls to the point of returning to pre - CAIR emission levels. EPA agrees that installed controls are not likely to be dismantled, and as discussed elsewhere in this preamble, EPA’s analysis properly treats the capital investments made in emission controls as a result of CAIR as “sunk” capital costs (i.e., capital costs already incurred in the past) that are not included as costs of meeting Transport Rule requirements. Our cost analysis for significant contribution reflects on the - ground realities. Investments in pollution control equipment were made in response to the remanded CAIR requiremen ts. Those expenditures are “sunk” capital costs, meaning that those costs were incurred in the past, prior to the Transport Rule. Adding the capital costs of that equipment into the costs of Transport Rule emission reduction options would be incorrect; those capital investments are represented in place in the base case. However, given ongoing costs associated with operating these controls, EPA believes sources would have an economic incentive to discontinue operating installed controls, or to operate th ose controls less effectively, except to the extent non - CAIR legal requirements mandate emission reductions or to the extent that sources would find it economic to operate the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 80 of 1339 controls for non - CAIR market -based emission control programs. EPA properly trea ts the costs of operating controls installed to meet CAIR requirements as costs of meeting Transport Rule requirements. 17 EPA’s base case accounts for non - CAIR requirements and does not make the unreasonable assumption that installed controls would be oper ated to achieve emission reductions that are not necessary to meet non - CAIR requirements. For all of these reasons, EPA rejects commenters’ claims that the base case is “unrepresentative” or lacks “a rational relationship to the real world.” C. Air Qualit y Modeling to Identify Downwind Nonattainment and Maintenance Receptors 1 . Emission Inventories To inform air quality modeling for the development of the final Transport Rule, EPA developed emission inventories for a 2005 base year and for 2012 and 2014. The inventories for all years include emission estimates for EGUs, non - EGU point sources, stationary nonpoint sources, onroad mobile sources, nonroad mobile sources, and biogenic (non - human) sources. EPA’s air quality modeling relies on this comprehensive set of 17 For more details on how EPA models economic operation of existing pollution control equipment in the Transport Rule base case, plea se see Section 6 ("Dispatchable Controls") in "Updates to EPA Base Case v3.02 EISA Using the Integrated Planning Model" T echnical Support Document (TSD) for the Transport Rule Docket ID No. EPA- HQ - OAR- 2009 - 0491, U.S. EPA, July 2010 (available atwww.epa.gov /airmarkets/progsregs/epa
- ipm/IPM_Update_Documentation.pdf).*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 81 of 1339 emission inventories because emissions from multiple source categories are needed for the model to compute values for the ambient air quality, and to facilitate comparison of model outputs with ambient measurements. In addition, EPA considers all relevant emissions (regardless of source category) when determining whether a state is found to be significantly contributing to or interfering with maintenance of a particular NAAQS in another state. The emission inventories were processed through the Spa rse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions (SMOKE) Modeling System version 2.6 to produce the gridded, hourly, speciated, model - ready emissions for input to the CAMx air quality model. Additional information on the development of the emission inventories and re lated data sets for emissions modeling is provided in the Emission Inventory Technical Support Document (TSD) for the Transport Rule Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR). Tables that provide summaries of SO 2 and NOX emissions by state and sector for 2005, 201 2, and 2014 are also available in the Emission Inventory TSD. On October 27, 2010 a Notice of Data Availability (NODA) on “Revisions to Emission Inventories” was issued. The primary purpose was to notify the public about changes to emission inventories made since the proposal modeling. The affected emission sectors were stationary point sources that are not*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 82 of 1339 EGUs, nonpoint sources, and Category 3 commercial marine vessel sources. Plans to use a newly released model for onroad mobile source emissions were al so announced in the NODA. The major comments received in response to the emission inventories and modeling included in the proposed Transport Rule and the October 27 NODA are summarized in the following subsections. EPA agreed with the comments summarize d below and adopted technical corrections or updates to the emissions inventories and modeling accordingly. For EPA to be able to take appropriate action, comments on the emission inventories needed to be specific enough to allow for credible alternative data sources to be located. EPA adopted corrections from comments on in -place control programs or devices where the controls were enforceable and quantifiable. a. Foundation Emission Inventory Data Sets EPA developed emission data representing the year 200 5 to provide a base year from which future air quality could be forecasted. EPA used the 2005 National Emission Inventory (NEI), version 2 from October 6, 2008, as the chief basis for the U.S. inventories supporting the 2005 air quality modeling. This inventory includes 2005 - specific data for point and mobile sources, while most nonpoint data were carried forward from version 3 of the 2002 NEI. The future base case scenarios*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 83 of 1339 modeled for 2012 and 2014 represent predicted emission reductions primarily from already promulgated federal measures. EPA used a 2006 Canadian inventory and a 1999 Mexican inventory for the portions of Canada and Mexico within the air quality modeling domains for all modeled scenarios. Emissions from Canada and Mexico for all sourc e sectors (including EGUs) in these countries were held constant for all base and future year cases. EPA made this conservative assumption because it does not currently have data to support projections of future year emissions from Canada and Mexico. b. Development of Emission Inventories for EGUs The annual NOX and SO 2 emissions for EGUs in the 2005 NEI v2 are based primarily on data from EPA’s Clean Air Markets Division’s Continuous Emissions Monitoring (CEM) program, with other EGU pollutants estimated using emission factors and the annual heat input data reported to EPA’s Clean Air Markets Division. Although only the pollutants NOX and SO 2 are considered for control in this rule , emissions for all criteria air pollutants must be provided to the air qua lity model. For EGUs without CEMs, data submitted to the NEI by the states were used. For more information on the details of how the 2005 EGU emissions were developed, see the Emissions Inventory TSD. A comment impacting the final 2005 EGU inventory is the following:*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 84 of 1339 Comment: Commenters stated that some point sources that were classified as non - EGUs in the proposal modeling were actually EGUs, resulting in double counting of emissions in future - year modeling. Response: EPA reviewed the assignment of EGUs and non - EGUs and reclassified EGU sources found to be in the non - EGU inventory into the 2005 EGU inventory to prevent double counting of future - year emissions. The future base case scenarios for EGUs reflect projected changes to fuel usage and economics, as described in the Emission Inventory TSD. Future year base case EGU emissions that predict SO 2 , NOX , and PM2.5 were obtained from version 4.10_FTransport of the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) outputs (http://www.epa.gov/airmarkt/progsregs/epa
- ipm/index.h tml). The IPM is a multi - regional, dynamic, deterministic linear programming model of the U.S. electric power sector; version 4.10_FTransport reflects state rules and consent decrees through December 1, 2010, and incorporates public comments on existing co ntrols submitted to EPA through both the Transport Rule related notice and comment process as well as the proposed Mercury and Air Toxics Standards Information Collection Request (ICR). The operation of existing SO 2 or NOX advanced controls (e.g., scrubbe r, SCR) on units that were not required to operate those controls for compliance with Title IV, New Source Review*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 85 of 1339 (NSR), state settlements, or state - specific rules was projected by IPM on the basis of providing least cost operation of the power generation system subject to existing regulatory requirements except CAIR (see baseline discussion section V.C.2.b ). Additionally, IPM v.4.10_FTransport incorporates comments received during the rulemaking process. Fuel - related updates include comment - driven unit - specific limitations on 2012 coal rank selection, limiting unrestricted switching from bituminous to subbituminous coal by imposing boiler modification costs for those units shifting from bituminous to subbituminous coal without historical precedent, and a correction of waste coal prices. Pollution control - related updates include keying the performance assumptions for FGD and SCR more closely to historic performance data, and the inclusion of dry sorbent injection (DSI), a SO 2 removal technology. Other no table updates include revised assumptions on the heat rate and consequent dispatching of cogenerating units and incorporation of additional planned retirements. Further details on these updates are available in the IPM Documentation, available in the docket and at: http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets /progsregs/epa
- ipm/index.html. c. Development of Emission Inventories for Non - EGU Point Sources*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 86 of 1339 Details on the development of emission inventories are available in the Emission Inventory TSD. In both the proposal and final modeling, controls on industrial boilers installed under the NOX SIP call were assumed to have been implemented by 2005 and captured in the 2005 NEI v2. The non - EGU point source emissions were updated from the 2005 NEI and the emissions used for the proposal modeling through the incorporation of comments on the proposal emissions values, previously unknown facility closures, and through other data improvements as identified by EPA analyses. EPA does not factor in economic growth to develop non - EGU point source emission projections because analysis of historical emission trends and economic data did not support using economic growth to project non - EGU emissions. More details on the rationale for not applying economic growth to non - EGU industrial s ources can be found in Appendix D of the Regulatory Impact Assessment for the PM NAAQS rule ( http :// www . epa . gov / ttn / ecas / regdata / RIAs / Appendix %20 D -- Inventory . pdf ). Although projections based on economic growth
were not included, EPA did include reductions resulting from plant and unit closures, local and federal consent decrees, and several Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards. For non - EGU point sources, local control programs that may be necess ary for areas to attain the annual PM2.5 NAAQS and the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 87 of 1339 ozone NAAQS are only included in the future base case projections when specific information about existing enforceable loc al controls was provided. Since aircraft at airports were treated as point emis sions sources in the 2005 NEI v2, we applied projection factors based on activity growth projected by the Federal Aviation Administration Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) system, published in December 2008. A number of comments were received on the stationary non EGU point source inventories. Below is a summary of the major comments that impacted the stationary non - EGU point source inventories for the final modeling: Comment: Commenters stated that EPA did not properly represent some point source emissions in base - year and future year inventories due to facility and unit closures, consent decrees, emission caps, control programs, and alternative emission estimates. Response: EPA reviewed the sources referenced in the individual comments regarding the base - year and future - year inventories. In cases where credible alternative data were available, EPA revised the emission inventories to incorporate additional facility and unit closures, consent decrees, emission caps, control programs, enforceable local controls, and alternative emission estimates.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 88 of 1339 Comment: Commenters stated that EPA should include controls from the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (RICE NESHAP) in our modeling. Response: EPA in cluded reductions expected to be achieved by the RICE NESHAP across the United States in our final modeling of stationary non - EGU and nonpoint sources. Comment: Commenters stated that EPA was not properly representing existing or planned controls for cemen t plants. Response: EPA updated control and projection information for cement plants based on the latest available data and cement sector - specific modeling results. Comment: EPA specifically requested comments on whether to incorporate emission reduction e stimates from the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters (75 FR 32006). Commenters stated that emission reduction estimates should not be i ncluded until the rule became final. Response: EPA did not incorporate emission reduction estimates from the NESHAP for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters (75 FR 32006) into the proposal or final modeling b ecause the rule was not final at the time the modeling was performed. Note that*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 89 of 1339 reductions from this rule would not have impacted the 2012 base case due to its implementation schedule, and only the 2014 emissions would have been affected. d. Development o f Emission Inventories for Onroad Mobile Sources The onroad emissions in the proposal modeling were primarily based on the National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM) monthly, county, and process level emissions along with gasoline exhaust emissions from a fall 2008 draft version of the Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES). A major comment on the proposal modeling for onroad mobile sources was the following: Comment: Commenters stated that EPA should use a publicly released version of MOVES for its final mo deling. Response: EPA updated the final modeling to use data from the publicly released version of the MOVES 2010 model because the model became available in time for inclusion of its results in the final modeling. It was not used for the proposal modeling because it was not available at the time the modeling was performed. In the final Transport Rule modeling, EPA used MOVES 2010 state -month level emissions for all criteria pollutants and all modes (exaporative, exhaust, brake wear and tire wear) and alloc ated those emissions to counties according to state - county NMIM emissions ratios. For California (the emissions for which*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 90 of 1339 are included to support the coarse modeling domain), the onroad mobile emissions data were derived from data provided by the state. These data were augmented with MOVES 2010 outputs for NH 3 because data for that pollutant had not been provided. Additional information on the approach to onroad mobile source emissions is available in the Emission Inventory TSD. In the future - year base mo deling for mobile sources, all national measures available at the time of modeling were included. The future scenarios for mobile sources reflect projected changes to fuel usage, as described in the Emission Inventory TSD. Emissions for these years reflec t onroad mobile control programs including the Light - Duty Vehicle Tier 2 Rule, the Onroad Heavy - Duty Rule, the Light - Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Rule, the Renewable Fuel Standards Rule, and the Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) final rule. e. Development o f Commercial Marine Category 3 Vessel Emission Inventories For the 2005 modeling, the commercial marine category 3 (C3) vessel emissions, a portion of nonroad mobile emissions, were augmented with gridded 2005 emissions from the previous modeling efforts f or the rule called “Control of Emissions from New Marine Compression - Ignition Engines at or Above 30 Liters per Cylinder.” Emissions out to 200 nautical miles from the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 91 of 1339 coastline were allocated to states in the proposal modeling. A major comment on the prop osal modeling was the following: Comment: Commenters stated that emissions from commercial marine sources (a component of the nonroad emissions in the summaries that were provided for the NPR) were too high. Response: EPA reviewed the approach used for commercial marine C 3 emissions in the proposal. In the final modeling, instead of using the boundary of 200 nautical miles from the coast as was used in the proposal, EPA adopted the Mineral Management Service state - federal water boundaries that assign state waters 3 - 10 nautical miles from the coast. This approach is consistent with the approach used in the 2005 and 2008 National Emission Inventories. In addition, the category 3 commercial marine emissions were adjusted to reflect a co ordination between the Emissions Control Area proposal to the International Maritime Organization (EPA- 420 - F - 10 - 041, August 2010) control strategy; reductions of NOX , VOC, and CO emissions for new C 3 engines starting in 2011; and fuel sulfur limits that go into effect as early a s 2010. f. Development of Emission Inventories for Other Nonroad Mobile Sources The nonroad mobile source emissions for sources other than C 3 marine were primarily based on NMIM monthly, county, and process level emissions from the 2005 NEI v2. These emissions*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 92 of 1339 were unchanged from proposal modeling, except for PM emissions in California that were updated to correct for missing emissions in a few counties and source categories. Nonroad mobile emissions were created for future years with NMIM using an app roach consistent with that used for 2005. The nonroad emissions for 2012 and 2014 were calculated using NMIM future - year equipment population estimates and control programs. Nonroad mobile emission reductions for 2012 and 2014 include reductions to locomotives, various nonroad engines including diesel engines and various marine engine types, fuel sulfur content, and evaporative emissions standards. A more comprehensive list of control programs included for mobile sources is available in the Emission Inve ntory TSD. The 2012 and 2014 nonroad mobile emissions for locomotives and category 1 and 2 (C1 and C2) commercial marine vessels were based on emissions published in EPA’s Locomotive Marine Rule, Regulatory Impact Assessment, Chapter 3. g. Development o f Nonpoint Emission Inventories For the proposal Transport Rule modeling, EPA augmented the 2002 NEI nonpoint emission inventory with a non - California Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) oil and gas exploration inventory, which includes emissions in several states within the eastern U.S. 12 km modeling domain and additional states within the national 36 km modeling domain. For the final Transport*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 93 of 1339 Rule modeling, EPA updated the nonpoint emission estimates for oil and gas sources. EPA continued to use the same WRAP inventory from the proposal, but for the final modeling emissions in Texas and Oklahoma were updated with data from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), respectively. The average - year county -based inventories for wildfire and prescribed burning emissions were unchanged between the proposal and final modeling. For stationary nonpoint sources, local control programs that may be necessary for areas to attain the annual PM2.5 NAAQS and the ozone NAAQS are not included in the future base case projections unless specific information about existing enforceable controls was available (e.g., ozone SIP controls from Ozone Transport Commission rules that impact source categories s uch as Consumer Products, Solvent Cleaning, Adhesives and Sealants). EPA specifically requested comment on local control data as part of the proposal and the October 27 NODA, and incorporated any usable data that was provided into the final inventories . Fo r stationary nonpoint sources, refueling emissions were projected using the refueling results from the NMIM runs performed for the onroad mobile sector.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 94 of 1339 Portable fuel container emissions were projected to future years using estimates from previous OTAQ ru lemaking inventories. Emissions of ammonia and dust from animal operations were projected based on animal population data from the Department of Agriculture and EPA. Residential wood combustion was projected by replacement of obsolete wood stoves with new wood stoves and a 1 percent annual increase in fireplaces. Landfill emissions were projected using MACT controls. All other nonpoint sources were held constant between 2005 and the future years. Some specific adjustments to the inventories were made in the final modeling to address comments that were received as described below. Area source MACT programs and controls from the RICE NESHAP were included in the final modeling to address submitted comments, as were fuel sulfur controls that were enforceabl e and that take effect by 2014. The major comments that impacted the nonpoint sectors are as follows: Comment: Commenters stated that the SO 2 emissions from industrial fuel combustion in Nebraska EPA are too high. Response: EPA reviewed the NEI 2002 -based data that had been used for the proposal modeling and determined that emissions from the 2005 inventory compiled for the Central Regional Air Planning Association (CENRAP) were more up to date for this source category and based on more localized data*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 95 of 1339 sourc es. The 2005 CENRAP emissions for industrial fuel combustion were used in the final modeling. Comment: Commenters stated that EPA should include sulfur rule controls that take effect prior to the future years that were modeled. Response: EPA included quan tifiable sulfur rule controls in 2014 modeling for those states that had implemented the rules (New Jersey and Maine). Comment: A commenter stated that emissions for Delaware were overestimated for several nonpoint categories in base - year and future - year i nventories and provided alternative estimates for these categories. Response: EPA reviewed the alternative estimates provided and found them to be credible and based on more detailed local scale information than were available in the national inventories. EPA incorporated the alternative emission estimates for Delaware into the final modeling. Comment: A commenter stated that residual oil is not used as an industrial fuel in South Carolina. Response: EPA analyzed the emissions from residual oil industrial fuel combustion in South Carolina and all other states, and analyzed preliminary regional planning office inventories and the 2008 NEI submittals. The South Carolina residual oil industrial fuel emissions were determined to be*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 96 of 1339 anomalously large in compari son to the near zero emissions in other submittals and were therefore removed from the nonpoint inventory. 2 . Air Quality Basis for Identifying Receptors a. Introduction In this section, we describe the final approach to identify downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors. We briefly summarize the modeling platform, the proposed approach to identify receptors, comments received, and the results of the final analysis. In the proposed rule we used air quality modeling to (1) identify locations where we expected there to be nonattainment and/or maintenance problems for annual average PM2.5 , 24 - hour PM2.5 , and/or 8
- hour ozone in 2012, (2) quantif y the impacts (i.e., air quality contributions) of SO 2 and NOX emissions from upwind states on downwind annual average and 24 - hour PM2.5 concentrations at monitoring sites projected to be nonattainment or have maintenance problems in 2012 for the 1997 annual and 2006 24 - hour PM2.5 NAAQS, respectively, and (3) quantif y the impacts of NOX emissions from upwind states on downwind 8 - hour ozone concentrations at monitoring sites projected to be nonattainment or have maintenance problems in 2012 for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 97 of 1339 To support the proposal, air quality modeling was performed for four emissions scenarios: a 2005 base year, a 2012 “no CAIR” base case, a 2014 “no CAIR” base case, and a 2014 control case that reflects the emission reductions expected from the FIPs. The modeling for 2005 was used as the base year for projecting air quality for each of the 3 future year s cenarios. The 2012 base case modeling was used to identify future nonattainment and maintenance locations and to quantify the contributions of emissions in upwind states to annual average and 24 - hour PM2.5 and 8 - hour ozone. The 2012 ozone and PM2.5 conce ntrations were derived by projecting 2003 - 2007 based ambient ozone and/or PM2.5 data to the future using the relative (percent) change in modeled concentrations between 2005 and 2012. The 2014 base case and 2014 control case modeling were used to quantify the benefits of this proposal. In the proposed rule, EPA used the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx) version 5.20 18 to simulate ozone and PM2.5 concentrations for the 2005 base year and the 2012 and 2014 future year scenarios. The CAMx model

18 Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions Version 5 User’s Guide. Environ International Corporation. Novato, CA. March 2009.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 98 of 1339 applications were designed to cover states in the central and eastern U.S. using a horizontal resolution of 12 x 12 km 19 . CAMx contains “source apportionment” tools that are designed to quantify the contribution of emissions from various sources and areas to ozone and PM2.5 component species in other downwind locations. The source apportionment tools were used to quantify the downwind contributions of ozone and PM2.5 from upwind states. In the proposed rule, EPA used a 2005 -based air quality modeli ng platform which included 2005 base year emissions and 2005 meteorology for modeling ozone and PM2.5 with CAMx. We received comments related to several aspects of the air quality modeling platform. Comment: There was wide support from commenters for the use of CAMx as an appropriate, state - of - the science air quality tool for use in the Transport Rule. There were no comments that suggested that EPA should use an alternative model for quantifying interstate transport. Many commenters requested that EPA up date the emission inventories used for the Transport Rule and then remodel the 2005 base year and future year emissions using the updated emissions and the most recent

19 The 12 km domain was nested within a coarse grid, 36 x 36 km modeling domain which covers the lower 48 states and adjacent portions of Canada and Mexico. Predictions from this Continental U.S. (CONUS) domain were used to provide initial and boundary concentrations for simulations in the 12 km domain.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 99 of 1339 version of CAMx to reassess interstate transport for the final rule. Response: For the final rule we have updated our modeling using the latest public release of CAMx (version 5.30) and associated preprocessors. We have also made numero us improvements to the emission inventories for the 2005 base year as well as the 2012 and 2014 future yea r base cases in response to public comments. The emissions changes are described in section V.C.2. The projection of future year nonattainment and maintenance sites and the quantification of ozone and PM2.5 transport for the final rule are based on model ing with CAMx v5.30 using the updated emission inventories. The final rule air quality projections of 2012 nonattainment and maintenance are described below. The final rule interstate contributions are presented in section V.D. Comment: The performance evaluation of the 2005 base year model predictions for the proposed rule was too cursory and did not provide sufficient detail on model performance. Commenters requested additional analyses and spatial resolution describing how well base year model predic tions compare to the corresponding measured values. Response: For the final rule we have expanded the scope of the model evaluation for 2005 to include a broader suite of statistics to characterize performance for individual subregions*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 100 of 1339 of the e astern U.S. modeling domain. The results of the performance evaluation for the final rule 2005 base year air quality modeling are described in the Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document. Comment: The 2005 based modeling platform should be updated to a mor e recent year. There were several different aspects of this comment. Some commenters stated that EPA should be using a more recent emission inventory as a base year, due to identified changes and updates to the inventories. Other commenters stated that E PA should use a more recent base year, due to a trend of improvement in air quality over the past few years. The commenters claim that the 2005 -based EPA modeling does not account for large emission reductions and air quality improvements that have occurr ed over the last several years. Response: There are several reasons why the use of a 2005 modeling base case is both reasonable and , in fact, necessary for the Transport Rule. As explained in section V.B, above, because the Transport Rule will replace CA IR, EPA cannot consider reductions associated with CAIR in the analytical baseline emissions scenario. Thus, the base year for the air quality projections should be a year that represents emissions before CAIR was in place (i.e. 2005). We are projecting emissions to a future 2012 “no CAIR” case and therefore want to best represent the air quality change between 2005 and 2012,*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 101 of 1339 without CAIR. To do this, we projected emissions that existed before CAIR was in effect and modeled the air quality change that oc curs between 2005 and 2012 without CAIR. A key consideration in our projection methodology is the use of ambient data to anchor the design value projections to the future. The modeling is used in a relative sense by multiplying the modeled percent change in ozone or PM2.5 species concentrations by the base year ambient data. The o zone and PM2.5 modeling guidance recommends projecting design values based on five years 20 of monitoring data that is centered on the base model year. Using 2005 as a base emiss ions and meteorological year entailed the use of 2003 - 2007 ambient air quality data (five years of data centered about 2005). This was a reasonable choice because the majority of the ambient data from this period was not impacted by CAIR emission reductio ns. After 2005, early emission reductions of SO 2 and NOX in anticipation of CAIR began to impact the measured air quality concentrations. Since the modeling projection methodology uses both modeled and observed data, 2005 is the latest base year that we deemed appropriate (before CAIR emission reductions took place) for use in projecting the measured air quality to a 2012

20 The mode ling guidance recommends using a five year weighted average design value. This is calculated by averaging the three consecutive design value periods of 2003 - 2005, 2004 - 20006, and 2005 - 2007.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 102 of 1339 future year. The early years of the five year period (2003, 2004, and 2005) were not impacted by CAIR21 . The last two years in the perio d (2006 and 2007) were slightly impacted by CAIR emission reductions. But the 5 year average is weighted towards the middle year of the period (2005), so the impact of the years after CAIR promulgation should be minimal. The 2005 base year was also chosen because it was an appropriate meteorological year. In the e astern U.S. there was relatively high ozone during the summer of 2005 and relatively high PM2.5 periods during the year. The modeled attainment test s for both ozone and 24 - hour PM2.5 depend on h aving a sufficient number of “high” modeled days to project to the future. Modeling a year that is not meteorologically conducive to ozone and/or PM2.5 formation is discouraged by the modeling guidance because a meteorological year that is not conducive t o ozone or PM2.5 formation may be less responsive to changes in emissions in the future. Therefore, projecting the relative change in ozone or PM2.5 for a non - conducive base year may underestimate the future change in ozone and/or PM2.5 concentrations. Additionally, all enforceable emission reductions that occurred between 2005 and 2012 (other than those required under CAIR) are captured by the modeling system. Any enforceable non EGU emission reductions due to existing rules or the
21 The CAIR final rule was published on May 12, 2005.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 103 of 1339 installation of emis sions controls after 2005 were included in the 2012 base case inventory. As explained above in section V.B, to capture changes in EGU emissions between 2005 and 2012, EPA did not assume operation of all controls installed during that time period, as many of those controls were built in response to CAIR. EPA used the Integrated Planning Model ( IPM ) to project 2012 EGU emissions incorporating all non - CAIR enforceable emission constraints; operation of existing pollution controls was taken into account only where non - CAIR constraints made it economic or legally necessary to operate them. We also accounted for permanent source shutdowns that occurred after 2005. Where possible, we incorporated reported emissions changes based on comments to the proposed rule and a subsequent emission inventory notice of data availability (NODA). Comment: Several commenters stated that we used a “modeled + monitored” test in CAIR to identify future year nonattainment receptors, but we only used a modeled test in the Transport Rule proposal. They suggest that we should either go back to the “modeled + monitored” test or explain why we should not use monitoring data in the identification of nonattainment and maintenance receptors. They say that we should not base nonattainment and maintenance receptors solely on modeled violations. They also say that we if we had looked at the most*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 104 of 1339 recent ambient data we would see that most of the modeled nonattainment and maintenance receptors are already attaining the ozone and/ or PM2.5 NAAQS. Response: In the identification of future year nonattainment receptors for CAIR, EPA used what was called the “modeled + monitored test”. The most recent ambient data (2001 - 2003 design values at the time) were examined to further verify that nonattainment was still being measured at potential future year nonattainment receptors. In the proposed Transport Rule, EPA identified future year nonattainment and maintenance receptors based on modeled projections of ambient data from the 2003 - 20 07 time period. The future year receptors were not compared to most recent ambient data to verify that nonattainment still existed.

For the final Transport Rule , there are several reasons that EPA did not examine the most recent ambient data to verify that receptors were still measuring nonattainment. The main reason for dropping the “monitored” part of the modeled + monitored test is the fact that the most recent monitoring data (2007 - 2009 design values) include large emission reductions from CAIR. As explained in section V.B, above, because the Transport Rule will replace CAIR, we must use no - CAIR base case modeling. It is simply not appropriate to examine the current monitoring data, which represent air quality with CAIR emission reductions*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 105 of 1339 in place , and compare the values to 2012 projected air quality that is based on a no - CAIR modeling case. As discussed above, we modeled a 2005 base case with pre - CAIR emissions and a 2012 future “no CAIR” case. The change in modeled air quality is due to the non - CAIR enforceable emissions changes between 2005 and 2012 and therefore explicitly does not take CAIR into account. As a consequence, the 2012 projected design values represent a unique case (necessary for analyzing future air quality without either CAIR or its replacement Transport Rule in effect) that cannot be represented by current ambient data. It is also important to note that all of the projected 2012 design values are based on projections of measured ambient data. They are a combination of measur ed data and modeled response factors. Therefore , it is inaccurate to imply that future year nonattainment and maintenance receptors are solely based on modeled projections. The future year concentrations are firmly rooted in base year measured ambient da ta that have been projected to the future using modeled data. There are additional reasons for not verifying the nonattainment and maintenance receptors against the most recent ambient data. In CAIR we did not explicitly identify maintenance receptors. In the Transport Rule proposal we identified maintenance receptors based on 2012 projections of maximum design values from the 2003 - 2007 period. Even though*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 106 of 1339 receptors may be measuring attainment based on recent data, they may still be at risk for falling back into nonattainment. Therefore, even if commenters argue that recent data show that receptors should not be nonattainment receptors (which we do not agree with), the same argument cannot be made with regards to maintenance receptors. Clearly, recepto rs with recent “clean” ambient data may still experience higher PM2.5 and/or ozone concentrations in the future (based on meteorological and emission variability) and therefore may be appropriate maintenance receptors. Comment: Several commenters claim that the maintenance receptor methodology overstates actual future design values. They also recommend an alternative methodology which takes into account the downward trend in observed PM2.5 concentrations over the last 5+ years. The methodology would remove the trend in the data where air quality is improving over the period by applying a linear fit to the data, calculating the residuals and then adding the residuals back to the average of the data. Given a site with a downward trend, this has the effect of decreasing the calculated maximum values from the early years in the period and increasing the values from the end years in the period. Response: EPA continues to believe that our approach to identify maintenance receptors is reasonable and appropriate.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 107 of 1339 For the final rule, we continue to identify maintenance receptors by projecting the maximum design value from the 2003 - 2007 period to the future. The methodology assumes that the combination of emissions and meteorology that occurred in the base period (which led to relatively high ambient design values) could happen again in the future (albeit at lower emissions levels). There is no information presented by the commenters which explains why the magnitude of base year design value variabilit y could not occur in the same way in the future. The commenters cite the downward trend in ambient data as the reason why the EPA methodology is not reasonable. However, in most cases, the recent downward trend in ambient data is due to a combination of ongoing emission reductions (which includes CAIR), variability in meteorology, and depressed emissions due to the recession. In fact, the most recent ambient design value period (2007 - 2009) is heavily influenced by extremely low ozone and PM2.5 concentrat ions measured in 2009. The 2009 data are marked by relatively low emissions due to cool summer weather and ongoing effects of the recession. The preliminary22 2010 ambient data in the e astern U.S. show that ozone and PM2.5 values were considerably higher in 2010 compared to 2009. In the Transport Rule states, there were 158 ozone monitor days that

22 The 2010 data is preliminary. Exceptional event data has not been flagged and removed from the reported data.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 108 of 1339 exceeded 84 ppb in 2009 compared to 412 monitor days in 2010. For PM2.5 , there were 251 monitor days that exceeded 35 μg/m3 in 2009 compared to 417 monitor day s in 2010. Even though the SO 2 and NOX emissions were generally lower in 2010, the observed ozone and PM2.5 concentrations were higher. This shows the important influence of meteorology on ambient concentrations. Clearly, the year to year variability du e to meteorology can be large. We acknowledge the downward trend in ambient data over the last few years. But this does not mean that conditions that led to high ozone and/or PM2.5 in the 2003 - 2007 period could not occur again in the future. The 2010 ambient data show that meteorology can cause concentrations to go back up. We also believe that the alternate maintenance methodology presented by the commenter is inappropriate. The EPA modeling for 2012 (and 2014) appropriately accounts for emission reductions that occur after 2005 except for those that should not be considered, as explained in section V.B., because they were required only by the CAIR). Therefore, the starting point design values used to project to the future should not be lowered to ac count for emissions reductions trends that occur after 2005. Doing so would give “double credit” to the more recent emissions reductions and provides an inappropriate downward adjustment to the early design value periods of the 2003 - 2007 period.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 109 of 1339 Comment: One commenter claims that EPA did not follow our own modeling guidance by not doing local scale modeling in urban areas with high PM2.5 concentration gradients. They suggested that the methodology to calculate future year design values should have inclu ded dispersion modeling to calculate the change in concentration over time of primary PM2.5 emissions. Response: EPA modeling guidance for PM2.5 attainment demonstrations recommends photochemical grid modeling to examine future year changes in PM2.5 conc entrations. There are several optional aspects of the modeling which are recommended in specific cases. This includes a recommendation for a “local area analysis” using a dispersion model. An area with relatively large local primary PM2.5 concentration gradients may want to do additional modeling to examine the impacts of local controls on its future year PM2.5 concentrations. This is particularly important when local controls of primary PM2.5 are included as part of the attainment demonstration. As noted above, a “local area analysis” is recommended as part of the local attainment demonstration process in specific situations. It is impractical for EPA to perform this type of analysis for each local area in the regional Transport Rule. National rulemakings are not attainment demonstrations. We are not able to perform fine scale analyses for each area. For the final rule modeling, we have attempted to address all emissions*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 110 of 1339 and modeling related comments. We have updated the modeling platform to use the latest version of CAMx and are continuing to model ozone and PM2.5 at 12km grid resolution, which for PM2.5 is a more refined grid resolution compared to the CAIR modeling. Additionally, there is no evidence presented by the commenter that would indic ate that the future year PM2.5 concentrations from the Transport Rule are biased high. In fact, depending on the circumstances, local fine scale grid or dispersion modeling may result in lower or higher future year design values. In a fine scale analysis , the dominant local primary PM2.5 emissions become a larger percentage of the PM2.5 concentrations. Therefore, if the local emissions are forecast to decrease, fine scale modeling may lead to lower future design values. However, if the local emissions a re forecast to increase or stay the same between the base and future years, local modeling will likely show higher future year design values compared to a regional analysis. This points to the fact that perceived biases in modeling results may not always be correct. In sum, fine scale modeling of local areas may lead to either higher or lower future year design values. There is no indication that EPA’s regional modeling is biased in either direction. EPA’s Transport Rule modeling generally followed EPA ’s modeling guidance and is appropriate for the purpose of this rulemaking.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 111 of 1339 Comment: One commenter submitted a detailed CAMx based modeling analysis with a 2008 base year and future years of 2014 and 2018. The analysis shows that the majority of the prop osed rule 2012 nonattainment and maintenance sites are already attaining based on either 2006 - 2008 or 2007 - 2009 ambient data. Based on this, the commenter claims that air quality has improved more rapidly than predicted by EPA’s proposed rule modeling. Also, based on the commenter ’ s 2014 modeling of CAIR emissions (including utility consent decrees and state programs), the commenter concludes that no additional controls are needed beyond CAIR to bring most or all sites into attainment by 2014. Respons e: As an initial matter, we note that the basic question addressed by the commenter, “whether additional controls beyond CAIR are necessary” is not on point. As explained previously, the D.C. Circuit remanded CAIR to EPA and it remains in place only temp orarily. The question EPA must answer in this rulemaking, therefore, is not what controls in addition to CAIR are necessary but what, if any, restrictions on emissions must be put in place to replace CAIR in order to satisfy the requirements of section 11 0(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the Clean Air Act. For this reason, and as explained in greater detail in section V.B of this preamble, any analysis of whether beyond CAIR controls are necessary is irrelevant to this*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 112 of 1339 rulemaking. Nonetheless, we have carefully reviewed different aspects of the commenter’s analysis. We previously addressed comments related to the use of more recent ambient data to examine future year nonattainment and maintenance receptors. As noted above, the 2006 - 2008 and 2007 - 2009 ambient data is heavily influence d by several factors. Among them are the emissions reductions from CAIR, the relatively low recent observed ozone and PM2.5 concentrations at least partially due to non - conducive meteorology (particularly in 2009), and the atypical suppre ssion of emissions due to the sharp recession. For all of these reasons, we believe it is not possible to directly compare the most recent design values to the predicted future year 2012 and 2014 design values from the Transport Rule. In particular, it i s inappropriate to compare current design values to EPA’s no CAIR 2012 future year modeling results. As noted in the comment summary, the commenter’s modeling analysis assumed that CAIR was in place in both 2008 and the future years. This is a fundamenta lly different assumption than the modeling EPA used to define the Transport Rule nonattainment and maintenance receptors in 2012 and is inappropriate for purposes of the Transport Rule for reasons described above and in section V.B. Additionally, EPA’s maintenance methodology chooses the highest of three base year design value periods projected to the future. The commenter only used a single design value period in*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 113 of 1339 their analysis and therefore did not fully examine maintenance issues. In fact, the 2014 nonattainment modeling receptors in the final Transport Rule and the commenter’s modeling analysis are similar. As documented in Section VI.D., in the 2014 final rule remedy case, there is only one remaining nonattainment area for ozone and one remaining nonattainment area for 24 - h ou r PM2.5 . This is similar to the modeling results presented in the comments 23 . However, EPA modeling identifies additional maintenance receptors in 2012 that continue to have maintenance issues in 2014. EPA also examined o ur ozone and PM2.5 projection procedures to see if there might be additional reasons for the relatively lower current ambient design values (and modeled design values in the commenter’s analysis) compared to the 2014 remedy modeled values. Upon further an alysis of EPA’s 24 - hour attainment test methodology, we noted certain discrepancies between the methodology and the calculation of the ambient 24 - h ou r design values. In the proposed rule 24 - h ou r attainment test, for each PM2.5 monitor, we projected the mea sured 98th percentile concentrations from the 2003 - 2007 period to the future. A basic
23 The purpose of this comparison is to note that the modeling analyses are actually more similar than the commenter implies. However, the Transport Rule differs from the commenter’s modeling due to the assumption that CAIR was in place. CAIR and the Transport Rule differ in state coverage and emission budgets. They are therefore not directly comparable.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 114 of 1339 assumption in this methodology is that the distribution of high measured days in the base period will be the same in the future. For example, if the 98th percentile day is the 3rd high day for the year, this assumes that the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd high days (and subsequent high days) in the future remain in the same basic distribution. Further examination of the proposed rule modeling found that this is not always the case. In situations where there are large summer PM2.5 concentration reductions, some of the high days may switch from the summer in the base period to the winter in the future period. In order to better account for the complicated future response in 24 - h ou r design values, we have updated the 24 - h ou r attainment demonstration methodology to more closely reflect the way 24 - h ou r design values are calculated. In the revised methodology, we do not assume that the temporal distribution of high days in the base and future periods will remain the same. We project a larger set of ambient days from the base period to the future and then re - rank the entire set of days to find the new future 98th percentile value (for each year). More specifically, we project the highest 8 days per quarter (32 days per year) to the future and then re - rank the 32 days to derive the future year 98th percentile concentrations. In the case of the Transport Rule model results, this has the effect of lowering the future year 24 - h ou r design valu es compared to the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 115 of 1339 old methodology. The 2012 base case design values for all nonattainment and maintenance receptors were either unchanged or lower with the revised methodology. 2. How did EPA project future nonattainment and maintenance for annual PM2 .5 , 2 4 - Hour PM2.5 , and 8 - hour ozone? Final Rule: In general, the methodology to project ozone and PM2.5 concentrations to the future year(s) remains the same for the final rule. The proposal modeling followed the modeling guidance procedures for projecti ng ambient design values to future years. For the final rule, we continue to follow the basic procedures outlined in the guidance. The 8 - hour ozone and annual PM2.5 methodology are unchanged from the proposal. However, the 24 - hour PM2.5 methodology has been updated in the final rule to be more consistent with the calculation of 24 - h ou r PM2.5 design values. There were also additional minor updates to the ambient data 24 . The methodology to identify maintenance receptors is also unchanged from the proposal . We continue to use the maximum design value (from the five year base period) to calculate future year maintenance receptors. As noted in the proposal, EPA considers that the maintenance concept has two components: Year - to - year variability in emissions and air quality, and continued maintenance of the

24 The base year design values were updated based on the latest official data. See http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 116 of 1339 air quality standard over time. The way that EPA defined maintenance based on year - to - year variability (as discussed in detail here) directly affects the requirements of this final rule. EPA also considered whether further reductions were necessary to ensure continued lack of interference with maintenance of the NAAQS over time (e.g., after 2014). EPA concluded that in light of projected emission trends, and also considering the emissions reductions from this proposed rule, no further reductions are required solely for this purpose at PM and ozone receptors for which we are partially or fully determining significant contribution for the current NAAQS. (See discussion of emissions trends in Chapter 7 of TSD ent itled ‘‘Emission Inventories,’’ included in the docket for the Transport Rule proposal.) a. Which ambient ozone and PM2.5 data did EPA use for the purpose of projecting future year concentrations? The final rule modeling continues to use a 2005 base case i nventory and 2005 meteorology. Therefore, we continue to use ambient data from the 2003 - 2007 period. For each monitoring site, all valid design values (up to 3) from this period were averaged together. Since 2005 is included in all three design value pe riods, this has the effect of creating a 5 - year weighted average, where the middle year is weighted 3 times, the 2nd and 4th years are weighted twice, and the 1st and 5th years are*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 117 of 1339 weighted once. We refer to this as the 5 - year weighted average value. The 5 - year weighted average values were then projected to the future years that were analyzed for this final rule. The 2003
– 2005, 2004 - 2006, and 2005 - 2007 design values are accessible at www . epa . gov/ airtrends /values . html . The design values have been updated based on the latest official values. The official values have exceptional events removed from the calculat ions if they are flagged by states and concurred with by EPA Regional offices. The procedures for projecting annual average PM2.5 and 8 - hour ozone conform to the methodology in the current attainment demonstration modeling guidance 25 . b. Projection of Fut ure Annual and 24 - Hour PM2.5 Nonattainment and Maintenance (1) Methodology for Projecting Future Annual PM2.5 Nonattainment and Maintenance For the final rule, annual PM2.5 modeling was performed for the 2005 base year emissions and for the 2012 base case as part of the approach for projecting which locations are expected to be in nonattainment and/or have difficulty maintaining the PM2.5

25 U.S. EPA, 2007: Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5 , and Regional Haze; Office of Air Quality Plannin g and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1 18 of 1339 standards in 2012. We refer to these areas as nonattainment sites and maintenance sites respectively. Concentrations o f PM2.5 in 2012 were estimated by applying the modeled 2005 - to - 2012 relative change in PM2.5 species to each of the 3 - year ambient monitoring data periods (i.e., 2003 - 2005, 2004 - 2006, and 200 5 - 2007) to obtain up to three future - year PM2.5 design values for each receptor. We used the highest of these projections at each receptor to determine which sites are expected to have maintenance problems in 2012. We used the five year weighted average of those projections to determine which monitoring sites are expe cted to be nonattainment in this future year. For the analysis of both nonattainment and maintenance, monitoring sites were included in the analysis if they had at least one complete design value in the 2003 - 2007 period. 26 There were 721 monitoring sites in the 12 km modeling domain which had at least one complete design value period for the annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and 722 sites which met this criteri on for the 24 - hour NAAQS 27 .

26 If there is only one complete design value, then the nonattainment and maintenance design values are the same. 27 Design values were only used if they were deemed to be officially complete based on CFR 40 Part 50 Appendix N. The completeness criteria for the annual and 24 - hour PM2.5 NAAQS are different. Therefore, there are fewer complete sites for the annual NAAQS.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 119 of 1339 EPA followed the procedures recommended in the modeling guidance for projecting PM2 .5 by projecting individual PM2.5 component species and then summing these to calculate the concentration of total PM2.5 . EPA’s Modeled Attainment Test Software (MATS) was used to calculate the future year design values. The software (including documenta tion) is available at: http ://www . epa . gov/ scram001/modelingapps

_ mats . htm . Additional details on the annual PM2.5 nonattainment and maintenance receptor methodology can be found in the Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document. The 2012 annual PM2.5 design values were calculated for each of the 721 sites. The calculated annual PM2.5 design values are truncated after the second decimal place 28 . This is consistent with the ambient monitoring data truncation and rounding procedures for the annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Any value that is greater than or equal to 15.05 μg/m3 is rounded to 15.1 μg/m3 and is considered to be violating the NAAQS. Thus, sites with projected 5 - year weighted average (“average”) annual PM2.5 design values of 15.05 μg/m3 or greater are p redicted to be nonattainment sites. Sites with projected maximum design values of 15.05 μg/m3 or greater are predicted to be maintenance sites. Note that nonattainment sites are also maintenance sites because 28 For example, a calculated annual average concentration of 14.94753... becomes 14.94 when digits beyond two places to the right of the decimal are truncated.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 120 of 1339 the maximum design value is always greater th an or equal to the 5 - year weighted average. For ease of reference we use the term “nonattainment sites” to refer to those sites that are projected to exceed the NAAQS based on both the average and maximum design values. Those sites that are projected to be attainment based on the average design value but exceed the NAAQS based on the maximum design value are referred to as maintenance sites. The monitoring sites that we project to be nonattainment and/or maintenance for the annual PM2.5 NAAQS in the 2012 base case are the nonattainment/maintenance receptors used for assessing the contribution of emissions in upwind states to downwind nonattainment and maintenance of the annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Table V.C - 1 contains the 2003 - 2007 base case period average and maximum annual PM2.5 design values and the corresponding 2012 base case average and maximum design values for sites projected to be nonattainment of the annual PM2.5 NAAQS in 2012. Table V.C - 2 contains this same information for projected 2012 maintenance si tes. Table V.C - 1. Average and Maximum 2003 - 2007 and 2012 Base Case Annual PM2.5 Design Values (μg/m3 ) at Projected Nonattainment Sites Monitor ID State County Average Design Value 2003 - 2007 Maximum

Design Value 2003 - 2007 Final

Rule Average Design Value 2012 Final

Rule Maximum Design Value 2012*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 121 of 1339 010730023 Alabama Jefferson 18.57 18.94 16.15 16.46 010732003 Alabama Jefferson 17.15 17.69 15.16 15.64 131210039 Georgia Fulton 17.43 17.47 15.07 15.10 171191007 Illinois Madison 16.72 17.01 15.46 15.7 3 261630033 Michigan Wayne 17.50 18.16 15.73 16.32 390350038 Ohio Cuyahoga 17.37 18.10 15.99 16.66 390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 16.47 16.98 15.14 15.61 390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 17.11 17.66 15.67 16.18 390610014 Ohio Hamilton 17.29 17.53 15.76 15.98 3906100 42 Ohio Hamilton 16.85 17.25 15.40 15.77 390618001 Ohio Hamilton 17.54 17.90 16.01 16.33 420030064 Pennsylvania Allegheny 20.31 20.75 17.94 18.33

Table V.C - 2. Average and Maximum 2003 - 2007 and 2012 Base Case Annual PM2.5 Design Values (μg/m3 ) at Projected Maintenance -Only Sites Monitor ID State County Average Design Value 2003 - 2007 Maximum

Design Value 2003 - 2007 Final

Rule Average Design Value 2012 Final

Rule Maximum Design Value 2012 180970081 Indiana Marion 16.05 16.36 14.86 15.16 180970083 I ndiana Marion 15.90 16.27 14.71 15.06 390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.97 16.44 14.67 15.10 390617001 Ohio Hamilton 16.17 16.56 14.74 15.10 (2) Methodology for Projecting Future 24 - Hour PM2.5 Nonattainment and Maintenance*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 122 of 1339 The procedures for calculating the future year 24 - hour PM2.5 design values have been updated for the final rule 29 . The revised procedures are in response to comments which noted relatively high future year 24 - h ou r PM2.5 design values in EPA’s modeling of the proposed Transport Rule. The updates are intended to make the projection methodology more consistent with the procedures for calculating ambient design values. As noted above, for the proposed Transport Rule EPA projected for each PM2.5 monitor the measured 98th percentile concentrat ions from the 2003 - 2007 period to the future. As an additional check, we also projected the next highest concentrations from the three calendar quarters in each year when the 98th percentile did not occur in the 2003 - 2007 base period, to ensure that the future year 98th percentile did not switch seasons in the future year compared to the base year. A basic assumption in this methodology is that the distribution of high measured days in the base period will be the same in the future. In other words, EPA as sumed at proposal that the 98th percentile day could only be displaced “from below” in the instance that a different day’s future concentration exceeded the original 98th -percentile day’s future concentration. In

29 There were no updates to the ozone and annual PM2.5 attainment test methodology.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 123 of 1339 that case, the original 98th -percentile da y may become the 97th or 96th -percentile day in the future year; EPA accounted for this possibility at proposal. EPA did not, however, consider that the 98th -percentile day could also be displaced “from above” in the instance that higher - concentration da ys in the base period were projected to have future concentrations lower than the original 98th -percentile day’s future concentration. In that case, the original 98th -percentile day may become the 99th - or 100th percentile day. Because EPA continued to us e that day’s future concentration to determine the monitor’s future design value at proposal, this sometimes resulted in overstatement of future - year design values for 24 - hour PM2.5 at receptors whose seasonal distribution of highest - concentration 24 - hour PM2.5 days changed between the 2003 - 2007 period and the future year modeling. Examination of the proposed rule remedy modeling (2014 remedy case) showed that many of the highest PM2.5 days switched from the summer in the base period to the winter in the future period. This is especially true in areas of the upper Midwest which experience both high summer and winter PM2.5 episodes. In the revised methodology, we do not assume that the seasonal distribution of high days in the base period years and future years will remain the same. We project a larger set of ambient days from the base period to the future and then re - rank*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 124 of 1339 the entire set of days to find the new future 98th percentile value (for each year). More specifically, we project the highest 8 days p er quarter (32 days per year) to the future and then re - rank the 32 days to derive the future year 98th percentile concentrations. In the case of the Transport Rule model results, this has the effect of lowering the future year 24 - h ou r design values compa red to the old methodology. The modeling guidance recommendations for state attainment demonstrations have been updated to reflect the changes outlined above. Further details on the 24 - h ou r PM2.5 design value calculations can be found in the Air Qua lity Modeling Technical Support Document. The above procedures for determining future year 24 - hour PM2.5 concentrations were applied for each site. The 24 - hour PM2.5 design values are truncated after the first decimal place. This approach is consistent w ith the ambient data truncation and rounding procedures for the 24 - hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Any value that is greater than or equal to 35.5 μg/m3 is rounded to 36 μg/m3 and is violating the NAAQS. Sites with future year 5 year weighted average design values of 35.5 μg/m3 or greater, based on the projection of 5 - year weighted average concentrations, are predicted to be nonattainment. Sites with future year maximum design values of 35.5 μg/m3 or greater are predicted to be maintenance sites. Note that nonattainment sites for the 24 - hour NAAQS are also maintenance sites because*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 125 of 1339 the maximum design value is always greater than or equal to the 5 - year weighted average. The monitoring sites that we project to be nonattainment and/or maintenance for the 24
- hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the 2012 base case are the nonattainment/maintenance receptors used for assessing the contribution of emissions in upwind states to downwind nonattainment and maintenance of 24 - hour PM2.5 NAAQS as part of this final rule. Table V.C - 3 contains the 2 003 - 2007 base period average and maximum 24 - hour PM2.5 design values and the 2012 base case average and maximum design values for sites projected to be 2012 nonattainment of the 24 - hour PM2.5 NAAQS in 2012. Table V.C - 4 contains this same information for p rojected 2012 24 - hour maintenance sites. Table V.C - 3. Average and Maximum 2003 - 2007 and 2012 Base Case 24 -Hour PM2.5 Design Values (μg/m3 ) at Projected Nonattainment Sites Monitor ID State County Average Design Value 2003 - 2007 Maximum

Design Value 2003 - 2007 Final

Rule Average Design Value 2012 Final

Rule Maximum Design Value 2012 010730023 Alabama Jefferson 44.0 44.2 36.9 37.3 170311016 Illinois Cook 43.0 46.3 37.5 40.4 171191007 Illinois Madison 39.1 40.1 36.5 36.8 180970043 Indiana Marion 38.4 39. 9 35.7 37.1 180970066 Indiana Marion 38.3 39.6 35.7 36.9*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 126 of 1339 180970081 Indiana Marion 38.2 39.2 35.8 36.9 261470005 Michigan St Clair 39.6 40.6 36.2 37.1 261630015 Michigan Wayne 40.1 40.6 35.5 36.0 261630016 Michigan Wayne 42.9 45.4 38.9 41.2 261630019 Michigan Wayne 40.9 41.4 37.3 37.8 261630033 Michigan Wayne 43.8 44.2 39.4 39.8 390350038 Ohio Cuyahoga 44.2 47.0 39.4 41.8 390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 42.1 45.7 37.7 40.8 420030064 Pennsylvania Allegheny 64.2 68.2 56.7 59.9 420030093 Pennsylvania Alleghe ny 45.6 51.5 39.1 44.3 420030116 Pennsylvania Allegheny 42.5 42.5 35.5 35.5 420070014 Pennsylvania Beaver 43.4 44.6 36.2 37.4 420710007 Pennsylvania Lancaster 40.8 44.0 35.9 38.3
540090011 West

Virginia Brooke 43.9 44.9 37.5 38.3 550790043 Wisconsin Milwaukee 39.9 40.8 36.2 37.1
Table V.C - 4. Average and Maximum 2003 - 2007 and 2012 Base Case 24 -Hour PM2.5 Design Values (μg/m3 ) at Projected Maintenance -Only Sites

Monitor ID State County Average Design Value 2003 - 2007 Maximum

Design Value 2003 - 2007 Final

Rule Average Design Value 2012 Final

Rule Maximum Design Value 2012 010732003 Alabama Jefferson 40.3 40.8 35.3 35.9 170310052 Illinois Cook 40.2 41.4 34.9 36.0 170312001 Illinois Cook 37.7 40.6 33.6 36.1 170313301 Illinois Cook 40.2 43.3 34.9 37.6*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 127 of 1339 170316005 Illinois Cook 39.1 41.8 34.1 36.4 171190023 Illinois Madison 37.3 38.1 35.1 35.8 180890022 Indiana Lake 38.9 44.0 34.9 39.5 180890026 Indiana Lake 38.4 41.3 34.0 37.0 261610008 Michigan Washtenaw 39.4 40.8 35.0 36.3 390170003 Ohio Butler 3 9.2 41.1 34.4 36.5 390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 38.5 41.5 34.7 38.1 390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 38.6 41.0 34.9 37.6 390618001 Ohio Hamilton 40.6 40.9 35.2 35.8 390811001 Ohio Jefferson 41.9 45.5 34.5 37.8 391130032 Ohio Montgomery 37.8 40.0 33.6 35.6 42003100 8 Pennsylvania Allegheny 41.3 42.8 35.0 36.3 420031301 Pennsylvania Allegheny 40.3 42.4 33.9 35.6 420033007 Pennsylvania Allegheny 37.5 43.1 32.3 37.3 421330008 Pennsylvania York 38.2 40.7 33.3 36.0 550790010 Wisconsin Milwaukee 38.6 40.0 35.4 36.7 55 0790026 Wisconsin Milwaukee 37.3 41.3 33.6 37.2 (3) Methodology for Projecting Future 8 - Hour Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance The final rule methodology to calculate 8 - h ou r ozone nonattainment and maintenance receptors is identical to the proposed rule. The May - to - September 24 - hour maximum 8 - h ou r average concentrations from the 2005 base case and the 2012 base case were used to project ambient design values to 2012. The following is a brief summary of the future year 8 - hour average*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 128 of 1339 ozone calculati ons. Additional details are provided in the Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document. We are using the base period 2003 - 2007 ambient ozone design value data for projecting future year design values. Relative response factors (RRF) for each monit oring site were calculated as the percent change in ozone on days with modeled ozone greater than 85 ppb 30 . The maximum future design value is calculated by projecting design values for each of the three base periods (2003 - 2005, 2004 - 2006, and 2005 - 2007) s eparately. The highest of the three future values is the maximum design value. This maximum value is used to identify the 8 - hour ozone maintenance receptors. The future year design values are truncated to integers in units of ppb. This approach is consi stent with the ambient data truncation and rounding procedures for the 8 - hour ozone NAAQS. Future year design values that are greater than or equal to 85 ppb are considered to be violating the NAAQS. Sites with future year 5 - year weighted average design values of 85 ppb or greater are predicted to be nonattainment. Sites with future year maximum design values of 85 ppb or greater are predicted to be

30 As specified in the attainment demonstration modeling guidance, if there are less than 10 modeled days > 85 ppb, then the threshold is lowered in 1 ppb increments (to as low as 70 ppb) until there are 10 days. If there are less than 5 days > 70 ppb, then an RRF calculation is not completed for that site.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 129 of 1339 future year maintenance sites. Note that, as described previously for the annual and 24 - hour PM2.5 NAAQS, nonattainment sites for the ozone NAAQS are also maintenance sites because the maximum design value is always greater than or equal to the 5 - year weighted average. The monitoring sites that we project to be nonattainment and/or maintenance for the 8
- h ou r ozone NAAQS in the 2012 base case are the nonattainment/maintenance receptors used for assessing the contribution of emissions in upwind states to downwind nonattainment and maintenance of ozone NAAQS. Table V.C - 5 contains the 2003 - 2007 base period average and maximum 8 - hour ozone design values and the 2012 base case average and maximum design values for sites projected to be 2012 nonattainment of the 8 - hour ozone NAAQS in 2012. Table V.C - 6 contains this same information for projected 2012 8 - hour ozone mai ntenance sites. Table V.C - 5. Average and Maximum 2003 - 2007 and 2012 Base Case 8 -Hour Ozone Design Values (ppb) at Projected Nonattainment Sites Monitor ID State County Average Design Value 2003 - 2007 Maximum

Design Value 2003 - 2007 Final

Rule Average Design Value 2012 Final

Rule Maximum Design Value 2012
220330003 Louisiana East Baton Rouge 92.0 96 85.6 89.3 480391004 Texas Brazoria 94.7 97 86.7 88.8*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 130 of 1339 482010051 Texas Harris 93.0 98 86.1 90.8 482010055 Texas Harris 100.7 103 93.3 95.4 482010062 Texas Harr is 95.7 99 88.8 91.8 482010066 Texas Harris 92.3 96 87.1 90.6 482011039 Texas Harris 96.3 100 88.8 92.2
Table V.C - 6. Average and Maximum 2003 - 2007 and 2012 Base Case 8 -Hour Ozone Design Values (ppb) at Projected Maintenance -Only Sites Monitor ID State County Average Design Value 2003 - 2007 Maximum

Design Value 2003 - 2007 Average

Design Value 2012 Maximum

Design Value 2012 090011123 Connecticut Fairfield 92.3 94 83.9 85.5 090093002 Connecticut New Haven 90.3 93 82.7 85.1 240251001 Maryland Harford 92 .7 94 84.4 85.6 260050003 Michigan Allegan 90.0 93 82.4 85.1 482010024 Texas Harris 88.0 92 83.4 87.2 482010029 Texas Harris 91.7 93 84.2 85.4 482011015 Texas Harris 89.0 96 82.4 88.9 482011035 Texas Harris 86.3 95 79.9 88.0 482011050 Texas Harris 89 .3 92 82.8 85.4 D. Pollution Transport from Upwind States 1. Choice of Air Quality Thresholds a. Thresholds In this action, EPA uses air quality thresholds to identify linkages between upwind states and downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors. States whose contributions to a specific*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 131 of 1339 receptor meet or exceed the thresholds identified are considered linked to that receptor; those states’ emissions (and available emission reductions) are analyzed further in the second step of EPA’s significant co ntribution analysis. States whose contributions are below the thresholds are not included in the Transport Rule for that NAAQS. In other words, we are finding that states whose contributions are below these thresholds do not significantly contribute to n onattainment or interfere with maintenance of the relevant NAAQS. We use separate air quality thresholds for annual PM2.5 , 24 - hour PM2.5 , and 8 - hour ozone. Each air quality threshold is calculated as 1 percent of the NAAQS. Specifically, we use an air qu ality threshold of 0.15 μg/m3 for annual PM2.5 , 0.35 μg/m3 for 24 - hour PM2.5 , and 0.8 ppb for 8 - hour ozone. These are the same air quality thresholds we proposed. EPA received a number of comments on the threshold we proposed, and those comments and EPA’s responses are discussed below. b. General c omments on the overall stringency and use of 1 percent of the NAAQS. EPA received numerous comments supporting and opposing the proposed thresholds. A number of commenters cited support for EPA’s approach. Some commenters believed that use of a 1 percent threshold was too stringent, and recommended that EPA*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 132 of 1339 should use a threshold greater than 1 percent. Others believed that 1 percent was not stringent enough, and they recommended using a lower value such as 0. 5 percent. EPA believes that for both PM2.5 and for ozone, it is appropriate to use a threshold of 1 percent of the NAAQS for identifying states whose contributions do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the rel evant NAAQS; therefore, EPA has retained the 1 percent threshold for the reasons described below. As we found at the time of CAIR, EPA’s analysis of base case PM2.5 transport shows that, in general, PM2.5 nonattainment problems result from the combined imp act of relatively small contributions from many upwind states, along with contributions from in - state sources and, in some cases, substantially larger contributions from a subset of particular upwind states. (See section II of the January 2004 CAIR propos al, 69 FR 4575 - 87). In the 1998 NOX SIP Call (63 FR 57456, October 27, 1998) and in CAIR, EPA also found important contributions from multiple upwind states. As a result of the upwind “collective contributions,” EPA determined that it is appropriate to u se a low air quality threshold when analyzing upwind states’ contributions to downwind states’ attainment and maintenance problems for ozone as well as PM2.5 .*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 133 of 1339 Low threshold values are also warranted, as EPA discussed in the notices for CAIR, due to adver se health impacts associated with ambient PM2.5 and ozone even at low concentrations (See relevant portions of the CAIR proposal notice (63 FR 4583 - 84) and the CAIR final rule notice (70 FR 25189 - 25192)). To aid in responding to comments, EPA has compiled the contribution modeling results to analyze the impact of different possible thresholds. This analysis demonstrates the reasonableness of using the 1 percent threshold to account for the combined impact of relatively small contributions from many upwind states (See Air Quality Modeling TSD). In this analysis, EPA identifies for annual PM2.5 (sulfate and nitrate), 24 - hour PM2.5 (sulfate and nitrate), and 8 - hour ozone receptors : (1) total upwind state contributions, and (2) the amount of the total upwind state contribution that is captured at thresholds of 1 percent, 5 percent and 0.5 percent of the NAAQS. EPA continues to find that the total “collective contribution” from upwind sources represents a large portion of PM2.5 and ozone at downwind locations and that the total amount of transport is composed of the individual contribution from numerous upwind States. The analysis shows that the 1 percent threshold captures a high percentage of the total pollution transport affecting*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 134 of 1339 downwind states for both PM2.5 and ozone. In response to commenters who advocated a higher threshold, EPA observes that higher thresholds would exclude increasingly large percentages of total transport, which we do not believe would be appropriate. For example, a 5 percent thresh old would exclude the majority

– and for annual PM, more than 80 percent -- of interstate pollution transport affecting the downwind state receptors analyzed (based on the average percentage of total interstate transport across all receptors captured at th e 5 percent threshold). In response to commenters who advocated a lower threshold, EPA observes that the analysis shows that a lower threshold such as 0.5 percent would result in relatively modest increases in the overall percentages of PM2.5 and ozone pol lution transport captured relative to the amounts captured at the 1 percent level . A 0.5 percent threshold could lead to emission reduction responsibilities in additional states that individually have a very small impact on those receptors

– an indicator that emission controls in those states are likely to have a smaller air quality impact at the downwind receptor. We are not convinced that selecting a threshold below 1 percent is necessary or desirable. A strong indication that the amount of pollution t ransport being excluded from consideration is not excessive is that the controls required under this rule are*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 135 of 1339 projected to eliminate nonattainment and maintenance problems with air quality standards at most downwind state receptors. C onsidering the combine d downwind impact of multiple upwind states, the health effects of low levels of PM2.5 and ozone pollution, and EPA ’ s previous use of a 1 percent threshold for PM2.5 in CAIR, EPA ’ s judgment is that the 1 percent threshold is a reasonable choice .

Some c ommenters noted that the PM2.5 thresholds used for this rule are less than the “significant impact levels” (SILs) used for permitting programs. As EPA stated at the time of CAIR, since the thresholds referred to by the commenters serve different purposes than the CAIR threshold for significant contribution, it does not follow that they should be made equivalent (70 FR 25101; May 12, 2005). c. Comments on the rounding conventions for PM2.5 . In the final Transport Rule, EPA is using two - digit values for the PM2.5 thresholds. Some commenters suggested that EPA should use the same rounding convention for annual PM2.5 used in CAIR; that is, the threshold should be 0.2 μg/m3 rather than 0.15 μg/m3 . The reasons for EPA’s decision are below. The rationale for the single digit value for the final CAIR rule was that a single digit is consistent with the EPA monitoring data reporting requirements in Part 50, Appendix N, section 4.3. These reporting requirements specify that design*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 136 of 1339 values for the annual PM2.5 stan dard shall be rounded to the tenths place (decimals 0.05 and greater are rounded up to the next 0.1, and any decimal lower than 0.05 is rounded down to the nearest 0.1). Because the design value is to be reported only to the nearest 0.1 μg/m3 , EPA deemed i t preferable for the final CAIR to select the threshold value at the nearest 0.1 μg/m3 as well, and hence one percent of the 15 μg/m3 , rounded to the nearest 0.1 μg/m3 became 0.2 μg/m3 . The reporting requirements in section Part 50, Appendix N, section 4.3 for the 24 - hour PM2.5 standard state that design values for this standard shall be rounded to the nearest 1 μg/m3 (decimals 0.5 and greater are rounded up to the nearest whole number, and any decimal lower than 0.5 is rounded down to the nearest whole number). If the approach used in CAIR were to be used to establish an air quality threshold for the 24 - hour PM2.5 NAAQS (which CAIR did not address), the resulting threshold would be zero. One percent of the 24 - hour standard is 0.35 μg/m3 , and rounding to the nearest whole number would yield an air quality threshold of zero. Thus if we were to apply the same rationale used to develop the annual PM2.5 threshold for the final CAIR, there would be no air quality threshold for 24 - hour PM2.5 , which EPA*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 137 of 1339 believes t o be counter - intuitive and unworkable as an approach for assessing interstate contributions. Therefore, for this rule, EPA proposed and is now finalizing a approach that decouples the precision of the air quality thresholds from the monitoring reporting re quirements, and uses 2 - digit values representing one percent of the PM2.5 NAAQS; that is, 0.15 μg/m3 for the annual standard, and 0.35 μg/m3 for the 24 - hour standard. EPA believes there are a number of considerations favoring this approach. First, it provides for a consistent approach for the annual and 24 - hour standards. Second, the approach is readily applicable to any current and future NAAQS and would automatically adjust the stringency of the transport threshold to maintain a constant relationship w ith the stringency of the relevant NAAQS as they are revised. The CAIR approach would not allow for this continuity: for example, if EPA were to retain the CAIR approach for the annual standard, any future lowering of the PM2.5 NAAQS to below 15 μg/m3 wou ld reduce the air quality threshold to the same outcome: 0.1 μg/m3 . This would occur because any value less than 0.15 μg/m3 would round to 0.1 μg/m3 (assuming EPA would not round down to zero for the reasons described above), which means that the air qua lity threshold would have a different relative stringency to each possible future NAAQS value. For the above reasons, EPA believes the use of two - digit thresholds for both annual PM2.5 and 24 - hour*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 138 of 1339 PM2.5 in the final rule is both reasonable and appropriate. The departure from the approach used for annual PM2.5 in CAIR is appropriate given the additional considerations that were not in existence at the time of the final CAIR, and the importance of using a consistent approach to developing air quality thresho lds for all NAAQS addressed by this rule as well as future NAAQS considered in future transport - related actions. Some of these commenters suggested using the CAIR rounding conventions coupled with use of a 1 - digit threshold of 0.4 μg/m3 for 24 - hour PM2.5 . EPA considered the approach suggested by commenters, but determined that the proposed approach is more appropriate. First, adhering to the rounding conventions used for CAIR for annual PM2.5 is not workable for the 24 - hour standard because the rounding c onvention would yield a threshold of zero. Rounding alternatively to 0.4 μg/m3 would require EPA to find a basis for rounding the threshold to the nearest 0.1 μg/m3 instead of using a strict application of 1 percent; we do not see any basis for such rounding at this time. d. Comments related to the multi - factor test EPA used for ozone in CAIR . Some commenters suggested that, for ozone, EPA should use the multiple -metric test we used for CAIR, and not a simple threshold based on 1 percent of the NAAQS. Wit h respect to ozone, EPA proposed in the Transport Rule to take a more*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 139 of 1339 straightforward approach to air quality thresholds than the multi - factor approaches used for the NOX SIP Call and the CAIR. As proposed, EPA is using a contribution metric that is calcu lated based on the multi - day average contribution. This metric is compared to one percent of the 1997 8 - hour ozone standard of 0.08 ppm. Under this approach, one percent of the NAAQS is a value of 0.8 ppb. Contributions of 0.8 ppb and higher are above the threshold; ozone contributions less than 0.8 ppb are below the threshold. In past rulemakings (e.g., CAIR) EPA used multiple ozone metrics, including the average contribution and maximum single day contribution to downwind nonattainment. EPA believes the average contribution (calculated over multiple high ozone days) is a robust metric compared to the maximum contribution on a single day. EPA believes that this approach is preferable because it uses a robust metric, it is consistent with the approach for PM2.5 , and because it provides for a consistent approach that takes into account, and is applicable to any future ozone standards below 0.08 ppm. One of these commenters suggested that the 0.8 ppb threshold value was substantially more stringent than t he 2 ppb screening test which was a part of the approach used for CAIR. The 1 percent threshold (0.8 ppb) is not substantially more stringent than the previous 2 ppb test because of differences in*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 140 of 1339 the metrics used to evaluate contributions against these two levels. The 2 ppb test was evaluated using the highest single day absolute model -predicted downwind contribution from an upwind state. The 1 percent threshold is evaluated based on the average relative downwind impact calculated over multiple days. Therefore, it is appropriate to set a lower concentration threshold for use with the average contribution metric calculated for the Transport Rule. More details on the calculation of the contribution metric can be found in the Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document. As noted above, EPA believes that the approach used for the proposed rule provides for a simplified, yet robust approach compared to CAIR. Accordingly, for the final rule we have retained the approach used for the proposal. One comment er suggested that EPA retain the CAIR multiple factor approach for ozone, and to apply that same approach to 24 - hour PM2.5 . As noted above, EPA is not retaining this approach for ozone, and for similar reasons we believe a multi factor approach is not nee ded for 24 - hour PM2.5 . The approach based on 1 percent of the NAAQS is consistent with the form of the 24 - hour standard. In addition, this approach is based on contributions on days with high 24 - hour PM2.5 predictions and therefore is relevant for charact erizing transport during short term high PM2.5 episodic conditions.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 141 of 1339 e. Comments on the relationship to measurement precision. Other commenters suggested that, as did commenters on the thresholds used in CAIR, EPA should take into consideration the measurement precision of existing PM2.5 monitors in setting the thresholds for the Transport Rule. EPA disagrees that monitoring precision is relevant to determining the amount of modeled PM2.5 or ozone that should be considered to be a “contribution” from upwind states since states are not required to, nor would it be possible for them to, measure their individual state impacts on downwind receptors. The approach for eliminating significant contribution is based on the implementation of enforceable emissions budgets and not on a measurement of ambient air quality. Thus, EPA believes it is a reasonable exercise of its discretion to de - couple monitoring precision from the choice of contribution states. f. Comments related to the CAIR court decision. Commenters recommended that EPA should have retained the criteria used for CAIR because those values were upheld by the Court. As noted above, EPA could not have used the approach for annual PM2.5 that was used in CAIR to develop a 24 - hour PM2.5 threshold, as that approach would have yielded a threshold value of zero 24 - hour PM2.5 . Further, nothing in the North Carolina opinion suggests that the thresholds and methods used in CAIR were the only*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 142 of 1339 pos s ible approaches EPA could have used, that they were preferab le to other approaches, or that other alternatives would not be acceptable. Instead, the court upheld the 0.2 μg/m3 threshold used for PM2.5 on the grounds that it was not “wholly unsupported by the record” ( North Carolina , 531 F.3d at 915). EPA has dete rmined for reasons explained in the record that the thresholds used in this final rule are both reasonable and appropriate for use in this final rule. 2 . Approach for Identifying Contributing Upwind States This section documents the procedures used by EPA to quantify the contribution of emissions in specific upwind states to air quality concentrations in projected 2012 downwind nonattainment and maintenance locations for annual PM2.5 , 24 - hour PM2.5 , and 8 - hour ozone. In the proposed rule EPA used CAMx pho tochemical source apportionment modeling to quantify the impact of emissions in specific upwind states on projected downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors for both PM2.5 and 8 - hour ozone. In this modeling we tracked the ozone and PM2.5 formed fr om 2012 base case emissions from anthropogenic sources in each upwind state in the 12 km modeling domain. The CAMx Particulate Source Apportionment Technique (PSAT) was used to calculate downwind contributions to nonattainment and maintenance of PM2.5 . I n the PSAT simulation NOX emissions are tracked to particulate nitrate concentrations, SO 2 emissions are*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 143 of 1339 tracked to particulate sulfate concentrations, and primary particulates (organic carbon, elemental carbon, and other PM2.5 ) are tracked as primary part iculates. As described earlier in section V.A., the nitrate and sulfate contributions were combined and used to evaluate interstate contributions of PM2.5 . The CAMx Ozone Source Apportionment Technique (OSAT) was used to calculate downwind 8 - hour ozone co ntributions to nonattainment and maintenance. OSAT tracks the formation of ozone from NOX and VOC emissions. Comment: Three commenters stated that the CAMx source apportionment techniques used for the proposed rule reflect state - of - the science technologi es and are appropriate for evaluating interstate transport. One commenter asked that EPA do more to demonstrate that the PSAT and OSAT techniques give reliable answers, although no suggestions were provided on how this might be done. Another commenter sa id that the results of the contribution analyses were consistent with the results of their scientific research. Response: EPA is not changing its conclusion that the CAMx source apportionment techniques are appropriate for quantifying interstate transpor t. The strength of the source apportionment technique is that all modeled ozone and/or PM2.5 mass at a given receptor location in the modeling domain is tracked back to specific sources of emissions and boundary conditions to fully*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 144 of 1339 characterize culpable s ources. No commenters provided technically valid analyses indicating that EPA’s use of CAMx source apportionment techniques are inappropriate for the purposes of the Transport Rule. Comment: We received comments that certain states included in the propos ed rule should be excluded from the final rule because EPA had overstated the 2012 emissions in these states. Commenter requested that we redo the contribution modelin g using 2012 base case emission inventories that are revised based on proposed rule comme nts. Several commenters also asked that EPA update the contribution modeling analyses using the latest version of CAMx. Response: In response to these comments, we have rerun our source apportionment modeling for PM2.5 and ozone for the 2012 base case using the updated emission inventories described above in section V.C.2 and the latest version of CAMx, version 5.30. The states EPA analyzed for interstate contributions for ozone and for PM2.5 for the final rule are: Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland 31 ,

31 As in the proposal, EPA has combined the contributions f rom Maryland and the District of Columbia as a single entity in our contribution analysis for the final rule. EPA believes that this is a fair representation of emissions for transport analysis because of the small size of the District of Columbia and its close proximity to Maryland. However, the District of Columbia is not included in the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 145 of 1339 Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin . 32 These are the same states that EPA analyzed for the proposed rule. For the proposed rule, we used a relative approach for calculating the contributions to downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors from the outputs of the source apportionment modeling. As part of this approach, the source apportionment predictions are combined with measurement -based concentrations to calculate the c ontributions from each state to nonattainment and/or maintenance receptors. This is similar to the approach used to calculate future year design values, as described in section V.C.1. Comment: One commenter said that using the source apportionment modeli ng predictions in a relative sense strengthens the determination of contributions and addresses an important source of uncertainty. There were no comments that suggested an alternative approach. Transport Rule due to the significant contribution analysis findings in section VI.D. 32 There were also several other states that are only partially contained within the 12 km modeling domain (i.e., Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, and Wyoming). However, EPA did not individually track the emissions or assess the contribution from emissions in these states.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 146 of 1339 Response: For the final Transport Rule we are applying the relative approach developed for the proposed rule to calculate contributions from each state to downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors. As noted above, for the final rule we modeled the updated 2012 base case emissions using CAMx v5.30 to determi ne the contributions from emissions in upwind states to nonattainment and maintenance sites in downwind states. Contributions to nonattainment and maintenance receptors are evaluated independently for each state to determine if the contributions are above the threshold criteria. For each upwind state, the maximum contribution to nonattainment is calculated based on the single largest contribution to a future year (2012) downwind nonattainment receptor. The maximum contribution to maintenance is calculate d based on the single largest contribution to a future year (2012) downwind maintenance receptor. Since the contributions are calculated independently for each receptor, the upwind contribution to maintenance can sometimes be larger than the contribution to nonattainment, and vice versa. This also means that maximum contributions to nonattainment can be below the threshold while maximum contributions to maintenance may be at or above the threshold, or vice versa.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 147 of 1339 V.D.2.a. Estimated interstate contribution s to annual PM2.5 and 24 - hour PM2.5 In this section, we present the interstate contributions from emissions in upwind states to downwind nonattainment and maintenance sites for the annual PM2.5 NAAQS and the 24 - hour PM2.5 NAAQS based on modeling updated f or the final rule. As described previously in section V.D.1., states which contribute 0.15 μg/m3 or more to annual PM2.5 nonattainment or maintenance in another state are identified as states with contributions large enough to warrant further analysis. F or 24 - hour PM2.5 , states which contribute 0.35 μg/m3 or more to 24 - hour PM2.5 nonattainment or maintenance in another state are identified as states with contributions to downwind attainment and maintenance sites large enough to warrant further analysis. For annual PM2.5 , we calculated each state’s contribution to each of the 12 monitoring sites that are projected to be nonattainment and each of the 4 sites that are projected to have maintenance problems for the annual PM2.5 NAAQS in the 2012 base case. A detailed description of the calculations can be found in the Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document. The largest contribution from each state to annual PM2.5 nonattainment in downwind sites is provided in Table V.D - 1. The largest contributio n from each state to annual PM2.5 maintenance in downwind sites is also provided in Table V.D - 1. The*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 148 of 1339 contributions from each state to all projected 2012 nonattainment and maintenance sites for the annual PM2.5 NAAQS are provided in the Air Quality Modelin g Technical Support Document. Table V.D - 1 . Largest Contribution to Downwind Annual PM2.5 (μg/m3 )

Nonattainment and Maintenance for Each of 37 States
Upwind State Largest Downwind Contribution to Nonattainment for Annual PM2.5 ( μg/m3 ) Largest Downwind Contr ibution to Maintenance for Annual PM2.5 ( μg/m3 ) Alabama 0.51 0.19 Arkansas 0.10 0.04 Connecticut 0.00 0.00 Delaware 0.00 0.00 Florida 0.08 0.01 Georgia 0.46 0.13 Illinois 0.50 0.65 Indiana 1.34 1.27 Iowa 0.26 0.14 Kansas 0.09 0.04 Kent ucky 0.94 0.81 Louisiana 0.09 0.03 Maine 0.00 0.00 Maryland 0.15 0.06 Massachusetts 0.00 0.00 Michigan 0.64 0.64 Minnesota 0.14 0.09 Mississippi 0.05 0.01 Missouri 1.22 0.27 Nebraska 0.06 0.03 New Hampshire 0.00 0.00 New Jersey 0. 02 0.01 New York 0.21 0.21 North Carolina 0.20 0.06 North Dakota 0.06 0.04*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 149 of 1339 Upwind State Largest Downwind Contribution to Nonattainment for Annual PM2.5 ( μg/m3 ) Largest Downwind Contr ibution to Maintenance for Annual PM2.5 ( μg/m3 ) Ohio 1.34 0.94 Oklahoma 0.08 0.03 Pennsylvania 0.54 0.54 Rhode Island 0.00 0.00 South Carolina 0.24 0.04 South Dakota 0.03 0.01 Tennessee 0.32 0.32 Texas 0.18 0.07 Vermont 0.00 0.00 Virginia 0.12 0.06 West Virginia 0.95 0.40 Wisconsin 0.22 0.19 Based on the state -by - state contribution analysis, there are 18 states 33 which contribute 0.15 μg/m3 or more to downwind annual PM2.5 nonattainment. These stat es are: Alabama, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. In Table V.D - 2, we provide a list of the downwind non attainment sites to which

33 As in the proposal, EPA has combined the contributions from Maryland and the District of Columbia as a single entity in our contribution analysis for the final rule. EPA believes that this is a fair representation of emissions for transport analysis because of the small size of the District of Columbia and its clos e proximity to Maryland. However, the District of Columbia is not included in the Transport Rule due to the significant contribution analysis findings in section VI.D.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 150 of 1339 each upwind state contributes 0.15 μg/m3 or more (i.e., the upwind state to downwind nonattainment “linkages”). There are 12 states which contribute 0.15 μg/m3 or more to downwind annual PM2.5 maintenance. These states are: Al abama, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. In Table V.D - 3, we provide a list of the downwind maintenance sites to which each upwind state contributes 0.15 μg/m3 or more (i .e., the upwind state to downwind maintenance “linkages”).

Table V.D - 2 . Upwind State to Downwind Nonattainment Site

“Linkages” for Annual PM2.5 Upwind State Downwind Receptor Sites
Alabama Fulton, GA

(131210039) Hamilton, OH (390610014) Hamilton, OH (390610042) Hamilton, OH

(390618001) Georgia Jefferson, AL

(10730023) Jefferson, AL (10732003)

Illinois Jefferson, AL

(10732003) Fulton, GA (131210039) Wayne, MI (261630033) Cuyahoga, OH

(390350038) Cuyahoga, OH (390350045) Cuyahoga, OH (390350060) Hamilton, OH (390610014) Hamilton, OH

(390610042) Hamilton, OH (390618001) Allegheny, PA (420030064)

Indiana Jefferson, AL

(10730023) Jefferson, AL (10732003) Fulton, GA (131210039) Madison, IL

(171191007) Wayne, MI (261630033) Cuyahoga, OH (3903 50038) Cuyahoga, OH (390350045) Cuyahoga, OH

(390350060) Hamilton, OH (390610014) Hamilton, OH (390610042) Hamilton, OH (390618001) Allegheny, PA

(420030064)*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 151 of 1339 Upwind State Downwind Receptor Sites
Iowa Madison, IL

(171191007)
Kentucky Jefferson, AL

(10730023) Jefferson, AL (10732003) Fulton, GA (131210039) Madison, IL

(171191007) Wayne, MI (261630033) Cuyahoga, OH (390350038) Cuyahoga, OH (390350045) Cuyahoga, OH

(390350060) Hamilton, OH (390610014) Hamilton, OH (390610042) Hamilton, OH (390618001) Allegheny, PA

(420030064) Maryland Allegheny, PA

(420030064)
Michigan Madison, IL

(171191007) Cuyahoga, OH (390350038) Cuyahoga, OH (390350045) Cuyahoga, OH

(390350060) Hamilton, OH (390610014) Hamilton, OH (390610042) Hamilton, OH (390618001) Allegheny, PA

(420030064)
Missouri Madison, IL

(171191007) Cuyahoga, OH (390350038) Cuyahoga, OH (390350045) Cuyahoga, OH

(390350060) Hamilton, OH (390610014) Hamilton, OH (390610042) Hamilton, OH (390618001) New York Cuyahoga, OH

(390350038) Cuyahoga, OH (390350045) Cuyahoga, OH (390 350060) Allegheny, PA

(420030064) North Carolina Fulton, GA

(131210039)
Ohio Jefferson, AL

(10730023) Jefferson, AL (10732003) Fulton, GA (131210039) Madison, IL

(171191007) Wayne, MI (261630033) Allegheny, PA (420030064) Pennsylvania Fulton , GA

(131210039) Wayne, MI (261630033) Cuyahoga, OH (390350038) Cuyahoga, OH

(390350045) Cuyahoga, OH (390350060) Hamilton, OH (390610014) Hamilton, OH (390610042) Hamilton, OH

(390618001) South Carolina Fulton, GA

(131210039)
Tennessee Jefferson , AL

(10730023) Jefferson, AL (10732003) Fulton, GA (131210039) Madison, IL

(171191007) Hamilton, OH (390610014) Hamilton, OH (390610042) Hamilton, OH (390618001)*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 152 of 1339 Upwind State Downwind Receptor Sites
Texas Madison, IL

(171191007)
West Virginia Fulton, GA

(131210039) Wayne, MI (261 630033) Cuyahoga, OH (390350038) Cuyahoga, OH

(390350045) Cuyahoga, OH (390350060) Hamilton, OH (390610014) Hamilton, OH (390610042) Hamilton, OH

(390618001) Allegheny, PA (420030064)
Wisconsin Madison, IL

(171191007) Wayne, MI (261630033) Cuyah oga, OH (390350038) Cuyahoga, OH

(390350045) Cuyahoga, OH (390350060) Hamilton, OH (390610014) Hamilton, OH (390618001)
Table V.D - 3 . Upwind State to Downwind Maintenance Site

“Linkages” for Annual PM2.5 Upwind State Downwind Receptor Sites Alabama Marion, IN

(180970081) Marion, IN (180970083) Hamilton, OH (390617001) Illinois Marion, IN

(180970081) Marion, IN (180970083) Cuyahoga, OH (390350065) Hamilton, OH

(390617001) Indiana Cuyahoga, OH

(390350065) Hamilton, OH (390617001) Kentucky Ma rion, IN

(180970081) Marion, IN (180970083) Cuyahoga, OH (390350065) Hamilton, OH

(390617001) Michigan Marion, IN

(180970081) Marion, IN (180970083) Cuyahoga, OH (390350065) Hamilton, OH

(390617001) Missouri Marion, IN

(180970081) Marion, IN (180970083) Cuyahoga, OH (390350065) Hamilton, OH

(390617001) New York Cuyahoga, OH

(390350065) Ohio Marion, IN

(180970081) Marion, IN (180970083) Pennsylvania Marion, IN

(180970081) Marion, IN (180970083) Cuyahoga, OH (390350065) Hamilton, OH

(390617001) Tennessee Marion, IN

(180970081) Marion, IN (180970083) Hamilton, OH (390617001)*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 153 of 1339 Upwind State Downwind Receptor Sites West Virginia Marion, IN

(180970081) Marion, IN (180970083) Cuyahoga, OH (390350065) Hamilton, OH

(390617001) Wisconsin Marion, IN

(180970081) Marion, IN (180970083) Cuyahoga, OH (390350065) Hamilton, OH

(390617001) For 24 - hour PM2.5 , we calculated each state’s contribution to each of the 20 monitoring sites that are projected to be nonattainment and each of the 21 sites that are projected to have maintenance problems for the 24 - hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the 2012 base case. A detailed description of the calculations can be found in the Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document. The largest contribution from each state to 24 - hour PM2.5 nonattainment in downwind sites i s provided in Table V.D - 4. The largest contribution from each state to 24 - hour PM2.5 maintenance in downwind sites is also provided in Table V.D - 4. The contributions from each state to all projected 2012 nonattainment and maintenance sites for the 24 - hou r PM2.5 NAAQS are provided in the Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document. Table V.D - 4 . Largest Contribution to Downwind 24 -hour PM2.5 (μg/m3 ) Nonattainment and Maintenance for Each of 37 States

Upwind State Largest Downwind Contribution to Nonatta inment for 24 - hour PM2.5 ( μg/m3 ) Largest Downwind Contribution to Maintenance for 24 - hour PM2.5 ( μg/m3 ) Alabama 0.51 0.42 Arkansas 0.24 0.23 Connecticut 0.10 0.18*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 154 of 13 39 Upwind State Largest Downwind Contribution to Largest Downwind Contribution to Delaware 0.22 0.20 Florida 0.07 0.03 Georgia 1.10 0.92 I llinois 3.72 5.70 Indiana 3.56 5.15 Iowa 0.82 1.55 Kansas 0.37 0.81 Kentucky 4.38 3.58 Louisiana 0.11 0.13 Maine 0.06 0.10 Maryland 2.83 2.11 Massachusetts 0.19 0.30 Michigan 1.86 2.03 Minnesota 0.61 1.01 Mis sissippi 0.06 0.07 Missouri 3.73 3.71 Nebraska 0.24 0.52 New Hampshire 0.05 0.10 New Jersey 0.68 0.75 New York 0.83 1.34 North Carolina 0.40 0.38 North Dakota 0.21 0.33 Ohio 5.85 4.74 Oklahoma 0.17 0.20 Pennsylvania 2.85 2.29 Rhode Island 0.02 0.03 South Carolina 0.29 0.25 South Dakota 0.10 0.17 Tennessee 1.38 1.30 Texas 0.37 0.33 Vermont 0.03 0.05 Virginia 1.21 1.01 West Virginia 4.02 3.33 Wisconsin 0.69 0.97*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 155 of 1339 Based on the sta te -by - state contribution analysis, there are 21 states 34 which contribute 0.35 μg/m3 or more to downwind 24 - hour PM2.5 nonattainment. These states are: Alabama, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. In Table V.D - 5, we provide a list of the downwind nonattainment counties to which each upwind state contributes 0.35 μg/m3 or more (i.e., the upwind state to downwind nonattainment “linkages”). There are 21 states which contribute 0.35 μg/m3 or more to downwind 24 - hour PM2.5 maintenance. These states are: Alabama, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minn esota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. In Table V.D - 6, we provide a list of the downwind maintenance sites to which each upwind state contributes 0.35 μg/m3 o r more (i.e., the upwind state to downwind maintenance “linkages”).

34 As in the proposal, EPA has combined the contributions from Maryland and the District of Columbia as a single entity in our contribution analysis for the final rule. EPA believes that this is a fair representation of emissions for transport analysis because of the small size of the District of Columbia and its close proximity to Maryland. However, the District of Columbia is not included in the Transport Rule due to the significant contribution analysis findings in section VI.D.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 156 of 1339 Table V.D - 5. Upwind State to Downwind Nonattainment Site

“Linkages” for 24 -hour PM2.5 Upwind State Downwind Receptor Sites Alabama Marion, IN

(180970043) Marion, IN

(180970066) Marion, IN

(180970081) Georgia Jefferson, AL

(10730023)

Illinois Marion, IN

(180970043) Marion, IN

(180970066) Marion, IN

(180970081) St Clair, MI

(261470005) Wayne, MI (261630015) Wayne, MI

(261630016) Wayne, MI

(261630019) Wayne, MI

(261630033) Cuyahoga, OH (390350038) Cuyahoga, OH

(390350060) Allegheny, PA

(420030064) Allegheny, PA

(420030093) Allegheny, PA (420030116) Beaver, PA

(420070014) Brooke, WV

(540090011) Milwaukee, WI

(550790043)

Indiana Jefferson, AL

(10730023) Cook, IL

(170311016) Ma dison, IL

(171191007) St Clair, MI

(261470005) Wayne, MI (261630015) Wayne, MI

(261630016) Wayne, MI

(261630019) Wayne, MI

(261630033) Cuyahoga, OH (390350038) Cuyahoga, OH

(390350060) Allegheny, PA

(420030064) Allegheny, PA

(420030093) Allegheny, PA (420030116) Beaver, PA

(420070014) Brooke, WV

(540090011) Milwaukee, WI

(550790043)
Iowa Cook, IL

(170311016) Madison, IL

(171191007) Milwaukee, WI

(550790043)
Kansas Madison, IL

(171191007)

Kentucky Jefferson, AL

(10730023) Cook, IL

(170311016 ) Madison, IL

(171191007) Marion, IN

(180970043) Marion, IN (180970066) Marion, IN

(180970081) St Clair, MI

(261470005) Wayne, MI

(261630015) Wayne, MI (261630016) Wayne, MI

(261630019) Wayne, MI

(261630033) Cuyahoga, OH

(390350038) Cuyahoga, OH (390 350060) Allegheny, PA

(420030064) Allegheny, PA

(420030093) Allegheny, PA

(420030116)*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 157 of 1339 Upwind State Downwind Receptor Sites

Beaver, PA (420070014) Brooke, WV

(540090011) Milwaukee, WI

(550790043) Maryland Cuyahoga, OH

(390350038) Lancaster, PA

(420710007)

Michigan Cook, IL

(170311016 ) Madison, IL

(171191007) Cuyahoga, OH

(390350038) Cuyahoga, OH

(390350060) Allegheny, PA (420030064) Allegheny, PA

(420030093) Beaver, PA

(420070014) Brooke, WV

(540090011) Milwaukee, WI (550790043) Minnesota Milwaukee, WI

(550790043)

Mi ssouri Cook, IL

(170311016) Madison, IL

(171191007) Marion, IN

(180970043) Marion, IN

(180970066) Marion, IN (180970081) St Clair, MI

(261470005) Wayne, MI

(261630015) Allegheny, PA

(420030064) Allegheny, PA (420030116) Beaver, PA

(420070014) Milwaukee , WI

(550790043) New Jersey Lancaster, PA

(420710007)
New York St Clair, MI

(261470005) Wayne, MI

(261630016) Wayne, MI

(261630019) Wayne, MI

(261630033) Cuyahoga, OH (390350060) Lancaster, PA

(420710007) North Carolina Lancaster, PA

(4207 10007)

Ohio Jefferson, AL

(10730023) Cook, IL

(170311016) Madison, IL

(171191007) Marion, IN

(180970043) Marion, IN (180970066) Marion, IN

(180970081) St Clair, MI

(261470005) Wayne, MI

(261630015) Wayne, MI (261630016) Wayne, MI

(261630019) Wayne, MI

(261630033) Allegheny, PA

(420030064) Allegheny, PA (420030093) Allegheny, PA

(420030116) Beaver, PA

(420070014) Lancaster, PA

(420710007)*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 158 of 1339 Upwind State Downwind Receptor Sites

Brooke, WV (540090011) Milwaukee, WI

(550790043)

Pennsylvania Jefferson, AL

(10730023) Cook, IL

(1703 11016) Madison, IL

(171191007) Marion, IN

(180970043) Marion, IN (180970066) Marion, IN

(180970081) St Clair, MI

(261470005) Wayne, MI

(261630015) Wayne, MI (261630016) Wayne, MI

(261630019) Wayne, MI

(261630033) Cuyahoga, OH

(390350038) Cuyahoga, OH (390350060) Brooke, WV

(540090011) Milwaukee, WI

(550790043)

Tennessee Jefferson, AL

(10730023) Madison, IL

(171191007) Marion, IN

(180970043) Marion, IN

(180970066) Marion, IN (180970081) St Clair, MI

(261470005) Wayne, MI

(261630015) Wayne, MI

(261 630033) Cuyahoga, OH (390350038) Allegheny, PA

(420030116)
Texas Madison, IL

(171191007) Virginia Lancaster, PA

(420710007)

West Virginia Jefferson, AL

(10730023) Cook, IL

(170311016) Madison, IL

(171191007) Marion, IN

(180970043) Ma rion, IN (180970066) Marion, IN

(180970081) St Clair, MI

(261470005) Wayne, MI

(261630015) Wayne, MI (261630016) Wayne, MI

(261630019) Wayne, MI

(261630033) Cuyahoga, OH

(390350038) Cuyahoga, OH (390350060) Allegheny, PA

(420030064) Allegheny, PA

(4200 30093) Allegheny, PA

(420030116) Beaver, PA (420070014) Lancaster, PA

(420710007) Milwaukee, WI

(550790043) Wisconsin Cook, IL

(170311016) Wayne, MI

(261630019) Wayne, MI

(261630033)*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 159 of 1339 Table V.D - 6. Upwind State to Downwind Maintenance Site

“Linkages” for 24 -hour PM2.5 Upwind State Downwind Receptor Sites Alabama Washtenaw, MI

(261610008) Butler, OH (390170003) Montgomery, OH

(391130032) Georgia Jefferson, AL

(10732003)

Illinois Lake, IN

(180890022) Lake, IN (180890026) Washtenaw, MI

(26 1610008) Butler, OH

(390170003) Cuyahoga, OH (390350045) Cuyahoga, OH (390350065) Hamilton, OH

(390618001) Jefferson, OH

(390811001) Montgomery, OH (391130032) Allegheny, PA (420031008) Allegheny, PA

(420031301) Allegheny, PA

(420033007) York, PA (42 1330008) Milwaukee, WI (550790010) Milwaukee, WI

(550790026)

Indiana Jefferson, AL

(10732003) Cook, IL (170310052) Cook, IL

(170312001) Cook, IL

(170313301) Cook, IL (170316005) Madison, IL (171190023) Washtenaw, MI

(261610008) Butler, OH

(390170003) Cuyahoga, OH (390350045) Cuyahoga, OH (390350065) Hamilton, OH

(390618001) Jefferson, OH

(390811001) Montgomery, OH (391130032) Allegheny, PA (420031008) Allegheny, PA

(420031301) Allegheny, PA

(420033007) York, PA (421330008) Milwaukee, WI (55079001 0) Milwaukee, WI

(550790026)

Iowa Cook, IL

(170310052) Cook, IL (170312001) Cook, IL

(170313301) Cook, IL

(170316005) Madison, IL (171190023) Lake, IN (180890022) Lake, IN

(180890026) Milwaukee, WI

(550790010) Milwaukee, WI (550790026)
Kansas Cook, IL

(170310052) Cook, IL (170316005) Milwaukee, WI

(550790010) Milwaukee, WI

(550790026) Kentucky Jefferson, AL

(10732003) Cook, IL (170310052) Cook, IL

(170312001) Cook, IL

(170313301)*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 160 of 1339 Upwind State Downwind Receptor Sites

Cook, IL (170316005) Madison, IL (171190023) Lake, IN

(180890 022) Lake, IN

(180890026) Washtenaw, MI (261610008) Butler, OH (390170003) Cuyahoga, OH

(390350045) Cuyahoga, OH

(390350065) Hamilton, OH (390618001) Jefferson, OH (390811001) Montgomery, OH

(391130032) Allegheny, PA

(420031008) Allegheny, PA (420031 301) Allegheny, PA (420033007) York, PA

(421330008) Milwaukee, WI

(550790010) Milwaukee, WI (550790026) Maryland York, PA

(421330008)

Michigan Cook, IL

(170310052) Cook, IL (170312001) Cook, IL

(170313301) Cook, IL

(170316005) Madison, IL (171190023) Lake, IN (180890022) Lake, IN

(180890026) Butler, OH

(390170003) Cuyahoga, OH (390350045) Cuyahoga, OH (390350065) Hamilton, OH

(390618001) Jefferson, OH

(390811001) Montgomery, OH (391130032) Allegheny, PA (420031008) Allegheny, PA

(42003 1301) Allegheny, PA

(420033007) York, PA (421330008) Milwaukee, WI (550790010) Milwaukee, WI

(550790026) Minnesota Milwaukee, WI

(550790010) Milwaukee, WI (550790026)

Missouri Cook, IL

(170310052) Cook, IL (170312001) Cook, IL

(170313301) Cook, I L

(170316005) Madison, IL (171190023) Lake, IN (180890022) Lake, IN

(180890026) Washtenaw, MI

(261610008) Butler, OH (390170003) Hamilton, OH (390618001) Montgomery, OH

(391130032) Allegheny, PA

(420031008) Milwaukee, WI (550790010) Milwaukee, WI (55 0790026) Nebraska Milwaukee, WI

(550790010) Milwaukee, WI (550790026)*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 161 of 1339 Upwind State Downwind Receptor Sites New Jersey York, PA

(421330008) New York Washtenaw, MI

(261610008) Cuyahoga, OH (390350045) Cuyahoga, OH

(390350065) York, PA

(421330008) North Carolina York, PA

(42133 0008)

Ohio Jefferson, AL

(10732003) Cook, IL (170310052) Cook, IL

(170312001) Cook, IL

(170313301) Cook, IL (170316005) Madison, IL (171190023) Lake, IN

(180890022) Lake, IN

(180890026) Washtenaw, MI (261610008) Allegheny, PA (420031008) Alleghe ny, PA

(420031301) Allegheny, PA

(420033007) York, PA (421330008) Milwaukee, WI (550790010) Milwaukee, WI

(550790026)

Pennsylvania Jefferson, AL

(10732003) Cook, IL (170310052) Cook, IL

(170312001) Cook, IL

(170313301) Madison, IL (171190023) Lake, IN (180890022) Lake, IN

(180890026) Washtenaw, MI

(261610008) Butler, OH (390170003) Cuyahoga, OH (390350045) Cuyahoga, OH

(390350065) Hamilton, OH

(390618001) Jefferson, OH (390811001) Montgomery, OH (391130032) Milwaukee, WI

(550790010) Milwaukee, WI

(550790026)
Tennessee Jefferson, AL

(10732003) Madison, IL (171190023) Washtenaw, MI

(261610008) Butler, OH

(390170003) Cuyahoga, OH (390350065) Hamilton, OH (390618001) Montgomery, OH

(391130032) Virginia York, PA

(421330008)

West Virginia Jefferson, AL

(10732003) Cook, IL (170310052) Cook, IL

(170312001) Cook, IL

(170313301) Madison, IL (171190023) Lake, IN (180890022) Lake, IN

(180890026) Washtenaw, MI

(261610008) Butler, OH (390170003) Cuyahoga, OH (390350045) Cuyahoga, OH

(390350065) Hamilton, OH

(390618001)*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 162 of 1339 Upwind State Downwind Receptor Sites

Jefferson, OH (390811001) Montgomery, OH (391130032) Allegheny, PA

(420031008) Allegheny, PA

(420031301) Allegheny, PA (420033007) York, PA (421330008) Milwaukee, WI

(550790010)
Wisconsin Cook, IL

(170310052) Cook, IL (17031 2001) Cook, IL

(170313301) Cook, IL

(170316005) Lake, IN (180890022) Lake, IN (180890026)

b. Estimated interstate contributions to 8 - hour ozone In this section, we present the interstate contributions from emissions in upwind states to downwind n onattainment and maintenance sites for the ozone NAAQS. As described previously in section V.D.1, states which contribute 0.8 ppb or more to 8 - hour ozone nonattainment or maintenance in another state are identified as states with contributions to downwind attainment and maintenance sites large enough to warrant further analysis. We calculated each state’s contribution to ozone at each of the 4 monitoring sites that are projected to be nonattainment and each of 6 35 sites that are projected to have mainten ance problems for the 8 - hour ozone NAAQS in the 2012 base case. A

35 There are 6 additional sites with projected 2012 nonattainment or maintenance (Harris Co., Texas sites 482010 024, 482010062, 482010066, 482011015, 482011035, and 482011039) for which there are less than 5 days with 8 - hour ozone predictions of at least 70 ppb. Thus, we did not calculate contributions for these 6 sites.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 163 of 1339 detailed description of the calculations can be found in the Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document ( AQMTSD ) . The largest contribution from each state to 8 - hour ozone nonattainmen t in downwind sites is provided in Table V.D - 7. The largest contribution from each state to 8 - hour ozone maintenance in downwind sites is also provided in Table V.D.2 - 7. The contributions from each state to all projected 2012 nonattainment and maintenanc e sites for the 8 - hour ozone NAAQS are provided in the AQMTSD. Table V.D - 7 . Largest Contribution to Downwind 8 -Hour Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance for Each of 37 States

Upwind State Largest Downwind Contribution to Nonattainment for Ozone (ppb) La rgest Downwind Contribution to Maintenance for Ozone (ppb) Alabama 4.0 2.8 Arkansas 2.1 2.0 Connecticut 0.0 0.2 Delaware 0.0 0.6 Florida 0.5 3.6 Georgia 1.6 2.8 Illinois 1.9 26.8 Indiana 1.3 9.4 Iowa 0.6 0.9 Kansas 0.5 1.0 Kentucky 1.6 1.6 Louisiana 8.0 11.1 Maine 0.0 0.0 Maryland 0.0 3.4 Massachusetts 0.0 0.6*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 164 of 1339 Upwind State Largest Downwind Contribution to La rgest Downwind Contribution to Michigan 0.0 0.9 Minnesota 0.3 0.2 Mississippi 4.0 3.3 Missouri 1.1 4.8 Nebraska 0.2 0.2 New Hampshire 0 .0 0.1 New Jersey 0.0 11.5 New York 0.0 18.8 North Carolina 0.5 1.3 North Dakota 0.2 0.1 Ohio 0.1 3.2 Oklahoma 0.3 2.8 Pennsylvania 0.1 8.2 Rhode Island 0.0 0.0 South Carolina 0.4 0.9 South Dakota 0.1 0.1 Tennesse e 2.2 1.1 Texas 3.9 1.9 Vermont 0.0 0.0 Virginia 0.2 8.2 West Virginia 0.0 2.8 Wisconsin 0.2 2.2 Based on the state -by - state contribution analysis, there are 11 states that contribute 0.8 ppb or more to downwind 8 - hour ozone nonat tainment. These states are: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee, and Texas. In Table V.D - 8, we provide a list of the downwind nonattainment counties to which each upwind state contributes 0.8 ppb or more (i.e., the upwind state to downwind nonattainment “linkages”).*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 165 of 1339 There are 26 states 36 which contribute 0.8 ppb or more to downwind 8 - hour ozone maintenance. These states are: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kan sas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. In Table V.D.2 - 9, we provide a list of the downwind nonattainment counties to which each upwind state contributes 0.8 ppb or more (i.e., the upwind state to downwind nonattainment “linkages”). Table V.D - 8. Upwind State to Downwind Nonattainment “Linkages” for 8 -hour Ozone Upwind State Downwind Rec eptor Sites
Alabama East Baton

Rouge, LA (220330003) Brazoria, TX

(480391004) Harris, TX

(482010051) Harris, TX

(482010055)
Arkansas East Baton

Rouge, LA (220330003) Brazoria, TX

(480391004) Georgia East Baton

Rouge, LA (220330003) Brazoria, TX

(480 391004) Harris, TX

(482010051) Harris, TX

(482010055) Illinois Brazoria, TX

(480391004) Harris, TX

(482010051) Harris, TX

(482010055)
36 As in the proposal, EPA has combined the c ontributions from Maryland and the District of Columbia as a single entity in our contribution analysis for the final rule. EPA believes that this is a fair representation of emissions for transport analysis because of the small size of the District of Co lumbia and its close proximity to Maryland. However, the District of Columbia is not included in the Transport Rule due to the significant contribution analysis findings in section VI.D.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 166 of 1339 Upwind State Downwind Rec eptor Sites Indiana Brazoria, TX

(480391004) Harris, TX

(482010051) Harris, TX

(482010055) Kentucky Brazoria, TX

(480391004) Ha rris, TX

(482010051) Harris, TX

(482010055) Louisiana Brazoria, TX

(480391004) Harris, TX

(482010051) Harris, TX

(482010055) Mississippi East Baton

Rouge, LA (220330003) Brazoria, TX

(480391004) Harris, TX

(482010051) Harris, TX

(482010055) Missouri Brazoria, TX

(480391004) Harris, TX

(482010051) Harris, TX

(482010055)

Tennessee East Baton

Rouge, LA (220330003) Brazoria, TX

(480391004) Harris, TX

(482010051) Harris, TX

(482010055)

Texas East Baton

Rouge, LA (220330003) Table V.D - 9. Upwind State to Downwind Maintenance “Linkages” for 8 -Hour Ozone Upwind State Downwind Receptor Sites Alabama Harris, TX

(482010029) Harris, TX

(482011050) Arkansas Allegan, MI

(260050003) Florida Harris, TX

(482010029) Harris, TX

(482011050) Georgia Harris, TX

(482010029) Harris, TX

(482011050) Illinois Fairfield, CT

(90011123) Allegan, MI

(260050003) Harris, TX

(482011050) Indiana Fairfield, CT

(90011123) New Haven, CT

(90093002) Harford, MD

(240251001) Allegan, MI

(260050003) Iowa Allegan, MI

(260050003) Kansas Allegan, MI

(260050003)*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 167 of 1339 Upwind State Downwind Receptor Sites Kentucky Fairfield, CT

(90011123) New Haven, CT

(90093002) Harford, MD

(240251001) Harris, TX

(482011050) Louisiana Harris, TX

(482010029) Harris, TX

(482011050) Maryland Fairfield, CT

(90011123) New Haven, CT

(90093002) Michigan Harford, MD

(240251001) Mississippi Harris, TX

(482010029) Harris, TX

(482011050) Missouri Allegan, MI

(260050003) New Jersey Fairfield, CT

(90011123) New Haven, CT

(90093002)
New York Fairfield, CT

(90011123) New Haven, CT

(90093002) Harford, MD

(240251001) North Carolina New Haven, CT

(90093002) Harford, MD

(240251001) Ohio Fairfield, CT

(90011123) New Haven, CT

(90093002) Harford, MD

(240251001) Oklahoma Allegan, MI

( 260050003) Pennsylvania Fairfield, CT

(90011123) New Haven, CT

(90093002) Harford, MD

(240251001) South Carolina Harris, TX

(482010029) Tennessee Fairfield, CT

(90011123) Harford, MD

(240251001) Harris, TX

(482011050) Texas Allegan, MI

(260050003) Virginia Fairfield, CT

(90011123) New Haven, CT

(90093002) Harford, MD

(240251001) West Virginia Fairfield, CT

(90011123) New Haven, CT

(90093002) Harford, MD

(240251001) Wisconsin Allegan, MI

(260050003) VI. Quantification of State Emission Reductions Required*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 168 of 1339 A. Cost and Air Quality Structure for Defining Reductions 1. Summary Section V, above, describes EPA’s approach to identify ing upwind states that exceed the air quality thresholds discussed therein for each of the NAAQS addressed in this rule. A state is covered by the Transport Rule if it exceeds one of those air quality thresholds and the Agency identifies, using the cost and air quality -based approach described below, emissions within the state that constitute the state’s significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance with respect to the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5 or 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. In this section, EPA explains its final cost - and air quality -based approach to quantify the amount of emiss ions that represent significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance for each state. EPA then applies that approach for the three different NAAQS being addressed in today’s notice: the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 24 - hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA believes that the methodology finalized today could also be used to address transport concerns under other NAAQS, including future revisions to the ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA applies the methodology described herei n to fully quantify the emissions that constitute each covered state’s significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 169 of 1339 maintenance with respect to the 1997 annual PM2.5 and the 2006 24 - hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The FIPs with respect to the annual and 24 - hour PM2.5 NAAQS that are finalized in this action ensure that all such emissions are prohibited. Each such FIP thus fully satisfies the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the annual and/or 24
- hour PM2.5 NAAQS for the covered state. EPA also applies the methodology to quantify significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS. However, we have not been able to fully quantify such emissions for all covered states. In thi s action, EPA fully quantifies the significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance for 15 states. We finalize FIPs with respect to the 1997 ozone standards for 10 of these 15 states ( Florida, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Nor th Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia ). We are also publishing a supplemental notice of rulemaking to take comment on whether FIPs should be finalized for the remaining 5 states ( Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin ). The FIPs for these 10 states (and the FIPs for the remaining 5 states, if finalized) fully satisfy the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS for the covered state. In addition, we apply the methodology descri bed herein to quantify, for 11 additional states, ozone - season NOX emission*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 170 of 1339 reductions that are necessary but may not be sufficient to eliminate all significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance in other states. We finalize F IPs with respect to the 1997 ozone standards for 10 of these 11 states ( Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Texas) . We are also publishing a supplemental notice of rulemaking to take comment on whether FIPs should be finalized for the remaining state (Missouri). The FIPs for these 10 states (and the FIP for the remaining state, if finalized) make measurable progress toward satisfying the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS in each covered state. To the extent that significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance is not entirely eliminated for the 1997 ozone NAAQS standard through today’s action, EPA will address these instances in a future rulemaking. This is further explained in section VI. D . With respect to the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, this rule finds that 18 states have SO 2 and NOX emission reduction responsibilities. EPA also finds that 22 states have SO 2 and NOX emission reducti on responsibilities with respect to the 2006 24 - hour PM2.5 NAAQS. There is a total of 23 states that have SO 2 and NOX emission reduction responsibilities for one or both of the above PM2.5 NAAQS. We apply the methodology to quantify emission*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 171 of 1339 reductions that these states must achieve to eliminate the state’s significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance. The states are listed in Table III - 1 in section III of this preamble. Thus, rule will prohibit all significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance with respect to the annual and 24 - hour PM2.5 . In addition, it will resolve air quality issues at most nonattainment and maintenance receptors identified by EPA. EPA projects that unresolved nonattainmen t and maintenance issues will remain in only a few downwind states after promulgation of the Transport Rule. For the annual PM2.5 standard, EPA projects that this rule will help assure that all areas in the east are brought into attainment. Only one area in the East is projected to have a maintenance concern for the annual PM2.5 standard in 2014 ( Liberty - Clairton ). 37 This rule will also help a number of areas achieve the standard earlier than they may have otherwise. For the 2006 24 - hour PM2.5 NAAQS, one area is projected to remain in non - attainment (Liberty Clairton) and three areas are projected to have remaining

37 In the Transport Rule proposal, EPA noted that the Liberty Clairto n receptor in Allegheny county was significantly impacted by local emissions from a sizeable coke production facility and other nearby sources (75 FR 45281).*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 172 of 1339 maintenance concerns after imposition of the Transport Rule (Chicago, 38 Detroit, and Lancaster County). The methodology provides similar assist ance for ozone, assuring upwind reductions that will assist downwind states in controlling ozone pollution. It reduces ozone concentration levels in 2012 and helps assure that all but two downwind areas fully resolve their nonattainment and maintenance pr oblems with the 1997 ozone NAAQS by 2014. While Houston is projected to still face nonattainment and Baton Rouge is projected to still face maintenance concerns with the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the Transport Rule improves air quality in these two areas and prov ides both health benefits and assistance for these local areas in meeting the NAAQS requirements. For reasons explained below, EPA will conduct further analysis in a subsequent transport - related rulemaking to determine whether further upwind state reducti ons are warranted to assist attainment and maintenance of the ozone NAAQS in Houston and Baton Rouge areas.

When EPA proposed this air - quality and cost -based multi - factor approach to identify emissions that constitute significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with

38 This area is not currently designated as non - attainment f or the 24 - hour PM2.5 standard. EPA is portraying the recepto r s and counties in this area as a single 24 - hour maintenance area based on the annual PM2.5 non - attainment designation of Chicago - Gary Lake County, IL - IN.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 173 of 1339 maintenance from upwind states with respect to the 1997 ozone, annual PM2.5 , and 2006 24 - hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the Agency indicated that the approach was designed to be applicable to both current and potential future ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS (75 FR 45214). EPA believes that the final Transport Rule demonstrates the value of this approach for addressing the role of interstate transport of air pollution in communities’ ability to comply with current and future NAAQS. EPA believes that the Transport Rule's approach of using air - quality thresholds to determine upwind- to - downwindstate linkages and using the cost - and air quality -based multi factor approach to quantify significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenan ce (i.e., to determine the specific amount of emissions that each upwind state must reduce) could serve as a precedent for quantifying upwind state emission reduction responsibilities with respect to potential future NAAQS.

One commenter suggested that the rule could set a flawed precedent for future transport analyses and remedies, as it does not fully eliminate the prohibited emissions in every upwind state. EPA disagrees with this characterization of the Transport Rule. EPA notes that the partial dete rmination of significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance for certain upwind states in the Transport Rule with respect to the ozone NAAQS is not a function of the multi - factor*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 174 of 1339 approach itself, but is instead a function of its limited application in this rulemaking to identify emission reductions from a single source category (EGUs). In fact, the Transport Rule's approach itself allowed EPA to determine for which upwind states we have identified all emissions that constitute s ignificant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance, and for which upwind states we have identified emissions that are necessary but may not be sufficient to eliminate the prohibited emissions. As EPA explained at proposal, developi ng the additional information needed to consider NOX emissions from non - EGU source categories in order to fully quantify upwind state responsibility with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS would substantially delay promulgation of the Transport Rule. EPA exp lained that we do not believe that effort should delay the emissions reductions and large health benefits this final rule will deliver (75 FR 45213). EPA further explained that we believe it is likely that the Agency can provide the greatest assistance to states in addressing transported pollution by issuing a separate (subsequent) rule to address additional reductions that may be necessary to fully eliminate upwind state responsibility with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS (75 FR 45288). Thus, EPA decided to promulgate the Transport Rule as quickly as possible. EPA anticipates that application of this air - quality and cost -based multi - factor*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 175 of 1339 approach to a broader set of source categories in a subsequent rulemaking will identify any remaining prohibited emi ssions in the upwind states for which the Transport Rule may not fully eliminate those emissions with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 2. Background After using air quality analysis to identify upwind states that are “linked” to downwind air quality monito ring sites with nonattainment and maintenance problems through contribution of at least one percent of the relevant NAAQS, EPA quantifies the portion of each state’s contribution that constitutes its “significant contribution” or “interference with mainten ance.” This section describes the methodology developed by EPA for this analysis and then explains how that methodology is applied to measure significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance with respect to the NAAQS of concern. For this portion of the analysis, EPA expands upon the methodology used in the NOX SIP Call and CAIR but modifies it in significant respects. In the NOX SIP Call and CAIR, EPA’s methodology defined significant contribution as those emissions that could be removed with the use of “highly cost effective” controls. In the Transport Rule, rather than relying solely on an analysis of what constitutes “highly cost effective” controls, EPA relies on an analysis that accounts for both cost and air quality improvement to identify the portion of a state’s*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 176 of 1339 contribution that constitutes its significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance. Furthermore, in response to the Court’s opinion in North Carolina , EPA has developed an approach whi ch gives independent meaning to the “interfere with maintenance” prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). The methodology takes into account both the D.C. Circuit Court’s determination that EPA may consider cost when measuring significant contribution, Michigan , 213 F.3d at 679, and its rejection of the manner in which cost was used in the CAIR analysis, North Carolina , 531 F.3d at 917. It also recognizes that the Court accepted -- but did not require -- EPA’s use of a single, uniform cost threshold to measur e significant contribution. Michigan , 213 F.3d at 679. As EPA discussed at length in the Transport Rule proposal, using both air quality and cost factors allows EPA to consider the full range of circumstances and state - specific factors that affect the rel ationship between upwind emissions and downwind nonattainment and maintenance problems (75 FR 45271). For example, considering cost takes into account the extent to which existing plants are already controlled as well as the potential for, and relative di fficulty of, additional emission reductions. Therefore, EPA believes that it is appropriate to consider both*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 177 of 1339 cost and air quality metrics when quantifying each state’s significant contribution. This methodology is consistent with the statutory mandate in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) which requires upwind states to prohibit emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interference with maintenance in another state. As discussed in more detail in the proposal, interpreting significant contribu tion to nonattainment and interference with maintenance inherently involves a decision on how much emissions control responsibility should be assigned to upwind states, and how much responsibility should be left to downwind states. EPA’s methodology is int ended to “assign a substantial but reasonable amount of responsibility to upwind states....to control their emissions” (75 FR 45272) . EPA believes that upwind states contributing to downwind state air quality degradation should bear substantial responsibil ity to control their emissions because of the plain language of the good neighbor provision, the health risks and control cost impacts that upwind emissions cause in the downwind state, and the cumulative impact in the downwind state of emissions from mult iple upwind states, and the importance of achieving attainment in downwind states as expeditiously as practicable but no later than specific deadlines as required by the Act. EPA’s approach does not shift*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 178 of 1339 the responsibility for achieving or maintaining the NAAQS to the upwind state. See 75 FR 45272. The methodology defines each state’s significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance as the emission reductions available at a particular cost threshold in a specific upwind state which effectively address nonattainment and maintenance of the relevant NAAQS in the linked downwind states of concern. Unlike the NOX SIP Call and CAIR, where EPA’s significant contribution analysis had a regional focus, the methodology used in the Trans port Rule focuses on state - specific factors. The methodology uses a multi - step process to analyze costs and air quality impacts, identify appropriate cost thresholds, quantify reductions available from EGUs in each state at those thresholds, and consider the impact of variability in EGU operations. There are four steps to this methodology: (1) identification of each state’s emission reductions available at ascending costs per ton as appropriate; (2) assessment of those upwind emission reductions’ downwind air quality impacts; (3) identification of upwind “cost thresholds” delivering effective emission reductions and downwind air quality improvement; and (4) enshrinement of the upwind emission reductions available at those cost thresholds in state budgets.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 179 of 1339 In step one, EPA identifies what emission reductions are available at various cost thresholds, quantifying emission reductions that would occur within each state at ascending costs per ton of emission reductions. In other words, EPA determined for specifi c cost per ton thresholds, the emission reductions that would be achieved in a state if all EGUs greater than 25 MW in that state used all emission controls and emission reduction measures available at that cost threshold. For purposes of this discussion, we refer to these as “cost curves.” For this final rule, EPA used updated IPM modeling to conduct a similar cost curve analysis as conducted in the Transport Rule proposal (75 FR 45275). In the proposal, the cost curves only reflected escalating cost for one pollutant while the other pollutant cost was held constant at $0/ton , or the Base Case level . However, EPA improved the costing analysis for the final rule by identifying upwind emission reductions available as costs were imposed on both SO 2 and NOX simultaneously for states linked to downwind states on the basis of the PM2.5 NAAQS. In other words, the cost curves in the proposal depicted state level emissions when only one pollutant was priced (i.e., NOX at $500 / ton). Separate cost curves were done for each pollutant. For the final rule, EPA conducted some preliminary cost curve analysis for identifying NOX thresholds in this manner. However, for the final cost curve analysis, EPA*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 180 of 1339 relied on cost curves that reflected state emissions when pollutant s were priced simultaneously (e.g., NOX at $500 / ton and SO 2 at $1 , 600/ton). For reasons described in section VI.B, EPA was able to conduct this type of analysis because the preliminary cost curves specific to annual and ozone - season NOX suggested little f lexibility in adjusting the $500 / ton cost thresholds imposed for each. Therefore, EPA was able to hold the cost threshold constant at $500 / ton for these pollutants in its examination of SO 2 at various cost thresholds. EPA believes this approach to cost analysis is a better simulation of the Transport Rule’s likely impact on covered sources. Under the final Transport Rule, covered sources in states regulated for PM2.5 must address compliance requirements for SO 2 and NOX emissions simultaneously, and this refined approach to cost curve analysis and subsequent air quality analysis better reflects this reality. Section VI.B of this preamble describes the costing analysis in further detail. Also, for more detail on the development of the cost curves, see the TSD, “Significant Contribution and State Emission Budgets” in the docket for this rule. Although the cost curves presented in this rule only include EGU reductions, EPA also assessed the cost of SO 2 and NOX emission reductions available for source categor ies other than EGUs in the proposed rulemaking. This preliminary assessment in*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 181 of 1339 the rule proposal suggested that there likely would be very large emission reductions available from EGUs before costs reach the point for which non - EGU sources have available reductions (75 FR 45272). EPA revisited these non - EGU reduction cost levels in this final rulemaking and verified that there are little or no reductions available from non - EGUs at costs lower than the thresholds that EPA has chosen ($500 / ton for NOX , $2 , 3 00/ton for SO 2 ). Further details on EPA’s application of cost curves are provided below, in section VI.B. In step two, EPA uses an air quality assessment tool to estimate the impact that the combined reductions available from upwind contributing states and the downwind receptor state at different cost -per - ton levels would have on air quality at downwind monitor sites projected to have nonattainment and/or maintenance problems. 39 While less rigorous than the air quality models used

39 As is discussed in the RIA, EPA also used the CAMx model to perform air qual ity analysis of its proposed remedy to address significant contribution. Results from this modeling will not exactly correspond to results from the air quality assessment tool both because the inputs to the air quality modeling are different and the sophi sticated model more fully accounts for the complex air chemistry interactions. The full air quality modeling looks at the remedy, including reductions in upwind states that do not contribute as well as the impacts of the variability provisions discussed l ater in this section. It also provides a metric against which to evaluate the air quality assessment tool.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 182 of 1339 for attainment demonstr ations, EPA believes this air quality assessment tool (which has been refined since proposal) is acceptable for assessing the impact of numerous options for upwind emission reductions in the process of defining an upwind state’s significant contribution. It allows the Agency to anticipate specific air quality impacts of many more potential emission reduction scenarios pertinent to the relevant NAAQS than time - and resource - intensive comprehensive air quality modeling would permit. Further details on EPA’s application of step two in this methodology are provided below, in section VI.C. In step three, EPA examines cost and air quality information to identify “significant cost thresholds.” EPA considered a significant cost threshold to be a point along the c ost curves where a noticeable change occurred in downwind air quality, such as a point where large upwind emission reductions become available because a certain type of emissions control strategy becomes cost - effective. 40 This methodology allows EPA, wher e appropriate, to define multiple cost thresholds that vary for a particular pollutant

40 The cost thresholds identified in this rule are specific to the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the states and NAAQS considered in thi s proposal. They do not represent an agency position on the appropriateness of such cost thresholds for any other application under the Act.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 183 of 1339 for different upwind states. As explained in the Transport Rule proposal, EPA does not believe it is required to utilize multiple cost thresholds to regulate upwind emi ssions for purposes of the mandate in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D), but EPA’s multi - factor methodology developed for the Transport Rule to define significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance allows the Agency to consider whether a single cost threshold or multiple cost thresholds are appropriate for meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D) relevant to a particular NAAQS (75 FR 45274). In step four, EPA uses the information regarding emission reductions available in each “linked” upwind state at the appropriate cost threshold to form a state “budget,” representing the remaining emissions from covered sources for the state in an average year once significant contribution has been eliminated; each budget also allows for the identification of an associated variability limit. These budgets and variability limits are used to develop enforceable requirements under the final remedy. The final rule’s methodology for identifying state budgets is derived directly from the cost cu rves and multifactor analysis EPA uses to determine each state’s significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance. State emissions budgets are*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 184 of 1339 discussed in section VI.D and the variability limits are discussed in section VI.E.
B . Cost of Available Emission Reductions (Step 1) This subsection provides more detail on the cost curves that EPA developed to assess the costs of reducing SO 2 and NOX emissions to address transport related to ozone and PM2.5 concentrations (described prev iously as Step 1). It summarizes the information from the curves and then provides EPA’s interpretation of that information. EPA used IPM to develop the EGU cost curves described in this rulemaking. More information can be found regarding EPA’s use of I PM for the final Transport Rule in the technical support document “Significant Contribution and State Emission Budgets”. The amount of emission reductions that the cost curves suggest are available at various costs are specific to the 2012 and 2014 time periods. These cost estimates factor in the time interval between rule finalization and compliance periods, existing controls already in place, and controls that could potentially come on line by the start of the compliance period. EPA notes that cost cu rves are a fluid concept and would vary given different compliance dates. 1. Development of Annual NOX and Ozone - Season NOX Cost Curves*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 185 of 1339 EPA conducted preliminary cost curve analysis for annual NOX and ozone - season NOX in a similar manner to that used in t he proposed rulemaking. That is, the impact of various cost thresholds on emissions was examined individually. For example, state level emissions were examined at cost levels for annual NOX of $500, $1,000, and $2,500/ton while SO 2 cost thresholds were held at $0 per ton (Base Case levels). EPA used this approach to examine NOX and ozone - season NOX emission reductions available from EGUs by 2012 and 2014 at various cost levels, reaching to $2,500/ton for annual NOX and up to $5,000/ton for ozone
- season NOX (in 2007 - year dollars). Section VI.D explains why EPA analyzed the $500/ton threshold for annual and ozone NOX . EPA selected two higher cost thresholds to analyze for annual and ozone - season NOX that provided a reasonable spectrum of emission reductio n opportunities from EGUs at higher cost thresholds. Specifically, EPA analyzed these two higher cost thresholds because the first ($1,000/ton) was informative in regards to the additional EGU NOX emissions reductions available without installation of advanced controls, and the second ($2,500/ton for annual NOX , $5,000/ton for ozone - season NOX ) was informative in regards to additional EGU reductions available at cost thresholds where advanced NOX control retrofits are economic for some units. The cost thr esholds were only applied to states that were covered by the Transport Rule as identified in section*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 186 of 1339 V.C. For both annual and ozone - season NOX , EPA did not consider cost thresholds below $500/ton for reasons explained in section VI.D. EPA observed in the proposal that low - cost NOX reductions are available at upwind sources with existing pollution control equipment that may not otherwise be operated in the future without the Transport Rule. EPA believes it is appropriate to prohibit any “linked” upwind sta te from potentially increasing its emissions through a failure to operate these existing pollution controls, which could worsen downwind air quality problems. Thus, EPA reflected operation of these controls in all modeling of different cost thresholds (i.e ., the modeling assumes year - round operation of post - combustion NOX controls in covered PM states and ozone - season operation of post - combustion NOX controls in covered ozone states). Table VI.B - 1 shows the annual NOX emissions from EGUs at various levels o f control cost per ton for 2014. Table VI.B - 2 presents the cost curves for ozone - season NOX emissions from EGUs. As discussed in section VI.D, EPA determined that $500/ton for annual and ozone NOX was the appropriate cost threshold for this rule (although EPA plans to determine in the future whether a higher cost/ton threshold may be warranted for states contributing to nonattainment or maintenance problems*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 187 of 1339 with the 1997 ozone air quality standard projected to remain in two downwind areas). Table VI.B - 1 2 014 Annual NOX Emissions from Fossil - Fuel Fired EGUs Greater than 25 MW for Each State in the Transport Rule Region at Various Costs Per Ton [(2007$) Per Ton ( Thousand Tons)] Base Case Level $500 $1,000 $2,500 Alabama 75 72 72 70 Georgia 48 41 41 39 Illinois 55 51 50 49 Indiana 117 108 107 100 Iowa 45 40 39 37 Kansas 32 25 25 23 Kentucky 83 83 81 78 Maryland 17 17 17 17 Michigan 64 61 61 60 Minnesota 38 30 30 30 Missouri 55 54 54 51 Nebraska 43 27 26 21 New Jersey 8 8 8 8 New York 19 19 18 18 North Carolina 46 46 46 44 Ohio 99 95 94 9 2 Pennsylvania 132 124 124 116 South*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 188 of 1339 Carolina 38 38 37 36
Tennessee 29 29 29 29 Texas 141 138 138 136 Virginia 36 35 35 28 West Virginia 64 64 64 61 Wisconsin 37 32 32 31 Total 1,321 1,236 1,229 1,174 Table VI.B - 2 2012 Ozone - Season NOX Emissions from Fossil - Fuel Fired EGUs Greater than 2 5 MW for Each State in the Transport Rule Region at Various Costs [(2007$) Per Ton ( Thousand Tons)] Base case level $500 $1,000 $5,000 Alabama 34 34 34 31 Arkansas 15 15 15 14 Florida 42 27 27 24 Georgia 29 28 28 25 Illinois 21 21 21 21 Indiana 47 46 46 43 Kentucky 38 37 36 34 Louisiana 13 13 13 13 Maryland 7 7 7 7 Mississippi 10 10 10 9 New Jersey 3 3 3 3 New York 8 8 8 8 North Carolina 23 23 23 21 Ohio 42 42 42 38 Pennsylvania 53 53 52 49*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 189 of 1339 South Carolina 15 15 15 14 Tennessee 16 16 15 15 Texas 65 63 63 60 Virginia 15 15 15 13 West Virginia 26 26 26 24 Total 523 504 501 467 EPA notes that the cost curves presented here differ somewhat from the cost curves presented in the proposal. The NOX emissions modeled at a $500/ton cost thres hold for the final rule are lower than they were at proposal. In addition, the emission reductions they represent from the updated base case are not as pronounced as was found in modeling for the proposed rule. It is worth emphasizing that the lower emis sion reductions observed at $500/ton in this final rulemaking are due to a lower starting point in updated base case NOX emission levels (and thus do not reflect higher NOX emissions remaining after the reductions made at the $500/ton threshold). While th e base case 2012 nationwide annual NOX emissions were approximately 3 million tons in the proposal, they were only 2 .1 million tons in the final rule. This approximately 33 percent reduction in base case NOX emissions in the final rule modeling relative t o the proposal is due to a combination of modeling updates, including lower natural gas prices, reduced demand, newly modeled consent decrees and state rules, and updated NOX rates to*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 190 of 1339 reflect 2009 emissions data. All of these factors resulted in substanti ally lower base case TR NOX emissions in the final rule modeling. 2. Development of SO 2 Cost Curves As explained in detail below in section VI.D, EPA determined that a single threshold of $500/ton for ozone
- season NOX control in the ozone region and a si ngle threshold of $500/ton for annual NOX control in the PM region were appropriate cost thresholds for identifying upwind control under the Transport Rule. With these parameters determined, EPA was able to assess the availability of SO 2 emission reductio ns from EGUs at various SO 2 cost per ton thresholds with the corresponding NOX reduction requirements simultaneously represented in the analysis. This approach of simultaneously modeling cost levels for covered pollutants is different from the approach t aken in the proposal. In the proposal, cost curves were developed and examined independently for each pollutant. For example, with the SO 2 cost curves in the proposal, the NOX cost level was held constant at base case levels as the SO 2 cost threshold was varied from $0/ton to $2,400/ton. Commenters noted that this did not accurately reflect a reality where source owners/operators view price signals for all covered pollutants simultaneously and make operations decisions accordingly. For the final rule, E PA*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 19 1 of 1339 included cost thresholds of $500/ton for annual NOX in PM states and $500/ton for ozone
- season NOX in ozone - season states while examining different SO 2 cost thresholds. This allows EPA to develop final cost curves for air quality analysis and budget de termination that reflect EGU operation when faced with the appropriate cost thresholds on all covered pollutants. EPA believes this approach of modeling final cost curves is superior to the methodology used in the proposal because it reflects market signa ls for each pollutant simultaneously, as would be experienced by states and sources regulated under the Transport Rule. In this manner, EPA examined several SO 2 cost thresholds of $500, $1,600, $2,300, $2,800, $3,300 and $10,000 per ton. EPA selected these cost thresholds for the final rule's analysis as a representative sampling of points along the SO 2 cost curve thoroughly explored at proposal. Modeling of these cost thresholds provided a spectrum of emission reduction opportunities yielding meaningful differences to consider in total costs and air quality improvements at each threshold. The proposal's more detailed analysis using smaller increments between cost thresholds outlined the general form of the sector's SO 2 emission reduction cost curve an d therefore allowed EPA to use larger increments between cost thresholds for the final rule's analysis. Each of the cost thresholds examined for*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 192 of 1339 the final rule represents a point where there is a significant change in available controls, emission reductio ns , or costs and economic impacts. EPA believes analysis of these thresholds illustrate a meaningful progression of costs and air quality impacts that enabled the Agency to determine a proper threshold along this cost curve to identify significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance for this rulemaking. The cost thresholds above $500/ton were applied starting in 2014. In all modeling, the 2012 cost per ton threshold was held constant at $500/ton as EPA believes that this cost t hreshold captures all emission reductions feasible by 2012 (see section VI.B.3 below for more discussion). At the higher cost levels (i.e., $2,800/ton and above) , the curve does not include all available reductions as they do not include non - EGU reductio ns. As described above for NOX , EPA also observed at proposal that substantial low - cost SO 2 reductions are available from the operation of existing scrubbers that may not otherwise operate in the future without the Transport Rule in place. Therefore, all of the final SO 2 cost curves assume operation of existing scrubbers in PM states under the Transport Rule. In 2014, approximately 3 million tons of SO 2 reductions can be achieved at the $500/ton cost threshold through operation of existing controls and s ome fuel switching.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 193 of 1339 This final cost curve also appropriately reflects the Group 1/Group 2 distinction for states covered for PM2.5 . As discussed in more detail in section VI.D, EPA identified Group 2 states as those that were linked to states where all nonattainment and maintenance issues had been resolved at $500/ton levels. There is no longer any significant contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance by these seven Group 2 states at levels above $500/ton. Therefore, in the final curves, these Group 2 states’ cost thresholds were held constant at $500/ton as the higher cost thresholds were applied to the remaining Group 1 states starting in 2014. For example, the modeled emissions at the $2,300 per ton cost threshold shown in Tabl e VI.B - 3 below reflect each state’s emissions when Group 1 states are subjected to a $2,300 per ton SO 2 constraint and Group 2 states are subjected to a $500/ton SO 2 constraint. Additional reductions can be achieved at the higher cost thresholds. The co st curves demonstrate that sources begin to build additional flue gas desulfurization (FGD) retrofits at an SO 2 cost threshold of $1,600 per ton and additional dry sorbent injection (DSI) retrofits at an SO 2 cost threshold of $2,300 per ton. With these fin al cost curves in hand, EPA was able to identify the combined reductions available from upwind contributing states and the downwind state, at different cost -*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 194 of 1339 per - ton levels. Additionally, EPA was able to examine the economic impacts of imposing such cost c onstraints on power sector generation. However, this only constitutes a portion of EPA’s multi - factor assessment used to determine the amount of emissions that represent significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance. As note d in the Transport Rule proposal, EPA’s multi - factor assessment considered air quality and cost considerations when identifying cost thresholds (75 FR 45271). The air quality portion of the assessment is described in section VI.C. 3. Amount of Reductions that Could Be Achieved by 2012 and 2014 EPA applied escalating SO 2 cost per ton thresholds for Group 1 states to create the cost curves for 2014 and beyond. For 2012 SO 2 , the cost per ton was held constant at $500/ton as the cost thresholds in 2014 and b eyond were varied. The advanced pollution controls incentivized by these higher cost -per - ton levels can reasonably be installed by 2014. EPA also considered whether any of these emission reductions could be achieved prior to 2014. For the reasons that f ollow, EPA concluded that significant reductions could be achieved by 2012 and that it is important to require all such reductions by 2012 to ensure that they are achieved as expeditiously as practicable. For SO 2 and NOX , reductions that come from operati ng existing controls, installing combustion controls, fuel switching, and increased*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 195 of 1339 dispatch of lower - emitting generation can be achieved by 2012. In general, compliance mechanisms that do not involve post combustion control installation are feasible befo re 2014. For this reason, EPA believes it is appropriate to require these emissions to be removed in 2012, consistent with the Act’s requirement that downwind states attain the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable. Therefore, all of the cost curves pre sented below include all feasible 2012 reductions up to a threshold of $500/ton for SO 2 and $500/ton for annual NOX in states linked to receptors for PM2.5 , as well as $500/ton for ozone
- season NOX in states linked to receptors for ozone. These cost per t on levels do not precipitate advanced post - combustion control installation in 2012 (as EPA acknowledges that such installations are not feasible by 2012), but they do promote the compliance options outlined above. The higher cost thresholds for SO 2 Group 1 states were only applied starting in 2014. Therefore, the 2012 state level emissions in the “$2,300 per ton threshold” reflect a cost threshold of only $500/ton for all pollutants (the $2,300 per ton value starts in 2014 for Group 1 states’ SO 2 ). The table below illustrates the change in state level SO 2 emissions as the higher cost per ton thresholds are applied to Group 1 states.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 196 of 1339 Table VI.B - 3 2014 SO2 Emissions from Fossil - Fuel - Fired EGUs Greater than 25 MW for each State in the Transport Rule Region

at Various Costs Per Ton ( Thousand Tons ) a State SO 2 Group Base

C ase L evel $500 $1,600 $2,300 $2,800 $3,300 $10,000
Alabama 2 417 201 226 213 214 236 190 Georgia 2 170 94 94 95 95 95 98
Illinois 1 138 134 130 124 117 102 36
Indiana 1 711 245 179 161 153 121 69
Iowa 1 127 112 78 75 67 45 13
Kansas 2 70 55 57 61 61 61 45 Kentucky 1 488 161 126 106 103 89 46 Maryland 1 43 32 28 28 26 24 18 Michigan 1 266 206 189 144 105 94 24
Minnesota 2 66 43 45 46 46 46 44
Missouri 1 382 212 173 166 109 84 21
Nebraska 2 72 68 70 70 70 70 66*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 197 of 1339 New Jersey 1 39 7 7 7 7 6 5
New York 1 40 21 20 12 11 10 8 North Carolina 1 120 104 61 58 49 40 30
Ohio 1 832 294 175 137 123 115 65 Pennsylvania 1 507 294 164 112 107 102 75 South Carolina 2 210 93 100 103 104 104 105
Tennessee 1 284 82 63 59 59 59 24
Texas 2 453 281 282 284 281 281 243 Virginia 1 65 59 51 35 33 32 16 West Virginia 1 497 157 122 76 74 72 55
Wisconsin 1 125 51 47 40 38 34 14
Total 6,122 3,007 2,487 2,212 2,053 1,919 1,311 Group 1 total 4, 665 2,172 1,612 1,340 1,180 1,025 520 Group 2 total 1,457 835 875 872 872 894 791*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 198 of 1339 aNote - As described in the preamble language for this section, the escalating cost per ton figures in each column header only apply to Group 1 states in 2014 and each ye ar thereafter . Cost per ton for Group 2 states is held constant at $500/ton for all the costing runs. In some cases, the escalating cost levels in Group 1 states affect emission levels in Group 2 states as some generation shifts between states in respons e to newly imposed costs. C. Estimates of Air Quality Impacts (Step 2) After developing cost curves to show the state -by - state cost - effective emission reductions available, EPA estimates the air quality impacts of these reductions using the air quality a ssessment tool coupled with full - scale air quality modeling where possible. EPA uses the air quality assessment tool to evaluate the impact on air quality for downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors from upwind reductions in ‘‘linked’’ states. Th is section describes the development of the air quality assessment tool and summarizes the results of th is evaluation. 1. Development of the Air Quality Assessment Tool and Air Quality Modeling Strategy In response to comments on the methodology used for the proposed rule, EPA made significant improvements to the air quality assessment tool (AQAT) for the final Transport Rule. Furthermore, EPA relied on CAMx to model the air quality response to NOX reductions and limited AQAT’s role (relative to the Trans port Rule proposal) to estimat ing the relative response*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 199 of 1339 of sulfate concentrations from SO 2 reductions. EPA did not use AQAT to address NOX reduction s in the final rule analyses . These and other changes to our approach, as described below and in the Signi ficant Contribution and State Emission Budgets for the Final Transport Rule T echnical S upport Document, address commenter’s concerns about the scientific rigor of the design and application of AQAT and commenter’s recommendations to rely upon air quality modeling as part of this analysis. For the final Transport Rule, EPA created an AQAT calibration scenario consisting of full - scale air quality modeling using CAMx of a 2014 control scenario reflecting SO 2 and NOX emission reductions of similar stringency an d from the same geography as the Transport Rule proposal. Modeling of this AQAT calibration scenario reflected all updates made to the air quality modeling platform, as described in the Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document found in the docket f or this rulemaking. CAMx modeling of each receptor’s response in this control scenario accounts for complex chemical interactions and covariation of these pollutants. Among the important atmospheric chemical interactions accounted for in CAMx is “nitrate replacement . ” 41 Nitrate replacement occurs when SO 2

41 Observable indicators of the sensitivity of PM2.5 nitrate to emission reductions

—Part II: Sensitivity to errors in total ammonia and total nitrate of the CMAQ -predicted non - linear*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 200 of 1339 emission reductions lead to decreases in ammonium sulfate, which in turn, can result in an increase in ammonium nitrate concentrations. As described below, EPA used the CAMx modeling results for this AQAT calibration scenario together with the modeling for the 2012 base case to characterize the response of ozone, nitrate, and sulfate at each nonattainment and maintenance receptor to the mix of upwind NOX and SO 2 emission reductions at each cost threshold . As described in section VI.B, EPA determined that the $500/ton threshold for upwind annual and ozone
- season NOX control is appropriate for the final Transport Rule (although EPA plans to determine in the future whether a higher cost/ton threshold may be warranted for states contributing to nonattainment or maintenance problems with the 1997 ozone air quality standard projected to remain at receptors in two downwind areas 42 ). Because this threshold corresponds to the NOX control strategy modeled in the AQAT calibration scenario described above, EPA is able to rely on this CAMx air quality modeling to assess the response of ozone and nitrate concentrations due to NOX reductions and does not estimate ozone or nitrate impacts for this final rulemaking using AQAT. Further information on the effect of SO 2 emission reductions. R.L. Dennis, P.K. Bhave, and R.W. Pinder. 2008. Atmospheric Environment (42):1287 - 1300.doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2007.10.036 42 Houston and Baton Rouge non - attainment areas*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 201 of 1339 air quality modeling of this AQAT calibration scenario can be found in the Air Quality Modeling T echnical S upport Document in the docket for this rulemaking. In order to estimate 2014 annual and 24 - hour PM2.5 concentrations , AQAT uses the 2012 annual and seasonal contributions which quantify the contribution of SO 2 emissions in specific upwind states to sulfate concentrations at specific downwind receptors. These contribution s are described in section V.D.2 and the Air Qual ity Modeling Technical Support Document. EPA utilizes CAMx modeling of the AQAT calibration scenario, described above, to “calibrate” the contribution factors by developing and applying linear sulfate response factors for each downwind receptor. These fac tors calibrate each receptor’s sulfate response to varying levels of upwind SO 2 emissions. These calibration factors are based on the sulfate response modeled by CAMx due to emission changes occurring between the 2012 base case and the 2014 AQAT calibrati on scenario. Calibration factors were constructed for the annual and 24 - hour PM2.5 AQAT. To further allow adequate assessment of the seasonal impacts of various levels of upwind SO 2 reductions on each receptor’s 24 - hour PM2.5 concentration using AQAT, E PA developed response factors for sulfate on a quarterly basis to capture*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 202 of 1339 important air quality differences between summer and winter emissions and concentrations. This process allowed EPA to estimate the air quality values for each season at each cost th reshold , and then estimate the air quality design values. Finally, EPA’s air quality assessment accounts for the impact that this differential response in sulfate by quarter can have on the ordering of 24 - hour concentrations when calculating the 98th perce ntile for the 24 - hour standard. AQAT estimates quarterly specific relative response factors that estimate quarterly specific proportional change in ammonium sulfate resulting from the SO 2 emission reduction from the 2012 base case scenario to the 2014 cos t threshold scenario being assessed. These quarterly relative response factors are then applied to each of the maximum 24 - hour PM2.5 concentrations for eight days per quarter per year at each receptor from the 2012 base case . This methodology improvement allows EPA to redetermine the 98th percentile day for each year and recalculate average and maximum design values for the 24 - hour PM2.5 standard. These improvements for the final rule increase EPA’s confidence that the air quality estimates provided by AQAT, now customized for this application, more accurately estimate the results of full - scale air quality modeling of the various levels of upwind SO 2 reductions considered. EPA evaluated the estimates from AQAT using an independent data set, the 2014 base case*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 203 of 1339 estimates from CAMx, finding that the results are unbiased with minimal differences. See Significant Contribution and State Emission Budgets for the Final Transport Rule T echnical S upport Document for more details. As such, EPA believes the revised AQAT provides an appropriate basis for assessing the air quality portion of the multi - factor methodology to define significant contribution. 43 2. Utilization of AQAT to Evaluate Control Scenarios For the final Transport Rule, EPA performed air quality analys is for each downwind annual and 24 - hour PM2.5 receptor with a non - attainment and/or maintenance problem in the 2012 base

43 EPA used CAMx to conduct full air quality modeling of the final Transport Rule remedy embodying the emission reductions that EPA first selected on the basis of the multifactor analysis using AQAT to project air quality impacts from varyi ng levels of emission reductions analyzed. The CAMx results confirmed the relative magnitude and direction of AQAT's estimates of the outcomes for the 2012 base case nonattainment and maintenance receptors analyzed, and the AQAT estimates closely tracked CAMx modeled concentrations at those receptors under the Transport Rule remedy. The paired AQAT - estimated and CAMx -modeled concentrations were found to be highly correlated with an R2 value of 0.99 7 . As a result, EPA is confident that AQAT's estimates o f impacts on sulfate concentrations at the varying levels of SO 2 emission reductions analyzed provide a technically valid and sound basis for the Agency's selection of the final rule's emission reductions necessary to eliminate (or make meaningful progress toward eliminating) significant contribution and interference with maintenance for the PM2.5 NAAQS considered in this rulemaking. Further details on the comparison of CAMx and AQAT results can be found in the Significant Contribution Technical Support Do cument.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 204 of 1339 case . For each receptor, EPA quantified the sulfate reduction and resulting air quality improvement when a group of states consisting o f the upwind states that are ‘‘linked’’ to the downwind receptor (as explained in section V.C) and the downwind state where the receptor is located, all made the SO 2 emission reductions that EPA identified as available at each cost threshold. EPA assumes reductions at each cost threshold from the linked upwind states as well as the downwind receptor state to assess the shared responsibility of these upwind states to address air quality at the identified receptors. Analysis of each receptor did not assume any emission reductions beyond those included in the 2014 base case from upwind states that are not ‘‘linked’’ to that specific downwind receptor (even if the state was ‘‘linked’’ to a different receptor and/or otherwise would have made emission reductions beginning in 2012 due to the Transport Rule). EPA disagrees with comments suggesting that emission reductions, and resulting decreases in contribution, from upwind states that are not “linked” to a particular downwind receptor should be accounted for in the 2014 AQAT analysis of that receptor. EPA decided to assume reductions only from linked states when analyzing each receptor because EPA is performing a state - specific analysis to support a determination of the amount of each upwind state’s responsibili ty for air quality problems*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 205 of 1339 at the downwind receptors that it significantly affects. If the AQAT analysis were to assume emissions reductions in other non linked states, the AQAT analysis would then contradict the 1st step of our two - step approach to defi ning significant contribution and interference with maintenance. Under EPA’s two - step approach, only a state that (1) contributes more than a threshold amount to a particular downwind state receptor and (2) has emissions reductions available at the select ed cost threshold can be deemed to have responsibility to reduce its emissions to improve air quality at that downwind receptor. EPA believes that the commenters’ suggested approach would not qualify as a state - specific approach for determining upwind sta te responsibility for downwind air quality problems. Because EPA is relying on the CAMx estimate of nitrate concentrations from the AQAT calibration scenario, the response in nitrate to NOX reductions at a cost threshold of $500/ton is present in each SO 2 cost threshold scenario analyzed. EPA determines the cumulative air quality improvement that can be expected at a particular downwind receptor by multiplying each upwind state’s percent SO 2 emission reduction by its calibrated receptor specific sulfate re sponse factor and summing the sulfate, nitrate, and other PM2.5 components (also taken from the 2014 CAMx AQAT calibration scenario) . 3. Air Quality Assessment Results*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 206 of 1339 The results of EPA’s air quality assessment of the cost threshold scenarios focus on air quality metrics including, but not limited to, average air quality improvement at receptors with 201 2 base case non - attainment and maintenance exceedances and an evaluation of estimated receptor design values against annual and 24 - hour PM2.5 standards. See Significant Contribution and State Emission Budgets for the Final Transport Rule TSD for more details. In EPA’s air quality analysis of each downwind receptor, all air quality improvements are measured relative to the “AQAT base case.” This base ca se reflects AQAT’s estimated PM2.5 concentrations under base case 2014 SO 2 emissions. The AQAT base case itself is not used for any decision points and only serves as an appropriate starting point for comparison of air quality improvements at SO 2 cost thr esholds. EPA ensures internal analytic consistency by comparing all air quality improvements at analyzed SO 2 cost thresholds to the AQAT base case . Regarding average air quality improvement at exceeding 2012 base case receptors, EPA identified 41 receptor s with non attainment or maintenance problems in the 2012 base case. EPA assessed the cumulative reduction in 24 - hour PM2.5 maximum design value at each increasing SO 2 cost threshold from the maximum design value from the AQAT base case , and averaged the reduction across the 41 receptor s. The results of this assessment*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 207 of 1339 indicate diminishing returns to 24 - hour PM2.5 maximum design value reduction as SO 2 cost threshold levels increase. EPA finds reductions in maximum design value of 4.28 μg/m3 at $500; 4.98 μg/m3 at $1,600; 5.33 μg/m3 at $2,300; 5.46 μg/m3 at $2,800; 5.60 μg/m3 at $3,300; and 6.08 μg/m3 at $10,000. These results are provided in table VI.C - 1.
Table VI.C - 1 Average 2014 Air Quality Improvement at Receptors with 2012 Base Case Nonattainment and Maintenance Problems Group 1 State SO 2 Cost Per Ton Threshold Average Air

Quality Improvement at Exceeding Receptors in 2012 Base Case ( μg/m3 ) $500 4.28 $1,600 4.98 $2,300 5.33 $2,800 5.46 $3,300 5.60 $10,000 6.08 Additionally, EPA eva luated the AQAT estimated 2014 average and maximum design values for these receptor s at each cost threshold against the annual and 24 - hour PM2.5 standards. EPA determined the estimated number of receptor s with nonattainment or maintenance problems at $500 /ton cost threshold of NOX and each of the cost threshold scenarios assessed for SO 2 . These results are provided in table VI.C - 2 in terms of the number of receptors and the number of non - attainment areas containing these receptors .*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 208 of 1339 Table VI.C - 2 Receptors with Nonattainment and/or Maintenance Exceedances of the Annual or 24 -hour PM2.5 NAAQS in 2014
SO 2 Cost Threshold Annual Non attainment Annual Non attainment or Maintenance 24 - hour Non attainment 24 - hour Non attainment or Maintenance Annual and 24 - hour No n attainment and Maintenance Receptor s Areas Receptor s Areas Receptor s Areas Receptor s Areas Receptor s Areas $500 1 1 1 1 2 2 9 6 9 6 $1,600 1 1 1 1 2 2 8 5 8 5 $2,300 0 0 1 1 1 1 6 4 6 4 $2,800 0 0 1 1 1 1 5 4 5 4 $3,300 0 0 1 1 1 1 5 4 5 4 $10,00 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3

In the proposal, EPA evaluated whether the imposition of the rule’s upwind emission reduction requirements could cause changes in operation of electric generating units in states not regulated under the proposal. EPA recognized tha t such changes could lead to increased emissions in those states, potentially affecting whether they would exceed the 1 percent contribution thresholds used to identify linkages between upwind and downwind states. Such shifting of emissions between states may occur because of the interconnected nature of the country’s energy system (including both the electricity grid as well as coal and natural gas supplies). Using updated emissions and air quality information developed for the final rule, EPA’s IPM model ing found that of the states not covered in the final rule for PM2.5 , Arkansas, Colorado, Louisiana, Montana, and Wyoming are all projected to have SO 2 emission increases above 5,000 tons in 2014 with the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 209 of 1339 rule in effect. EPA analysis shows the SO 2 emissio ns increases result from expected shifts to higher sulfur coal in these states. Using AQAT, a state - level assessment of these emission increases relative to the state specific contribution s to downwind receptors (where available) indicates that projected increases in the SO 2 emissions would not increase any of these states’ contributions to an amount that would meet or exceed the 0.15 μg/m3 or 0.35 μg/m3 thresholds for annual and 24 - hour PM2.5 , respectively. For this reason, EPA has determined that it is not necessary to include these additional states in the Transport Rule as a result of the effects of the rule itself on SO 2 emissions in uncovered states. See Significant Contribution and State Emission Budgets for the Final Transport Rule TSD in the docke t for this rulemaking for more details. D. Multi - Factor Analysis and Determination of State Emission Budgets EPA used the cost, emission, and air quality information described in the previous sections to perform its multi - factor analysis (step 3). By look ing at different “ cost thresholds ” - places where there was a noticeable change on the cost curve because emission reductions occur - and examining the corresponding impact on air quality, EPA identified the amount of emissions that represent significant c ontribution to*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 210 of 1339 nonattainment and interference with maintenance within each state. After quantifying this amount of emissions, EPA established state “budgets” which represent the remaining emissions for the state in an average year (step 4). For states covered by the rule for PM2.5 , EPA calculated annual NOX and annual SO 2 budgets. For states covered by the rule for ozone, EPA calculated ozone - season NOX budgets. This section explains the multi - factor assessment and how EPA used this assessment to dete rmine state - specific budgets. 1. Multi - factor Analysis (Step 3) a. Overview As described in section VI.B, EPA examined how different cost thresholds impacted emissions in covered Transport Rule States. Section VI.C summarizes the estimated air quality imp acts in 2014 of these emission levels at downwind monitor sites, including estimates of their nonattainment and maintenance status ( See “Significant Contribution and State Emissions Budgets for the Final Transport Rule TSD” for more details). From these two steps, EPA evaluated the interaction between upwind emissions at different cost levels and air quality at downwind receptors to identify “significant cost thresholds.” These cost thresholds are based on air quality considerations (such as the cost at which the air quality assessment analysis projects large numbers of downwind site maintenance and*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 211 of 1339 nonattainment problems would be resolved) or cost criteria (such as a cost where large emissions reductions occur because a particular technology is widely imp lemented at that cost). EPA examined each cost threshold and then use d a multi - factor assessment to determine which serve as cost thresholds that eliminate significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance for upwind states. Air quality considerations in the assessment include, for example, how much air quality improvement in downwind states results from upwind state emissions reductions at different levels; whether, considering upwind emissions reductions and assumed local (in s tate) reductions, the downwind air quality problems would be resolved; and the components of the remaining downwind air quality problem (e.g., whether it is a predominantly local or in - state problem, or whether it still contains a large upwind component). Cost considerations include, for example, how the cost per ton of emission reduction compares with the cost per ton of existing federal and state rules for the same pollutant; whether the cost per ton is consistent with the cost per ton of technologies al ready widely deployed (similar to the highly cost - effective criteria used in both the NOX SIP Call and CAIR); and what cost increase is required to achieve additional meaningful air quality improvement.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 212 of 1339 The specific cost per ton thresholds selected as a ba sis for identifying significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance in this rulemaking apply only to the determinations made in this rule and do not establish any precedent for future EPA actions under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) or any other section of the Clean Air Act. EPA’s selection of specific cost thresholds in the context of this rulemaking relies on current analyses of the cost of available emission reductions, the pattern of interstate linkages for pollution transport, and the downwind air quality impacts specifically related to the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2006 24 - hour PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition and as explained below , the selection of the threshold for ozone - season NOX was influenced by the limited scope of this rule. Any or all of these variables used to identify specific cost thresholds are subject to change. Thus, EPA may use different cost thresholds in future actions, even if those actions relate to the same NAAQS addressed in this ru le. b. Cost Thresholds Examined and Selected for Ozone - Season NOX In the proposal, EPA examined various cost thresholds for ozone season NOX and identified a cost threshold with rapidly diminishing returns at $500/ton. EPA observed that moving beyond the $500 cost threshold up to a $2,500 cost threshold would*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 213 of 1339 result in only minimal additional ozone season NOX emission reductions and would likely bypass less expensive non - EGU emission reduction opportunities (75 FR 45281). EPA noted that for greater cost s the curves did not include all available reductions as they do not include non - EGU reductions (75 FR 44286). In the proposal, EPA noted the timely promulgation and implementation of this rule is responsive to the Court’s remand of CAIR, will accelerate critical air quality improvement, and more effectively address the mandate of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D) to address significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance as expeditiously as practicable. EPA did not want to risk delayin g air quality benefits available from EGU emission reductions, particularly those emission reductions which eliminate significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance for many monitors, while the Agency conducts additional analys is to support subsequent transport - related rulemakings including coverage of non - EGU sources (75 FR 45285) . EPA received comments suggesting that it consider cost thresholds higher than $500/ton as reductions beyond the proposed $500/ton cost threshold wer e needed to fully resolve nonattainment and maintenance issues in downwind states analyzed at proposal. Some of these comments suggested EPA should include non - EGUs as they consider the higher cost thresholds,*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 214 of 1339 others suggested EPA continue to exclude non - EGU sources in this rulemaking. In response to those comments that suggested EPA explore higher cost thresholds because nonattainment and maintenance was not fully resolved, EPA first notes that CAA section 110 (a)(2)(D)(i)(I) only requires the elimination of emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in other states. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) focuses exclusively on the transport component of nonattainment and maintenance problems. Section 110(a)(2 )(D)(i)(I) does not shift to upwind states the responsibility for ensuring that all areas in other states attain the NAAQS. As such, the mandate of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) is not to ensure that reductions in upwind states are sufficient to bring all downwind areas in to attainment, it is simply to ensure that all significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance is eliminated. Thus, the presence of residual nonattainment or maintenance areas does not, by itself, signify a fail ure to satisfy the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)((i)(I). Furthermore, as noted in VI.A, EPA is finalizing coverage only for the EGU emission source - sector category in this rulemaking. EPA has not included non - EGU sources in this final rulemaking. EPA remai ns convinced that timely promulgation and*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 215 of 1339 implementation of this rule is responsive to the Court’s remand of CAIR . To the extent that significant contribution is not eliminated for the 1997 ozone NAAQS standard at the $500/ton cost threshold , EPA is not addressing in this rulemaking whether a cost threshold greater than $500/ton is justified for some upwind states and downwind receptor s . EPA believes it can best serve these states where concerns persist regarding projected nonattainment or maintenance of t he 1997 ozone NAAQS by quickly finalizing this rule and seeking further non - EGU reductions in subsequent rulemakings. Table VI.B - 2 illustrates the small amount of EGU reductions available as cost thresholds increase above $500/ton. The ozone
- season NOX re ductions available in the Transport Rule region between the $500/ton and $1,000/ton cost thresholds amount to less than 3,000 tons. EPA believes that potentially substantial non - EGU ozone - season NOX reductions become available approaching the $1,000/ton co st threshold. EPA emphasized this in the proposal, noting that the cost curves for ozone season NOX did not reflect all available reductions as they do not include non - EGU reductions (75 FR 45286). For these reasons, EPA did not consider cost thresholds g reater than $500/ton. EPA did not consider cost thresholds below $500/ton for ozone - season NOX . $500/ton is a reasonable threshold*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 216 of 1339 representing a significant amount of lowest - cost NOX emission reductions from EGUs, largely accruing from the installati on of combustion controls such as low -NOX burners and constitutes a reasonable cost level for operation of existing NOX controls such as SCRs. EPA believes it would be inappropriate for a state linked to downwind nonattainment or maintenance areas to stop operating existing pollution control equipment (which would increase their emissions and contribution) . This is increasingly likely to occur at cost thresholds lower than $500/ton. Therefore, EPA did not find cost thresholds lower than $500/ton for ozon e - season NOX to be reasonable for development of the Transport Rule cost curves. As discussed in section III of this preamble, EPA intends to finalize reconsideration of the March 2008 ozone NAAQS in the summer of 2011 and to expeditiously propose a trans port - related action to address any necessary upwind state control responsibilities with respect to that reconsidered NAAQS. c. Cost Thresholds Examined and Selected for Annual NOX Following the assessment of the cost curves in section IV.B and the air qual ity modeling of the AQAT calibration scenario using CAMx, EPA identified a single cost threshold at $500/ton for annual NOX . Beyond requiring the year - round operation of existing post - combustion NOX controls and other reductions modeled at $500/ton thresh old, EPA observed a limitation in*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 217 of 1339 available low - cost annual NOX reductions from EGUs. Approximately 7,000 tons of annual NOX reductions were available from EGUs between the $500/ton and the $1,000/ton cost thresholds ( See Table VI.B. - 1). Furthermore, ab ove the $500/ton threshold, similar to ozone season NOX cost curves, the annual NOX cost curves do not include all available reductions as they do not include non - EGU reductions. EPA analysis suggest s that while NOX emission reductions lead to reductions in PM2.5 , SO 2 reductions are generally more cost - effective than NOX reductions at reducing PM2.5 (75 FR 45281). In part, for these reasons, EPA’s multi - factor assessment suggested that the $500/ton cost threshold for annual NOX in concert with the cost th resholds identified for SO 2 were the appropriate cost thresholds for eliminating significant contribution. EPA finds in the final Transport Rule that the $500/ton cost threshold for annual NOX , in concert with the SO 2 cost threshold selected below, succes sfully eliminates significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 24 - hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the states covered by this Rule for PM2.5 . The reasons for not considering cost thresholds lower than $500/ton for annual NOX are the same as those identified for not doing so for ozone season NOX . In addition to its PM2.5 reduction be nefits , annual NOX control at the $500/ton threshold can help*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 218 of 1339 to stem nitrate replacement in the atmosphere. As explained earlier, n itrate replacement happens when SO 2 emissions reductions successfully reduce ammonium sulfate (a component of PM2.5 ) but provoke a PM2.5 rebound effect by freeing up additional ammonia to form ammonium nitrate (another component of PM2.5 ) . d. Cost Thresholds Examined and Selected for SO 2 EPA first assessed the downwind air quality impacts of emission reductions modeled at the $500/ton threshold in all states found to be linked to downwind sites for PM2.5 transport, as well as in the stat es hosting those downwind sites. The air quality assessment tool projected that those reductions do not fully resolve nonattainment and maintenance problems with the PM2.5 standards for certain areas to which the following states are linked: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. EPA proceeded to analyze available 2014 emission reductions at higher cost thresholds from the se states, collectively referred to as Group 1 states for SO 2 control. For Group 2 states, the air quality assessment tool projected that the SO 2 reductions at this first cost threshold assessed would resolve the nonattainment and maintenance problems for all of the areas to which the following states are linked: Alabama, Georgia, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, South*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 219 of 1339 Carolina, and Texas. EPA thus finds that these states’ significant contribution is eliminated at the $500 per ton level in 2014; they are coll ectively referred to as Group 2 states for SO 2 control. Because their significant contribution is eliminated at this stringency of control, EPA did not analyze higher cost thresholds for Group 2 states. The states in Group 1 and Group 2 are rationally gro uped considering air quality and cost. EPA determined that it would not be appropriate to assign the same cost threshold to Group 2 and Group 1 states because a significantly lower cost threshold was sufficient to resolve air quality problems at all downw ind receptors linked to the Group 2 states. Although states are linked to different sets of downwind receptors, EPA analysis indicated that the cost threshold needed to resolve downwind air quality problems varied only to a limited extent among states within Group 1 and among states within Group 2. It did, however, vary greatly between the Group 1 and Group 2 states. The ruling of the D.C. Circuit in Michigan v. EPA , 213 F.3d 663, 679 - 80 (D.C. Cir. 2000), accepting EPA’s prior use of a transport remedy w ith uniform controls, supports EPA’s decision to use a uniform cost threshold for a group of states. As discussed in section VI.B, the cost threshold for Group 1 states was examined at escalating levels in 2014 (it remained at $500/ton for Group 2 states). EPA examined emissions at SO 2*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 220 of 1339 cost thresholds of $500, $1,600, $2,300, $2,800, $3,300, and $10,000/ton for Group 1 states in 2014. The higher SO 2 marginal costs were only imposed in Transport Rule states starting in 2014, by which time the advanced pollu tion control retrofits induced at those higher cost thresholds could be installed. (See section VI.D.2 for EPA’s assessment and decisions regarding SO 2 budget formation in Group 1 states in 2014.) EPA observed some degree of additional air quality benefit at downwind receptors across all of the cost thresholds examined for SO 2 , but significant air quality outcomes were achieved at the $2,300/ton cost threshold. The $2,300/ton threshold is projected to resolve the last remaining nonattainment area for the annual PM2.5 standard (Liberty - Clairton), 44 and it also is projected to resolve the nonattainment and maintenance problems with the 24 - hour PM2.5 standard at 1 monitor in the Detroit area and resolve the maintenance problems in the Cleveland area. There wer e significant air quality improvements at this level in connection with widespread deployment of pollution control technology, while the cost impacts remained reasonable.

44 AQAT results indicated that one receptor in the Liberty Clairton area continued to have maintenance problems with the annual PM2.5 standard. However, final air quality modeling results (described in section VIII.B) indicated that this maintenanc e problem was resolved for this receptor under the final Transport Rule.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 221 of 1339 Moving beyond $2,300/ton to the $2,800/ton and $3,300/ton thresholds, EPA projected n otably smaller air quality improvements compared to those projected when moving from the $1,600/ton threshold to the $2,300/ton threshold. EPA also projected no ultimate change in the 24 - hour PM2.5 attainment status of the remaining nonattainment area (Li berty - Clairton) or three remaining maintenance areas (Chicago, 45 Detroit, and Lancaster). 46 At the same time, the total program cost continued to increase by about the same interval at each of these thresholds as it had between the $1,600/ton and $2,300/ton thresholds. EPA thus observed a relatively lower cost effectiveness of downwind PM2.5 control via upwind SO 2 reductions beyond $2,300/ton for the receptors linked to Group 1 states. Table VI.D - 1 and Figure VI.D - 1 demonstrate this relationship between co st of EGU SO 2 control and downwind PM2.5 concentration impacts, showing a sustained diminishing of cost effectiveness beyond the $2,300/ton threshold. The $2,300/ton threshold in
45 This area is not currently designated as non - attainment f or the 24 - hour PM2.5 standard. EPA is portraying the recepto r s and counties in this area as a single 24 - hour maintenance ar ea based on the annual PM2.5 non - attainment designation of Chicago - Gary Lake County, IL - IN. 46 AQAT results indicated that two receptors in the Detroit area continued to have maintenance problems with the 24 - hour PM2.5 standard. However, final air quality modeling results (described in section VIII.B) indicated that only one receptor continued to have maintenance problems in this area for this standard under the final Transport Rule.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 222 of 1339 this analysis is situated in the “knee - in - the - curve” area of cost - effectiven ess for addressing downwind PM2.5 concentrations with SO 2 reductions, beyond which point the air quality gains per dollar spent on additional reductions are much smaller. This relationship is demonstrative of the economic potency of SO 2 reductions at each cost threshold to address the PM2.5 concentrations at linked receptors in this analysis.

Table VI.D - 1 Cost-Effectiveness of Group 1 State SO2 Reductions a for Downwind PM2.5 Control SO 2 Cost Threshold Additional

System Cost Expended (2007$, billions) Avera ge PM2.5

Air Quality Improvement ( μg/m3 ) b Air Quality Cost Effectiveness (average μg/m3 reduced per billion $ expended) $500 0.2 2 3.27 14.74 $1,600 0.82 3.86 4.70 $2,300 1.35 4.22 3.11 $2,800 1.94 4.37 2.25 $3,300 2.36 4.50 1.91 $10,000 3.61 4. 99 1.38 aDownwind PM2.5 improvement based on SO 2 reductions from states “linked” to specific receptors. See section VI.C. bMeasured as the reduction in maximum design value for the 24 - hour PM2.5 NAAQS from AQAT base case to each SO 2 threshold for recepto rs with remaining non - attainment and maintenance exceedances at the $500/ton threshold, averaged across these receptors. Figure VI.D - 1*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 223 of 1339 Furthermore, even at the $10,000/ton cost threshold, Liberty - Clairton is still projected to face maintenance concerns with the annual PM2.5 standard and is projected to remain in nonattainment of the 24 - hour PM2.5 standard, while the Chicago 47 and Lancaster areas are still projected to have residual maintenance problems with the 24 - hour PM2.5 standard. EPA projected th at even total elimination of EGU SO 2 emissions (no matter the cost) would not be able to resolve either

47 This area is not currently designated as non - attainment f or the 24 - hour PM2.5 standard. EPA is portraying the recepto r s and counties in this area as a single 24 - hour maintenance area based on the annual PM2.5 non - attainment designation of Chicago - Gary Lake County, IL - IN.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 224 of 1339 nonattainment of the 24 - hour PM2.5 standard in the Liberty Clairton area or the residual maintenance concerns with that standard in Lancaster County. E PA thus finds that other PM2.5 strategies, including local reductions of other PM2.5 precursors, are important to consider for remaining nonattainment and maintenance areas to seek further improvements in PM2.5 concentrations. Considering both air quality and cost, EPA’s multi - factor analysis indicated $2,300 per ton as an appropriate cost threshold for SO 2 in the Group 1 states. EPA believes the analyzed cost thresholds lower than $2,300/ton were not appropriate for SO 2 control in the Group 1 states under the Transport Rule for the following reasons:
 Downwind air quality impacts up to the $2,300 threshold are significant. Moving up to $2,300/ton successfully resolves all downwind nonattainment of the annual and 24 - hour PM2.5 standards except for the Liber ty - Clairton receptor in Allegheny county with respect to 24 - hour PM2.5 , which EPA has noted is heavily influenced by a local source of organic carbon (75 FR 45281).
 Upwind emission reductions available up to $2,300 / ton are highly cost - effective in comparis on with similar regulations.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 225 of 1339  The emission reductions up to this threshold are achievable with widespread deployment of controls that can be installed at power plants by 2014.
 As stated at proposal, EPA finds it reasonable to require a substantial level of control of upwind state emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment or maintenance problems in another state. The $2 , 300/ton cost threshold is comparable to EPA’s survey of local non - EGU SO 2 reduction opportunities in the PM2.5 NAAQS RIA, whi ch range in cost from just above $2,300/ton to over $16,000/ton (2007 $ ). EPA thus finds it reasonable to seek EGU SO 2 reductions up to $2 , 300/ton (rather than at a lower cost threshold) in the states linked to receptors with ongoing attainment and mainte nance concerns with the PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA believes the analyzed cost thresholds above $2,300/ton were not appropriate for SO 2 control in the Group 1 states under the Transport Rule for the following reasons:
 As noted above, r eductions up to $2,300/ton were able to resolve all projected downwind nonattainment of the annual and 24 - hour PM2.5 NAAQS, with the sole exception of projected nonattainment of the 24 - hour PM2.5 standard at a receptor in Liberty - Clairton. It is well - established that, in addition to bei ng impacted by regional sources, the Liberty - Clairton area is significantly affected by local*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 226 of 1339 emissions from a sizable coke production facility and other nearby sources, leading to high concentrations of organic carbon in this area. 48 EPA finds that the remaining PM2.5 nonattainment problem is predominantly local and therefore does not believe that it would be appropriate to establish a higher cost threshold solely on the basis of this projected ongoing nonattainment of the 24 - hour PM2.5 standard at the Lib erty - Clairton receptor.
 Approximately 70 percent of base case SO 2 emissions from Group 1 states were eliminated at the $2,300/ton cost threshold, leaving a decreasing amount of emission reductions available at each increased cost threshold beyond $2,300/to n.
 Additional EGU SO 2 reductions available from EGUs beyond the $2,300/ton threshold level realize significantly less improvement in downwind PM2.5 concentrations per dollar spent to impact receptors linked to Group 1 states. In other words, the cost - ef fectiveness of controlling EGU emissions in Group 1 states to improve downwind PM2.5 concentrations at the linked receptors is notably diminished beyond the $2,300/ton threshold in this analysis. See Figure VI.D - 1.

48http:// www . epa . gov / pmdesignations /2006 standards / final / TSD / tsd_4.0_4.3_4.3.3_r03_PA_2.pdf*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 227 of 133 9  EGUs are by far the largest source category for SO 2 emissions. This analysis shows that reductions of EGU SO 2 emissions up to the $2,300/ton cost threshold were significantly more cost - effective for improving downwind PM2.5 concentrations than further such reductions (beyond the $2,300/ton cost threshold) would be to address the remaining PM2.5 maintenance concerns. EPA’s analysis also shows that these maintenance concerns cannot be fully resolved even with complete elimination of all remaining EGU SO 2 emissions, no matter the cost. EPA finds that other PM2.5 precursor emission reductions, particularly those from local sources will be critical for states in these remaining areas to consider for controlling PM2.5 concentrations with respect to maintenance of the 2006 24 - hour PM2.5 NAAQS. In summary, the appropriate cost thresholds for each state were identified through the multi - factor assessment. This assessment included both cost and air quality considerations. As explained above, the ozone - season NOX threshold was determined to be $500/ton for all states in the ozone region, with residual nonattainment and maintenance concerns to be addressed in a future rulemaking addressing a broader set of source categories for additional cost - effective reductions. For PM2.5 , the appropriate cost thresh old for each state was determined to be*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 228 of 1339 either the level at which nonattainment and maintenance issues were completely resolved in downwind states to which the state is linked, the level where remaining nonattainment and maintenance issues are primarily lo cal, or where we found greatly diminished improvements in air quality occurring if EPA moved further up the cost curve. This assessment yielded a cost threshold of $2,300/ton on SO 2 for Group 1 states starting in 2014 ($500/ton in 2012), a cost threshold of $500/ton on SO 2 for Group 2 states, and a cost threshold of $500/ton on annual NOX for all states in the PM region. As explained above, none of these specific cost thresholds establish any precedent for the cost per ton stringency of reductions EPA may require in future transport - related rulemakings; these specific cost thresholds are based on current analy s es of air quality and cost of emission reductions with respect to the NAAQS considered in this rulemaking and thus would not be relevant to future ru lemakings (which would consider updated information) or rulemakings with respect to different NAAQS . In particular, EPA acknowledges that additional action EPA will require in a subsequent rulemaking to address significant contribution to nonattainment an d interference with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS (once reconsideration is finalized) is very likely to require a higher cost per ton stringency of ozone - season NOX control applied to a*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 229 of 1339 broader set of source categories from upwind states than found t o be appropriate for this rulemaking. 2. State Emission Budgets (Step 4) a. Budget Methodology EPA used the multi - factor assessment to identify, for each state, the cost threshold that should be used to quantify that state’s significant contribution. As described above, in the context of this rulemaking EPA identified a cost threshold of $500/ton for ozone
- season NOX control for all states in the Transport Rule ozone region. EPA also identified a cost threshold of $500/ton for annual NOX control for all states in the Transport Rule PM region. Finally, EPA identified a cost threshold of $500/ton of SO 2 for all PM states starting in 2012 and $2,300/ton for the Group 1 states starting in 2014. EPA used these cost thresholds from the multi - factor analysis t o quantify each state’s emissions that significantly contribute to or interfere with maintenance downwind. For example, for a Group 1 state in the PM region, EPA modeling of the cost threshold conveys emission reductions available in each covered state fr om operation of existing pollution controls as well as all emission reductions available at cost thresholds of $500/ton for annual NOX in 2012 and 2014, $500/ton for SO 2 in 2012, and $2,300/ton for SO 2 in 2014. The total SO 2 and NOX modeled in that state in those years represents that state’s*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 230 of 1339 emissions once significant contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance downwind for the relevant PM NAAQS has been eliminated .

Table VI.D - 2 Example of Emission Reductions and Budget Formation in Michigan for Annual SO2 and NOXa

Final Cost Threshold Base Case

Emissions (1000 tons) Remaining

Emissions at Cost Thresholds (1000 tons) Emissions

Eliminated (1000 tons) A B C D E F 2012 SO 2 $500 252.4 194.5 57.9

NOX $500 60.6 60.2 0.4 2014 SO 2 $2,300 265.6 144 121.6

NOX $500 64.3 57.8 6.5 a Note: In this table, emissions are shown for fossil - fuel fired EGUs > 25 MW (i.e., those units likely covered by the Transport Rule). Table VI.D.2 illustrates how budgets are derived from the eliminatio n of significant contribution for the state of Michigan. Column C illustrates the cost thresholds applied in the costing run that was ultimately identified as the final cost threshold in the multi - factor analysis. Column D shows the base case emissions f or the identified pollutant in the identified time period. Column E shows the emission levels that result when the cost thresholds identified in column C are applied. Because this is the cost threshold identified through the multi - factor analysis and the point where all significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance has been address ed for the PM2.5 NAAQS - state budgets are set equal to these emission levels. The final column illustrates the emission reductions for the state in an average year (before accounting for variability) when the cost thresholds are applied - this is equal to the emission levels identified at the cost threshold subtracted from the base case emission levels.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 231 of 1339 EPA’s modeling of a stat e’s SO 2 and annual NOX emission levels (from fossil - fired EGUs >25 MW) at the relevant cost thresholds in each state reflect that state’s emissions from covered sources after the removal of significant contribution to and interference with maintenance of t he PM2.5 NAAQS considered in this rulemaking. As these state emission levels reflect the removal of significant contribution, they are reasonable levels on which to determine state budgets. Consequently, EPA set state budget levels equal to the state level emissions that remained at the cost threshold . Each state’s budget corresponds to its emission levels following the elimination of significant contribution in an average year (before taking year - to - year variability into account, as discussed in section VI.E below). Therefore, the implementation and realization of these budgeted emissions levels leads to the elimination of significant contribution and EPA meets the statutory mandate of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 24 - hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA’s establishment of state budgets for ozone - season NOX control follow the same methodology as described above for SO 2 and annual NOX ; however, implementation of these ozone - season NOX budgets reflects the elimination of significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance of the 1997*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 232 of 1339 ozone NAAQS only for 15 states, whereas 11 other states’ ozone season NOX budgets reflect meaningful progress toward (but not full completion of) this elimination under the mandate of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). See section III for lists of states. This approach to basing budgets on projected state level emission used in the multi - factor analysis is identical to the approach used in the proposal for determining 2014 SO 2 budgets for Group 1 states. EPA is extending this approach more broadly in the final Transport Rule to create state budgets for ozone season NOX , annual NOX , and SO 2 in all relevant states in both 2012 and 2014. In the proposal EPA used a more comple x approach based on a comparison of historic and projected unit - level emissions (further adjusted for operation of existing controls) in each state to create 2012 state budgets for ozone - season NOX , annual NOX , and Group 2 SO 2 . At the time of proposal, EPA believed that historic 2009 emissions data were in some cases more representative of expected emissions in 2012 than pure modeling projections made at the time (75 FR 45290). However, following the proposal EPA has made significant updates to the IPM model for projecting EGU emissions, including specifically the adoption of 2009 historic data into its modeling parameters directly. EPA also received substantial public input following the proposal on the model’s assumptions and representation of individual units, which allowed EPA to*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 233 of 1339 improve its 2012 and 2014 emission projections for states under the cost thresholds considered. These modeling updates diminish the concerns EPA expressed at proposal that 2009 historic data may have offered for some states a better proxy for 2012 emissions than model projections, particularly now that EPA is incorporating 2009 data directly in its updated modeling projections. Given these updates to the model in response to public comment, EPA believes it is more appropriate for the final rule to use a consistent approach based on projected state level emissions for all state budgets, as was done for Group 1 SO 2 budgets in 2014 at proposal. EPA received significant comment supporting the use of the model to project state - leve l emissions for creating budgets in this manner. EPA also received comments that criticized the proposal’s methodology for 2012 budgets for lack of transparency, unnecessary complexity, and inconsistency with the state - level emission projections used in the air quality modeling. EPA’s decision for the final Transport Rule to consistently apply across all pollutants the budget methodology originally used for Group 1 SO 2 budgets in 2014 addresses those concerns. This budget methodology for the final rule us es projected state - level emissions in 2012 and 2014 to set emissions budgets for those years on relevant pollutants for that state to control under the Transport Rule. EPA’s modeling projects that some*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 234 of 1339 states have 2014 emissions that are lower than their 2012 projected emissions even as the same cost threshold (e.g., $500/ton) is applied in both years. This occurs in the annual NOX , o zone - season NOX , and Group 2 SO 2 program. As such, EPA’s application of this budgeting methodology results in a tightening of budgets in states whose projected emissions of that budgeted pollutant decline from 2012 to 2014 as the cost threshold is held constant. There are two primary variables that explain the decrease in emissions for some states between 2012 and 2014 as th e cost threshold remains constant over both time periods. First, even though the cost threshold is constant between 2012 and 2014 for the programs noted above, the cost threshold for SO 2 Group 1 increases in 2014. This higher cost threshold for Group 1 S O 2 results in obvious reductions in SO 2 emissions in the Group 1 states, but it also lowers the cost of certain related NOX reductions in those states as well such that they become newly available within the $500/ton threshold. For example, if a state inc reases natural gas generation in response to the higher SO 2 cost threshold, such action also yields additional annual and ozone - season NOX emission reductions that are cost - effective at the $500/ton NOX threshold. Where the cost curve modeling shows such additional cost - effective NOX reductions in tandem with SO 2 control, EPA is therefore reducing those states’ 2014 annual NOX*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 235 of 1339 and ozone - season NOX budgets accordingly, so that those budgets accurately reflect remaining emissions from covered sources in thos e states after the elimination of all emissions that can be reduced up to the relevant cost thresholds (e.g., $500/ton). Second, some of these additional reductions are driven by non - Transport Rule variables. These are reductions that occur due to state rules, consent decrees, and other planned changes in generation patterns that occur after 2012, but during or prior to 2014. For example, EPA modeling reflects emission reduction requirements under a state rule in Georgia that go into effect after 2012 but before 2014. These requirements involve the installation and operation of specific advanced pollution controls. These source - specific requirements under a legal authority unrelated to the Transport Rule result in sharp reductions in Georgia’s baseline emission projections between 2012 and 2014. Even though the cost threshold for NOX and for SO 2 in Georgia is $500/ton in both 2012 and 2014, EPA believes it is important to establish separate NOX and SO 2 budgets that accurately reflect the emissions remain ing in Georgia (and other states experiencing similar reductions) after the elimination of emissions that can be reduced up to the Transport Rule remedy’s cost thresholds (e.g., $500/ton) ( See Table VI.D.3. It illustrates a notable decrease between the 20 12 and 2014 state budgets for NOX and SO 2 in Georgia that is largely driven by*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 236 of 1339 these state rule requirements). If EPA did not adjust 2014 budgets to account for other emission reductions that would occur even in the baseline, other sources within the stat e would be allowed to increase their emissions under the unadjusted Transport Rule budgets to offset the emission reductions planned under other requirements such as state rules. Therefore, to prevent the Transport Rule from allowing such offsetting of emission reductions already expected to occur between 2012 and 2014, EPA is establishing separate budgets for 2012 and 2014 in the final Transport Rule to capture emission reductions in each state that would occur for non - Transport Rule - related reasons (i.e. , in the base case) during that time. EPA’s modeling also projects that other states would slightly increase emissions from 2012 to 2014 even at the same cost threshold, such as $500/ton. There are two primary variables that explain the increase in emissi ons for these states between 2012 and 2014. These increases are generally small in magnitude. For annual and ozone season NOX , they occur as a byproduct of small changes in dispatch related to changes in non - Transport Rule factors (e.g., higher demand in 2014). For SO 2 , they primarily occur in Group 2 states and, in addition to the reasons given above, are influenced by some generation shifting from Group 1 to Group 2 states as the Group 1 states begin to face a higher cost threshold in 2014. EPA believes*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 237 of 1339 that allowing for such emissions growth in covered states beyond 2012 would be inconsistent with the Transport Rule’s identification and elimination of significant contribution beginning in 2012. Therefore, for any covered state whose emissions of a re levant pollutant are projected to increase from 2012 to 2014 under the relevant cost thresholds selected in the multi - factor analysis described above, EPA is finalizing that state’s 2014 emissions budget to maintain the same level of the 2012 emissions budget, thereby disallowing such an emissions increase that is inconsistent with the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) mandate. Tables VI.D - 3 and VI.D - 4 below list state emissions budgets. Table VI.D - 3 - SO2 and Annual NOX State Emission Budgets for Electric Generating Uni ts before Accounting for Variability* (tons)
SO2 NOX Group 2012 - 2013 2014 and beyond 2012 - 2013 2014 and beyond Alabama 2 216,033 213,258 72,691 71,962 Georgia 2 158,527 95,231 62,010 40,540 Illinois 1 234,889 124,123 47,872 47,872 Indiana 1 285,424 161,111 109,726 108,424 Iowa 1 107,085 75,184 38,335 37,498 Kansas 2 41,528 41,528 30,714 25,560 Kentucky 1 189,335 106,284 85,086 77,238 Maryland 1 30,12 0 28,203*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 238 of 1339 16,633 16,574 Michigan 1 194,537 143,995 60,193 57,812 Minnesota 2 41,981 41,981 29,572 29,572 Missouri 1 207,466 165,941 52,374 48,717 Nebraska 2 65,052 65,052 26,440 26,440 New Jersey 1 5,574 5,574 7,266 7,266 New York 1 20,497 11,823 17,543 17,543 North Carolina 1 136,881 57,620 50,587 41,553 Ohio 1 310,230 137,077 92,703 87,493 Pennsylvania 1 278,651 112,021 119,986 119,194 South Carolina 2 88,620 88,620 32,498 32,498 Tennessee 1 148,150 58,833 35,703 19,337 Texas 2 243,954 243,954 133,595 133,595 Virginia 1 70,820 35,057 33,242 33,242 West Vi rginia 1 146,174 75,668 59,472 54,582 Wisconsin 1 79,480 40,126 31,628 30,398 Grand Total 3,301,008 2,128,264 1,245,869 1,164,910 Group 1 Total 2,445,313 1,338,640 NA NA Group 2 Total 855,695 789,624 NA NA Note - These state emissions budgets apply to emissions from electric generating units greater than 25 MW and covered by the Transport Rule Program. Group 1/Group 2 designations are only relevant for SO 2 emissions budgets.

* The impact of variabili ty on budgets in discussed in section VI.E*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 239 of 1339 The District of Columbia is not covered by the final Transport Rule. As discussed in section V.D of this preamble and as done for the Transport Rule proposal, EPA combined contributions projected in the air qua lity modeling from Maryland and the District of Columbia to determine whether those jurisdictions collectively contribute to any downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptor in amounts greater than the 1 percent thresholds. This modeling confirmed that the combined contributions exceed the air quality threshold at downwind receptors for the ozone, annual PM2.5 , and 24 - hour PM2.5 NAAQS considered. Both Maryland and the District of Columbia are therefore linked to these receptors. 49 However, the District of Columbia is not included in the Transport Rule because, in the second step of EPA’s significant contribution analysis, we concluded that there are no emission reductions available from EGUs in the District of Columbia at the cost thresholds deemed suffi cient to eliminate significant contribution to and interference with maintenance of the NAAQS considered at the linked receptors. At the time of this rulemaking, EPA finds
49 It is important to note that Maryland’s modeled contributions in isolation were greater than the 1 percent threshold for all three of the NAAQS considered at all of the same receptors for which Maryland and DC were “linked,” and therefore EPA would have considered Maryland “linked” to the same set of downwind receptors even if the Agency had treated Maryland’s contributions and the District of Col umbia’s contributions separately.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 240 of 1339 only one facility with units meeting the Transport Rule applicability requirements in the District of Columbia. EPA’s projections do not show any generation from this facility to be economic under any scenario analyzed (including the base case), and the facility’s owners have also announced plans to retire its units in early 2012. There fore, this unit is projected to have zero emissions in 2012. As such, the total SO 2 and NOX emissions in the District of Columbia for EGUs that meet the Transport Rule applicability requirements is also projected to be zero. It follows therefore, that EPA did not identify any emission reductions available at any of the cost thresholds considered in the final rule’s multifactor analysis to identify significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance. For this reason, EPA concludes that no additional limits or reductions are necessary, at this time, in the District of Columbia to satisfy the requirements of section 1 10(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 ozone, the 1997 PM2.5 and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is therefore neither es tablishing budgets nor finalizing any FIPs for the District of Columbia in this rule. Table VI.D - 4 - Ozone Season NOX State Emissions Budgets for Electric Generating Units Before Accounting for Variability* (tons) 2012 2014 Alabama 31,746 31,499 Arkansas 15,037 15,037*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 241 of 1339 Florida 27,825 27,825 Georgia 27,944 18,279 Illinois 21,208 21,208 Indiana 46,876 46,175 Kentucky 36,167 32,674 Louisiana 13,432 13,432 Maryland 7,179 7,179 Mississippi 10,160 10,160 New Jersey 3,382 3,382 New York 8,331 8,331 North Carolina 22,168 18,455 Ohio 40,063 37,792 Pennsylvania 52,201 51,912 South Carolina 13,909 13,909 Tennessee 14,908 8,016 Texas 63,043 63,043 Virginia 14,452 14,452 West Virginia 25,283 23,291 Total 495,3 14 466,051 Note - These state emission budgets apply to emissions from electric generating units greater than 25 MW and covered by the Transport Rule Program. Group 1/Group 2 designations are only relevant for SO 2 emissions budgets. *The impac t of variability on budgets in discussed in section VI.E
EPA notes that the NOX budgets for five states linked to downwind ozone receptors in the final Transport Rule are equal to their projected 2012 baseline emissions. The five states are Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, and Mississippi. These states are among those found to exceed the 1 percent*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 242 of 1339 contribution threshold for the 1997 ozone NAAQS at downwind receptors and are thus “linked” to downwind receptors. EPA therefore evaluates, in the second step of its significant contribution analysis, what emission limits are necessary to ensure that all emissions that constitute the state’s significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance are prohibited. As explained above, EPA decided to require from all such states all reductions available at the $500/ton cost threshold. The five states identified above do not appear to show EGU ozone season NOX reductions at the $500/ton cost threshold relative to the 2012 baseline pro jections (which do not take into account reductions to be made in other states as a result of this rule). Therefore, EPA conducted further analysis to evaluate whether such reductions were available in these states and whether emission limits are necessar y to prohibit these states from significantly contributing to downwind nonattainment or interfering with maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in other states. Specifically, EPA projected those states’ ozone - season NOX emissions if all other linked states (but not these five states) were to make all available reductions at the $500/ton threshold. That analysis revealed that if emission limits were not established for these five states, ozone - season NOX emissions in each of the states would increase (beyond t he 2012 baseline*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 243 of 1339 emission projections), due to interstate shifts in electricity generation that cause “emissions leakage” in uncovered states. These increases would result in each state’s emissions being above the level associated with the prohibition of all emissions that can be eliminated at the $500/ton threshold. EPA thus determined that it is necessary to establish emission limits for these states at the $500/ton level. These limits, although equal to the state’s 2012 projected baseline emissions, a re necessary to prohibit all emissions that can be controlled at the $500/ton cost threshold. In other words, the significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance addressed by the ozone FIPs for these states is the difference be tween these states’ projected emissions if they were not covered under the Transport Rule (but other states were), and their emissions after all emissions that can be eliminated at $500/ton are prohibited. In addition, EPA notes that four of these five st ates (Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, and Mississippi) are linked to receptors in either the Houston or Baton Rouge areas, which are projected to continue facing nonattainment or maintenance concerns with the 1997 ozone NAAQS, respectively. To allow these s tates to increase emissions above base case projections would erode the measurable progress toward eliminating significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 244 of 1339 maintenance secured by achieving ozone - season NOX reductions in the other states linked to these receptors. Furthermore, as discussed in section III, EPA may require additional reductions in these states to fully address significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS i n a future rulemaking to be proposed after finalizing reconsideration of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. b. Relationship of Group 1 and Group 2 States for SO 2 Control In the Proposal, EPA chose not to allow sources in Group 1 states to use Group 2 SO 2 allowances for compliance, and likewise not to allow sources in Group 2 states to use Group 1 SO 2 allowances for compliance at any time. The preamble clearly states, “With regard to interstate trading, the two SO 2 stringency tiers would lead to two exclusive SO 2 trading groups. That is, states in SO 2 Group 1 could not trade with states in SO 2 Group 2.” No such distinction or limitation exists for NOX allowance trading. EPA received significant public comment both in support and opposition to the two distinct SO 2 trading programs . Those in opposition noted that the variability limits imposed at the state level made the compliance restrictions between the two groups unnecessary. Commenters also noted that it may unfairly penalize sources that are part of the same airshed , but are on*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 245 of 1339 opposite sides of a state boundary. Those in favor of the separate SO 2 compliance programs noted that it would reduce the probability of a state exceeding its variability limit. Allowing the use of Group 1 or Group 2 allowances for complianc e between the two SO 2 programs would potentially encourage Group 1 states to purchase allowances instead of making reductions necessary to eliminate significant contribution. Group 1 states are states that need continued reductions (beyond the $500/ton th reshold) to eliminate their significant contribution. Group 2 states have already eliminated their significant contribution at the $500/threshold. So to allow Group 1 or Group 2 allowances to be used interchangeably for compliance between the two SO 2 reg ions would be to allow the shifting of reductions from areas where they are needed to eliminate significant contribution to areas where they are not needed to eliminate significant contribution. EPA also agrees that allowing for trading between the two gr oups in the remedy finalized in this action would increase risk of a state exceeding its variability limit. For these reasons, EPA is finalizing this rulemaking with the same prohibition on SO 2 trading between Group 1 and Group 2 states that was defined i n the proposal. Further, EPA clarifies that while trading of allowances (i.e., buying, selling, and banking) is allowed without restriction, it is specifically the surrender of SO 2 allowances for compliance that is limited. As mentioned*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 246 of 1339 earlier, a source in a Group 1 state can only use SO 2 allowances allocated to Group 1 states for compliance with the SO 2 trading program. Likewise, a source in a Group 2 state can only use SO 2 allowances allocated to Group 2 states for compliance with the SO 2 trading prog ram. c. Ozone Season Budgets EPA established the ozone season NOX budgets in a similar manner to the annual NOX and SO 2 budgets by using the state level emissions from the cost threshold that reflected the removal of significant contribution. Ozone season budgets were set equal to the state level emissions from fossil - fuel - fired units greater than 25 MW observed at this cost threshold . As described in section VI.B, all cost thresholds examined reflected the final Transport Rule geography and the marginal cost were applied accordingly. Therefore, for an ozone - only state like Florida, the state level emissions would only reflect an ozone season cost threshold of $500/ton in the final cost curves for 2012 and 2014. For a state subject to both annual and ozo ne season programs , the marginal cost curves would reflect a $500/ton NOX cost year round, a $500/ton SO 2 cost in 2012 and the $2,300/ton SO 2 cost starting in 2014 if a Group 1 state. (1). Length of ozone season*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 247 of 1339 (a) Proposed Rule. For purposes of determining ozone season budgets in the proposed rule, EPA defined the ozone season based on a 5 month period (May 1 through September 30). This 5 month ozone season was consistent with the approach taken by the OTAG, the NOX SIP Call, and CAIR. EPA requeste d comment on whether EPA should base final rule budgets on a longer season, such as March through October. (b) Public Comments. Several commenters supported continuing with the May through September time period. One commenter supported continuing with t his time period, but argued that EPA should consider lengthening the ozone season for future efforts. One commenter questioned the concept of ozone season budgets and recommended EPA focus on sources with greater emissions on high ozone days. (c) Final rule. For the final rule, EPA has retained the approach in the proposed rule, as commenters broadly supported the proposal’s ozone season duration and ozone season NOX limitations . Notably, many PM states in the Transport Rule region will have annual NOX controls that are likely to keep operating year round to address PM and ozone. EPA believes that experience from ozone season NOX trading has consistently shown that the emission measures taken to comply with ozone season budgets provide emission reducti ons throughout the ozone season, including the highest ozone days. (See NOX Budget Trading Program*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 248 of 1339 and CAIR Program progress reports in the docket to this rulemaking or at http://www.epa.gov/ airmarkets/progress/nbp08.html and http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progress/CAIR_09/CAIR09.html .) However, EPA believes that there is merit in future Agency actions addressing ozone transport in considering strategies to target high ozone days more specifically. d. Summary of C ost Thresholds and Final Budgets for PM2.5 and Ozone Summary of methodology. In summary, EPA determined that SO 2 emissions that could be reduced for $2,300/ ton in 2014 should be considered a state’s significant contribution, unless EPA determined that a lesser reduction would fully resolve the nonattainment and/or maintenance problem for all the downwind monitoring sites to which a particular state might be l inked. For these Group 2 states EPA is determining that a lesser reduction of SO 2 , based on the amount of SO 2 reductions that can be reasonably achieved by 2012 is appropriate. This level is defined by the reductions observed in the $500/ton cost thresho ld . EPA also determined that all states linked to downwind PM2.5 nonattainment and maintenance problems should be required to achieve those emission reductions that can be reasonably achieved by 2012. Finally, EPA determined that all states linked to downwind PM2.5 nonattainment and maintenance*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 249 of 1339 problems should, by 2012, remove all NOX emissions that can be reduced for $500/ton and run all existing controls in 2012. For ozone season NOX , EPA determined that all states linked to downwind ozone and nonatta inment and maintenance problems should be required to achieve those ozone season emission reductions associated with a cost threshold of $500 per ton. Additionally, EPA examined final 2012 and 2014 budgets based on state level emissions at $500 cost thres hold. The budget formation methodology finalized in this action responds to concerns about state budgets expressed by commenters on the Transport Rule proposal. EPA requested comment on the four step approach used to determine significant contribution and determine budgets in the proposal. Some commenters noted that the state level emissions from the cost thresholds used to determine significant contribution did not match the state level emissions allowed by the final budgets. The concern was that the st ate level emissions that reflected the elimination of significant contribution in the AQAT analysis, in particular for NOX , were less than the emissions allowed by the final budgets. The result would be an implementation that did not quite fully eliminate the significant contribution defined in the rule. The proposed budgets not matching the levels reflected in the proposed costing runs were an artifact of the budget formation process that relied on a combination of historic and projected*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 250 of 1339 data. While EPA noted this process resulted in state budgets that “reflected” EGU emissions at $500/ton, it was not always consistent with the EGU emissions at $500/ton in the costing runs as the commenters noted. By using the cost curves to determine both significant c ontribution and state budgets in the final rule, EPA addresses the commenter’s concerns about any inconsistency between the two in the proposal. Some commenters expressed concern that the Transport Rule would result in state budgets that were in some case s higher than those established in CAIR. Commenter s suggested that this would be inconsistent with requirements or the spirit of certain CAA provisions aimed at preventing backsliding, i.e., sections 110(l), 172(e), and 193. However, the D.C. Court of Appeals rejected the state budgets in CAIR as arbitrary and capricious and not consistent with CAA section 110(a)(2)D)(i)(I) ( North Carolina, 531 F.3d 918 and 921) and remanded CAIR to EPA to promulgate a new rule replacing CAIR and consistent with the C ourt's decision (North Carolina, 550 F.3d 1178). As discussed elsewhere in this section, on remand EPA developed new, final state budgets that address the Court's concerns and meet section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements. Although some state budgets un der the final rule are higher than those under CAIR, this does not violate either the letter or the spirit of CAA provisions aimed at backsliding. In*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 251 of 1339 particular, CAA section 110(l) provides that the Administrator may not approve a plan revision that would "interfere with any...applicable requirement" of the CAA. 42 U.S.C. 7410(l). Because the Court reversed and remanded CAIR with instructions to "remedy" the rule's "fundamental flaws" (including specifically the state budgets found to be unlawful (North Carolina, 550 F.3d 1178 ), it is difficult to see how new state budgets replacing unlawful budgets and meeting section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements could be viewed as interfering with requirements of the CAA. Indeed, the commenters' approach would sever ely limit EPA's ability to meet the Court's mandate to develop a new rule consistent with section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). See North Carolina, 531 F.3d 921 (explaining that EPA may not require "some states to exceed the mark" of eliminating their significant c ontribution). Further, the other CAA sections cited by the commenters (section 172(e), addressing circumstances where the Administrator relaxes a NAAQS, and section 193, addressing the treatment of requirements promulgated before the November 15, 1990, en actment date for the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act) are not applicable here. Additionally, while the CAIR budgets may have been tighter than Transport Rule state budgets for a couple of states, the sum of state budgets that were subject to both CAI R and the Transport Rule is lower under the Transport Rule for the annual*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 252 of 1339 programs. Moreover, the carryover of the large Title IV allowance bank in CAIR allowed for a great deal more emissions within any given state than is permitted under the Transport Rule. E. Approach to Power Sector Emission Variability 1. Introduction to Power Sector Variability Variability is an inherent aspect of the production and delivery of electricity. In particular, emission variability is built into the design of power systems, which use a wide mix of power generation sources with varying use and emissions patterns. Electricity is dispatched to meet loads while minimizing costs, with less expensive sources, such as coal fired boilers, generally used before more expensive sou rces, such as natural - gas - fired combustion turbines. Since cheaper sources may have very different emission rates

– - often, as in the case of coal units compared to natural gas units, much higher emission rates -- variations in the level of loads can have a significant impact on the level of emissions. Loads on a power system vary over every time interval, changing not only in the short term and seasonally, but also annually. Load patterns and levels are determined by a number of factors, including econ omic activity and weather, which vary over time. In particular, weather obviously varies not just*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 253 of 1339 from season to season but also from year to year, and even small changes in annual weather patterns can affect how the power system operates during a year. For example, load, and the resulting use of generation sources on an interconnected grid to meet load, depend not only on how hot a summer day is, but also on how long a heat wave lasts. Similarly, a relatively cold winter that drives up winter load may a lso change what generation sources are used. Thus, the pattern of generation may shift geographically as a weather pattern moves across the country. Because weather and other factors affecting loads, and the patterns of generation used to meet loads, var y over time and from state to state, the resulting level of emissions also varies over time and from state to state. In the final Transport Rule, like the proposed rule, EPA explicitly takes account of power sector emission variability . As discussed p reviously, EPA identified a specific amount of emissions that must be prohibited by each state to meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA also developed state baseline emissions based on projections of state emissions in an average ye ar before the elimination of prohibited emissions , and state budgets based on projections of state emissions in an average year after the elimination of such emissions. However, because of the inherent variability in state - level baseline emissions

– - resu lting from the inherent*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 254 of 1339 variability in loads and power system operations -- state - level emissions are likely to vary even after all significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance that EPA identified in this final rule are elimi nated. EPA believes that, because baseline emissions are variable and emissions after the elimination of all significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance are therefore also variable, it is appropriate to take this variabilit y into account in developing the remedy for meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). For this reason, EPA is finalizing variability limits for each state budget to identify the range of emissions that EPA believes is likely to occur in each state following the elimination of all the state’s significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance. As discussed in detail in section VII, the limited interstate trading remedy’s state - specific budgets represent each stat e’s emissions in an average year after elimination of significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance. Because actual base case emissions are likely to vary from projected base case emissions, this remedy incorporates provision s that account for such variability. EPA believes that the remedy uses variability limits in a way that both provides the flexibility of limited interstate trading for*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 255 of 1339 dealing with real - world variability in the operation of the power system and for reduci ng costs of compliance with emission reduction requirements, as well as providing assurance for downwind states that significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance by upwind states will be eliminated. Moreover, EPA believes that the variability limits are used in a way that also does not allow an overall increase in emissions. Under the remedy, an individual state can have emissions up to its budget plus the variability limit. However, the requirement that all sources hold allowances covering emissions, and the fact that those allowances are allocated based on state - specific budgets without variability, ensure that the total emissions from the states do not exceed the sum of the state budgets. The remedy, therefore, ensure s both that total emissions do not exceed the total of the state budgets and that the required emission reductions occur in each state. This section describes how EPA calculated variability limits for each state to achieve this goal. 2. Transport Rule Vari ability Limits EPA performed analyses using historical data to demonstrate that there is year - to - year variability in base case emissions (even when emission rates for all units are held constant) and to quantify the magnitude of this variability.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 256 of 1339 The focus of the analysis is on quantifying the magnitude of the inherent year - to - year variability in state - level EGU emissions independent of measures taken to control those emissions (and thus due only to changes in electricity generation within each state). E PA used this analysis to set variability limits as part of the remedy to ensure that states are eliminating their significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance to protect air quality. As discussed in detail below, EPA is final izing the Transport Rule with one - year variability limits calculated using a modified approach from the one described in the proposal. EPA is not including the proposal’s three - year variability limits in the final Transport Rule. EPA received comments th at the three year variability limits increased program costs and diminished compliance flexibility without delivering any additional air quality benefits. EGU owners and operators expressed concern that three - year variability limits would be impracticable to implement and that the one - year variability limits themselves would be adequately stringent to ensure elimination of significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance in each state. After further consideration, EPA has concluded that three year variability limits would be unnecessary, would be difficult to anticipate, and would not have a measurable impact on air*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 257 of 1339 quality benefits. EPA has determined that annual limits are sufficient to eliminate significant contribution to nona ttainment and interference with maintenance in all upwind states while accommodating the historically observed year - to year fluctuation in state - level EGU emissions even at the same rate of emissions control in a given state. In the proposal, EPA used stat istical methods to derive the three - year variability limit directly from the one - year variability limit, meaning that the two are statistically equivalent in the long run under certain statistical assumptions. Primarily, these assumptions were that the va riation in electric demand around the budget is random from year to year and that, when the annual emissions are averaged over a multi - year time -period, the average emissions per year will equal the state’s budget. The first assumption was also made in the assessment of the historical year - to - year variation in heat input in developing the one - year limit (see section 2 of the “Power Sector Variability” TSD for more details). Regarding the second assumption, since the state -by - state emission budgets are bas ed on the availability of emission reductions at an equal marginal cost level, EPA expects the sources in each of the upwind states to make these cost - effective reductions and to meet the emission budgets each year, on average.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 258 of 1339 Since the three - year variab ility limit was based on average year - to - year variability over a longer time horizon, EPA notes that a random ordering of those years could yield two above average years in a row. If, by chance, a third above - average year were to follow, the state could f ace violation of the three - year limit, even if over a time period longer than three years, that state would never have exceeded the statistically equivalent one - year variability limit and its annual emissions would have averaged to the level of its budget. Effectively, this means that imposing a multi - year variability limit would erode the one - year variability limit’s ability to accommodate historically observed year - to - year variability in state - level EGU emissions (due only to generation changes), and it would do so without providing any additional air quality benefits or protection for downwind areas (since the average emissions over the long time horizon equal the level of the budget). For more details about the relationship between the one and three - ye ar limits, see the discussions in section 3 of the “Power Sector Variability” TSD from the proposed Transport Rule, which describes the derivation of the three - year limit from the one - year variability and section 3 of the “Power Sector Variability for the F inal Transport Rule” TSD, which describes the results of a numerical simulation showing that the one - and three - year limits result in similar numbers of exceedances.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 259 of 1339 While EPA expects the yearly emissions in each state, on average, to equal the level of the budgets, EPA also estimated the air quality impacts of 5 , 10 , 15, and 20 percent emission variability using the air quality assessment tool (see section 4 of the “Power Sector Variability for the Final Transport Rule” TSD for more details). This anal ysis suggests that the air quality impacts are small when all upwind states linked to a particular receptor monitor increase their SO 2 emissions to any of the variability levels (5, 10, 15, or 20 percent) . Furthermore, because the state budgets are based directly on IPM modeling of electric generation when cost - effective emissions have been removed, sources within each state should have the same incentive to meet that budget, on average, in any given year. Additional EPA analysis supports the claim that states would be no more likely to exceed one - year variability limits without the three - year limits than with the three - year limits. See the “Power Sector Variability” TSD for more details on this statistical analysis. Finally, because the state budgets ( and thus the total amount of allowances available) are fixed and every covered source must hold allowances covering its emissions, it is not feasible for all, or even many, states to repeatedly exceed their budgets. The approach calculated the standard deviation in state level heat input over a 7 - year time period (2002 through 2008),*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 260 of 1339 from which the 95th percent confidence level was calculated. EPA divided this value by the mean to get the percentage variation in heat input. The two - tailed 95th percent c onfidence level is the equivalent of the 97.5 percent upper (single - tailed) confidence level. Data from 2009 were not included because of unusually adverse economic conditions in that year (not representative of long - run average year - to - year variability) that would potentially skew the variability outcomes for all states. This approach yielded an average year - to - year heat input variability for each state. EPA multiplied the percentage heat input variability value in each state by the emission budget to determine the emission variability. From the state -by - state emission variability values, EPA identified a single variability level (percentage) based on the historic variability of covered states in the four trading programs that would provide adequate flex ibility in almost all cases. As in the proposal, EPA made the decision to adopt a single, uniform percentage level, to the extent possible, applicable to all states in favor of simplicity and straightforward implementation. Most states’ historic variabil ity in year - to - year emissions of the covered pollutants (holding emission rates constant) were within 10 percent of their average annual emissions. Therefore, for those states and*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 261 of 1339 those pollutants, EPA set a variability limit of 10 percent of the state budget. Where EPA’s analysis found states that experienced historic variability of a covered pollutant’s emissions greater than 10 percent of its average annual emissions, EPA rounded those budgets’ variability limit percentages up to the next five percent in crement (e.g., 15 percent, 20 percent) that successfully accommodated the historically observed variability. In other words, based on their historic variability, states are clustered into the following groups for each covered pollutant : (1) those with up to 10 percent variability who receive a 10 percent variability limit; (2) those with historic variability exceeding 10 percent but less than 15 percent who receive a 15 percent variability limit; and (3) those with historic variability exceeding 15 percent who receive a 20 percent variability limit. For example, for ozone - season NOX emissions, EPA determined Louisiana’s historic variability to be over 18 percent and is thus setting its variability limit at 20 percent of its state budget for ozone - season NOX . In this way, each state has adequate operational flexibility and total emissions are only as high as historical data supports. This approach is a modification of the proposal, which also identified a single variability limit for all states and all poll utants (10 percent) but took a slightly different and more*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 262 of 1339 complex approach to accommodating states whose historic variability exceeded 10 percent. For each pollutant, the proposal calculated an absolute tonnage of historic variability for the state with the largest exceedance of 10 percent and then offered all states the greater of 10 percent or that tonnage amount [75 FR 45293]. EPA received comments that the tonnage limits were unreasonably large for some states with small budgets. In some cases under the proposal’s approach, states taking the tonnage amount would have received a variability limit of more than 50 percent of their annual budget. As a result, these comments led EPA to consider alternative ways to accommodate historic variability while avoiding the incidental surplus to some states observed above; EPA thus developed this final approach as a direct and logical outgrowth that addresses the commenters’ objections. The variability limit approach EPA is finalizing is a variation of the propose d approach that results in no material change for the majority of states for each pollutant. This is the case because most states will have a variability limit equal to 10 percent of their budget using either this final approach or the proposed approach, so the result is identical. There is only one state for SO 2 and one state for annual NOX in the final rule whose historic variability exceeds 10 percent; there is no appreciable difference in the variability limits established for*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 263 of 1339 these two states under ei ther approach. The finalized approach’s main purpose is to address the phenomenon noted above from the proposal’s approach that would otherwise yield surplus ozone season NOX variability in a subset of ozone states whose historic variability exceeds 10 per cent. The final rule’s methodology described above yields variability limits that better represent these states’ historic variability than the tonnage limitation that would emerge from application of the proposal’s methodology. The final rule’s approach r emains entirely consistent with EPA’s objective of allowing EGUs the operational flexibility they need while maintaining average annual emission reductions required in each state under the rule. In both the proposal and this final rule, EPA has avoided c alculating unique, custom percentages for each state in order to simplify the approach, to group states with similar needs, and to acknowledge that, by definition, in some years states will be above the historical average. EPA believes that switching from a single maximum tonnage to a more tailored percentage for only those states with relatively high historical heat input variability is a reasonable, measured improvement that achieves the same objectives, while simplifying the variability limits methodolo gy and aligning the limits more closely with the amount of flexibility needed by each state.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 264 of 1339 EPA received a number of comments that variability limits were too stringent and should be increased to better account for actual emission variability or variabi lity in extreme situations and to minimize program costs. However, EPA is not increasing the broadly applied 10 percent variability limit for the final rule because, based on historical data, the Agency believes states will have sufficient flexibility and room to operate within the final variability limits while achieving elimination of significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance in each state. F. Variability Limits and State Emission Budgets: State Assurance Levels As expla ined above, EPA determined variability limits for each state and applied the variability limits on a state -by state basis to calculate specific emission budgets with variability limits. The state budget plus the variability limit is also called the “state assurance level.” Table VI.F - 1 shows final state budgets, variability limits, and assurance levels by state for SO 2 emissions. Table VI.F - 2 shows final state budgets, variability limits, and assurance levels by state for annual NOX emissions. Table VI. F - 3 shows final state budgets, variability limits, and assurance levels by state for ozone - season NOX emissions.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 265 of 1339 Table VI.F- 1 – State Budgets, Variability Limits, and Assurance Levels for SO2 Emissions Emission Budget (tons) Emission

Variability Limit ( tons) State Emissions

Assurance Level (tons) 2012 - 2013 2014 and

beyond 2012 -

2013 2014 and

beyond 2012 -

2013 2014 and

beyond Alabama 216,033 213,258 21,603 21,326 237,636 234,584 Georgia 158,527 95,231 15,853 9,523 174,380 104,754 Illinois 234,889 124,123 23,489 12,412 258,378 136,535 Indiana 285,424 161,111 28,542 16,111 313,966 177,222 Iowa 107,085 75,184 10,709 7,518 117,794 82,702 Kansas 41,528 41,528 4,153 4,153 45,681 45,681 Kentucky 189,335 106,284 18,934 10,628 208,269 116,912 Maryland 30,120 28,203 3,012 2,820 33,132 31,023 Michigan 194,537 143,995 19,454 14,400 213,991 158,395 Minnesota 41,981 41,981 4,198 4,198 46,179 46,179 Missouri 207,466 165,941 20,747 16,594 228,213 182,535 Nebraska 65,052 65,052 6,505 6,505 71,557 71,557 New Jersey 5,574 5,574 1,115 1,115 6,689 6,689 New York 20,497 11,823 2,050 1,182 22,547 13,005 North Carolina 136,881 57,620 13,688 5,762 150,569 63,382 Ohio 310,230 137,077 31,023 13,708 341,253 150,785 Pennsylvania 278,651 112,021 27,865 11,202 306,51 6 123,223 South Carolina 88,620 88,620 8,862 8,862 97,482 97,482 Tennessee 148,150 58,833 14,815 5,883 162,965 64,716 Texas 243,954 243,954 24,395 24,395 268,349 268,349 Virginia 70,820 35,057 7,082 3,506 77,902 38,563 West Virginia 146,174 75,668 14, 617 7,567 160,791 83,235 Wisconsin 79,480 40,126 7,948 4,013 87,428 44,139 Note: Budgets, limits, and assurance levels apply to each state’s emissions from covered sources, as defined by this final rule, only. Table VI.F- 2 – State Budgets, Variability Limits, and Assurance

Levels for Annual NOX Emissions Emission Budget (tons) Emission

Variability Limit (tons) State Emissions

Assurance Level (tons) 2012 - 2013 2014 and

beyond 2012 -

2013 2014 and

beyond 2012 -

2013 2014 and

beyond Alabama 72,691 71, 962 7,269 7,196 79,960 79,158 Georgia 62,010 40,540 6,201 4,054 68,211 44,594 Illinois 47,872 47,872 4,787 4,787 52,659 52,659*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 266 of 1339 Indiana 109,726 108,424 10,973 10,842 120,699 119,266 Iowa 38,335 37,498 3,834 3,750 42,169 41,248 Kansas 30,714 25,560 3,07 1 2,556 33,785 28,116 Kentucky 85,086 77,238 8,509 7,724 93,595 84,962 Maryland 16,633 16,574 1,663 1,657 18,296 18,231 Michigan 60,193 57,812 6,019 5,781 66,212 63,593 Minnesota 29,572 29,572 2,957 2,957 32,529 32,529 Missouri 52,374 48,717 5,237 4,8 72 57,611 53,589 Nebraska 26,440 26,440 2,644 2,644 29,084 29,084 New Jersey 7,266 7,266 727 727 7,993 7,993 New York 17,543 17,543 2,631 2,631 20,174 20,174 North Carolina 50,587 41,553 5,059 4,155 55,646 45,708 Ohio 92,703 87,493 9,270 8,749 101,973 96,242 Pennsylvania 119,986 119,194 11,999 11,919 131,985 131,113 South Carolina 32,498 32,498 3,250 3,250 35,748 35,748 Tennessee 35,703 19,337 3,570 1,934 39,273 21,271 Texas 133,595 133,595 13,360 13,360 146,955 146,955 Virginia 33,242 33,242 3,32 4 3,324 36,566 36,566 West Virginia 59,472 54,582 5,947 5,458 65,419 60,040 Wisconsin 31,628 30,398 3,163 3,040 34,791 33,438 Note: Budgets, limits, and assurance levels apply to each state’s emissions from covered sources, as defined by this final rul e, only. Table VI.F- 3 – State Budgets, Variability Limits, and Assurance

Levels for Ozone - Season NOX Emissions Emissions Budget (tons) Emissions

Variability Limit (tons) State Emissions

Assurance Level (tons) 2012 - 2013 2014 and

beyond 2012 -

2013 20 14 and

beyond 2012 -

2013 2014 and

beyond Alabama 31,746 31,499 3,175 3,150 34,921 34,649 Arkansas 15,037 15,037 3,007 3,007 18,044 18,044 Florida 27,825 27,825 2,783 2,783 30,608 30,608 Georgia 27,944 18,279 4,192 2,742 32,136 21,021 Illinois 21,208 2 1,208 2,121 2,121 23,329 23,329 Indiana 46,876 46,175 4,688 4,618 51,564 50,793 Kentucky 36,167 32,674 3,617 3,267 39,784 35,941 Louisiana 13,432 13,432 2,686 2,686 16,118 16,118 Maryland 7,179 7,179 718 718 7,897 7,897 Mississippi 10,160 10,160 1,016 1,016 11,176 11,176 New Jersey 3,382 3,382 507 507 3,889 3,889 New York 8,331 8,331 1,250 1,250 9,581 9,581 North Carolina 22,168 18,455 2,217 1,846 24,385 20,301*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 267 of 1339 Ohio 40,063 37,792 4,006 3,779 44,069 41,571 Pennsylvania 52,201 51,912 5,220 5,191 57, 421 57,103 South Carolina 13,909 13,909 1,391 1,391 15,300 15,300 Tennessee 14,908 8,016 2,236 1,202 17,144 9,218 Texas 63,043 63,043 6,304 6,304 69,347 69,347 Virginia 14,452 14,452 2,168 2,168 16,620 16,620 West Virginia 25,283 23,291 2,528 2,329 27 ,811 25,620 Note: Budgets, limits, and assurance levels apply to each state’s emissions from covered sources, as defined by this final rule, only. See Section VII.E for the discussion of how variability limits and state assurance levels are used in the implementation of assurance provisions to limit interstate trading. G. How the State Emission Reduction Requirements are Consistent with Judicial Opinions Interpreting the Clean Air Act The methodology described in this notice quantifies states’ significan t contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance in a manner that is consistent with the decisions of the D.C. Circuit. As discussed previously, the D.C. Circuit has issued two significant decisions addressing the requirements of 110(a)(2 )(D)(i)(I). The first opinion largely upheld the NOX SIP Call, Michigan , 213 F.3d 663, and the second found significant flaws in CAIR, North Carolina , 531 F.3d. 896. In both cases, the Court considered aspects of the methodology used by EPA to identify emissions that, pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), must be eliminated due to their impact on air quality in downwind states. EPA believes that the methodology used in this*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 268 of 1339 final rule is consistent with both opinions and rectifies the flaws the North C arolina court identified with the methodology used in CAIR. The methodology used for this rule relies on state - specific data to analyze each individual state’s significant contribution, uses air quality considerations in addition to cost considerations to identify each state’s significant contribution, and gives independent meaning to the “interference with maintenance” prong. This methodology is then applied in a reasonable manner consistent with the relevant judicial opinions. In North Carolina , the Cou rt held that EPA’s approach to evaluating significant contribution was inadequate because, by evaluating only whether emission reductions were highly cost effective “at the regional level assuming a trading program”, it failed to conduct the required state - specific analysis of significant contribution. See id . at 907. EPA, the Court concluded, “never measured the ‘significant contribution’ from sources within an individual state to downwind nonattainment areas.” Id . The Court did not, however, disturb t he air quality -based methodology used by EPA to identify the states with contributions large enough to warrant further consideration. For this rule, EPA uses a first step similar to that used in CAIR to identify the states with relatively large*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 269 of 1339 contributio ns. However, in contrast to CAIR, it then uses a state - specific analysis. Instead of identifying a single emissions level that could be achieved by the application of highly cost effective controls in the region, EPA determines, on a state -by - state basis , what reductions could effectively be achieved by sources in each state. EPA’s new approach does not, as the CAIR methodology did, establish a regional cap on emissions that is then divided into state budgets that set the emission reduction requirements for each state. Instead, EPA develops, for each covered state, emission budgets based on the reductions achievable at a particular cost per ton in that particular state, taking into account the need to ensure reliability of the electric generating system. The selected cost/ton levels reflect consideration of both cost factors and air quality factors including the estimated impact of upwind states’ emissions on each downwind receptor. In addition, in developing this approach, EPA was guided by the Court’s holdings regarding the use of cost to identify significant contribution. Specifically, the Court held in Michigan that EPA could “in selecting the ‘significant’ level of ‘contribution’ under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), choose a level corresponding to a ce rtain reduction in cost.” North Carolina , 531 F.3d at 917 (citing Michigan , 213 F.3d at 676 - 77). This holding also supported the Court’s conclusion in Michigan that*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 270 of 1339 it was acceptable for EPA to apply a uniform cost - criterion across states. See Michigan , 213 F.3d at 679. In the CAIR case, the Court rejected EPA’s analysis, not because it relied on cost considerations to identify significant contribution, but because it found that EPA had failed to draw the significant contribution line at all. See North Carolina , 531 F.3d at 918 (“. . . here EPA did not draw the [significant contribution] line at all. It simply verified sources could meet the SO 2 caps with controls EPA dubbed ‘highly cost - effective.’”). The holdings in Michigan regarding the use of cos t and a uniform cost - criterion across states were left undisturbed. See, e.g., North Carolina , 531 F.3d at 917 (explaining that in Michigan the Court held that “EPA may ‘after [a state’s] reduction of all [it] could . . . cost - effectively eliminate[],’ co nsider ‘any remaining contribution insignificant”). In fact, the Court acknowledged that, based on the Michigan holdings, the measurement of a state’s significant contribution need not “directly correlate with each state’s individualized air quality impac t on downwind nonattainment relative to other upwind states.” North Carolina , 531 F.3d at 908. For these reasons, EPA determined that it was appropriate in this rulemaking to consider the cost of controls to determine what portion of a state’s contributi on is its “significant contribution.” However, EPA also heeded the North Carolina*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 271 of 1339 Court’s warning that “EPA can’t just pick a cost for a region, and deem ‘significant’ any emissions that sources can eliminate more cheaply.” North Carolina , 531 F.3d at 91 8. Thus, in this rulemaking, EPA departs from the practice used in the NOX SIP Call and in CAIR of evaluating, based solely on the cost of control required in other regulatory environments, what controls would be considered “highly - cost - effective.” Inste ad, as part of its determination of a reasonable cost per ton for upwind state control, EPA evaluates the air quality impact of reductions at various cost levels and considers the reasonableness of possible cost thresholds as part of a multi factor analysi s. In addition, the methodology used in this rulemaking gives independent meaning to the interfere with maintenance prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In North Carolina , the Court concluded that CAIR improperly “gave no independent significance to the ‘ interfere with maintenance’ prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)( I ) to separately identify upwind sources interfering with downwind maintenance.” North Carolina , 531 F.3d at 910. EPA rectified this flaw in this rulemaking by separately identifying downwind “ nonattainment sites” and downwind “maintenance sites.” EPA decided to consider upwind states’ contributions not only to sites that EPA projected would be in nonattainment, but also to sites that, based on the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 272 of 1339 historic variability of their emissions, EPA determined may have difficulty maintaining the relevant standards. The specific mechanism EPA used to implement this approach is described in detail in section IV.C. previously. For annual PM2.5 , this approach identified 16 maintenance sites in addition t o the 32 nonattainment sites identified in the analysis of nonattainment receptors. For 24 - hour PM2.5 this approach identified 38 maintenance sites in addition to the 92 nonattainment sites identified in the analysis of nonattainment receptors. For ozone it identified 16 maintenance sites in addition to the 11 ozone nonattainment sites identified. EPA applied this methodology using available information and data to measure the emissions from states in the eastern United States that significantly contribut e to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in downwind areas with regard to the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Although EPA has not completely quantified the total significant contribution of these states with regard to all exis ting standards, EPA has determined, on a state - specific basis, that the emissions prohibited in the FIPs are either part of or constitute the state’s significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance. Thus, elimination of these emissions will, at a minimum, make measurable progress towards satisfying the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prohibition on*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 273 of 1339 significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance. VII. FIP Program Structure to Achieve Reductions A. Overview of Limited Interstate Trading Programs EPA is finalizing a limited interstate trading remedy that is substantially similar to the preferred limited interstate trading remedy presented in the proposal. Key differences from the preferred limited interstate trading remedy in the proposal include:
 Recalculated state budgets and variability limits (i.e., state assurance levels) based on updated modeling;
 Simplified variability limits for one - year application only;
 Revised allocation methodology for existing and new units and revised new unit set - asides for new units in Transport Rule states and new units potentially locating in Indian country ;
 Changed start of assurance provisions to 2012 and increased assurance provision penalties; and
 Removed opt - in provisio ns. In the final rule, as in the proposed rule, EPA is promulgating FIPS to require SO 2 and NOX reductions from power*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 274 of 1339 plants in jurisdictions 50 that contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, a downwind area with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and/or the 2006 24 - hour PM2.5 NAAQS. These FIPs establish state - specific emission control requirements using state budgets starting in 2012, with a second phase of SO 2 reductions in some states in 201 4. Section IV explains EPA’s authority to issue FIPs.The remedy in the final rule allows unlimited intrastate trading and limited interstate trading to account for variability in the electricity sector, but also includes assurance provisions to ensure t hat the necessary emission reductions occur within each covered state. The assurance provisions restrict EGU emissions within each state to the state’s budget with the variability limit and ensure that every state is making reductions to eliminate the significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance that EPA has identified. While EPA proposed to impose these assurance provisions starting in 2014, the final rule implements
50 Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, T ennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Simultaneously with this final action, EPA is proposing to include Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin in the ozone - season NOX requirements [insert SNPR FR cite].*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 275 of 1339 these provisions starting in 2012 ( see section VII.E of this preamble). Additionally, the final FIPs include penalty provisions adequate to ensure that the state budget with the variability limit will not be exceeded. In the final rule, as in the preferred interstate trading remedy discussed in the proposed rul e, state - specific emission budgets without the variability limits are used to determine the number of emission allowances allocated to sources in each state. An EGU source is required to hold one SO 2 or one NOX allowance, respectively, for every ton of SO 2 or NOX emitted during the control period. Banking of allowances for use or trading in future years is allowed. The final rule establishes four interstate trading programs, each starting in 2012: two for annual SO 2 , one for annual NOX , and one for o zone - season NOX . One SO 2 trading program is for sources in states (referred to as SO 2 Group 1) that need to make larger reductions to eliminate their significant contribution, while the second is for sources in states (referred to as SO 2 Group 2) that nee d to make smaller reductions. A source in a Group 1 state can only use SO 2 allowances allocated to Group 1 states for compliance with the SO 2 trading program. A source in a Group 2 state can only use SO 2 allowances allocated to Group 2 states for complia nce with the SO 2 trading program. For compliance in the annual NOX and*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 276 of 1339 ozone - season trading programs respectively, sources may use annual NOX and ozone - season allowances allocated for any state, even if that state is in a different group for SO 2 than the source’s state. Four sets of new emission allowances based on the new state - specific budgets without variability are allocated to sources, one set for each of the four trading programs. Each state has the option of replacing these FIPs with state rules. EPA believes that this remedy meets the concerns raised by the Court in the 2008 North Carolina decisions which remanded CAIR to EPA. In the proposed rule, EPA took comment on all aspects of the preferred limited interstate trading remedy and on two alternative regulatory options: (1) intrastate trading; and (2) direct control. EPA also took comment on a trading ratios approach. Comments on Limited Interstate Trading: The great majority of public comments supported the preferred remedy

– - limited interst ate trading. Most of these commenters voiced their support for the broadest possible trading mechanism because it allows for the most cost - effective implementation of any emission controls. Commenters noted that flexibility is always needed in the early years of new programs. Further, commenters favoring the preferred remedy agreed with EPA that, by using state - specific control budgets and allowing for intrastate and*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 277 of 1339 limited interstate trading, the preferred remedy provided electricity generators the fle xibility to undertake the most cost - effective reductions while assuring that the resulting reductions occur within the individual states. Some commenters that supported the preferred remedy felt that, while not ideal, the limited interstate trading remedy was preferable to the alternative options of intrastate trading or direct control. Many commenters that supported the preferred remedy felt that the intrastate trading remedy and direct control remedy options offer minimal flexibility from a compliance pe rspective. They stated that this lack of flexibility would unnecessarily increase the cost of emission reductions. Other commenters who generally support the preferred remedy cited concerns about the level of complexity in the assurance provisions. One commenter surmised that the preferred option creates significant risk where a company could unexpectedly find itself in a noncompliance situation due to the after - the - fact variability analysis. Another said that the rule’s features needlessly reduce the system’s efficiency and increase complexity. These commenters generally preferred unlimited trading, noting that EPA has proven success with Title IV, the NOX SIP Call, and CAIR unlimited interstate trading programs and*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 278 of 1339 that allowing interstate trading wo uld increase flexibility to meet reduction goals and minimize increases in power costs. EPA is finalizing the limited interstate trading remedy for the following reasons. EPA believes this approach is the most cost - effective and practical way to comply with the Court decision in North Carolina to ensure that all emissions in a given state that EPA has identified as significant ly contributi ng to downwind nonattainment or interfer ing with maintenance are eliminated. The vast majority of public comment er s agree. In addition, this approach provides the most flexibility for sources while meeting the Clean Air Act requirements and protecting public health. As a result, potential innovations and resulting cost savings are more likely to be found and implemen ted. Based on historical experience (see the Transport Rule proposal, p. 45315), EPA has shown that the results offered by a flexible trading approach (e.g., flexible compliance choices, incentives to reduce emissions early and in the highest emitting are as, 100 percent compliance with requirements) are substantial. A large number of commenters have corroborated this assessment. As summarized in the proposal, EPA believes that limited interstate trading will allow source owners to choose among several compliance options to achieve required emission reductions in the most cost effective manner, such as installing controls, changing fuels,*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 279 of 1339 reducing utilization, buying allowances, or any combination of these actions. Interstate trading with assurance provis ions will also allow the electricity sector to continue to operate as an integrated, interstate system able to provide electric reliability. Comments on Intrastate Trading: A few commenters favored the first alternative, intrastate trading. One comment er who favored intrastate trading stated that many power plants have avoided investment in pollution controls by buying allowances from other plants, affecting local air quality improvement. EPA notes that this Transport Rule aims to address emissions from one state that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of certain NAAQS in other states. Local air quality issues are directly addressed by other provisions in the Clean Air Act. Several commenters raised concerns about the intrastate trading approach. Some stated, as EPA noted in the proposal, that the intrastate trading option would be more resource intensive, more complex, less flexible, and potentially more susceptible to market manipulation than the other options. In addition, some commenters felt that this alternative would provide less flexibility to ensure electric reliability than the preferred approach, resulting in greater private costs to the power sector and greater social costs for consumers.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 280 of 1339 EPA is not finalizing the intrastate trading option for the following reasons. As EPA expressed in the proposal and as commenters have agreed, the intrastate trading option would be more resource intensive (both for EPA and for sources), more complex, less flexible, and potentially more susceptible to market manipulation than the limited interstate trading approach that EPA is finalizing. The intrastate trading option would be more costly and less transparent due to the large number of trading programs that would be operated simultaneously and the large number of annual auctions that would be held every year to address the issues of market power within states. This option would also result in a greater burden for participants operating EGUs in multiple states. Comments on Direct Control Option: Several commenters favored the second alternative, direct control. One commenter stated that direct control -- allowing no trading -- was the option best aligned with the 2008 Court decisions. EPA disagrees with this comme nt for the reasons given below and because, as explained in this notice, EPA believes the limited interstate trading remedy finalized today is consistent with the decisions of the D.C. Circuit in North Carolina . Some commenters, who support direct cont rol , voic ed concerns that the other emission trading approaches would disadvantage poor and minority communities or allow increased*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 281 of 1339 emission impacts in neighborhoods near power plants . EPA notes that a direct control approach would not require controls on all plants in a state, but only on a sufficient number to address the transport requ irements under section 110(a)(2)( d)(i)(I) that this rule addresses, and therefore would not necessarily mandate controls on each neighborhood power plant. In addition, EPA has conducted an analysis of the effects of the Transport Rule on environmental justice and other vulnerable communities. We concluded that, similar to our experience with the Acid Rain Program, 51 many environmental justice communities are expected to see large health benefits, and none are expected to experience any disbenefits, from implementing a limited interstate trading program. The results of this analysis are presented in section XII of this preamble and Chapter 5 of the RIA for this rule. In addition, the Clean Air Act provides flexibility for state and local authorities to impose stricter limits on sources to address specific local air quality concerns. Such limits are independent of the requirements in this rule, and compliance with Transport Rule

51 See http :// www . epa . gov / airmarkets / resource / docs / ejanalysis . pdf and Ringquist, Evan J. 2011. “Trading Equity for Efficiency in Environmental Protection? Environmental Justice Effects from the SO 2 Allowance Trading Program.” Social Science Quarterly 92(2):297 - 3 23*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 282 of 1339 requirements in no way excuses a source from complying with other Clean Air Act or state law requirements. Several commenters raised concerns with the direct control approach. One commenter felt that issues with electricity market reliability could o ccur during high electricity demand periods if sources ceased operations due to approaching their emission rate limitations under a direct control remedy. Another commenter was concerned that applying emission rates under a direct control remedy to small municipal units would cause disproportionate impacts on power plants where pollution control is more expensive. Other commenters cited concerns that EPA’s proposed within - state company - wide averaging provision in the direct control proposed alternative (designed to allow some flexibility for sources) would place companies with fewer units at a disadvantage compared to companies with more units. EPA generally agrees with the commenters concerns and has decided not to finalize the direct control remedy for the following reasons. EPA modeling projects that the direct control alternative would result in fewer emission reductions and higher costs compared to the limited interstate trading remedy. EPA analysis indicates that it is not necessary to implement a direct control approach in order to protect vulnerable and sensitive populations or environmental justice communities. Also, the direct control approach would result in fewer*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 283 of 1339 compliance options because a direct control approach would directly regulate in dividual sources by setting unit - level emission rate limits. This lack of flexibility could lead to potential increases in reliability risks in the electric power system and fewer opportunities for potential technological innovations that reduce emissions further and/or lower costs. For these reasons, EPA believes that this approach is inferior to the limited interstate trading remedy. Other Comments: A handful of commenters mentioned the trading ratios approach, though none favored it as a viable alte rnative. One commenter said the trading ratios approach was not consistent with CAA section 110(a)(2)( D ) requirements that reductions in emissions occur in particular geographic locations. Other commenters agreed that it was administratively unworkable and would be difficult to implement due to the complexity and variety of meteorological conditions. EPA generally concurs with the commenters. In the proposal, EPA noted that it would not be possible under this approach, as contemplated, to include enforc eable legal requirements to ensure that a specific state’s emissions remain below a specified level or to ensure that a specific amount of reductions occur within a particular state. EPA specifically requested comment on whether a ratios trading program c ould be designed to provide such legal assurance s . Of the few comments*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 284 of 1339 received, none offered such a solution. For these reasons, EPA is not finalizing this approach. Some commenters offered additional suggestions, such as: unlimited trading; using diff erent authorities in the Clean Air Act to address interstate transport such as section 110(k)(5) and section 126; and an approach that would replace the assurance provisions by a system using both emission allowances usable (as well as bankable) in any sta te and assurance allowances usable (but not bankable) in only the state for which they would be issued. While EPA appreciates the thoughtful and constructive comments, we did not find any of these suggestions improved our ability to address interstate tra nsport under CAA section 110(a)(2)( D )(i)(I), in line with the Court decision, in an administratively practical way. Several commenters liked the idea of establishing unit -by unit short - term and long - term performance standards/emission rates but suggested adding an overlaid cap and trade program. EPA believes the limited interstate trading remedy finalized today is consistent with the decisions of the Court in North Carolina and will ensure the reductions necessary to meet statutory requirements. For the 2012 - 2013 period, EPA took comment on whether the assurance provisions used to limit interstate trading are needed, since the state - specific budgets would be based on known*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 285 of 1339 air pollution controls and the penalty provisions would be adequate to ensure tha t the budget, including a variability limit, would not be exceeded. Further, EPA proposed to use two variability limits: a 1 - year limit, based on the year - to - year variability in emissions relative to the proposed budgets; and a 3 - year limit based on the variability in a 3 year average relative to the proposed budget. Based on comments on the assurance provisions (see section VII.E of this preamble) and variability limits (see section VI.E.2 of this preamble), EPA is finalizing the Transport Rule with stat e budgets plus variability limits and assurance provisions starting in 2012 for all of the trading programs. EPA sees an immediate need to ensure that emissions within a state do not exceed the state budget with the variability limitation in order to comp ly with the Court’s opinion. Further, commenters stated that the 3 - year variability limit increased costs and unnecessarily complicated the trading programs. As explained in section VI.E.2, EPA is finalizing the 1 - year variability limit starting in 2012, but not the 3 - year limit. B. Applicability*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 286 of 1339 The applicability provisions in the final rule are, except as discussed herein, essentially the same as in the proposed rules and for each of the Transport Rule trading programs. Under the general applicability p rovisions of the proposed rule, the Transport Rule trading programs would cover fossil fuel - fired boilers and combustion turbines serving

– - on any day starting November 15, 1990 or later -- an electrical generator with a nameplate capacity exceeding 25 MWe and producing power for sale, with the exception of certain cogeneration units and solid waste incineration units. The proposed use of the November 15, 1990 date was consistent with the use of 1990 as the beginning of the historical period for which own ers and operators would generally be required to have information about their units for purposes of determining whether the units were covered by the Tr ansport Rule trading programs. EPA requested comment on whether a more recent year should be used instea d. The proposed use of the November 15, 1990 date was consistent with the use of 1990 as the beginning of the historical period for which owners and operators would generally be required to have information about their units for purposes of determining whether the units were covered by the Transport Rule trading programs. Because unit information is generally compiled and retained on a calendar year basis, EPA believes that, for the general applicability provisions, it is preferable*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 287 of 1339 to use January 1, rather than November 15. In determining which year should be used as the reference year in the general applicability provisions, EPA considers several factors. First, in order for owners and operators, and EPA, to be able to determine which units are subject to the Transport Rule trading programs, EPA believes that the reference year should not be so far in the past that the unit information necessary to make applicability determinations is not readily available. This particularly becomes an issue in cases o f older units that have changed ownership over time. EPA found, in making some applicability determinations under the CAIR trading programs, that some older units with ownership changes had difficulty obtaining information back as far as twenty or more ye ars. Using January 1, 1990 as the reference date in the general applicability provisions could effectively require some owners and operators to retain unit information going back as far as 20 years. As a point of contrast, under the title V permitting ru les, owners and operators are generally required to retain data for 5 years. See 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(B). Second, EPA also believes that the reference year used in the applicability provisions should be far enough in the past that the unit information on wh ich applicability determinations are based provides a full picture of the nature of the unit and its operations over time, such as the types of fuels combusted*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 288 of 1339 at the unit and whether the unit has produced electricity for sale. Third, EPA considers whet her selecting a different reference year for the applicability provisions than the one in the proposed rule dramatically changes what units will be covered by the Transport Rule trading programs. In this case, EPA believes, based on available information about the units potentially subject to the Transport Rule, that using a somewhat later year than the one in the proposed rule will likely have little effect on what units are covered. Balancing these factors, EPA concludes that it is reasonable to use January 1, 2005, rather than November 15, 1990, in the general applicability provisions in the final rule. In the final rule, EPA is taking the same approach with regard to defining whether a boiler or combustion turbine is considered to be “fossil - fuel - fired ” as the one used in the proposal . Under the proposed rule, a unit was considered to be “fossil - fuel - fired” if it combusts any amount of fossil fuel at any time in 1990 or later. For the same reasons that EPA decided to use January 1, 2005 in the general applicability provisions, and in order to have a consistent reference year in all applicability - related provisions, the final rule defines a “fossil - fuel - fired” unit as one that combusts any amount of fossil fuel in 2005 or later.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 289 of 1339 EPA notes that the fina l Transport Rule allows a state to submit a SIP revision (abbreviated or full SIPs) under which the state may -- in addition to making certain types of changes concerning allowance allocations in the Transport Rule trading programs – - expand the general applicability provisions of the Transport Rule Ozone - Season NOX Trading Program to cover fossil fuel - fired boilers and combustion turbines serving

– - at any time starting January 1, 2005 or later -- an electrical generator with a nameplate capacity as low as 15 MWe and producing power for sale. The exemptions, discussed below, for cogeneration units and solid waste incineration units still will continue to apply. Cogeneration unit exemption. Under the final rule (as well as the proposed rule) certain cogene ration units or solid waste incinerators are exempt from the FIP requirements. In particular, the final rule includes an exemption for a unit that qualifies as a cogeneration unit throughout the later of 2005 or the first 12 months during which the unit f irst produces electricity and continues to qualify each year thereafter and that meets the limitation on electricity sales to the grid. In order to meet the definition of “cogeneration unit” in the final rules, a unit (i.e., a fossil - fuel - fired boiler or combustion turbine) must operate as part of a “cogeneration system,” which is defined as an integrated group of equipment at a source*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 290 of 1339 (including a boiler, or combustion turbine, and a steam turbine generator) designed to produce useful thermal energy for i ndustrial, commercial, heating, or cooling purposes and electricity through the sequential use of energy. In order to qualify as a cogeneration unit, a unit also must meet, on a 12 - month or annual basis, efficiency and operating standards. In the propos ed rule, a unit would have to qualify as a cogeneration unit and meet the limitation on electricity sales starting the later of 1990 or the year when the unit begins operating. EPA requested comment on whether a more recent year should be used. For the r easons discussed above concerning the reference year used in the general applicability provisions and in order to have a consistent reference year in all applicability - related provisions, EPA concludes that it is reasonable to use 2005, rather than 1990, i n the cogeneration unit exemption provisions in the final rule. In the final rule, EPA clarifies that the electricity sales limitation under the exemption is applied in the same way whether a unit serves only one generator or serves more than one generator . In both cases, the total amount of electricity produced annually by a unit and sold to the grid cannot exceed the greater of one - third of the unit’s potential electric output capacity or 219,000 MWhr. This is consistent with the approach taken in the Acid Rain Program (40 CFR 72.7(b)(4)), where the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 291 of 1339 cogeneration unit exemption originated. EPA believes that this clarification is needed to ensure that a unit serving, for example, two generators would not have a limit on sales of electricity to the grid th at would be different (i.e., twice as high) from the limit for a unit serving only one generator with the same total nameplate capacity as the first unit’s two generators. EPA also took comment on whether efficiency standards should be applied on a system- wide basis to bottoming - cycle units (where useful thermal energy is produced before useful power is produced), as they are for topping - cycle units (where useful thermal energy is produced after useful power); and whether to exclude, from the requirement to meet the operating and efficiency standards, calendar years during which a cogeneration unit does not operate at all. Several commenters argued EPA should apply efficiency standards to both types of units. EPA agrees that applying efficiency standards o n a system- wide basis to both bottoming - cycle and topping - cycle units is reasonable because EPA sees no technical reason to distinguish between the two types of units in this instance. EPA further agrees with commenters that excluding calendar years in wh ich the cogeneration unit does not operate at all, i.e., does not combust any fuel, from the requirements to meet operating and efficiency standards is also reasonable. For such*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 292 of 1339 a year, the unit would not produce any useful thermal energy or useful power and therefore could not meet the minimum output requirements in the operating and efficiency standards, but the unit also would not have any emissions. For these reasons, the final rule expressly provides that the operating and efficiency standards do not have to be met for a calendar year throughout which a unit did not operate at all. Solid waste incineration unit exemption. The final rule also includes an exemption for a unit that qualifies as a solid waste incineration unit during the later of 2005 o r the first 12 months during which the unit first produces electricity, that continues to qualify each year thereafter, and that meets the limitation on fossil - fuel use. In contrast, the exemption for solid waste incineration units in the proposed rule di stinguished between units commencing operation before January 1, 1985 and those commencing operation on or after that date. A unit commencing operation before January 1, 1985 would be exempt if it qualified as a solid waste incineration unit starting the later of 1990 or the year when it began producing electricity and its average annual fuel consumption of non - fossil fuels exceeded 80 percent of total heat input during 1985 - 1987 and during any three consecutive calendar years after 1990. A unit commencing operation on or after January 1, 1985 would be exempt if it qualified as a solid waste incineration unit starting the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 293 of 1339 later of 1990 or the year when it began producing electricity and its average annual fuel consumption of non - fossil fuel exceeded 80 perc ent of total heat input for the first 3 calendar years of operation and for any 3 consecutive calendar years thereafter. In the proposal, EPA requested comment on whether it would be problematic to obtain sufficiently detailed information about unit oper ation potentially as far back as 1985 - 1987 and 1990, and whether the fuel consumption standard for each unit should be limited to more recent years. For the reasons discussed above concerning the reference year used in the general applicability provisions and in order to have a consistent reference year for all applicability - related provisions, EPA concludes that it is reasonable to use 2005, rather than 1990, in the solid waste incineration unit exemption in the final rule. In particular, EPA notes that the proposed provisions for units commencing operation before January 1, 1985 and for units commencing operation on or after January 1, 1985 could require some owners and operators to retain unit information going back more than 20 years before the promulgation of this final rule. Further, EPA believes that removing the distinction between units commencing operation during these two periods, and referencing somewhat later years as the earliest years for which information on fossil - fuel consumption is requi red, will result*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 294 of 1339 in the exemption still being based on sufficient data to provide a full picture of the nature and operation of the units involved. EPA also believes, based on available information about the units potentially subject to the Transport Rule , that this approach will not significantly change which units qualify for the exemption. Consequently, the final rule removes the distinction based on whether a solid waste incineration unit commences operation before January 1, 1985 or on or after Janua ry 1, 1985. In order to be exempt, the unit must qualify as a solid waste incineration unit during the later of 2005 or the first 12 months during which the unit first produces electricity, must continue to qualify each year thereafter, and must meet the limitation on fossil - fuel use on a three - year average basis during the first 3 years of operation starting no earlier than 2005 and every 3 years of operation thereafter. Opt - in units. EPA is not finalizing the opt - in provisions that were discussed in t he Transport Rule proposal. EPA proposed opt - in provisions to allow non - covered units to voluntarily opt in to any of the proposed Transport Rule trading programs and receive allocations reflecting 70 percent of the unit’s emissions before opting in. The se allowances were above the state - specific budgets developed under the Transport Rule to eliminate a state’s significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance. In theory, an opt - in unit*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 295 of 1339 that makes reductions below its baseline a nd sells the freed- up allowances is effectively substituting its new, lower - cost reductions for higher - cost reductions otherwise required by a covered EGU, with the result that the state’s significant contribution is still eliminated but at a lower total p rogram cost. EPA notes that theoretical benefits anticipated from allowing opt - ins did not materialize in prior trading programs with opt - in provisions. The Acid Rain Program has about 23 opt in units; the NOX Budget Trading Program had five opt - in units. No units opted into the CAIR programs. As a group, these opt - in units neither eased the achievement of required emission reductions in past trading programs, nor added to the reduction of overall program costs. In the proposal, EPA requested comment on the opt - in provisions, specifically regarding: what are the benefits of and concerns about including opt - in provisions; how to ensure units are not credited for emission reductions the units would have made anyway; whether the proposed 30 percent reduc tion (i.e., application of the 70 percent multiplier to baseline emissions) or some other percentage reduction, or no reduction, should be applied to the baseline emission rate used in determining allocations; and whether any additional percentage reductio n (such as 45 percent) should be applied to SO 2 G roup 1*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 296 of 1339 opt - in units in Phase II to reflect the stricter limits for covered units. Some commenters argued that increasing the Transport Rule budgets for opt - ins would undermine the goal of CAA section 110(a)( 2)(D)(i)(I) to eliminate a state’s significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance. One commenter stated that they do not favor allowing sources that are not subject to the emission reduction requirements to be issued allowance s that would increase the overall state emission budgets, due to the uncertainty that any reductions made by such units would be surplus, verifiable, permanent and enforceable. This could compromise the integrity of the EGU emission reduction requirements of the Transport Rule, and jeopardize assurance that a state’s significant contribution would be eliminated, as required by the Court in North Carolina . Other commenters claim that, while no cheap tons are available from non - EGUs and EPA is right not to require non - EGU reductions, EPA should nonetheless allow non - EGUs to choose voluntarily to be covered by opting in. As mentioned previously, the final Transport Rule does not include any opt - in provisions either in the FIPs or in the provisions allowing mo dification or replacement of the FIPs through submission of trading program provisions in SIPs. EPA has several reasons for not adopting provisions to allow opt - in*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 297 of 1339 units. First, as mentioned above, historically, very few units have opted in. As of 2010, 28 units out of more than 4,700 covered units (23 units out of a total of about 3,600 covered units in the Acid Rain Program and 5 units out of a total of about 2,600 covered units in the NOX SIP Call) have opted in to EPA trading programs over the past 1 5 years. In the Acid Rain Program, 3 of the units opted in and then, effective for 2005, opted out. Four of the units opted in, immediately shut down, and continue to receive allowance allocations. Four of the units opted in and continue to operate and receive allowance allocations. Finally, 12 of the units opted in, after CAIR was finalized, in order to receive allowances usable for compliance in the CAIR SO 2 trading program. Because CAIR will be replaced by this Transport Rule, EPA anticipates that t hese 12 units will opt out of the Acid Rain Program. In the NOX Budget Trading Program, 3 plants with 5 opt - in units received allocations between 2003 and 2008. Moreover, EPA has determined that the inclusion of opt - in units in the Transport Rule trading programs would undermine the rule’s objective of addressing emissions in each state that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in other states. As explained above, EPA has established budgets plus variability limits t hat states must meet to ensure that the significant contribution to*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 298 of 1339 nonattainment and interference with maintenance identified by EPA is addressed. If EPA were to allow opt - ins, and if any opt in unit were to receive an allocation of allowances for emissi ons that would be reduced even if the units did not opt in, then the inclusion of that opt - in unit in the program would allow the sources covered by the Transport Rule to emit in excess of the budget plus variability limit with no new, offsetting reduction in emissions. For example, after a unit would opt in, process or fuel changes made for economic reasons (rather than due to any regulatory requirements), or installation of new emission controls or fuel - switching conducted to meet future, non - Transport Rule regulatory requirements, could result in emission reductions that occurred “anyway” (i.e., even if the unit did not opt in), and the opt - in unit would be allocated allowances for the portion of its baseline emissions that would be removed by these “an yway” reductions. Allocations above the cap to opt - in units making “anyway” emission reductions would convert these reductions into extra allowances (i.e., authorizations to emit) usable by covered EGUs to meet their requirements to hold allowances for emissions. Because the extra EGU emissions authorized by these extra allowances would not be offset by any new emission reductions by the opt - in units, this could threaten a state’s ability to eliminate significant contribution to nonattainment*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 299 of 1339 and interfer ence with maintenance. Also, opt - in units, which are allocated allowances outside the state budget for covered units, could increase the possibility that a state’s total emissions would exceed the state budget plus variability and thus that the assurance provisions would be triggered. This problem of allocating allowances for emissions that would have been reduced anyway is of special concern since recent promulgation of the final rule, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major So urces: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters (76 FR 15608 (March 21, 2011))(“ final Boiler MACT rule ”), which requires certain industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers to meet maximum a chievable control technology ( MACT) standards for emissions of specified hazardous air pollutants, such as hydrogen chloride (HCL) and mercury (Hg). Some of the control technologies that can be used to meet these standards will also provide significant reductions of SO 2 emissions. Fo r example, a boiler may use a wet scrubber or the combination of a dry sorbent injection system and a fabric filter (among other options) to meet the applicable HCL standard or may use a wet scrubber or a combination of activated carbon injection and a fab ric filter (among other options) to meet the applicable Hg standard. See 76 FR 15614 (describing testing and compliance requirements when such controls are used to meet*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 300 of 1339 these standards); and Memo from Brian Shrager to Amanda Singleton and Graham Gibson, Revised Methodology for Estimating Cost and Emissions Impacts for Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

— Major Source (February 11, 2011), Document ID EPA- HQ - OAR- 2009 - 0491 - 4036 (section 3.1, describing control options for HCL and Hg control). In fact, EPA estimated that the new standards would result in emission reductions of not only the hazardous air pollutants directly subject to the standards, but also in other air pollutants such as SO 2 . Specifically, EPA projected that compliance with the final Boiler MACT rule standards will result in about 431,000 tons of annual SO 2 reductions from existing boilers subject to the final Boiler MACT rule. This will comprise on average about a 46 percent reduction in SO 2 emissions for this group of boilers. Coal - and oil - fired boilers -- which are the boilers likely to have the most uncontrolled SO 2 emissions and so would be the most likely types of units to consider opting into the Transport Rule trading programs (if opting - in were allowed) -- are projected to reduce about 409,000 tons of annual SO 2 as a result of complying with the final Boiler MACT rule, or about a 50 percent reduction in SO 2 emissions. See Memo from Brian Shr ager to Amanda Singleton and Graham Gibson, Appendix B - 1, (where column CE represents baseline SO 2 emissions and column CH*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 301 of 1339 represents SO 2 reductions resulting from the final Boiler MACT rule compliance). The amount of offsetting SO 2 increases projected to result from final Boiler MACT rule compliance, e.g., from additional fuel being combusted to generate electricity to operate emission controls, is minor. See 76 FR 15651 (Table 4) and 15653 (showing projected total SO 2 reductions for all boilers and proc ess heaters of about 442,000 tons and net SO 2 reductions of about 440,000 tons). Consequently, a boiler subject to the final Boiler MACT rule may install a wet acid gas scrubber or a bag house in order to meet the HCL or Hg standard applicable to boilers under the final Boiler MACT rule and thereby achieve SO 2 emission reductions. If that boiler were to opt in to one of the Transport Rule SO 2 trading programs during the year before installing these controls to comply with the final Boiler MACT rule, then the boiler would be allocated allowances for the unit’s current tons of SO 2 emissions and would not need to use these allowances for compliance under the Transport Rule once the final Boiler MACT - related controls were installed. The allowances allocated to the boiler would be additional allowances above the Transport Rule trading budget for the state where the boiler was located. As a result, the boiler would have freed- up allowances above the state trading budget that represent reductions that the boile r would have made anyway*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 302 of 1339 (i.e., even if the boiler had not opted in) and that could be sold to EGUs covered by the Transport Rule. In effect, the opting - in of the boiler would result in the conversion of the boiler’s SO 2 reductions from the final Boiler MACT rule into increased emissions above the state trading budget from EGUs subject to the Transport Rule. Commenters addressed this issue. For instance, one commenter suggested that SO 2 reductions made by a boiler under the final Boiler MACT rule should be eligible for opt - in provision allowances under the Transport Rule trading programs. Another commenter stated that, given the uncertainty that reductions made by opt - in units would be surplus, verifiable, permanent, and enforceable, opt - in provisions co uld compromise the integrity of the EGU emission reductions. For the reasons explained above, EPA agrees with the latter commenter. Further, EPA notes that none of the commenters supporting adoption of the opt - in provisions suggested any revision to the p roposed opt - in provisions that would address this problem. While the proposed opt - in provisions would limit an opt - in unit’s allocation for a control period by calculating the allocation using the lesser of the unit’s pre - opt - in SO 2 emission rate or the most stringent SO 2 emission rate applicable in that control period, this would not address SO 2 rate reductions that are not directly required by the final Boiler*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 303 of 1339 MACT rule but that are a secondary result of using and operating certain emission controls inst alled to comply with the HCL or Hg standards under the final Boiler MACT rule. Because the secondary SO 2 reductions will vary depending on the type of controls installed and on the extent to which the controls are used, and a boiler may use a combination of emission controls and other approaches to reduce HCL or Hg emissions (such as fuel switching), EPA believes that it is highly unlikely that opt - in provisions could prevent allocation for “anyway” emission reductions resulting from compliance with the fi nal Boiler MACT rule. EPA therefore believes that the final Boiler MACT rule provides a concrete example of why adoption of opt - in provisions could undermine the rule’s objective of addressing emissions in each state that significantly contribute to nonat tainment or interfere with maintenance in other states. EPA notes that the final Boiler MACT rule, of course, is simply one example of how allocations for “anyway” reductions could occur and undermine the statutory requirements of the Transport Rule. C. C ompliance Deadlines 1. Alignment with NAAQS Attainment Deadlines a. Proposed Rule. EPA proposed an initial phase of reductions in 2012 followed by a second phase in 2014. Specifically, EPA proposed*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 304 of 1339 that sources comply with annual SO 2 and NOX requirements by January 1, 2012 and January 1, 2014 for the first and second phases, respectively. Similarly, EPA proposed sources comply with ozone - season NOX requirements by May 1, 2012, and by May 1, 2014. EPA chose these dates to coordinate with the NAAQS attainment deadlines and to assure that reductions are made as expeditiously as practicable. The proposal also discussed how the compliance deadlines address the Court’s concern about timing. Relationship to PM2.5 schedule. For all areas designated as nonattai nment with respect to the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, the SIP deadline for attaining that standard must be as expeditious as practicable but no later than April 2010, with a possible extension to no later than April 2015. Many areas have already come into attainmen t by the April 2010 deadline due in part to reductions achieved under CAIR. Because the 2010 deadline will have passed before the Transport Rule is finalized, EPA proposed to coordinate the deadline for eliminating significant contribution under this rule with respect to the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS with the April 2015 deadline that applies to areas that will need an extension of the April 2010 deadline. For all areas designated as nonattainment with respect to the 2006 24 - hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the attainment deadlin e must be as expeditious as*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 305 of 1339 practicable but no later than December 2014 with a possible extension to as late as December 2019 52 . Upwind emission reductions achieved by the 2014 emissions year will help areas that failed to meet the April 2010 deadline to meet the April 2015 deadline for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. These reductions will also help areas meet the December 2014 attainment deadline with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Any areas not meeting that deadline can request a n extension of up to 5 years, to December 2019. Further, a deadline of January 1, 2014 also provides adequate and reasonable time for sources to plan for compliance with the Transport Rule and install any necessary controls. EPA believes that this deadline is as expeditious as practicab le for the installation of the controls needed for compliance ( see further discussion in section V.C.2).

52 Section 172(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act provides that “the attainment date for an area designated nonattainment with respect to a national primary ambient air quality standard shall be the date by which attainment can be achieved as expeditiously as pr acticable, but no later than 5 years from the date such area was designated nonattainment under section 7407(d) of this title, except that the Administrator may extend the attainment date to the extent the Administrator determines appropriate, for a period no greater than 10 years from the date of designation as nonattainment, considering the severity of nonattainment and the availability and feasibility of pollution control measures.” Designations for the 2006 24 - hour PM2.5 NAAQS became effective on December 14, 2009.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 306 of 1339 Relationship to Attainment Deadlines for Ozone. Ozone nonattainment areas must attain permissible levels of ozone “as expeditiously as practicable,” but no later than the date assigned by EPA in the ozone implementation rule (40 CFR part 51). The areas designated nonattainment in 2004 with respect to the 1997 8 - hour ozone NAAQS in the eastern United States were assigned maximum attainment dates corresp onding to the end of the 2006, 2009, and 2012 ozone seasons. Many areas have already attained due in part to CAIR, federal mobile source standards, and other local, state, and federal measures. Those that have not yet attained the standard have maximum a ttainment dates ranging from 2010 (these are the 2009 areas that have been granted a 1 - year extension due to clean data in 2009) to 2018. Areas designated “serious” nonattainment areas have a June 2013 maximum attainment deadline. The proposed Transport Rule’s first phase of reductions in 2012 will help the remaining areas with June 2013 maximum attainment deadlines attain the 1997 8 - hour ozone NAAQS by their deadline. The reductions will also improve air quality in areas with later deadlines. Rationale for Requiring Reductions by 2012. EPA proposed to require an initial phase of reductions by 2012. EPA proposed that these reductions are necessary to ensure that significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance are eliminated as expeditiously as practicable. This will in*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 307 of 1339 turn assist downwind states to achieve attainment as expeditiously as practicable as required by the CAA. Because this final rule would replace CAIR, EPA could not assume that after this rule is finalized, EGUs would continue to emit at the reduced emissions levels achieved by CAIR. Instead, it is the emission reductions requirements in the proposed FIPs that will determine the level of EGU emissions in the eastern United States. For these reasons, EPA propo sed to require an initial phase of reductions by 2012 which would ensure that existing and planned SO 2 and NOX controls operate as anticipated. Addressing the Court’s Concern About Timing. As directed by the Court in North Carolina , 531 F.3d 896, and desc ribed previously, EPA established the compliance deadlines in the proposed rule based on the respective NAAQS attainment requirements and deadlines applicable to the downwind nonattainment and maintenance sites. The 2012 deadline for compliance with the limits on ozone season NOX emissions is coordinated with the June 2013 maximum attainment deadline for serious ozone nonattainment areas (taking into account the need for reductions by 2012 to demonstrate attainment by that date). This deadline is also c onsistent with the requirement that states attain the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 308 of 1339 The 2014 deadline for compliance with the limits on annual NOX and annual SO 2 emissions is coordinated with the April 2015 maximum attainment deadline for areas that received the maximum 5 - year extension of the 5 - year attainment deadline for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS (taking into account the need for reductions by 2014 to demonstrate attainment by April 2015). This 2014 compliance deadline is also consistent with Dec ember 2014 attainment deadline (5 years from designation, in the absence of an extension) for areas designated nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Areas unable to meet this 2014 deadline may seek a maximum 5 - year extension to 2019. In addition, the 2012 compliance deadline for the first phase of annual NOX and annual SO 2 emission reductions will assure the reductions are achieved as expeditiously as practicable. EPA established the interim 2012 compliance deadline for annual NOX and annual SO 2 redu ctions because a significant number of reductions can be achieved by 2012. However, given the time needed to design and construct scrubbers at a large number of facilities, EPA believes the 2014 compliance date is as expeditious as practicable for the ful l quantity of SO 2 reductions necessary to fully address the significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance. Requiring reductions in transported pollution as expeditiously as practicable, as well as within maximum*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 309 of 1339 deadlines, he lps to promote attainment as expeditiously as practicable. This is consistent with statutory provisions that require states to adopt SIPs that provide for attainment as expeditiously as practicable and within the applicable maximum deadlines. b. Public comments and EPA responses. EPA received numerous comments on the proposed compliance dates. A number of commenters supported EPA’s compliance schedule and rationale. Other commenters supported extending the compliance deadlines to later dates. Many commenters questioned the technical feasibility of achieving the required reductions by the 2012 and 2014 dates. EPA’s responses to those comments are discussed below in section VII.C.2 . Other commenters provide d policy and legal arguments for allowing s ta tes to develop SIP alternatives to the FIP, and to build time for that SIP development and review process into the compliance schedule. For example, some commenters asserted that the requirement in the CAA for providing reductions “as expeditiously as pra cticable” must be balanced with CAA provisions allowing states to develop state implementation plans prior to EPA imposing FIPs. EPA responses to those comments are discussed in section X .*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 310 of 1339 Some commenters suggested that EPA had the ability to leave CA IR in place for a transition period, and by doing this EPA could allow for a longer compliance period for this rule. EPA does not believe it would be appropriate, in light of the Court’s decision in North Carolina , to establish a lengthy transition period to the rule that will replace CAIR. Although the Court decided, on rehearing, not to remand CAIR without vacatur, the Court stressed its prior decision that CAIR was deeply flawed and EPA’s obligation to remedy those flaws. North Carolina , 550 F.3d 1176 . Although the Court did not set a definitive deadline for corrective action, the Court took care to note that the effectiveness of its opinion would not be delayed “indefinitely” and that petitioners could bring a mandamus petition if EPA were to fail to modify CAIR in a manner consistent with its prior opinion. Id. Given the Court’s emphasis on remedying CAIR’s flaws expeditiously, EPA does not believe it would be appropriate to establish a lengthy transition period to the rule which is to replace CAIR. As relates to PM2.5 , EPA received a number of comments on its proposal to include a 2012 deadline to ensure that emission reductions needed to reduce PM2.5 be achieved “as expeditiously as practicable.” Some commenters supported EPA’s 2012 deadline. Other commenters believed that it was unnecessary and unwarranted for EPA to impose emission reduction requirements in*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 311 of 1339 advance of the 2014 attainment date . In light of the 2014 five year attainment dat e for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (with a possible extension to 2019), and the possible extension to April 2015 for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, these commenters believed EPA’s 2012 emission reduction requirements for annual PM2.5 and NOX were not necessary. EPA disagrees with these commenters, for a number of reasons. F irst, EPA notes (supported by commenters) that there is a clear statutory obligation to attain “as expeditiously as practicable.” Second, EPA notes that there are feasible reductions available by 2012. Third, EPA believes that the substantial health and environmental benefits achieved by the rule underscore the importance of achieving the reductions as soon as possible. With respect to ozone, some commenters noted that the proposed rule required ozone reductions by 2012 for states impacting areas which EPA’s analysis shows will attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS by 2014 without further controls. Those commenters questioned the importance of getting reductions in such states and whether the 2012 deadline is necessary. EPA disagrees with those comments. Except for Houston all ozone areas within the region addressed by this rule have attainment dates no later than 2013. In effect, this means that emission reductions needed to attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS must be in place by the 2012 ozone season. EPA believes t hat if there are reductions*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 312 of 1339 available by 2012, and those emission reductions have in fact been identified, it is appropriate and necessary to ensure that those reductions are in place. 2. Compliance and Deployment of Pollution Control Technologies The powe r industry will undertake a diverse set of actions to comply with the Transport Rule at the start of 2012 and another set of actions when companies in Group 1 states comply
w ith more stringent SO 2 budgets at the start of 2014. In 2012, the industry will l argely meet the rule’s NOX requirements by: operating an extensive existing set of combustion and post combustion controls on fossil fuel - fired generators; dispatching lower emitting units more often; and installing and operating a limited amount of relat ively simple NOX pollution controls in states not previously subject to CAIR. For the SO 2 requirements, EPA anticipates at a minimum that coal - fired generators will operate the substantial capacity of advanced pollution controls already in place or schedu led for 2012 use; some units will also elect to burn lower - sulfur coals, and the fleet will increase dispatch from lower - sulfur - emitting units as well as from natural gas - fired generators. EPA provides a more detailed explanation below of how fuel switchi ng to lower sulfur coals factored in to the design of the final Transport Rule. By 2014, EPA’s budgets under the Transport Rule will sustain previous NOX and SO 2 reductions as well as account for*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 313 of 1339 reductions from additional advanced NOX and SO 2 controls th at are driven by other state and federal requirements. In addition to these reductions, companies in Group 1 states are also projected to add a limited amount of advanced SO 2 controls in 2014 that will be discussed below. EPA’s expectations are supported by the IPM analysis reported in this rule’s Regulatory Impact Analysis (see Chapter 7). Notably, since EPA has established a cap - and- trade control system for lowering NOX and SO 2 emissions, individual owners and operators of covered units have some flex ibility in meeting the program’s requirements as needed and are free to find alternative ways to comply. The RIA clearly shows a viable known pathway for owners and operators to comply at reasonable costs, although it is not the only compliance pathway p ossible under this flexible regulation that could deliver the emission reductions required under the rule. Notably, by 2014 and beyond, the power industry may also augment the projected compliance efforts with programs aimed at improving energy efficiency . Table VII.C.2 - 1 shows EPA’s projection of the amount of existing coal - fired generating capacity in gigawatts(GW) that may retrofit various systems for compliance with this rule.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 314 of 1339 Table VII.C.2 - 1 Projected Potential Air Pollution Control (APC) Retrofits for Transport Rule 53 Capacity retrofitted by: Wet FGD Dry FGD DSI SCR LNB/OFA Improvements January 1, 2012 10 GW January 1, 2014 5.7 GW 0.2 GW 3.0 GW 0 GW EPA received proposal comments expressing a concern about the feasibility of deployi ng retrofit APC technologies in the time frames available between the final date of this rule and the compliance dates. As discussed below, EPA believes that it is feasible for the electric power sector and its APC supply chain to either make most of the p rojected retrofits in time to meet the 2012 and 2014 compliance deadlines, or to comply by other means. a. 2012 Power Industry Compliance EPA’s analysis of emission reductions available in 2012 assumes year - round operation of existing post - combustion poll ution controls in states in the PM region and ozone - season operation of NOX post - combustion controls in the ozone region. EPA also modeled emission reductions available in 2012 at the $500/ton threshold for SO 2 , $500/ton for annual NOX , and $500/ton for o zone - season NOX . 53 GW: gigawatts of capacity retrofitted; FGD: flue gas desulfurization ( SO 2 control); DSI: dry sorbent injection ( SO 2 control); SCR: selective catalytic reduction ( NOX control); LNB/OFA: low
- NOX burner and/or overfire air ( NOX controls)*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 315 of 1339 For SO 2 , EPA believes that reductions associated with the following methods of control are available and will be used as compliance strategies to meet the 2012/2013 budgets: 1) operation of existing controls year - round in PM states, 2) op eration of scrubbers that are currently scheduled to come online by 2012, 3) some sources switching to lower - sulfur coal (see Section C that follows), and 4) changes in dispatch and generation shifting from higher emitting units to lower emitting units. E PA modeling and selection of a $500/ton cost threshold includes all existing and planned controls operating year round (items 1 and 2). It also reflects an amount of coal switching and generation shifting that can be achieved for $500/ton. This set of expected actions was confirmed in the detailed modeling of EPA’s final remedy in the RIA and can be reviewed there. For NOX , EPA has also concluded that it is appropriate to require reductions through a limited amount of combustion control improvements, and in some cases, retrofits such as low NOX burners (LNB) and/or overfire air (OFA). EPA recognizes that the 6 -month time frame between rule finalization and start of the first compliance period would not allow for the installation of a major post - combustion NOX control such as selective catalytic reduction (SCR). Assumed improvements and retrofits for the January 1, 2012 deadline for NOX therefore only involve the much simpler LNB/OFA control modifications or installations.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 316 of 1339 Alternatively, some plant owners might choose to achieve NOX reductions in a similar time period through an even simpler retrofit - selective non - catalytic reduction (SNCR). 54 Although the improvements, and in some cases, installation of combustion controls would be an economic means of ach ieving emission reductions, these specific controls are not required for compliance purposes under the final Transport Rule remedy. Individual sources may comply through other measures (such as purchasing additional allowances) in the event that it takes more than 6 months for installation of a given combustion control. The vast majority of covered sources already have combustion controls installed; therefore, the NOX reductions associated with these incremental control improvements and installations are small. Based on the Transport Rule’s geography, EPA estimates that approximately 10 GW of coal - fired units may improve, and in some cases, install LNB/OFA specifically in reaction to the Transport Rule NOX caps. EPA reflects the effects of these installat ions in the 2012 annual and ozone - season NOX budgets, which would yield region - wide reductions of approximately 28,000 tons of annual NOX and 14,000 tons of ozone - season NOX . EPA assumes these controls are cost effective at $500/ton and that they 54 David L. Wojichowski, SNCR System

– Design, Installation, and Operating Experiencehttp://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/ proceedings/02/scr
- sncr/wojichowskisystemsummary.pdf*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 317 of 1339 should b e incentivized through budgets given the 2013 attainment deadline for ozone areas classified as “serious.” Once installed, LNB/OFA operates any time the boiler is fired and thus yields NOX reductions beyond the ozone season alone. In the proposal’s LNB te chnical support document 55 , EPA observes that LNB and/or OFA installations, burner modifications, or other NOX reduction controls would likely have to be installed during fall 2011 or spring 2012 outages in order to achieve significant reductions for 2012. While this 6 -month schedule is aggressive, industry has shown that it can be met. For example, Limestone Electric Generating Station Unit 2, an 820 MW tangentially - fired lignite unit, was retrofitted with Foster Wheeler’s Tangential Low NOX (TLN3) system i n less than six months, including engineering, fabrication, delivery and installation. 56 Harlee Branch Unit 4, a 535 MW cell - fired unit, was retrofitted with Riley Power’s low -NOX Dual Air Zone CCV burners on a similar schedule. 57 Although such 6 -month sche dules

55 Technical Support Document (TSD) for the Transport Rule, Docket ID No. EPA- HQ - OAR- 2 009 - 0491, Installation Timing for Low NOX Burners (LNB) 56 R. Pearce, J. Grusha, Reliant Energy Tangential Low NOX System at Limestone Unit 2 Cuts Texas Lignite, PRB and Pet Coke NOX , http://www.fwc.com/publications/tech_papers/files/tp_firsys_01_0 2.pdf 57 B . Courtemanche, et al, Reducing NOX Emissions and Commissioning Time on Southern Company Coal Fired Boilers With Low NOX Burners and CFD Analysis, http://www.babcockpower.com/pdf/t
- 182.pdf*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 318 of 1339 can be achieved on some units, under favorable circumstances, historical projects suggest a more typical schedule would be 12 to 16 months for the contractor’s portion of the work. 58 A plant owner’s project planning and procurement work in advance of a contract award would typically involve several additional months. On the other hand, there are other approaches that can also be implemented in a short time frame to achieve significant NOX reduction. As mentioned above, relatively simple SNCR systems c an be installed quickly; and the re - tuning or upgrading of existing combustion control systems can often provide significant NOX reductions and can be performed quickly. 59 As stated above, EPA believes that LNB/OFA modifications or retrofits would be possib le during the 6 -month interim between rule signature and the start of the first compliance period, particularly for those “early movers” who have initiated LNB projects based on the proposed rule. However, even if every affected unit from the analysis dela yed LNB modification or installation until the beginning of the 2012 ozone season (10 months from a June 30, 2011 signature), the emissions consequence would be limited to less than 1 percent of most
58 M. O’Donnell, Babcock & Wilcox Company, (personal communication with EPA staff, February 22, 2011) 59 N.C Widmer, et al, Coal Power, October 8, 2009, http://www.coalpowermag.com/ops_and_maintenance/Zonal
Combustion - Tuning - Systems - Improve - Coal - Fired- Boiler Performance_226.html*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 319 of 1339 states’ annual NOX budgets, reaching at most 5 percent o f only one state’s annual NOX budget. In light of this limited consequence and the supporting material above, EPA includes LNB driven NOX reductions in both annual and ozone - season NOX budgets for 2012. b. 2014 Power Industry Compliance EPA projects that compliance with 2014 requirements for NOX will result largely from operation of existing and future controls required by state and other federal requirements, as well as the appropriate dispatch of the electric generation fleet. EPA does not project additi onal NOX pollution control retrofits aside from about 10 GWs of combustion control improvements or retrofits projected for the 2012 compliance period. To comply with the rule’s SO 2 requirements, EPA projects that the power industry will rely on existing c ontrols, operate newly installed advanced controls necessary for other binding state and federal requirements, rely more on relatively lower sulfur coals, and dispatch lower - emitting generation units. In Group 1 states, industry is projected to increase s witching to lower sulfur coals and install a limited amount of additional scrubbers and other advanced pollution control technology. EPA’s assessment of the industry’s ability to install SO 2 pollution controls in 2014 and undertake the projected coal swi tching follows below.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 320 of 1339 EPA’s modeling of least - cost compliance with the state budgets under the Transport Rule projects approximately 5.9 GW of FGD systems and lesser amounts of other technologies will be retrofitted by 2014 for compliance with the Transpor t Rule. 60 EPA’s schedule assumptions for these larger more complex projects were developed in an earlier study and mentioned in the proposal: 27 months for retrofitted wet FGD and 21 months for SCR. 61 Note that a dry FGD system, due to its relatively simple r configuration and lesser cost, would typically take somewhat less time to retrofit than wet FGD. As discussed below, EPA believes that its schedule assumptions remain reasonable expectations for sources that have completed most of their preliminary proje ct planning and can quickly make commitments to proceed. These schedules do not include the extensive time that some plant owners might spend in making a decision on whether or not to retrofit. They do include the time needed to make a final confirmation o f the type of technology to be used at a particular site, to prepare bid requests, award contracts, perform engineering, obtain construction and operating permits (in parallel with project

60 Nearly all of the 5.9 GW of FGD retrofits are comprised by some 12 units at 7 plants (Beckjord, Muskingum River, Homer City, Rockport, Kammer, Danskammer, and Will County). 61 EPA, Engineering and Economic Factors Affecting the Installation of Control Technologies for Multipollutant Strategies; EPA- 600/R
- 02/073 October 2002.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 321 of 1339 activities), perform construction, tie - in to the existing plant sys tems, and perform integrated systems testing. EPA received comments on the proposed rule indicating that some past single - unit APC retrofits had considerably longer schedules, with a few exceeding 48 months. EPA engineering staff have extensive experience with power plant and APC system design, construction, and operation. Based on that experience, EPA can observe that in the absence of a compelling deadline or major economic incentive, many large project schedules are considerably longer than necessary. G iven further observations as explained below, EPA believes it reasonable to expect that almost all future APC retrofits can be completed far more quickly than they were in recent history. EPA’s perspective on this matter derives in part from a comparison of longer APC schedules (as provided by some commenters) to the project schedule for an entire new coal - fired unit, including its APC systems. Springerville Unit 3, for example, is a 400 MW coal - fired unit that became operational in July 2006, some 33 mont hs after the turnkey engineering construction contractor was given a notice to proceed with engineering. 62 Springerville was clearly on an accelerated

62 Best Coal - fired Projects, Springerville Unit 3 Expansion Project , Power Engineering, November 2006, http://www.powergenworldwide.com/index/display/articledisplay/27*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 322 of 1339 schedule, as its original planned schedule was about 38 months. The main point here is that recent APC pr oject schedules, and those of large complex power projects, can be significantly accelerated. Because the scope and complexity of the work involved for an entire new coal unit and its APC systems is perhaps five times greater than that of a retrofit wet FG D system alone, EPA believes it is reasonable to expect that even the most complex retrofit APC project can be significantly accelerated as well. Additional factors are discussed below that further support the feasibility of installing by 2014 the 5.9 GW o f FGD retrofits projected for this rule. Although IPM modeling provides reliable estimates on a regional basis, and cannot be as accurate at the level of individual plants or units, it is informative and relevant to consider IPM’s plant level projections in this case. Although the IPM-projected retrofits named below may not actually occur, IPM projects that they would be economic and would allow industry to meet the tighter SO 2 emission standards in Group 1 states in 2014. Of the Transport Rule - related FGD retrofits, 0.2 GW is projected to use dry FGD, which EPA expects to be simpler and quicker installations than those with wet FGD. Half of the 5.9 7709/articles/power
- engineering/
- /2006/11/best
- coal - firedp rojects.html*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 323 of 1339 GW (Muskingum, Rockport) has already been committed under consent decrees to add controls or retire; 63 and EPA reasonably believes that significant preliminary project planning work has already been done for those projects. An additional 1,200 MW (Homer City) had completed project planning and was ready to proceed in 2007, before putting the project on hold. 64 The latter plant is now facing EPA legal action and the possibility of a required expeditious FGD retrofit. 65 Thus, of the 5.9 GW of projected FGD retrofits resulting from this rule, nearly 75 percent appears to be in good position for an early start of construction, and over 3 GW of that would be bringing forward already committed compliance start dates. Any of the above mentioned potential retrofits or any other unit that might choose to retrofit FGD for a January 2014 compliance date will likely have to use various methods to accelerate the project schedule. Such methods could include the use of parallel permitting, overtime and/or two
- shift work schedules during construction, and 5 - or 6 - day work weeks instead of the 4 - day x 10 - hour schedules often used to minimize cost when time is not of the essence. Increased use of offsite
63http :/ / www . epa . gov / compliance / resources / decrees / civil / caa / ameri canelectricpower - cd . pdf 64 ht tp :// www . businesswire . com / news / home /20060731005193/ en / Contrac tors - Selected- Install - Emissions - Control - System- Pennsy lvania 65http :// www . epa . gov / Compliance / resources / complaints / civil / caa / ho mercity - cp . pdf*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 324 of 1339 modularization and pre - fabrication of APC components could also shorten schedules and reduce job hours. EPA believes that the January 1, 2014 compliance starting date is as expeditiou s as practicable for the sources installing large, complex control systems. The following additional observations support EPA’s expectation that the limited 5.9 GW of FGD retrofits can be realized in the 30 month interim between rule signature and the star t of 2014: ● There are documented instances of large, complex wet FGD retrofits being deployed in less than 30 -months (excluding the time for owners’ project planning). Examples are Killen Station Unit 2 66 , and Asheville Unit 1 . 67 ● In 2009 the APC supply chain dep loyed more than six times more GW capacity of FGD and SCR controls than the 5.9 of FGD that would be deployed by 2014 under this Rule. ● The APC supply chain has seen a 2 - year decline in deployments since its peak in 2009, but in 2011 is nonetheless putt ing into service about three times more GW capacity of FGD

66 Black & Veatch, http://www.bv.com/News_3_Publications/News_Releases/2005/0503.as px , http://www.bv. com/wcm/press_release/07252007_9767.aspx 67 PowerGenWorldwide, Projects of the Year, January 1, 2007, http://www.powergenworldwide.com/index/display/articledisplay/28 2547/articles/power
- engineering/volume
- 111/issue
1/features/projects
- of - the - year.html*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 325 of 1339 and SCR controls than the 5.9 of FGD that would be deployed under this Rule. ● Because the supply chain has been in decline, but remains quite active, there are now adequate supply chain resources available that can be quickly reengaged to support a rapid deployment of 5.9 GW of FGD. EPA recognizes that the installation of any amount of scrubbers in this short time frame will require aggressive action by plant owners and that the owners who can me et this schedule will already have done their project planning and will be ready to place orders. An example of such “early movers” was seen in the power sector’s anticipation of CAIR. EPA data indicate that solely CAIR- driven FGD and SCR deployments of ab out 6 GW occurred within two and one - half years after CAIR’s finalization in mid- 2005, showing that at least 20 percent of the total CAIR- only controls effort through a 2010 compliance date was sufficiently planned for installation to start before or immediately upon finalization of the rule. EPA reasonably expects that similar advance planning has already been done for units that would retrofit under this rule. In the event that a particular control installation requires additional time into 2014 to come online, EPA believes compliance would not be jeopardized given the ability of sources to purchase allowances during that time. This approach could be*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 326 of 1339 supported by some sources with FGD that have the ability to increase their SO 2 removal above historic ra tes, perhaps through relatively low cost upgrades to improve scrubber effectiveness, or by operating scrubbers at higher chemistry ratios. The ability of sources to temporarily or permanently substitute dry sorbent injection (DSI) for FGD serves as anothe r backstop for any feasibility issues regarding FGD. Note that the updated modeling for this rule projects the addition by 2014 of about 3 GW of DSI for SO 2 control using trona or other sorbent. DSI is a relatively low capital cost technology that readil y can be installed in the time frame available for compliance. 68 , 69 It should also be noted that most APC retrofits will involve a source outage for final “tie - in” of retrofitted systems to existing systems, during which time emissions from the affected un its are zero. For some sources, the duration of this tie - in outage may effectively extend the deadline by which all of the projected emission reductions need to occur. Although EPA believes that installation of 5.9 GW of FGD at facilities by January 1, 2 01 4 is feasible, EPA also conducted an

68 ICAC letter to Senator Carper, November 3, 2010, http://www.icac.com/files/public/ICAC_Carper_Response_110310.pdf 69 Assessment of Technology Options Available to Achieve Reductions of Hazardous Air Pollutants , URS Corporation, April 5, 2011, http://www.suppo rtcleanair.com/resources/studies/file/4
- 8 - 11 - URSTechnologyReport.pdf*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 327 of 1339 IPM sensitivity analysis to examine a scenario in which FGD retrofitting by 2014 is not allowed . Results of EPA’s “no FGD” analysis indicate that if the power industry were subjected to the requirements of this rule without an FGD retrofit option for compliance , covered units would still be able to meet the Transport Rule requirements in every state while respecting each state’s assurance level . (See the docket to this rulemaking for the TR No FGD in 2014 Scenario Fi nal IPM run.) In this scenario without the availability of new FGD by 2014, sources in covered states complied with the Transport Rule budgets by using moderate additional amounts of DSI retrofits, switching to larger shares of sub -bituminous coal, and dis patching larger amounts of natural gas - fired generation in lieu of the FGD retrofits that are projected as being most economic under modeling of the Transport Rule remedy. Because new FGD capacity is included in EPA’s projection of the least cost set of S O 2 emission reductions required in Group 1 states , the “no FGD” sensitivity scenario did project higher system cost s , although these costs were still substantially lower than the remedy EPA modeled in the Transport Rule proposal. The “no FGD” analysis indi cates that while the ability of Group 1 states to meet their 2014 SO 2 budgets is facilitated by FGD retrofits, they are by no means require d, nor is Transport Rule compliance jeopardized by their absence. Even under a*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 328 of 1339 scenario in which sources fail to complete FGD retrofits by 2014 , sources in the affected states would have other compliance options available at reasonable cost to meet the state’s budget requirements. This analysis shows that Group 1 s tates would be able to comply with the ir 2014 SO 2 budge ts by relying on other emission reduction opportunities that do not require FGD retrofit s . EPA analysis confirms that those alternatives are feasible both in terms of cost and timing. Finally, EPA recognizes that, when finalized later this year as current ly scheduled, the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) will require significant retrofit activity at covered sources in the power sector with a 2015 compliance date for that rule. EPA's projections of retrofit activity under the final Transport Rule ar e highly compatible with its projections of retrofit activity under the proposed MATS (which included the proposed Transport Rule in its baseline). EPA therefore anticipates that the Transport Rule's projected retrofit activity will not only be the least - cost compliance pathway to meeting state budgets in 2014 but will also accelerate emission reductions subsequently required by the effective date of MATS. The final Transport Rule's projected 2014 retrofit installations will also further incentivize the p ower sector to ramp up its retrofit installation capabilities to achieve broader deployment*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 329 of 1339 of the projected pollution control retrofits under the proposed MATS. Considering all the reasons given above, EPA has concluded that the 2014 requirements for SO 2 emissions in the states covered by the Transport Rule are reasonable and can be met by the power industry by a variety of means. c. Coal Switching for SO 2 Compliance in 2012 and 2014 Coal switching is another mechanism which can be used along with operatin g pollution controls in 2012 for compliance. It will be a complementary activity by many coal - fired units alongside of operating pollution controls and the addition of more scrubbers and DSI in 2014. In the proposal, EPA noted that coal switching could se rve as a compliance mechanism for 2012. EPA requested comment on the reasonableness of EPA’s assumption that coal switching will have relatively little cost or schedule impact on most units. EPA received substantial comment suggesting that the coal switch ing and coal blending projected by EPA modeling are not feasible for all units, and that, if feasible, would often incur a cost through the derating of the unit associated with the switch to a lower sulfur coal or coal blend. Additionally, sources indicat ed that coal switching by 2012 would not always be possible in the six month window between final rule signature and start of compliance. These feasibility concerns stemmed*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 330 of 1339 from restrictions included in existing coal supply contracts and from boiler design constraints that may hinder coal switching within a six month window. EPA agrees with these concerns and revised its IPM modeling to limit coal switching capability in 2012 for particular units that may have trouble switching coals or coal blends in a six month time frame. A cost adder was also included in the IPM modeling for coal switching to capture the potential cost burden of deratings that might accompany switching to a very low sulfur subbituminous coal or coal blend. A particular commenter conc ern regarding switching to lower sulfur within the eastern bituminous coals related to a possible impact on the performance of a cold- side electrostatic precipitator (ESP). Some ESPs that operate at acceptably high collection efficiency when using a high - or medium- sulfur bituminous coal may experience some loss in collection efficiency when a lower sulfur coal is used. Whether this occurs on a specific unit, and the extent to which it occurs, would depend on the design margins built into the existing ESP , the percentage change in coal sulfur content, and other factors. In any case, industry experience indicates that relatively inexpensive practices to maintain high ESP performance on lower sulfur bituminous coals are available and can be used successfull y where necessary. These include a range of upgrades*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 331 of 1339 to ESP components and flue gas conditioning. 70 EPA therefore assumes that it will not be necessary for units that switch from higher to lower sulfur bituminous to make a costly replacement of the ESP. Coal switching as a SO 2 compliance option might also include switching from bituminous to subbituminous coal. EPA’s analysis does not assume that a unit designed for bituminous can switch to (very low sulfur) subbituminous coal unless the unit’s historic al data demonstrate that capability in the past. EPA assumes that units with that demonstrated capability have already made any investments needed to handle a switch back to the use of subbituminous coal at a similar percentage of its heat input as in the past. For IPM analysis in the final rule EPA also introduced a coal switching option that assumes that units can increase a historically low percentage use of subbituminous to a “maximum” level, if economic. This option includes an appropriate derate in output, increase in heat rate, and additional capital and operating costs. Details of this and other IPM updates for this rule are provided in the IPM Modeling Documentation TSD in the docket for this rulemaking.

70 Assessment of Technology Options Available to Achieve Reductions of Hazardous Air Pollutants , URS Corporation, April 5, 2011, http://www.supportcleanair.com/resources/studies/file/4
- 8 - 1 1 - URSTechnologyReport.pdf*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 332 of 1339 D. Allocation of Emission Allowances Unde r the final rule, EPA distributes a number of SO 2 , annual NOX , and ozone - season NOX emission allowances to covered units in each state equal to the SO 2 , annual NOX , and ozone season NOX budgets for those states. These budgets are addressed in section VI.D of this preamble. This section discusses the methodology EPA uses to allocate allowances to covered units in each state. As discussed later in section VI.D.2, EPA is setting aside a base 2 percent of each state’s budgets for allowance allocations for new units, with 5 percent of that 2 percent, or 0.1 percent of the total state budget being set aside for new units located in Indian country. To this base 2 percent, EPA is setting aside an additional percentage on a state -by - state basis, ranging from 0 to 6 percent (yielding total set asides of 2 percent to 8 percent), for units committed to be built. The remainder of the state budget is allocated to existing units. Tables V.D. - 3 and V.D. - 4 in this preamble show the SO 2 , annual NOX , and ozone - season NOX bu dgets for each covered state (without the variability limits). In allocating allowances to existing and new units, EPA distributes four discrete types of emissions allowances for four separate programs: SO 2 Group 1 allowances, SO 2 Group 2 allowances, annu al NOX allowances, and ozone - season NOX allowances.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 333 of 1339 In the SO 2 Group 1 and SO 2 Group 2 programs, each SO 2 allowance authorizes the emission of one ton of SO 2 in that vintage year or later and is usable for compliance only in the program for which the allowance was issued. In the annual NO X program, each annual NO X allowance authorizes the emission of one ton of NOX in that vintage year or later in that program. In the ozone - season NOX program, each ozone - season NOX allowance authorizes the emission of one ton of NOX during the regulatory ozone season (May through September for this final rule) in that vintage year or later for that program. In each of the four trading programs, a covered source is required to hold sufficient allowances (issued in the resp ective trading program) to cover the emissions from all covered units at the source during the control period. EPA assesses compliance with these allowance - holding requirements at the source (i.e., facility) level. This section explains how, in this final rule, EPA allocates a state’s budget to existing units and new units in that state. This section also describes the new unit set - asides and Indian country new unit set - asides in each state, allocations to units that are not operating, and the recordation of allowance allocations in source compliance accounts. 1. Allocations to existing units*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 334 of 1339 This subsection describes the methodology EPA will use in the FIPs finalized in this action to allocate to existing units. 71 The same methodology will be used to all ocate allowances to existing units for all four trading programs. For the reasons explained below, EPA has decided to base allocations made under the FIPs on historic heat input, subject to a maximum allocation limit to any individual unit based on that unit’s maximum historic emissions. This methodology gives each existing unit an allocation equal to its share of the state’s historic heat input for all the covered units in the program, except where that allocation would exceed its maximum historic emiss ions; this methodology would constrain the heat input -based allocations from exceeding any unit’s maximum historic emissions. Further detail on the implementation of this approach is provided in section VII.D.1.c below as well as in the Allowance Allocati on Final Rule TSD in the docket for this rulemaking. All allocations for 2012 will be done pursuant to the FIPs. However, as described in section X, states may submit SIPs or abbreviated SIPs to use different allocation methodologies for allowances of vi ntage year 2013 and later.

71 In this rule, existing units are defined as covered units that commenced commercial operation prior to January 1, 2010. As explained in greater detail in Section VII.B. of this preamble, EPA decided to use this definition to en sure that EPA would have at least one full year of quality - assured data on which to base a unit’s allocation.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 335 of 1339 a. Summary of allocation methodologies and comments EPA took comment on three distinct allocation methodologies. The first

– an emissions -based option

– was presented in the original Transport Rule proposal (75 FR 45309). The second and third

– heat input option 1 and heat input option 2
– were presented in a Notice of Data Availability (76 FR 1113). EPA received numerous comments on all three options. i. emissions -based allocation methodology The emissions -based option pr esented in the original Transport Rule proposal would base allowance allocations to existing units on each covered unit’s calculated emissions “share” of that state’s budget for a given pollutant under the Transport Rule. The proposed rule stated that “fo r 2012, each existing unit in a given state receives allowances commensurate with the unit’s emissions reflected in whichever total emissions amount is lower for the state, 2009 emissions or 2012 base case emissions projections. In either case, the alloca tion is adjusted downward, if the unit has additional pollution controls projected to be online by 2012...For states with lower SO 2 budgets in 2014 (SO 2 group 1 states), each unit’s allocation for 2014 and later is determined in proportion to its share of the 2014 state budget, as projected by IPM” (75 FR 45309). Many commenters objected to this projected emissions allocation methodology. Commenters offered two principle*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 336 of 1339 objections. First, they argued EPA should not use unit - level model projections to all ocate allowances. Second, they argued the use of any emissions -based allowance methodology is improper. Many of these commenters argued that instead of an emissions -based allocation methodology, EPA should use a heat input -based allocation methodology. Commenters’ objections to the use of unit level model projections focused primarily on the accuracy of such projections. While many commenters supported the use of modeling projections in determining state emissions budgets, they argued that the unit - leve l model projections were not sufficiently accurate to use as a basis for allocating allowances. Among other things, they argued that the modeling used for the proposal did not recognize certain non - economic factors that may cause individual units to opera te differently than the model projects. Commenters also argued that EPA’s modeling does not capture all up - to - date contracts and other economic arrangements made at the unit - level which may affect operational decision -making. Some of these commenters con tinued to support the use of an emissions -based allocation approach, but urged EPA to use more up - to - date and specific unit - level data in its modeling projections. Others opposed the use of any emissions -based allocation approach.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 337 of 1 339 EPA acknowledges that the model may not, at this time, capture all relevant operational decision factors for each individual unit. EPA also recognizes that there are unit - level details of operational decision -making and economic arrangements (such as certain contracts for electr icity sales) which are private and thus unavailable to EPA on an ongoing basis for modeling purposes. EPA believes these potential omissions would not have a significant impact on EPA’s determination of significant contribution at the state level; however , EPA recognizes they could conceivably have a significant impact on projections at the individual unit level. EPA thus agrees with commenters that the unit - level emissions projections from its modeling may not reflect all possible operational decisions a t a given unit and are therefore not an appropriate proxy measure to use as a basis for allocating allowances to individual units. Many commenters also argued that, even if the emissions projections could be adjusted to capture all known and up - to date un it - level operational factors, EPA should not use any emissions -based allocation approach. They argued that an emissions -based approach should not be used because it is not fuel - neutral. That is to say, the type of fuel consumed significantly affects the emissions from, and therefore the allocation to, a given unit under an emissions -based approach. Commenters argued that an approach that is not fuel - neutral*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 338 of 1339 effectively awards higher - emitting units. Commenters also argued that a projected emissions -based approach should not be used because it is not control - neutral. In other words, whether or not a unit has installed controls would significantly affect the allocation for a given unit under an emissions -based approach. Under an emissions -based approach, controlled units receive significantly fewer allowances than uncontrolled units. Such an approach, commenters pointed out, effectively penalizes sources who have taken action to reduce emissions. EPA acknowledges that an emissions -based approach would not be fuel - neutral or control - neutral. EPA notes that the D.C. Circuit rejected the fuel adjustment factors that were used in CAIR to adjust state budgets and allocations based on the type of fuel burned at each covered unit. North Carolina , 531 F.3d 91 8 - 21 (rejecting use of fuel adjustments in setting state NO X budgets) . While the proposal’s allocation methodology did not explicitly adopt “fuel adjustment factors” for allocation purposes, EPA recognizes that an emissions -based allocation methodology ef fectively discriminates among covered sources based on the type of fuel they combust. In addition, several commenters argued that the proposal’s emissions -based methodology would inappropriately reward the highest emitters under the program with more allowances than their lower - emitting counterparts would receive. EPA*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 339 of 1339 acknowledges that such a methodology would allocate more allowances to units whose emissions make up a larger share of the proposed Transport Rule programs’ state budgets. EPA notes that bec ause any allocation patterns under the Transport Rule FIPs would be established in advance of covered sources’ compliance decisions (i.e., decisions regarding how much to emit under the programs), covered sources cannot be “rewarded” by adjusting their fut ure emissions. However, EPA notes commenters’ observations that the proposal’s methodology would reduce allocations to units that previously installed pollution control technology or invested in cleaner forms of generation in anticipation of CAIR. EPA co ncluded in review of these comments that the proposed Transport Rule’s allocation methodology unintentionally yielded this distributional outcome. EPA therefore considered alternative allocation methodologies described below. A substantial portion of the commenters who objected to the proposal’s emissions -based allocation option urged EPA to consider historic heat input based approaches. EPA agreed it should accept comment on the use of historic heat input -based approaches and published a NODA to provide an opportunity for comment on two specific heat input options and the allocations that would result from application of those options to the proposed Transport Rule state budgets.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 340 of 1339 ii. Heat input allocation option 1 The first heat input option presented b y EPA in the NODA (“Option 1”) allocates allowances to units based solely on their historic heat input. Under this option, EPA establishes a 5 - year historic heat input baseline for each covered unit and allocates allowances to sources at levels proportion al to the each unit’s share of the total historic heat input at all covered units in that state. Numerous commenters supported the use of a heat - input based allocation methodology. These commenters stated that basing allocations on historic heat input h as the following advantages over the proposal’s emissions -based allocation methodology: (i) For certain types of units, h istoric heat input data may offer a better representation of unit - level operation than model projections of unit - level emissions; furthermore, for all units, historic heat input is typically represented by quality assured data reported by sources from continuous emissions monitoring systems, which strengthens its accuracy. (ii) Historic heat input data are fuel - neutral. (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.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 341 of 1339 Many commenters also argued that a heat input -based allocation methodology should be used because, unlike the proposal’s emissions -based methodology, a heat - input based methodology would be generally fuel - neutral and control
– neutral and would rely on unit - level quality - assured data instead of on modeling projections. Several commenters exp ressed support for specific aspects of heat input option number one. From a technical standpoint, commenters noted that heat input option 1 relied on the highest quality and most transparent data EPA had provided as a basis for allocating allowances under the Transport Rule programs. They argued that the calculation methodology for heat input option 1 is more readily re - created and understood by sources than either the proposal’s methodology or EPA’s application of the “reasonable upper -bound capacity uti lization factor and a well - controlled emission rate” in heat input option 2 (described in greater detail below). They also pointed out that it is similar to methodologies used in previous trading programs, such as the NOX Budget Trading Program ( see 40 CFR 96.42(a) & (b) (calculating each existing EGU’s allocation by multiplying each unit’s historic heat input by 1.5 lb/mmBtu)). In addition, commenters supported the reliance of heat input option 1 on continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) data that are reported to EPA and certified by the source’s designated*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 342 of 1339 representative (DR) as accurate and complete. In addition, many commenters supported EPA’s use of historic data without further transformation by any calculation factors created by EPA. From a policy perspective, commenters highlighted the fuel neutrality and emissions - control neutrality aspects of heat input option 1. They noted that this option does not, in contrast to the proposal’s emissions -based methodology, penalize a source, through a reduced allowance allocation, for having chosen a generation technology or emissions control technology that was more favorable to public health and the environment. EPA agrees with these commenters’ observations. The allocation pattern associated with t his option does not discriminate between units based on either the fuel consumed or the presence or absence of a pollution control technology. In this respect, it is a neutral approach that does not “reward” high - emitting units or “penalize” low - emitting units, including, for example, those units to which pollution control technology was installed in anticipation of CAIR. EPA agrees with the aforementioned arguments from these commenters regarding the technical and policy merits of this heat input -based al location methodology. EPA believes that the quality - assured heat input data reported by EGUs under its programs are among the most detailed and sound unit - level data accessible by EPA. EPA believes the calculation of any*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 343 of 1339 individual unit’s share of this h istoric heat input data is a straightforward, clear, and simple calculation to perform, such that anyone may easily reproduce EPA’s calculated allowance allocations under this approach. EPA also agrees with commenters that such data has previously supporte d allowance allocation procedures for highly successful program implementation of the Acid Rain Program (ARP) and the NOX Budget Program (NBP). Notably, Congress chose a heat input -based allocation approach when authorizing the ARP in title IV of the Clean Air Act, suggesting that Congress viewed heat input as a reasonable basis for allocation. Additionally, EPA’s selection of a heat input -based approach for the NBP was not legally challenged, implying that stakeholders also see a heat input -based approach as reasonable. EPA also agrees with comments observing that allocations made under this heat input approach do not discriminate on the basis of any unit’s choice of fuel combustion or pollution control technology, and that allocations under this approach would thus be “fuel - neutral” and “control - neutral.” EPA also agrees with commenters that unlike the proposed rule’s emissions -based methodology, this heat input methodology does not yield lower allocation to units that reduced emissions in advance of the Transport Rule relative to units that did not make such emission reductions.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 344 of 1339 Other commenters objected to the use of a heat - input based allocation methodology. These commenters argued that the allocation pattern associated with a heat - input allocation me thodology would yield “windfall profits” -- in the form of allowance allocations greatly in excess of likely emissions -- for certain units, particularly with regard to SO 2 allowance allocations for units combusting natural gas. EPA disagrees with the cha racterization of the excess allowances as “windfall profits.” Allocations based on heat - input alone are fuel neutral and control - neutral. The characterization of the heat input allocation methodology as creating “windfall profits” for any unit is based o n the assumption that all units should be allocated allowances based on emissions, not heat input. In arguing the heat - input approach creates a “windfall” for some units, commenters are assuming that the allocation of allowances above a unit’s projected emissions constitutes a “windfall”

– a conclusion EPA does not accept. EPA believes that under market based regulatory programs, it is appropriate to base initial allowance allocations on a neutral factor and allow the market to determine the least - cost pa ttern of emission reductions in each state to achieve the reductions that address the state’s significant contribution and interference with maintenance under the final Transport Rule programs. EPA disagrees that future allowance transactions (following a neutral - factor initial*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 345 of 1339 allocation) in response to these market forces can be characterized as “windfall profits.” As explained above, EPA believes it is appropriate to allocate allowances based on a neutral factor. Commenters appear to ask EPA, instead of allocating based on a neutral factor, to consider the unit - level distributional impacts of each allocation methodology and to select an allocation methodology on the basis of equity. EPA does not believe it would be appropriate for the agency to pick an allocation methodology to achieve any particular distributional outcome as such considerations are not related to the statutory mandate of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Instead, EPA believes it is appropriate to allocate allowances to sources covered by i ts trading programs based on a neutral factor. Furthermore, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires prohibition of certain emissions within a state (i.e., a state’s significant contribution and interference with maintenance). It does not direct EPA to u se any particular methodology for allocating allowances under a trading program designed to ensure all such emissions are prohibited. As such, EPA believes it is appropriate to allocate allowances based on a neutral factor representing fossil energy conte nt used to produce electricity. Detailed considerations of equity, as the D.C. Circuit reminded EPA, are not related to the statutory mandate of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). North Carolina , 531 F.3d 921 .*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 346 of 1339 Some commenters objected to the use of a heat input -based approach by arguing that higher - emitting units would not receive an initial allocation sufficient to cover their emissions. EPA does not believe it is reasonable to expect initial allocations to cover a unit’s emissions under a trading program aimed at producing meaningful emission reductions. In its administration of prior trading programs such as the ARP and the NBP, EPA has made initial allowance allocations using a heat input -based approach, and virtually all covered sources have successfully complied at the end of each compliance period by making cost effective emission reductions and purchasing additional allowances through robust markets to cover emissions. EPA disagrees with commenters’ arguments that allowance allocations should be used to compensate units with higher emissions. iii. Heat input allocation methodology option 2 The second heat input option presented by EPA for public comment also uses historic heat input but applies a constraint to unit - level allocations under certain circums tances. Specifically, under this option unit - level allocations are not allowed to exceed what EPA determines, based on historic emissions and other factors, to be the units’ “reasonably foreseeable maximum emissions.” To apply this constraint, EPA first determines whether the allocation to a unit under an unconstrained heat - input*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 347 of 1339 methodology would exceed that unit’s maximum historic emissions of the relevant pollutant since 2003 “ in order to reflect unit level emissions before and after the promulgation of the CAIR” (76 FR 1115). Using this baseline enhances the neutrality of the maximum historic emissions data because it captures the highest emissions of the unit during that period regardless of what fuels it combusted or what pollution control devices we re installed and used at any time during that period. In other words, a unit’s allocation would not be reduced due to a recent decision to switch fuels or install pollution controls. Second, for this option, EPA then adjusts that maximum historic emission s data by applying a “well - controlled rate maximum,” designed to place “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 t ype of fuel they combust) can meet for the pollutant” (76 FR 1115). This option would constrain certain units’ allocations that, if based solely on historic heat input, would be determined by EPA to be “in excess of their reasonably foreseeable maximum emissions” under the Transport Rule programs (76 FR 1115). As noted above, commenters offered numerous arguments in favor of using a historic heat input approach. These arguments apply equally to heat input option 1 and heat input option 2.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 348 of 1339 EPA also received numerous comments comparing the two heat input options presented. Many commenters preferred heat input option 1’s reliance purely on historic data as compared with heat input option 2’s reliance on that data modified by the application of EPAdetermined “reasonable upper bound capacity factors” and “well controlled emission rates.” Commenters also criticized the complexity of these modification factors in heat input option 2. While EPA believes both options represent viable approaches, the Agency agrees with commenters that the application of these factors increase the complexity of allocation determinations and would adjust unit - specific historic data by applying EPA- created factors generically determined for broad categories of units. Some commenter s suggested that EPA’s application of these modification factors could also represent legal vulnerabilities for the Transport Rule. In particular, they were concerned that the capacity factors and well controlled emission rates presented as part of heat i nput option 2 could be perceived as arbitrary. While EPA does not agree that these modification factors are arbitrary, the Agency does recognize that application of such EPA- created generic factors in determining unit - specific allocations increases the complexity of the allocation approach and raises issues regarding whether such*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 349 of 1339 generic factors are appropriately applied to each individual unit.iv. General comments on EPA’s authority to allocate allowances Numerous commenters also noted that EPA has gene rally broad authority in selecting an allocation methodology under CAA sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 302(y). 72 EPA agrees with commenters that the Agency has broad discretion in this area. Neither the CAA nor the D.C. Circuit Court’s opinion in North Ca rolina specifies a particular methodology that EPA must use to allocate allowances to individual units. CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires prohibition of emissions “within the state” that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with ma intenance, and it gives states broad discretion to develop a control program in a SIP that achieves this objective. EPA has similarly broad discretion when issuing a FIP to realize this objective. Moreover, while the definition

72 CAA 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 contr ol 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.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 350 of 1339 of FIP in CAA section 302( y) 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),” this section does not require EPA to use any particular methodology to allocate allowances under a FIP trading program. In light of this lack of direction in the CAA concerning allowance allocation, EPA has broad discretion to select an allocation methodology that is reasonable and consistent wi th the goals of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). The body of public comment makes it clear that no allocation option could be deemed satisfactory from the perspective of all stakeholders. Public comments from most states and industrial stakeholders with a substantial interest in how EPA allocates allowances under the Transport Rule FIPs expressed support for an historical heat input -based approach as opposed to the proposal’s emissions -based approach. Most commenters favored this historical heat input data basis as the most sound and offered technical corrections which EPA has used in the final rule. EPA believes it is reasonable to select a heat input -based approach for the final Transport Rule as being consistent with its program objectives and historica lly established from prior program implementation as a credible, workable allocation approach.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 351 of 1339 b. Final FIP Allocation Methodology After consideration of all comments, EPA decided to allocate allowances to individual units based on that units’ share of the state’s historic heat - input, but to ensure that no unit’s allocations exceed that unit’s historic emissions. EPA decided to use the allocation methodology originally presented as heat input option 2, modified in response to public comments. EPA decided to use heat input option 2 but without the application of the “reasonable upper -bound capacity utilization factor and a well - controlled emission rate” factors. This allocation approach reflects the Agency’s response to extensive public comment on the options presented in the proposed Transport Rule and subsequent NODAs and is a logical outgrowth of those actions. EPA is using this approach to allocate allowances under the FIPs for all four trading programs. Further details on the calculation and implementation of this approach are provided below in section VII.D.1.c and can also be found in the Allowance Allocation Final Rule TSD in the docket for this rulemaking. The principal reasons for this decision are:
 EPA believes that allowance allocation under the Transport Rule should not discriminate between units based on the selection of fuels consumed or of pollution controls installed at a given unit in*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 352 of 1339 anticipation of either the Clean Air Interstate Rule or the Transport Rule, i.e. fuel or control deci sions taken from 2003 onward. This approach will avoid allocations that effectively penalize units which have already invested in cleaner fuels or other pollution reduction measures that will continue to deliver important emission reductions under this ru lemaking. The selected approach makes no such discriminations and is thus fuel - neutral and control - neutral in its allocation determinations.
 EPA finds that the selected approach maximizes transparency and clarity of allowance allocations. EPA has already made public the historic heat input and historic emissions data on which this approach is based, and its application to calculate unit - level allocations in each state under that state’s emission budgets finalized in this Transport Rule can be easily repli cated by any party.
 EPA finds that quality - assured historic CEMS - quality data used to implement this approach represent the most technically superior dat a available to EPA at the time of this rulemaking for calculating unit - level allocations. This approach relies on unmodified historic data reported directly by the vast majority*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 353 of 1339 of covered sources, which have already attested to the validity and accuracy of this data. EPA agrees with commenters that allowance allocations should be based on quality - assured data to the maximum extent possible. This approach uses the most accurate data currently available to EPA.
 Heat - input based approaches were used to allocate allowances under both the NO X Budget Program and the Acid Rain Program. Allocation under these p rograms was readily and easily administered and the programs achieved or exceeded their environmental goals. This approach’s core use of heat input as a basis for allocations seeks to build on prior legislative and administrative approaches to allowance a llocations for emission trading programs.
 EPA also finds that this approach’s addition of a constraint to heat input -based allocations where such allocations would otherwise exceed a unit’s maximum historic emissions is a reasonable extension of a heat input -based allocation approach. The Transport Rule programs are established to achieve emission reductions from covered states. As a group, covered sources within each state will make the necessary reductions under these programs. In light of the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 354 of 1339 program’ s goal to reduce each state’s emissions, it is logical that initial allowance allocations to covered units should be limited to no more than each unit’s maximum historic emissions, as a reasonable starting point from which the trading programs would commen ce to assure state - level reductions. Under the trading programs, any source may emit any ton for which it holds a corresponding allowance, which it may acquire either by initial allocation or by subsequent purchase. Notwithstanding that compliance flexib ility of the market -based trading programs under the Transport Rule, EPA believes that constraining initial heat input -based allowance allocations not to exceed a unit’s maximum historic emissions offers a reasonable starting point from which the programs can operate. EPA believes that this selected allocation methodology for the final Transport Rule FIPs is within its authority under the Clean Air Act. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA requires that emissions “within a state” that significantly contr ibute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in another state be prohibited. In the final Transport Rule, EPA analyzed each individual state’s significant contribution and interference with maintenance and calculated budgets that represent each st ate’s emissions after the elimination of those prohibited*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 355 of 1339 emissions. The methodology used to allocate allowances in a state budget to individual units in the state has no impact on that state’s budget or on the requirement that the state’s emissions not e xceed that budget plus variability. Regardless of the allocation methodology used, the state’s responsibility for eliminating its significant contribution and interference with maintenance remains unchanged. This is reflected by the fact that allocations under each state’s budget, regardless of how they are made, cannot change that state’s budget. In sum, the allocation methodology has no impact on the final rule’s ability to satisfy the statutory mandate of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to eliminate si gnificant contribution and interference with maintenance. Consistent with its broad authority in CAA sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 302(y), EPA believes that data quality, fuel - neutrality, control - neutrality, transparency, clarity, and successful experi ence in previous trading programs are reasonable factors on which to base the selection of an allowance allocation methodology for the final Transport Rule. EPA believes that the transparency and clarity of this allocation approach builds credibility with the public that the government is distributing a public resource precisely as stated in this rulemaking, with clear execution that can be easily verified by any citizen with a calculator.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 356 of 1339 EPA also believes that the final Transport Rule’s heat input -based approach is not inconsistent with the goals of the Clean Air Act because it allocates allowances on the basis of a neutral factor that does not discriminate by what fuel the unit burns or whether or not a unit has installed controls in anticipation of thes e regulations. In contrast, allocations under the proposal’s emissions -based methodology would give a greater share of allowances to units with higher emission rates, which are generally responsible for a greater share of a state’s total emissions . Becau se these higher - emitting rate units are generally responsible for a greater share of emissions, it follows that they are also responsible for a greater share of a state’s significant contribution and interference with maintenance. The proposal’s emissions -based allocation methodology would disadvantage one of two otherwise identical units if it invested in emission reductions in anticipation of the Clean Air Interstate Rule or this final Transport Rule. The heat - input allocation methodology selected for the final Transport Rule does not have this flaw. In contrast to the proposal’s emissions -based allocation approach, the heat input allocation methodology selected by EPA yields a smaller proportion of allowances relative to emissions to higher emission - r ate units and a higher proportion of allowances relative to emissions to lower - emission - rate units. For*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 357 of 1339 example, assume that in a state with two units and in a baseline year, Unit A combusts 100 MMBtu of heat input and emits 1000 tons while Unit B combust s 100 MMBtu of heat input and emits only 500 tons. Assume also that this state’s future Transport Rule emissions budget for this pollutant is only 500 tons. Because Units A and B each make up an even share of historic heat input for the state, the final rule’s heat input -based approach would allocate the same share of allowances (250 tons) to each unit. In this example, Unit A’s initial allocation of 250 is a smaller proportion of its historic emissions (25 percent of its baseline 1000 - ton emissions), wh ile Unit B’s initial allocation of 250 is a larger proportion of its historic emissions (50 percent of its baseline 500 - ton emissions). Therefore, Unit B’s ability to emit fewer tons per MMBtu of heat content used for generating electricity (as compared t o Unit A) results in Unit B receiving a larger proportion of its historic emissions as an initial allocation share than Unit A receives. This relative distribution al pattern yielded is not in consistent with the goals of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) becau se under this distribution, higher - emitting units, which are responsible for a greater share of the state’s significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance, would require relatively more allowances in order to cover their pre - ex isting emissions than would lower - emitting units . EPA*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 358 of 1339 believes this initial allocation pattern is an appropriate reflection of the goals of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). The heat input -based allowance methodology selected by EPA is fuel - neutral, control - neutral, transparent, based on reliable data, and similar to the allocation methodologies used in the NO X SIP Call and Acid Rain Program. For all these reasons, EPA determined that it is appropriate to use a heat input -based allocation methodology in thi s rule. In addition, this allocation methodology is similar to an output -based allocation approach , which would base allocations on the quantity of electricity generated (rather than energy content combusted) and would also be fuel - neutral, control neutral , and able to reward generation units that operate the most efficiently . Many state and industry commenters advocated using an output -based approach due to its reported strong value in promoting efficiency. However, at this time EPA does not have access to unit - level output data that is as quality - assured or comprehensive as its data sets on heat input across the units considered. Therefore, EPA is using a heat input -based approach under the Transport Rule in part due to its ability to serve as the best proxy for an output -based standard using the most quality - assured data that EPA has to date. In the NODA, EPA noted that final state budgets and allocations may differ from the proposed budgets and allocations*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 359 of 1339 because EPA was still in the process of updati ng its emissions inventories and modeling in response to public comments, including comments on the Integrated Planning Model. Thus, unit - level allocations in the NODA provided an indication of the proportional share of a state’s budget that would be allo cated to individual existing units if the alternative methodologies were used. The allocations made final today are based on budgets that reflect the updated modeling and comments received during the comment period. c. Calculation of existing unit alloca tions under the final Transport Rule FIPs Allocations under this final methodology for each existing unit are 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 2006 through 2010 are identified using data reported to EPA or, where EPA data is unavailable, using data reported to the Energy Information Administration (EIA). For a baseline year for which a unit has no data on heat input (e.g., fo r a baseline year before the year when a unit started operating), the unit is assigned a zero value. (Step 2 explains how such zero values are treated in the calculations.) The allocation method uses a five -*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 360 of 1339 year baseline to approximate a unit’s normal op erating conditions over time. 2. For each unit, the three highest, non - zero annua l heat input values within the five - year baseline are selected and averaged. Selecting the three highest, non - zero annual heat input values within the five - year baseline reduce s 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 does not have three non - zero heat input values during the five - year baseli ne period, EPA averages 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 MMB tus respectively, then the unit’s average heat input used to determine its pro - rata share of the state budget is (2+4)/2 = 3. 3. Each unit is assigned a baseline heat input value calculated as described in step 2 , above, referred to as the “ three - year average heat input .” 4. The three - year average heat inputs of all covered existing units in a state are summed to obtain that state’s total “three - year average heat input.”*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 361 of 1339 5. Each unit’s three - year average heat input is 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 is multiplied by the existing - unit portion of the state budget (i.e., the state budget minus the state’s new uni t set - aside and, if applicable, minus the Indian country new unit set - aside) to determine that unit’s allocation. 7. An eight - year (2003 - 2010) historic emissions baseline is established for SO 2 , NOX , and ozone - season NOX based on data reported to EPA or, where EPA data is unavailable, based on EIA data. This approach use s this eight - year historic emissions baseline in order to capture the unit - level emissions before and after the promulgation of CAIR. 8. For each unit, the maximum annual historic SO 2 and NOX emissions would be identified within the eight - year baseline. Similarly, the maximum ozone season NO X emissions from the eight - year baseline for each unit would be identified. These values are referred to as the “maximum historic baseline emissions” for e ach unit.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 362 of 1339 9. If a unit has a historic heat - input based allocation (as determined in step 6) that exceeds its maximum historic baseline emissions (as determined in step 8), then its allocation would equal the maximum historic baseline emission for that unit. 10. The difference (if positive) under step 9 between a unit’s historic heat - input -based allocation and its “maximum historic baseline emissions” would be reapportioned on the same basis as described in steps 1 through 6 to units whose historic heat - input -based allocation does not exceed its maximum historic baseline emissions. Steps 7, 8, and 9 are repeated with each revised allocation distribution until the entire existing - unit portion of the state budget is allocated. The resulting allocation value is rounde d to the nearest whole number using conventional rounding. The only exceptions are for units where the above process results in an allocation greater than 0 but less than 1. For these units (e.g., a unit with an allowance value of 0.3), their allocation is always rounded to 1 allowance.
T able VI.D - 1 below provides an illustrative application of the steps 1 - 10 in a hypothetical state. Table VI.D - 1 : Demonstration of Allocations Using Final

Allocation Methodology in a Three -Unit State with an 80 - Ton State Budget*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 363 of 1339 Steps 1 - 6 Steps 7,8,9 Steps 1 - 9 Reiterated Step 10 Initial Historic Heat Input -based Allocation Maximum

Historic Baseline Emissions Revised

Historic Heat Input based Allocation Final Allocation Unit A 20 16 N/A 16 Unit B 30 50 32 32 Unit C 3 0 50 32 32
2. Allocations to New Units EPA is finalizing -- similar to the proposal (75 FR 45310)

-- an approach to allocate emission allowances to new units from new unit set - asides in each state. Specifically, EPA has decided, for each of the four tra ding programs, to make the following units eligible for allocations as new units: any covered unit not already receiving an allocation as an existing unit (i.e., a covered unit commencing commercial operation on or after January 1, 2010); any unit with an existing - or new - unit allocation that was not recorded or was deducted because the unit was not actually a covered unit but subsequently becomes a covered unit; any covered unit with an existing - or new - unit allocation that was not recorded or was deducte d because the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 364 of 1339 unit relocated out of the state involved and is located in a different Transport Rule state; and any covered unit with an existing - unit allocation that was not recorded or was deducted because the unit stopped operating for three consecutive years but resumes commercial operation. 73 The final rule, like the proposal, adopts procedures for allocating new unit set - aside allowances for a given control period based on the units’ emissions during the prior control period. If, as in the proposal, this were the only process for allocating from the new unit set - aside, units would not be allocated allowances for their first control period of commercial operation, and units that did not commence commercial operation around the beginning of a control pe riod would receive an allocation based on emissions for less than a full control period . Some commenters expressed concern that new units would get no allocations for their first year of commercial operation. In order to address this concern, EPA is adopt ing in the final rule, provisions expanding the new unit - set - aside allocation process to add procedures to allocate to new units for the first control period in which the units are in commercial

73 Existing - or new - unit allocations drawn from the budget of the relocated unit’s original state are replaced by new unit set aside allocations from the budget of the unit’s relocation state in order to generally ensure that allocations are drawn from the correct state budget.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 365 of 1339 operation and increase the allocations, where appropriate, t o new units for their second control period after commencing commercial operation. Specifically, in the final rule, EPA revised the new unit set - aside allocation provisions to provide a second round of allocations from the new unit set - aside, to the exten t any allowances remain in the set - aside after allocations are made in the first round to units for their second or later control period after commencement of commercial operation. The first round of new unit set - aside allocations is essentially the same as the allocation procedures in the proposal and occurs during the control period for which the allocations are made. These first round allocations are based on unit emissions during the prior control period. The second round of allocations occurs after the control period for which the allocations are made, but before the allowance transfer deadline, and is based on unit emissions during that control period. These second round allocations are provided to: new units that commenced commercial operation du ring the control period for which the allocations are made and equal the units’ emissions during that control period; and new units that commenced commercial operation during the prior control period and equal the difference (if any) between the allocation that the units already received in the first round and their emissions during the control period for which the additional*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 366 of 1339 allocations are made. However, if insufficient allowances for the second round remain in the new unit set - aside, each unit will be a llocated its proportionate share of the remaining allowances. This will be analogous to the process of apportioning the new unit set - aside in the first round of allocations when there are insufficient allowances in the set aside for the first round. In this final rule, EPA is using a slightly different methodology for determining the size of the new unit set - aside. EPA adjusted the method used in the proposal to account for changes in the definitions of “existing unit” and “new unit,” and updated modeli ng. Because EPA is finalizing a different allowance allocation approach from the one that was proposed, and updating the definition of existing unit as a direct result of the allocation approach, it also is updating the new unit set - aside calculation to a ccount for more units being classified as new, rather than as existing. This is a logical outgrowth of the proposal, the NODA on allowance allocations, and updated modeling results. Similar to the proposed approach, each state’s new unit set - aside is ini tially determined as a fixed percentage of the total state budget. However, this modified approach introduces a new component that increases the size of the set - aside for some states to account for known committed units that would have*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 367 of 1339 been considered exi sting units under the proposal. EPA received comments that, under the new definitions, the new unit set aside, as proposed, would be insufficient to meet the needs of units already under construction. As a result, EPA analyzed the impact of the new alloc ation approach on new units and made an adjustment to address this concern. This is a reasonable outgrowth of the definition change and affects where the committed units’ allocations originate (i.e., from the state set - aside or from the portion of the sta te budget that is allocated to existing units). Further, as discussed below, the size of the new unit set - asides is increased to take account of committed units so that the share of the state budget available for currently uncommitted new units is general ly not reduced by the eligibility of committed units for new unit set - aside allocations. For the final rule, EPA adjusted the methodology for determining the amounts of allowances in the new unit set - asides to reflect the largest new unit set - aside that e ach state will likely need ( see “Allowance Allocation to Existing and New Units under the Transport Rule Federal Implementation Plans” TSD). The final rule creates, for each state, a “base” new unit set aside of 2 percent of the state trading budgets for the SO 2 Group 1, SO 2 Group 2, annual NOX , and ozone - season NOX trading programs. To this base percentage, a “state - specific”*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 368 of 1339 percentage is added to reflect expected emissions from units committed to be built in 2010, 2011, or 2012, which are now defined a s new units, but were defined as existing units under the proposed rule. State - specific percentages are well - defined because the location of committed units is known. The new unit allocation percentages for each state are shown in Table VII.D.2 - 1.
Table VII.D.2 - 1: Percentage of State Emissions Budgets for

Allowances in State New Unit Set-Asides

Annual SO2 Annual NOX Ozone Season NOX Alabama 2% 2% 2% Arkansas --- --- 2% Florida --- --- 2% Georgia 2% 2% 2% Illinois 5% 8% 8% Indiana 3% 3% 3% Iowa 2% 2% --- Kansas 2% 2% --- Kentucky 6% 4% 4% Louisiana --- --- 3%*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 369 of 1339 Maryland 2% 2% 2% Michigan 2% 2% --- Minnesota 2% 2% --- Mississippi --- --- 2% Missouri 2% 3% --- Nebraska 4% 7% --- New Jersey 2% 2% 2% New York 2% 3% 3 % North Carolina 8% 6% 6 % Ohio 2% 2% 2% Pennsylvania 2% 2% 2% South Carolina 2% 2% 2% Tennessee 2% 2% 2% Texas 5% 3% 3% Virginia 4 % 5 % 5 % West Virginia 7% 5% 5% Wisconsin 5% 6% ---*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 370 of 1339 Under the final rule, EPA allocates to eligible units (except for those in Indian co untry) allowances from the new unit set - aside in the state where the new unit is located for the year when the unit first becomes eligible and each year thereafter. (As discussed later in this section, a separate Indian country new unit set - aside is creat ed for new units in Indian country.) The units eligible for new unit set - aside allocations include units commencing commercial operation on or after January 1, 2010, as well as several other categories of units. These other categories include units that lost their existing - or new - unit allocations because the units were not actually covered units but where the units subsequently become covered units; covered units that lost their existing - unit allocations because the units stopped operating for two consecutive years but where the units resume commercial operation; and covered units that lost their existing - or new unit allocations because the units changed location from one state to another. The proposed category of eligible units comprising units with a monitor certification deadline after January 1, 2012 is removed as unnecessary because the final rule uses January 1, 2010 (rather than January 1, 2012, as in the proposed rule) as the reference date for determining what units receive existing unit alloca tions.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 371 of 1339 Further, the approach in the final rule differs from the proposed rule, which would have require d that owners and operators initially request allowances from the new unit set aside when the unit first became eligible for an allocation. EPA believes that it can identify which units become eligible and when they become eligible, based on information provided in other submissions (e.g., certificates of representation, monitoring system certifications, and quarterly emissions reports) that such units mu st make to EPA. EPA concludes that requiring owners and operators to submit requests of new unit set - aside allocations would impose an unnecessary burden on the owners and operators, as well as on EPA, and therefore is appropriately removed in the final rule. The final rule also provides that a unit’s new unit set aside allocation initially equals that unit’s emissions for the control period (annual or ozone season) in the preceding year. EPA determines whether the total amount of initial allowance alloca tions for all units in a state for a control period exceeds the amount in the state’s new unit set - aside for the control period. If the amount in the new unit set - aside is exceeded, EPA allocates each unit a proportionate share of the new unit set - aside b ased on the unit’s initial allocation amount. Any unallocated allowances in the new unit set - aside*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 372 of 1339 are allocated to existing units in proportion to their share of the current existing - unit allocations. The Administrator will issue a notice of data availability informing the public of the specific new unit allocations and provide an opportunity for submission of objections on the grounds that the allocations are not consistent with the requirements of the relevant final rule provisions. A second notice of data availability will subsequently be issued in order to make any necessary corrections in the specific new unit allocations. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, the final rule establishes a different schedule for issuance of these notices of data availability than the proposed rule. In particular, a single set of dates (i.e., for the first notice in the first round of allocations, June 1 of the year for which the new unit allocations are described in the notice and, for the second notice of the fi rst round, August 1 of that year; for the first notice of the second round of allocations, December 15 of the year for which the new unit allocations are described in the notice and, for the second notice of the second round, February 15 of the next year) is established for all of the Transport Rule trading programs. EPA believes that this will provide sufficient time for EPA to obtain final emissions data for the prior year for the units involved and to calculate the allocations and issue the notice. Fur ther, the approach of*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 373 of 1339 using the same dates for all of the Transport Rule trading programs will simplify EPA’s implementation and reduce the complexity of the process for source owners and operators. Finally, as discussed elsewhere in this preamble, EPA proposed that, if a unit with an existing - unit allocation does not operate for three consecutive years, the allowances that would otherwise have been allocated to that unit, starting in the seventh year after the first year of non - operation, would be allocate d to the new unit set - aside for the state in which the retired unit is located. EPA is retaining this provision but changing the time of non - operation to two years and the time of allowance allocation to a non - operating unit to four years. Starting in the fifth year of non - operation, allowances will be allocated to the new unit set - aside for the state in which the non - operating unit is located. EPA received comments that the new unit set - asides were not sufficient to encourage the operation of new units. One commenter suggested that allowance allocations should cease after three years of non - operation because the financial incentive gained from receiving allowances beyond the 3 - year period is insignificant relative to operating and fuel costs. Another c ommenter said that providing allowances to non - operating units is unnecessary and distorts the market. Aside from increasing the size of the new unit set aside in this final rule, described above, EPA is reallocating*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 3 74 of 1339 retired unit allowances to the new uni t set - aside after four years to make them available for new units in a state. This approach allows the new unit set - asides to grow over time. New Units in Indian Country : EPA received several comments on the proposed rule that it did not explicitly addre ss the distribution of allowances to potential new units built in Indian country. EPA recognized this is a concern and requested comment on this topic in the January 7, 2011 NODA. In the final rule, EPA is providing a mechanism to make allowances availabl e in the future for new units built in Indian country. The final rule establishes a separate Indian country new units set - aside in each state where Indian country is located (i.e., in Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Neb raska, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin) under both FIPs and SIPs. No tribal new unit set - aside is created for states without Indian country. Each Indian country new unit set - aside equals a proportion of the “base” new unit set - aside included in this final Transport Rule (which is calculated as 2 percent of the state budget). The “base,” and not total, new unit set - aside is used because the other portion of the new unit set - aside (the “state specific percentage”) specificall y accounts for committed units. EPA determined the size of the Indian country new unit set - aside*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 375 of 1339 (within the state new unit set - aside) by comparing the percentage of Indian country to the entire state. This percentage (5 percent) represents the maximum p ercentage of Indian country in any state within the Transport Rule region. EPA used 5 percent of the state’s new unit set - aside to set the Indian country new unit set - aside for all states with Indian country. Therefore, the Indian country new unit set - a side is 5 percent of the 2 percent “base” state new unit set - aside budget, or 0.1 percent of the total state budget. To determine the maximum percentage, EPA used the American Indian Reservations/Federally Recognized Tribal Entities dataset, which contai ns data for the 562 federally recognized tribal entities in the contiguous U.S. and Alaska. EPA accessed the data to analyze the Transport Rule region and compare the square miles of Indian country with the square miles of the Transport Rule state that in cludes the Indian country. As explained above, EPA then took the highest percentage as the number to be applied across all states with Indian country to determine the Indian country new unit set - aside. The Indian country new unit set - asides in the following Transport Rule states with Indian Country are shown in Table VII.D.2 - 2 .
Table VII.D.2 - 2 : New Unit Set-Aside Allowances for Indian Country (tons)*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 376 of 1339 SO 2 2012 - 2013 SO 2

2014 and Beyond Annual

NOX 2012 Annual

NOX 2012 Ozone Season NOX 2012 Ozone Seaso n NOX 2014 Florida --- --- --- --- 28 28 Iowa 107 75 38 37 --- --- Kansas 42 42 31 26 --- --- Louisiana --- --- --- --- 13 13 Michigan 195 144 60 58 --- --- Minnesota 42 42 30 30 --- --- Mississippi --- --- --- --- 10 10 Nebraska 65 65 26 26 --- - -- New York 20 12 18 18 8 8 North Carolina 137 58 51 42 22 18 South Carolina 89 89 32 32 14 14 Texas 244 244 134 134 63 63 Wisconsin 79 40 32 30 --- --- Under the FIPs, EPA manages and distributes allowances from Indian country new unit set - asides in largely the same manner as for state new unit set - asides. The approach for determining the number of allowances allocated to new units is the same for both types of new unit set - asides. One difference between the two types of new unit set - asides is the handling of unused allowances. Unallocated Indian country new unit set - aside allowances are transferred back into the state new unit set aside and made available to new units in the rest of the state and then to existing units.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 377 of 1339 Under a SIP, EPA retain s that portion of the state budget equal to the Indian country new unit set - aside. EPA continues to manage and distribute the Indian country new unit set - aside allowances in essentially the same manner as under the FIPs. The state will determine in a SIP how (allocation methodologies) and to whom (e.g., existing units, new units, or entities with energy efficiency (EE) projects, or whether to auction allowances) to allocate allowances from the rest of the state budget. Unallocated allowances in the India n country new unit set - aside are returned to the portion of the state budget allocated under the SIP allocation provisions. Note that allowances are only allocated from the Indian country new unit set - aside if and when a covered EGU is constructed in Indi an country and otherwise are returned to the state budget for allocation to existing or new units, or EE projects, as applicable. Unallocated allowances are not provided to the Tribes. EPA believes that this approach is reasonable because this increases the likelihood of having sufficient allowances to allocate to new units in a state, whether or not the new units are located in Indian country, and, in the case of a SIP, provides the state flexibility in determining allocations once allocations have been p rovided for Indian country new units. As with the state new unit set - aside under FIPs, EPA will identify*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 378 of 1339 the new units qualifying for the Indian country new unit set aside (under FIPs and SIPs), calculate the allocations, and issue notices of data availab ility using the same schedules as notices for the state new unit set - aside. E. Assurance Provisions To ensure that the FIPs require the elimination of all emissions that EPA has identified that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with ma intenance within each individual state, the Agency is adopting assurance provisions in addition to the requirement that sources hold allowances sufficient to cover their emissions. These assurance provisions limit emissions from each state to an amount equal to that state’s trading budget plus the variability limit for that state (i.e., the state assurance level). As discussed in section VI of this preamble, this variability limit takes into account the inherent variability in baseline EGU emissions and r ecognizes that state emissions may vary somewhat after all significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance are eliminated. This approach also provides sources with flexibility to manage growth and electric reliability requireme nts, thereby ensuring the country’s electric demand will be met, while meeting the statutory requirement of*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 379 of 1339 eliminating significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance. Starting in 2012, EPA is establishing, as part of the FIPs , limits on the total emissions that may be emitted from EGUs at sources in each state. For any single year, the state’s emissions must not exceed the state budget with the variability limit allowed for any single year for that state (i.e., the state’s 1 - year variability limit). In other words, in addition to covered sources being required to hold allowances sufficient to cover their emissions, the total sum of EGU emissions in a particular state cannot exceed the state budget with the state’s 1 - year vari ability limit in any one year (i.e., the state’s assurance level). EPA is not finalizing 3 - year variability limits that were included in the proposal for the reasons explained previously in section VI.F of this preamble. The state budgets, variability limits, and state assurance levels for each state are shown in Tables VI.F - 1, VI.F - 2 and VI.F - 3 in section VI.F of this preamble. The basis for the variability limits is also described in section VI.F of this preamble. Additional details may be found in the Power Sector Variability TSD and Power Sector Variability Analyses for the Final Transport Rule TSD in the docket to this rule. To implement this requirement, EPA first evaluates whether any state’s total EGU emissions in a control period exceeded the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 380 of 1339 st ate’s assurance level. If any state’s EGU emissions in a control period exceed the state assurance level, then EPA applies additional criteria to determine which owners and operators of units in the state will be subject to an allowance surrender requirement. In applying the additional criteria, EPA evaluates which groups of units at the common designated representative (DR) level had emissions exceeding the respective DR’s share of the state assurance level (regardless of whether the source had enough al lowances to cover its emissions) during the control period. 74 The requirement that owners and operators surrender allowances under the assurance provisions will be triggered only if two criteria are met: (1) the group of sources and units with a common DR are located in a state where the total state EGU emissions for a control period exceed the state assurance level; and (2 ) that group with the common DR had emissions exceeding the respective DR’s share of the state assurance level. The share of the assur ance penalty borne by the owners and operators will be based on the amount by which the total emissions for the units in the group exceed the common DR’s share of the state
74 A group of one o r more sources and units in a state has a common designated representative where the same individual is authorized as the designated representative (not the alternate designated representative) for that group of sources and units as of the allowance transf er deadline for the control period involved.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 381 of 1339 assurance level as a percentage of the total calculated for all such groups of sour ces and units in the state. Thus, the owners and operators of each such group of sources and units must surrender an amount of allowances equal to the excess of state EGU emissions over the state assurance level multiplied by the owners’ and operators’ pe rcentage and multiplied by two (to reflect the penalty of two allowances for each ton of the state’s excess EGU emissions). See Table VII.E - 1 below for an illustrative example. This approach in the final rule of implementing the assurance provisions on a common designated representative basis contrasts with the approach in the proposed rule of implementing the assurance provisions on an owner basis. In the January 7, 2011 NODA, EPA requested comment on the alternative of basing the assurance provision pen alty using common designated representatives, and many commenters supported this alternative. The common designated representative approach is simpler and avoids the need to collect information on percentage ownership (which information is not used in any other provisions of the Transport Rule trading programs). In addition, the common designated representative approach provides additional flexibility to owners and operators who have only one or a few units in a given state but have the option of selectin g a common*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 382 of 1339 designated representative with owners and operators of other units in the state. In the January 7, 2011 NODA, EPA also requested comment on continuing to link allocations to assurance provision allowance surrender requirements. Even though the final rule uses a different allowance allocation methodology than the allocation methodology that was proposed, the final rule continues to treat the groups of units with greater emissions than their allocations plus share of state variability as responsib le for the state’s excess of emissions over the state assurance level. EPA believes that this approach is reasonable because any state that exceeds its state assurance level likely does so because not all units have made the reductions necessary to elimin ate the state’s contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance. Moreover, the groups of units with emissions exceeding their allocations plus share of variability are the units most likely to have contributed to the state’s exceedance of i ts state assurance level and thus to the state’s triggering of the assurance provisions. Consequently, EPA concludes that it is reasonable to penalize owners and operators of those sources and units (grouped by common DR) for the state’s exceedance through application of the assurance provision allowance surrender requirement. Some commenters stated that this is a reasonable approach.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 383 of 1339 While a few commenters suggested alternative approaches to the assurance provisions, EPA believes that the suggested alt ernatives are not workable and are likely to create implementation problems. These commenters suggested variations of approaches that would have created state - specific and vintage year - specific allowances that would have been traded independently of compl iance allowances. These differentiated allowances would have fragmented the markets and made the programs resemble the intrastate trading option that EPA rejected because of market power and other concerns described in the proposal. The existence of these assurance provisions with significant penalties imposed if a state’s emissions exceed the state budget with the variability limit, along with other features of the Transport Rule trading programs discussed below, will limit incentives to trade and ensure that state emissions will stay below the level of the budget with the variability limit. In making compliance decisions and determining to what extent to rely on purchased or banked allowances, owners and operators will have to take into account the risk of triggering the assurance provisions in the state involved and of incurring significant assurance provision penalties. The greater the extent to which units sharing a common DR have emissions exceeding the DR units’ allocations plus share of the state*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 384 of 1339 variability limit, the greater the risk of being subject to the assurance provision penalties. As discussed previously in section VII.D.2, EPA allocates allowances to a new unit for the control period during which the unit commences commercial operation f rom the new unit set - aside based on its emissions. In the case where assurance provisions for a state are triggered in the year that a new unit commences operation, the unit’s share of the state assurance level is calculated using the unit’s allocation fr om the new unit set aside plus its proportional share of the variability limit. There is the possibility that a new unit would receive no allocation for the control period during which the unit commences commercial operation. EPA sees no reasonable basis for disadvantaging owners and operators because they started up a new unit and EPA had no emissions data on which to base an allocation from the new unit set - aside or no allowances available in the state’s new unit set - aside. 75 For these new units, EPA wou ld use a specific surrogate number to calculate the maximum amount of emissions that the unit would likely have had during that year. The surrogate emissions number applies

75 Some other units (e.g., those units with no data for the 2006 - 2010 base period) may have a zero allocation for a control period. However, those are highly likely to be units that will continue to operate rare ly or not at all and so will incur little or none of the assurance provision penalties.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 385 of 1339 only if the state’s assurance provisions are triggered and only in the first year of the new unit’s commercial operation for a new unit that did not receive an allocation from the set - aside. The methodology for calculating the surrogate emissions number is essentially unchanged from the proposal [75 FR 45313]. For more details on capa city factors for new units, see Capacity Factors Analysis for New Units TSD. These assurance provisions are above and beyond the fundamental requirement for each source to hold enough allowances to cover its emissions in the control period. Failure to ho ld enough allowances to cover emissions is a violation of the CAA, subject to an automatic penalty and discretionary civil penalties, as described in section VII.G of this preamble. Other features of the limited interstate trading programs work in conjunct ion with the assurance provisions to ensure state emissions do not exceed state assurance levels. The limited interstate trading programs have: state - specific budgets that do not include the variability limits and that are the basis for allocating allowan ces in each state; a requirement that owners and operators of each source hold enough of these allowances to cover source emissions for each control period; assurance provisions that require owners and operators to hold a significant amount of additional a llowances in a state if the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 386 of 1339 assurance provisions are triggered; and additional penalties for failing to hold sufficient allowances under the assurance provisions. The underlying mechanism of cap and trade -- with a cap on allowances issued and a requiremen t to hold allowances covering emissions -- has succeeded, even without assurance provisions, in broadly reducing emissions below allowance levels. The accumulated data, history, and experience from cap and trade programs underscore that emission reduction s requirements and environmental and public health goals of the programs have been met and, in many instances, exceeded. Additionally, EPA has now added assurance provisions to ensure that emissions within a state do not exceed the state budget with the variability limitation. Emissions from a common DR’s group of units in excess of the DR’s share of the state budget with the variability limit are not a violation of the rule or the CAA, but do lead to strict allowance surrender requirements. Specifically, the owners and operators with a common DR will be required to surrender two allowances for each ton of their proportional share of the exceedance of the state budget with the variability limit. Failing to hold sufficient allowances to meet the allowance surrender requirement will be a violation of the regulations and the CAA and subject to discretionary civil penalties under CAA section 113. This penalty level is a change*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 387 of 1339 from the proposal, in which one allowance was to be surrendered for each ton of emi ssions over the state assurance level. EPA ran an IPM modeling scenario in order to assess the level of penalty that would be sufficient to deter sources from exceeding state assurance levels. According to the model, no state would exceed its assurance level and incur the two - for - one allowance penalty in either 2012 or 2014, although some states emit up to the assurance level. The two - for - one allowance surrender requirement is significant, and EPA believes that this penalty -

- along with the other eleme nts of the Transport Rule discussed above -- will be sufficient to ensure that the state emissions will not exceed the budgets plus the variability limits. See the Assurance Penalty Level Analysis for the Final Transport Rule TSD for further details of the analysis. Below are examples of how the penalty will be assessed for four common designated representatives in the same state if the assurance provisions are triggered. In the first case, DR1’s combined units were allowed to emit up to 66 tons (60 * 110 percent ), but actually emitted 75 tons during the control period, or 9 more than their share of the state assurance level. Since the state, as a whole exceeded the state assurance level by 26 tons, DR1’s share of the penalty is 35 percent (9/26) of the t otal penalty, or 17 allowances (35 percent of 50).*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 388 of 1339 Figure VII.E - 1 Assurance Provision Penalty Examples Number of Allowances Allocated Allocation

+ % of var. limit Total

Emitted Number of

Allowances above Allocation # over

Alloc + % of var . limit Share of

Exceedance (%) Penalty

(# Allow ances) DR1 60 66 75 15 9 35% 17 DR2 20 22 35 15 13 50% 25 DR3 10 11 15 5 4 15% 8 DR4 10 11 10 - - - 0 TOTAL 100 110 135 35 25 100% 50 DR1, DR2, DR3, and DR4 are all in the same state. State budget plus 10% variability limit is 110 tons (100 + 10 = 110). State exceeded its assurance level by 25 tons (135 - 110 = 25). Penalty is 50 allowances (2 x 25 = 50). Some numbers may not add up due to rounding In the proposal, EPA took comment on whether assurance prov isions should be implemented starting in 2012 or 2014. While a number of commenters supported the proposal to start in 2014, EPA received several comments making the case that starting assurance provisions in 2012 would be more compatible with the Court’s opinion in North Carolina , which emphasized EPA’s obligation to require elimination of emissions within the states that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance. In this final rule, EPA makes the assurance provisions effect ive starting in 2012 because this approach provides even further assurance, consistent with North Carolina , that each state’s prohibited emissions will be*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 389 of 1339 eliminated from the start of the Transport Rule trading programs. F. Penalties Under the final Transp ort Rule FIPs (like under the proposed rule), the owners and operators of each covered source must hold, as of the allowance transfer deadline, an allowance for each ton of SO 2 or NOX emitted by the source and are subject to penalties if they fail to compl y with this allowance - holding requirement. In particular, the owners and operators must hold in the source’s compliance account in the Allowance Management System enough allowances issued for the respective Transport Rule annual trading program ( SO 2 G roup 1, SO 2 G roup 2, or annual NOX program) to cover the annual emissions of the relevant pollutant from all covered units at the source. The allowances must have been issued for the year in which the emissions occurred or a prior year. If the owners and oper ators fail to meet this allowance - holding requirement, they must provide -- for deduction by the Administrator from the source’s compliance account -- one allowance as an offset, and one allowance as an excess emissions penalty, for each ton of emissions ( i.e., excess emissions) in excess of the amount of allowances held. The offset and the excess emissions penalty are automatic*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 390 of 1339 requirements in that they must be met without any further action by EPA (e.g., any additional proceedings) regardless of the reas on for the occurrence of the excess emissions. In addition, each ton of excess emissions, as well as each day in the averaging period (i.e., the control period of one calendar year), constitute a violation of the CAA, and the maximum discretionary civil p enalty is $25,000 (inflation - adjusted to $37,500 for 2010) per violation under CAA section 113. This means that, if a source has emissions in excess of allowances held for the source as of the allowance transfer deadline for a control period, the number o f tons of excess emissions multiplied by the total number of days in that control period and multiplied by $25,000 (inflation adjusted) equals the maximum discretionary civil penalty for that occurrence of excess emissions. For the ozone - season NOX tradin g program, the same provisions apply as for an annual program, except that the averaging period (i.e., the control period) is the ozone season, not a calendar year. Consequently, the relevant emissions are for an ozone season, the allowances usable to mee t the allowance - holding requirement are allowances issued for Transport Rule ozone - season NOX t rading program for the ozone season involved or a prior ozone season, and the number of days*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 391 of 1339 used in calculating the maximum civil penalty is the number in the o zone season. Commenters expressed concern that the proposed FIPs expressly stated that, for purposes of determining the maximum discretionary civil penalty for failure to meet the allowance holding requirement, each ton of emissions lacking a held allowanc e would be a violation and each day in the averaging period involved would be a violation. Some commenters compared the proposed penalty provisions for excess emissions with the excess emission penalty provisions under the Acid Rain Program and claimed th at the proposed penalty provisions differed from the Acid Rain Program provisions and were excessive. In fact, h owever, the final FIP provisions concerning discretionary civil penalties are essentially the same as those under the Acid Rain Program, as well as those under the NOX Budget Trading Program and the CAIR trading programs. In particular, the Acid Rain Program regulations state that each ton of SO 2 excess emissions constitutes “a separate violation” of the CAA. 40 CFR 72.9(c)(2). Moreover, while the Acid Rain Program regulations do not expressly address that each day in the averaging period (i.e., a calendar year control period under the Acid Rain Program) constitutes a separate violation when a unit has excess emissions for the calendar year, the courts have addressed this question. In decisions applying the discretionary*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 392 of 1339 civil penalty provisions in section 309(d) of the Clean Water Act, which are analogous to the civil penalty provisions in CAA section 113, the courts have interpreted the provisi ons to mean that, when a source violates the emission limitation for a multi - day control period, the source has a violation for each day in the control period, as well as for each ton of excess emissions on each such day. See, e.g., Chesapeake Bay Foun. V . Gwaltney of Smithfield , 791 F.2d 304, 313 - 15 (4th Cir. 1986), Atlantic States Legal Foun. v. Tyson Foods , 897 F.2d 1128, 1139 - 40 (11th Cir. 1990), and U.S. v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp. , 366 F.3d 164, 169 (3d. Cir. 2004). As noted by the courts, the treatment of each ton and each day as a separate violation is used for purposes of setting the maximum discretionary civil penalty. Because CAA section 113 sets the maximum civil penalty, EPA, of course, has the discretion to tailor the penalty amount that it s eeks in any specific occurrence of excess emissions to reflect the circumstances of that excess emission occurrence. See 42 U.S.C. 7413(b)(stating that the Administrator may commence a civil action “to assess and recover a civil penalty of not more than $ 25,000 per day for each violation”). Moreover, when a district court imposes a civil penalty, the court “retains discretion to assess a penalty much smaller than the maximum, as the situation requires.” Chesapeake Bay , 791 F.2d at 316. In addition, the Acid Rain*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 393 of 1339 Program regulations state that any allowance deduction, excess emission penalty, or interest under the Acid Rain Program regulations “shall not affect liability” of the owners and operators “for any additional fine, penalty, or assessment, or the ir obligation to comply with any other remedy, for the same violation, as ordered under the [CAA]”, including under CAA section 113 providing for discretionary civil penalties. 40 CFR 77.1(b). In summary, under the Acid Rain Program, each ton of excess emissions and each day in the averaging period (i.e., the calendar year) constitute a violation, the resulting number of violations times $2,000 is the maximum civil penalty for violating owners and operators, and EPA has the discretion to impose a civil pe nalty at or below such maximum, in addition to the automatic requirement to surrender one allowance and pay $2,000 (inflation adjusted) for each ton of excess emissions. The final FIPs take an analogous approach to that under the Acid Rain Program. Specif ically, the final FIPs state both that each ton of excess emissions is a violation of the CAA and that each day in the averaging period (i.e., a calendar year under the annual programs and the ozone season under the ozone - season program) is a violation. Moreover, the imposition of civil penalties at or below the maximum amount resulting from the maximum penalty calculation is in addition to the automatic allowance surrender and penalty totaling 2 allowances per ton of*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 394 of 1339 excess emissions. Thus, commenters’ a ssertion that the approach in the final FIPs is inconsistent with the approach in the Acid Rain Program is incorrect. Moreover, EPA has taken this same general approach in two other trading programs (i.e., the NOX Budget Trading Program and the CAIR tradi ng programs), whose regulations explicitly state that each ton and each day of the averaging period constitute a violation. See 40 CFR 96.54(d)(3) ( NOX Budget Trading Program); and 40 CFR 96.106(d)(CAIR). In any event, EPA maintains that the approach of t reating each excess emission ton and each day in the averaging period as a violation for purposes of calculating the maximum discretionary civil penalty is reasonable. Some commenters suggested that only the days on which a source’s cumulative control per iod emissions exceed the amount of allowances that the source then holds for that control period should be treated as a violation. However, this suggested approach makes little sense in the context of the Transport Rule trading programs. In order to provi de owners and operators compliance flexibility, the Transport Rule trading programs do not require source owners and operators to hold any amount of allowances until the allowance transfer deadline, no matter what the source’s cumulative control period emi ssions are before that deadline. The commenters’ approach of comparing -- each day, cumulative emissions and allowances held -- for purposes of*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 395 of 1339 calculating maximum civil penalties would be inconsistent with the flexibility that EPA intends to provide owne rs and operators. For example, under the commenters’ suggested approach, owners and operators that buy or sell allowances in the allowance market or hold allowances in a company - wide account, do not transfer allowances into their source’s compliance account until just before the allowance transfer deadline, and end up with some excess emissions for the calendar year would face a significantly higher maximum civil penalty than owners and operators that every day increase the amount of allowances held in the ir source’s compliance account as the source’s cumulative emissions increase and end up with the same amount of excess emissions for the calendar year. In short, the commenters’ approach would penalize owners and operators that use some of the compliance flexibility that the trading programs are intended to provide. EPA also maintains that it is reasonable to both impose the automatic allowance surrender and penalty provisions and to retain the discretion to impose civil penalties for the same occurrence o f excess emissions. This approach encourages compliance with the allowance - holding requirement by ensuring that violating owners and operators are penalized automatically (i.e., without any further administrative or judicial proceedings, except for appeal s) and that EPA can seek*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 396 of 1339 additional penalties where the circumstances warrant discretionary civil penalties. In fact, the Acid Rain Program, for which CAA Title IV mandated this approach, has achieved a very high level of compliance with the requirement t o hold allowances covering SO 2 emissions and therefore resulted in major reductions in utility SO 2 emissions. See 42 U.S.C.7651j(a). Similarly, the NOX Budget Trading Program and CAIR trading programs, which took the same approach, also have achieved ver y high compliance levels and major utility emission reductions. EPA notes that, in calculating maximum civil penalties when owners and operators fail to hold allowances required under the assurance provisions in the final FIPs, EPA takes a similar approach in determining the number of violations. Each ton for which an allowance is not held as required and each day in the control period involved constitute a violation of the CAA. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, EPA believes that this calculation approach is also reasonable in the context of the assurance provisions and that taking an approach like the commenters’ suggested approach described above would be inconsistent with some of the flexibility that the Transport Rule trading programs are intended to provide. G. Allowance Management System*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 397 of 1339 The final Transport Rule trading programs, like the proposed preferred remedy, utilize EPA’s allowance management system (AMS), which currently supports allowance surrender, transfer, and tracking activity unde r the Acid Rain Program and CAIR. EPA received no adverse comment on this aspect of the proposed rule. The primary role of AMS is to provide an efficient, automated means for covered sources to comply, and for EPA to determine whether covered sources ar e complying with the emissions - related provisions of the Transport Rule trading programs. As was proposed, each of the final SO 2 trading programs and final NOX trading programs is separately handled in the AMS, which is used to track Transport Rule tradi ng program SO 2 and NOX allowances held by covered sources, as well as such allowances held by other entities or individuals. In addition, the AMS tracks: the allocation of all SO 2 and NOX allowances; holdings of SO 2 and NOX allowances in compliance accounts (i.e., accounts for individual covered sources), general accounts (i.e., accounts for other entities such as companies and brokers), and assurance accounts (i.e., accounts for allowance surrender by owners and operators of sources and units with common designated representatives under the assurance provisions); deduction of SO 2 and NOX allowances for compliance purposes (including deductions from assurance accounts where*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 398 of 1339 necessary); and transfers of allowances between accounts. The AMS also allows the public to see whether each source is in compliance and provides information to the allowance market and the public in general, including information on ownership of allowances, dates of allowance transfers, buyer and seller information, and the serial numb ers of allowances transferred. H. Emissions Monitoring and Reporting
Under the proposed rule, units subject to the Transport Rule trading programs would monitor and report NOX and SO 2 mass emissions in accordance with 40 CFR part 75, as incorporated in the proposed rule, and with certain other specified requirements, such as compliance deadlines. In the final rule, like the proposed rule, covered units must comply with emissions monitoring and reporting requirements that are largely incorporated from Par t 75 monitoring and reporting requirements. Under the final rule and under Part 75, a unit has several options for monitoring and reporting, namely the use of: a CEMS; an excepted monitoring methodology ( NOX mass monitoring for certain peaking units and SO 2 mass monitoring for certain oil and gas - fired units); low mass emissions monitoring for certain non - coal - fired, low emitting units; or an alternative monitoring system approved by the Administrator through a petition process.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 399 of 1339 In addition, the Administrator can approve petitions for alternatives to Transport Rule and Part 75 monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. Further, the final rule and Part 75 specify that each CEMS must undergo rigorous initial certification testing and peri odic quality assurance testing thereafter, including the use of relative accuracy test audits (RATAs) and 24 - hour calibrations. In addition, when a monitoring system is not operating properly, standard substitute data procedures are applied and result in a conservative estimate of emissions for the period involved. In addition, the final rule and Part 75 require electronic submission, to the Administrator and in a format prescribed by the Administrator, of a quarterly emissions report. The report must co ntain all of the data required concerning annual NOX and ozone - season and SO 2 annual emissions. Most Transport Rule units are in states subject to CAIR and are already monitoring and reporting NOX and/or SO 2 under CAIR and the Acid Rain Program, which pro grams also use Part 75 monitoring and reporting. Units under the Transport Rule annual trading programs and in states subject to CAIR generally have no changes to their monitoring and reporting requirements. These units must continue to monitor and submi t reports on a year round basis as they have under CAIR. Therefore, units in the following states must monitor and report both SO 2 and NOX year -*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 400 of 1339 round under the Transport Rule: Alabama, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia. Some states (Kansas, Minnesota, and Nebraska) subject to the Transport Rule annual trading programs were not subject to CAIR. Transport Rule units in those states must meet monitoring and reporting requirements that are new except to the extent the units were subject to Part 75 under some other program (such as the Acid Rain Program). Further, some states (Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi) subject to the Transport Rule ozone - season trading program but not the Transport Rule annual trading programs were subject to the annual and ozone - season trading programs under CAIR. Transport Rule units in those states must continue to monitor and report in accordance with Part 75 but have the option of monitoring and reporting on a year - round or ozone - season - only basis. In addition, one state (Arkansas) subject to the Transport Rule ozone - season trading program but not to the Transport Rule annual trading program was similarly subject to only the ozone season trading program in CAIR. Transport Rule units in that state continue to have the option of monitoring and reporting NOX on a year - round or ozone - season - only basis.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 401 of 1339 Finally, some states (Connecticut, Delaware, D istrict of Columbia, and Massachusetts) that were subject to CAIR are not subject to the Transport Rule. Electric generating units in those states must continue to meet monitoring and reporting requirements only to the extent the units are subject to Part 75 under some other program (such as the Acid Rain Program or a state adopted program requiring such monitoring and reporting ). EPA is finalizing requirements for existing Transport Rule units in states covered by the Transport Rule annual trading prog rams to monitor and report SO 2 and NOX emissions by January 1, 2012 programs and for existing Transport Rule units in states covered by the Transport Rule ozone - season trading program to monitor NOX emissions by May 1, 2012. The use of Part 75 certified monitoring methodologies is required in both cases. As discussed previously, most covered existing units will generally have no changes to their monitoring and reporting requirements and will continue to monitor and submit reports under Part 75 as they have under CAIR. Existing units that have not been subject to Part 75 monitoring and reporting requirements in the past have less than one year to install, certify, and operate the required monitoring systems. EPA believes that these units will be able to c omply with this requirement because the monitoring equipment needed is not extensive or is largely in place already for the purpose of*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 402 of 1339 meeting other requirements. Quality assurance and reporting provisions and data system upgrades may be necessary, but EPA believes that there is sufficient time to accomplish this by the deadline for existing units in the final rule. In the proposed rule, the compliance deadline for installing, certifying, and operating the required monitoring systems at new units was based upon the date of commencement of commercial operation. A new unit would have to install and certify its monitoring system within 180 days of the commencement of commercial operation. The final rule adopts this deadline, which is consistent with the appr oach recently adopted in Part 75 under the Acid Rain Program. See 76 FR 17288, 17289 (March 28, 2011)). Using this deadline (rather than a deadline, used previously in Part 75, of the earlier of the unit’s 90th operating day or 180 days after the unit’s commencement of commercial operation) ensures that new units have sufficient time to complete installation and certification of monitoring systems and facilitates units’ compliance. Because of unit shakedown problems, some new units have had difficulty meeting a deadline earlier than 180 days after commencement of commercial operation. Further, using this deadline facilitates owners’ and operators, and EPA’s, ability to track important dates related to monitoring, reporting, and allowance holding. Under the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 403 of 1339 final rule, the requirement that a unit hold enough allowances to cover its emissions starts on the later of the commencement of the Transport Rule trading program involved or the deadline for installation and certification of the monitoring system. Having a simple, easily determined deadline (180 days after the commencement of commercial operation) makes it easier for owners and operators and EPA to determine when allowance - holding requirements begin, as well as when monitoring and reporting requirements begin. In contrast, using a deadline involving determination of a unit’s 90th operating day required keeping track of any days on which the unit did not operate (e.g., due to problems associated with shakedown of the unit). EPA found that owners and operators have had more difficulty reporting the 90th operating day than in reporting the commencement of commercial operation, and once the latter date is reported, EPA can independently determine the 180th calendar day after the reported date. I. Permit ting 1. Title V Permitting The final Transport Rule (like the proposed rule) does not establish any permitting requirements independent of those under Title V of the CAA and the regulations implementing Title V, 40*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 404 of 1339 CFR Parts 70 and 71 . 76 All major stati onary sources of air pollution and certain other sources are required to apply for title V operating permits that include emission limitations and other conditions as necessary to assure compliance with applicable requirements of the CAA, including the requirements of the applicable State Implementation Plan. CAA §§ 502(a) and 504(a), 42 U.S.C. §§ 7661a(a) and 7661c(a). The “applicable requirements,” that must be addressed in title V permits are defined in the Title V regulations (40 CFR 70.2 and 71.2 (de finition of “applicable requirement”)). EPA anticipates that, given the nature of the units covered by the final Transport Rule, most of the sources at which they are located are already or will be subject to Title V permitting requirements. For sources s ubject to Title V, the requirements applicable to them under the final FIPs will be "applicable requirements" under Title V and therefore will need to be addressed in the Title V permits. For example, requirements under the final FIPs concerning designate d representatives, monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping, the requirement to hold allowances covering emissions, the assurance provisions, and liability will be “applicable requirements” to be addressed in the permits.

76 Part 70 addresses requirements for state Title V programs, and Part 71 governs the federal Title V program.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 405 of 1339 The Title V permits program incl udes, among other things, provisions for permit applications, permit content, and permit revisions that will address the applicable requirements under the final FIPs in a manner that will provide the flexibility necessary to implement market -based programs such as the Transport Rule trading programs. For example, the Title V regulations provide that a permit issued under Title V must include, for any “approved...emissions trading and other similar programs or processes” applicable to the source, a provisio n stating that no permit revision is required “for changes that are provided for in the permit.” 40 CFR 70.6(a)(8) and 71.6(a)(8). Consistent with this provision in the Title V regulations, the Transport Rule trading program regulations include a provisi on stating that no permit revision is necessary for the allocation, holding, deduction, or transfer of allowances. Consistent with the Title V regulations, this provision will also be included in each Title V permit for a covered source. As a result, all owances can be traded (or allocated, held, or deducted) under the final FIPs without a revision of the Title V permit of any of the sources involved. As a further example of flexibility under Title V, the Title V regulations allow the use of the minor permit modification procedures for permit modifications “involving the use of economic incentives, marketable permits, emissions*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 406 of 1339 trading, and other similar approaches, to the extent that such minor permit modification procedures are explicitly provided for in an applicable implementation plan or in applicable requirements promulgated by EPA.” 40 CFR 70.7(e)(2)(i)(B) and 40 CFR 71.7(e)(1)(i)(B). The final FIPs set forth in detail, and reference relevant provisions in Part 75 concerning, the approaches that ar e available for covered units to use for monitoring and reporting emissions (i.e., approaches using a continuous emissions monitoring system, an excepted monitoring system under appendices D and E to Part 75, a low mass emissions excepted monitoring methodology under §75.19, or an alternative monitoring system under subpart E of Part 75). The final FIPs also require unit owners and operators to submit monitoring system certification applications (or, for alternative monitoring systems, petitions) to EPA es tablishing the monitoring and reporting approach actually to be used by the unit and allow owners and operators to submit petitions for alternatives to any specific monitoring and reporting requirement. These applications and petitions are subject to EPA review and approval to ensure consistency in monitoring and reporting among all trading program participants, and EPA’s responses to any petitions for alternative monitoring systems or for alternatives to specific monitoring or reporting requirements are t o be posted on EPA’s website. Moreover, EPA*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 407 of 1339 intends that each covered unit’s Title V permit will include a description of the general approach that the covered unit is required to use for monitoring and reporting emissions and that the description will re ference the relevant sections of the Transport Rule trading program regulations and Part 75 and will state that the requirements may be modified through EPA approval of petitions for alternatives to specific requirements. Finally, consistent with §§70.7(e )(2)(i)(B) and 71.7(e)(1)(i)(B) of the Title V regulations, the final FIPs provide that a description of the general monitoring and reporting approach for a covered unit can be added to, or an existing description of a unit’s general monitoring and reporti ng approach can be changed, in a Title V permit, using minor permit modification procedures, provided that the approach being described in the changed or new general description and the requirements applicable to that approach are already incorporated elsewhere in the permit. As a result, minor permit modification procedures can be used to revise a covered unit’s Title V permit to be consistent with the monitoring and reporting approach, or any changes in the approach, allowed for the unit by EPA through t he monitoring system certification or petition process under the Transport Rule trading programs. As new applicable requirements under Title V, the requirements for covered units under the final FIPs will be*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 408 of 1339 incorporated into covered sources’ existing Tit le V permits either pursuant to the provisions for reopening for cause (40 CFR 70.7(f) and 40 CFR 71.7(f)) or the permit renewal provisions (40 CFR 70.7(c) and 71.7(c)) . 77 In contrast to the approach in CAIR of imposing permitting requirements and deadline s independent of those under Title V, the approach to permitting under the final FIPS of imposing no independent permitting requirements should reduce the burden on sources already required to be permitted under Title V and on permitting authorities. For sources newly subject to Title V that will also be covered sources under the final FIPs, the initial Title V permit issued pursuant to 40 CFR 70.7(a) will address the final FIP requirements. In order to ensure that covered sources’ Title V permit provisio ns concerning the final FIPs will reflect the Transport Rule trading program requirements and flexibilities properly and in a manner consistent from permit to permit , EPA intends to issue guidance to assist permitting authorities. This guidance would incl ude information on permit issuance and permit modification requirements, as well as a permit content template
77 A permit is reopened for cause if any new applicable requirements (such as those under a FIP) become applicable to a covered source with a remaining permit term of 3 or more years. If the remaining permit term is less than 3 years, such new applicable requirements will be added to the permit during permit re newal. See 40 CFR 70.7(f)(1)(i) and 71.7(f)(1)(i).*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 409 of 1339 that will identify the applicable requirements under the applicable Transport Rule trading program and thereby ensure that they will be correctly and comprehensively reflected in each permit in a manner that will reduce the burden on sources and permitting authorities related to the issuance of the permit and will reduce the need for permit revisions. 2. New Source Review a. Background EPA recognize s that following the vacatur of the new source review (NSR) pollution control project exemption in New York v. EPA , 413 F.3d 3, 40 - 41 (D.C. Cir. 2005) pollution control projects, including pollution control projects constructed to comply with this rule, have the potential to trigger new source review (NSR) permitting. This issue was previously addressed in the context of CAIR. On December 20, 2005, the EPA agreed to reconsider one specific aspect of CAIR. In that notice, EPA granted reconsideration and sought comment on the potential impact of the opinion in New York v. EPA , which vacated the previously existing NSR exemption for certain environmentally beneficial pollution control projects. For this reconsideration, EPA conducted an analysis which showed that the court decision did not impact the CAIR analyses. Details of this analysis can be found in a Technical*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 410 of 13 39 Support document which is available on EPA’s website at: http :// epa . gov / cair / pdfs /0053
- 2263. pdf Because GHG were not considered by EPA to be air pollutants within the meaning of the CAA at the time of CAIR, GHG emissions were not addressed in 2005 analysis. GHG requirements related to the component of New Source Review concern ing the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (“PSD”) program are addressed in EPA’s “Interpretation of Regulations that Determine Pollutants Covered by Clean Air Act Permitting Programs,” 75 FR 17004 (April 2, 2010), and “Prevention of Significant Deter ioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule,” 75 FR (June 3, 2010) (“Tailoring Rule”). Generally, as discussed in those actions, major stationary sources will be required to address GHG emissions as part of the PSD program if these sources emit GHG in amounts that equal or exceed the thresholds in the Tailoring Rule. Major sources that undergo a modification, including the addition of pollution control equipment, will trigger PSD requirements for their emissions of GHG if such emissions increase by at least 75,000 78 tons per year of CO 2 equivalent (CO 2 e).

78 We note that, for sources that are modifying and are not subject to PSD for emissions of a non - GHG pollutant, in order to be subject to PSD for GHGs the source must not only have an emissions increase of 75,000 TPY CO2e, but must also have a PTE of at least 100,000 TPY CO2e and 100 TPY mass GHG. See 40 CFR*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 411 of 1339 b. Proposed rule In the proposed rule, EPA presented the following conclusions:

(1) the 2005 analysis remains current and relevant for all pollutants except for greenhouse gas (GHG), and it shows that New Source Review (NSR) requirements would not significantly impact the construction of controls that are installed to comply with the proposed Transport Rule. (2) it is very unlikely that pollution control projects would cause GHG increases that wou ld exceed the 75,000 tons per year threshold. Consistent with these proposed conclusions, EPA also concluded that there would be no significant impacts from NSR for any pollution control projects resulting from the proposed rule such as low -NOX burners, S O 2 scrubbers, or SCR. EPA requested comment on this issue. c. Public Comments.

52.21(b)(49)(v)( b ). However, since it is reasonable to assume that all sources that are potentially subject to the Transport Rule will have a PTE o f at least 100,000 TPY CO2e and 100 TPY, for the purposes of discussions in this section we will only note the requirement to have an emissions increase of 75,000 TPY CO2e.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 412 of 1339 EPA received a number of comments on the NSR issue, which can be divided into four types of comments: (1) comments related to GHGs, (2) comments related to sulfuric acid mist , (3) comments related to CO emissions increases from low NOX burners, and (4) suggested changes to the EPA rules. Greenhouse gases. A number of commenters recommended that EPA should document and substantiate its conclusion that greenhouse gases would be unlikely to trigger NSR requirements. Other commenters suggested that some units installing an FGD scrubber could exceed the 75,000 ton threshold for GHGs in the Tailoring Rule by emitting CO 2 produced from the chemical reaction of SO 2 with limestone. Commenters also suggested that NSR applicability for GHGs would also need to consider that an FGD would consume 1 - 3 percent of a scrubbed unit’s generation, referred to as “parasitic load,” which (all else held equal) lowers that unit’s net generation. 79 C ommenters argued that any post - retrofit increase in generation to offset that “parasitic load” could lead to GHG increases potentially exceeding the 75,000 ton threshold. Sulfuric Acid Mist . Two commenters noted that use of high sulfur fuels, in combinatio n with SCR, can lead to increases in sulfuric acid mist, a pollutant regulated under NSR. One of 79 “Net generation” refers to total generation minus the amount of power consumed o n - site for various purposes, including operation of pollution control equipment.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 413 of 1339 these commenters noted that reagent injection was necessary to avoid triggering NSR for sulfuric acid mist when their SCR was installed. Carbon monoxide (CO) . One commenter believed that EPA’s 2005 analysis may not be adequate as it related to carbon monoxide emission increases that result from installation of low NOX burners. The commenter noted EPA’s statement in the 2005 analysis that read as follows: “Si nce the NOX removal efficiencies used in EPA’s analysis are not aggressive, it is believed that the units installing combustion controls can opt for moderate levels of overfire air (OFA) flow rates and still achieve the NOX reduction levels projected in EPA’s analysis, without causing significant increases in the CO and unburned carbon emissions.” The commenter suggested that the transport rule NOX may be more aggressive than CAIR and thus EPA should conduct a review to determine whether EPA retains the same conclusion regarding CO emissions. Recommended Rule Changes . Some commenters suggested changes to EPA rules to address their concerns that control equipment installed as a result of the transport rule could trigger NSR. Some commenters suggested that EPA craft an exclusion from NSR in the transport rule. One of these commenters suggested that EPA could do this by: (1) providing special definition of baseline actual emissions; (2) a causation*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 414 of 1339 determination specifically tied to the Transport Rule; or ( 3) interpret the term “stationary source” in CAA 110(a)(4) in a way that doesn’t impede Transport Rule compliance. Other commenters expressed the concern that if NSR is triggered, the proposed transport rule did not allow enough time for compliance for s ources needing to install control equipment. These commenters recommend that EPA should waive transport requirements or provide extra allowances until NSR review is complete. d. Final rule and responses to comments. Greenhouse Gases . EPA has carefully reviewed relevant data in assessing the comments suggesting that NSR permitting would likely be triggered for facilities installing FGD scrubbers to comply with this rule. EPA believes that sources installing FGD to comply with the Transport Rule can achi eve those installations without triggering NSR. EPA notes that its forecast of the number and extent of FGD scrubber installations substantially decreased since the time of proposal . For the proposed rule, EPA modeled 14 GW of FGD retrofit installations b y 2014. For the final rule, EPA models a total of 5.7 GW of wet FGD installations from 7 units at 5 plants. There are two factors associated with wet FGD scrubbers that commenters suggested individually or in combination could*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 415 of 1339 lead to increases above the 75,000 tons per year threshold in the Tailoring Rule. The first is the CO 2 chemically produced from the reaction of SO 2 with limestone in wet FGD scrubbers. The second is that owners or operators of the affected units may desire to increase coal usage a fter the retrofit is made to offset the “parasitic load” that is consumed on - site in order to operate the scrubber. With respect to chemically produced CO 2 , EPA concludes that only in very limited circumstances when installation of a scrubber is couple d with a change to considerably higher sulfur coal could installation of a wet limestone scrubber be associated with a more than 75,000 ton increase in CO 2 emissions . EPA finds this possibility unlikely to occur. For example, EPA’s acid rain emissions reporting system shows that the plant with the greatest emissions from unscrubbed units in 2009 emitted about 103,000 tons of SO 2 from those units. If this plant installed a wet limestone scrubber assumed to reduce those SO 2 emissions by 96 percent, EPA cal culates that chemically produced CO 2 could increase emissions by:

103,000 X (0.96) X (44/64) = 67,980 tons CO 2 . 80

80 The factor 44/64 reflects the relative molecular weight of CO 2 and SO 2 , respectively. A wet FGD’s removal of one ton of SO 2 involves a chemical reaction that releases the e quivalent molecular weight of CO 2 (thus equaling 44/64 of a ton of CO 2 emissions).*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 416 of 1339 Therefore, EPA finds that all currently uncontrolled units are technically capable of retrofitting with wet FGD without chemically produce d CO 2 increases leading to a triggering of NSR. In limited circumstances, an owner or operator may elect to switch fuels to a significantly higher - sulfur coal subsequent to FGD installation and may risk an increase in chemically produced CO 2 emissions tha t would trigger NSR, but such a decision is not necessary in order to successfully install and operate the scrubber as a strategy for compliance with Transport Rule requirements. With respect to the “parasitic load” issue, EPA estimates that today’s wet FGD retrofit technology would consume typically about 1.7 percent of on - site generation. 81 If a facility made no other changes to its operation other than installing an FGD retrofit, that facility’s CO 2 emissions from fuel combustion would remain constant. It is possible , however, that a source’s owner or operator may elect to increase coal usage by some amount after retrofitting FGD , if for example the owner or operator desires to increase net generation after retrofitting . Under NSR, any such source would be able to compare such a CO 2 emissions increase against the highest average annual emissions in any consecutive 24 -month period from a five - year historic

81 Documentation Supplement for EPA Base Case v.4.10_FTransport

– Updates for Final Transport Rule.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 417 of 1339 baseline. Therefore, a unit retrofitting a scrubber under the Transport Rule may be able to increas e its CO 2 emissions by more than 75,000 tons without triggering NSR if that increase would register as less than 75,000 tons against a higher emissions level in the aforementioned NSR baseline. EPA also notes that scrubber installations provide facil ities with the opportunity to make other capital improvements at the unit on which the scrubber is installed to improve the efficiency of boilers , steam turbines, motors, other auxiliary equipment, and plant control systems. Such improvements could allow a retrofitting unit to lower its CO 2 output rate such that a subsequent decision to increase net generation may not result in increased coal use, or may limit any CO 2 emissions increase to less than the 75,000 tons per year threshold for triggering NSR. As discussed in section VII.D, EPA notes that the Transport Rule does not mandate any specific control activity, including scrubber retrofitting, as a compliance strategy for units within a state to meet that state’s SO 2 budget. As demonstrated by EPA’s “no FGD” sensitivity analysis described in VII.D, covered sources within the Group 1 states are capable of meeting their emission reduction obligations through a variety of emission reduction strategies even if no unit is able to complete a scrubber installati on by 2014. Therefore, EPA does not believe*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 418 of 1339 that NSR permitting presents an obstacle in any way to Transport Rule compliance, even if a given unit retrofitting with FGD triggers NSR for CO 2 . For some plants, EPA’s IPM modeling forecasts installa tion and operation of dry sorbent injection (DSI) systems. EPA does not believe any of these systems would result in CO 2 emissions increases above the 75,000 ton threshold. Moreover, given the relatively short construction schedule for DSI systems, EPA b elieves that if any of the plants did require NSR permitting , installation of DSI could still be accomplished by 2014. In summary, EPA believes that the operators of plants projected to install scrubbers for Transport Rule SO 2 reductions could readily deve lop workable compliance strategies whether or not such an installation would trigger NSR. P lant owners could readily develop strategies to avoid emissions increases that would trigger NSR, including but not limited to alternative SO 2 reduction strategies or technologies, efficiency improvements, or the ability to adjust net electricity generation to prevent a 75,000 ton increase in CO 2 emissions . EPA believes that projected scrubber installations under the Transport Rule are broadly unlikely to trigger NS R, but even in the limited conditions where such a triggering may occur, the NSR permitting process would not infringe on a state’s ability to comply with its budgets under the Transport Rule (see section VII.D for more*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 419 of 1339 details on EPA’s analysis of a “no FGD” sensitivity supporting these points) . Sulfuric Acid Mist . EPA continues to conclude that, consistent with the 2005 TSD, sulfuric acid mist increases due to compliance with this rule are very unlikely to trigger NSR permitting. Such increases are mos t commonly seen from installation of SCR units on facilities with relatively high sulfur coal. However, as acknowledged by one of the commenters, engineering solutions have been developed to prevent such increases, and EPA believes that facility owners wo uld take this into account in designing such an SCR system. Moreover, EPA’s IPM modeling of the NOX budgets in the final rule suggests that no new SCR units will result from the final rule. Carbon monoxide. EPA concludes that any NSR permitting required due to CO increases associated with NOX controls this should not hinder the ability of sources to comply with Transport Rule requirements. For states that were included in the CAIR for either ozone, PM2.5 or both, EPA finds no evidence to suggest that the NOX control requirements of the Transport Rule would require more aggressive controls triggering NSR. As EPA’s baseline analysis acknowledges, many sources in these states installed NOX controls to comply with CAIR. In addition, their historic emission s reflect operation of these controls and there is no evidence to suggest that the Transport Rule will*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 420 of 1339 require sources to operate these controls more aggressively, thereby increasing CO emissions above the relevant threshold and triggering NSR. In a few s tates that were not covered by CAIR, a limited number of facilities may install new combustion controls (such as low NOX burners, overfire air, or other combustion controls or upgrades) as a result of the Transport Rule. EPA expects relatively few such i nstallations, and believes that NSR permitting, if required, is not an obstacle to compliance with the rule. First, EPA believes that NSR permitting should be relatively straightforward for these installations and that the BACT determination for CO will b e very straightforward . EPA expects a relatively short time period for permitting , and as discussed later, EPA is planning to initiate actions that will further expedite any required permitting . Second, EPA notes that the rule achieves reductions through a trading program rather than direct control requirements. Accordingly, even if a few installations do not have controls in place at the very beginning of the compliance period, this should not hinder the ability of states to meet their ozone season NOX budgets. Covered sources have a suite of NOX pollution control strategies and technologies available to them, including coal selection, selective non - catalytic reduction (SNCR), gas re -burn, low -NOX burner (LNB) and overfire air (OFA)*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 421 of 1339 installations or upg rades, and neural network optimization of combustion controls operation. Sources may consider all of these technologies and strategies, which can be designed and operated so as to minimize CO emission increases that may otherwise trigger NSR. EPA also n otes that during the downtime for installation of the construction controls, there would be no NOX emissions, and thus the source’s allowance holding requirements would also be lower for that period. Recommended Rule Changes. EPA disagrees with commenters who suggested rule changes, either to the NSR program or to this rule, to account for installations triggering NSR. As noted above, EPA concludes that NSR would be triggered at most for just a few of the projected control installations. EPA believes, however, that even if required these NSR permits would likely be issued in a timely manner given the overall environmental benefits resulting from the control equipment installation. In addition, this rule ’ s requirements are based on a flexible trading appr oach rather than a direct control approach. Accordingly, if this affect occurs for only a few installations, EPA believes that any extra emission s that occur during the relatively short time needed to obtain an NSR permit could be accommodated within the overall trading system. Expediting Permitting*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 422 of 1339 In the limited circumstances where pollution control installations under the Transport Rule may trigger NSR, we also note that an expedited permitting process can occur with sufficient time to obtain permits an d achieve emission reductions under the Transport Rule programs. For this reason, we strongly encourage permitting authorities to expedite permitting for any such projects, which are likely to be very limited in number. To ensure that the permitting dec isions are expedited, separate from this rulemaking EPA will provide assistance and guidance in order to expedite issuance of any such permits. For example, we are considering assistance that would serve to expedite best available control technology (BACT ) reviews or required air quality analysis. EPA requests early notification of any specific cases where such guidance and assistance may be needed. J . How the Program Structure is Consistent with Judicial Opinions Interpreting the Clean Air Act The limite d interstate trading program established by this rule eliminates all of the emissions that EPA has identified as significantly contributing to downwind nonattainment or interference with maintenance 82 in a manner that is consistent

82 As explained in greater detail in Section VI of this notice, for each covered state, EPA has identified emissions that must be prohibited pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In most*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 423 of 1339 with section 110(a)(2)(D) (i) of the CAA as interpreted by the D.C. Circuit in North Carolina , 531 F.3d 896. The FIPs finalized in this action require sources to participate in emissions trading programs that allow intrastate trading and limited interstate trading, and that also i nclude provisions to ensure that no state’s emissions exceed that state’s budget with variability limit. These assurance provisions, combined with the requirement that all sources hold emission allowances sufficient to cover their emissions, effectuate the requirement that emission reductions occur within the s tate. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(1)(2)(D). The state budgets developed in this rule represent an estimate of the emissions that will remain in a given state after the elimination of all emissions in that EPA has determined must be prohibited pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). However, for the reasons explained above, instances, EPA has determined that elimination of such emissions is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of that section. Thus, in these i nstances, the budgets represent an estimate of the emissions that will remain after the elimination of all emissions in that state that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state. In a few limited instances, however, EPA determined that elimination of the emissions is necessary but may not be sufficient to satisfy the requirements of that section. In these instances, the budgets represent an estimate of the emissions that will remain after the elimination of all emissions that EPA, at this time, has determined must be eliminated.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 424 of 1339 the amount of emissions that remain after such emissions are eliminated may vary. EPA recognizes that shifts in generation due to, among other things, changing weather patterns, demand growth, or disruptions in electricity supply from other units can affect the amount of generation needed in a specific state and thus baseline EGU emissions from that state. Because a state’s significant contribution or interference with maintenance is defined by EPA as all emissions that can be eliminated for a specific cost (as explained above, using air quality considerations to identify this cost threshold) and because EGU baseline emissions are variable, the amount of emissions remaining in a state after all significant contribution or interference with maintenance is eliminated is also variable. In other words, EGU emissions in a state whose sources have installed all controls and taken all measures necessary to eliminate its significant contribution or interference with maintenance could exceed the state budget without variability. For this reason, EPA determined that it is appropriate for the program to recognize the inherent variability in state E GU emissions. The program does so by identifying a state specific variability range for each state in the program. The assurance provisions in the program, in turn, limit a state’s emissions to the state’s budget with variability limit.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 425 of 1339 In addition, the requirement that all sources hold emission allowances (and the fact that the total number of emission allowances allocated will be equal to the sum of all state budgets without variability) ensures that the use of variability limits both takes into account the inherent variability of baseline EGU emissions in individual states (i.e., the variability of total state EGU emissions before the elimination of significant contribution or interference with maintenance) and recognizes that this variability is not as great in a larger region. The variability of emissions across a larger region is not as large as the variability of emissions in a single state for several reasons. Increased EGU emissions in one state in one control period often are offset by reduce d EGU emissions in another state within the control region in the same control period. In a larger region that includes multiple states, factors that affect electricity generation, and thus EGU emissions levels, are more likely to vary significantly withi n the region so that resulting emissions changes in different parts of the region are more likely to offset each other. For example, a broad region can encompass states with differing weather patterns, with the result that increased electricity demand and emissions due to weather in one state may be offset by decreased demand and emissions due to weather in another state. By further example, a broad region can encompass states*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 426 of 1339 with differing types of industrial and commercial electricity end- users, with the result that changes in electricity demand and emissions among the states due to the effect of economic changes on industrial and commercial companies may be offsetting. Similarly, because states in a broad region may vary in their degree of dependence on fossil - fuel -based electric generation, the impact of an outage of non - fossil - fuel -based generation (e.g., a nuclear plant) in one state may have a very different impact in that state than on other states in the region. Thus, EPA does not believe it is necessary to allow total regional allowance allocations for the states covered by a given trading program to exceed the sum of all state budgets without variability for these states. For these reasons, the fact that the use of state budgets with variabilit y limits may allow limited shifting of emissions between states is not inconsistent with the court’s holding that emission reductions must occur “within the state.” North Carolina , 531 F.3d at 907. Under the FIPs, no state may emit more than its budget w ith variability limit and total emissions cannot exceed the sum of all state budgets without variability. This approach takes into account the inherent variability of the baseline emissions without excusing any state from eliminating its significant contr ibution or interference with maintenance.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 427 of 1339 It is thus consistent with the statutory mandate of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) as interpreted by the Court. Most commenters voiced support for a remedy option that allows some degree of interstate trading. However, one commenter argued that the structure of the limited interstate trading remedy is legally problematic. The program, the commenter argues, provides no legal assurance that the variability margins will be used by market participants to account for var iability. The commenter does not suggest a solution, but instead says, if a solution cannot be found, EPA should not allow any amount of interstate trading. EPA disagrees with the commenter that the structure of the limited interstate trading program is legally problematic. In North Carolina , the Court held that the CAIR interstate trading programs were inconsistent with section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), concluding that “EPA’s apportionment decisions have nothing to do with each state’s ‘significant contribut ion’” (531 F.3d at 907) and that “EPA is not exercising its section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) duty unless it is promulgating a rule that achieves something measurable toward the goal of prohibiting sources ‘within the State’ from contributing to nonattainment or interfering with maintenance ‘in any other State.’” (531 F.3d at 908). It emphasized that “[t]he trading program is unlawful, because it does not connect states’ emission reductions to any*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 428 of 1339 measure of their own significant contributions. To the contrary, it relates their SO 2 reductions to their Title IV allowances . . . . The allocation of NOX caps is similarly arbitrary because EPA distributed allowances simply in the interest of fairness.” 531 F.3d at 930. As explained in this notice, EPA has addressed these concerns by using source specific analysis to identify each individual state’s significant contribution and including assurance provisions to ensure that the necessary reductions occur in each state. The Court did not go further to prohibit all int erstate trading. In fact, it notes that “after rebuilding, a somewhat similar CAIR may emerge” (531 F.3d at 930). For all of these reasons, EPA does not believe the opinion in North Carolina can be read to stand for the proposition that no interstate tra ding can be allowed unless the specific reasons behind market participants’ decisions to purchase allowances can be ascertained. Because allowance purchase decisions are likely to be based on multiple factors, which can include the desire to hedge against potential emission variability as well as to address actually occurring variability, requiring ascertainment of the specific reasons for allowance purchases would be tantamount to prohibiting all interstate trading. Moreover, as discussed above, variability is inherent to the operation of the electric generation system and thus to*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 429 of 1339 emissions from this sector. In fact, variability in emissions occurs every year in every state and, like variability of year to - year weather conditions (which is a major cau se of emission variability), cannot be accurately predicted. See the Power Sector Variability TSD in the docket for this rulemaking . EPA maintains that its approach of allowing state EGU emissions each year to vary by up to the historically representative, annual amount of inherent, emission variability reasonably reflects the realities of the electric generation system and is consistent with the North Carolina decision. In summary, the variability provisions take into account inherent variability over t ime of emissions from this sector while ensuring that the number of allowances from other states that can be purchased for use by sources in any given state is fixed at a relatively low level. EPA thus concludes that the commenter’s argument that the use of variability limits allows sources “within the state” to avoid eliminating their significant contribution or interference with maintenance is without merit. VIII. Economic Impacts of the Transport Rule A. Emission Reductions Table VIII.A- 1 presents proje cted power sector emissions in the base case (i.e., without the Transport Rule or CAIR) compared to projected emissions with the Transport Rule in 2012*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 430 of 1339 and 2014 for all covered states. Table VIII.A- 2 presents 2005 historical power sector emissions compare d to projected emissions with the Transport Rule in 2012 and 2014. Note that for ozone - season emissions, these tables present results from a modeling scenario that reflects ozone - season NOX requirements in 26 states. This modeling differs from the final Transport Rule because it includes ozone - season NOX requirements for six states (Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin) that the final Transport Rule does not cover (as discussed previously, EPA is issuing a supplemental proposal to request comment on inclusion of these six states). Table VIII.A- 1 – Projected SO2 and NOX Electric Generating Unit Emission Reductions in Covered States with the Transport Rule Compared to Base Case without Transport Rule or CAIR (Million Tons) 2012 Base Case Emissions 2012

Transport Rule Emissions 2012

Emission Reductions 2014

Base Case Emissions 2014

Transport Rule Emissions 2014

Emission Reductions
SO 2 7.0 3.0 4.0 6.2 2.4 3.9 Annual NO X 1.4 1.3 0.1 1.4 1.2 0.2
Ozone Season NO X 0.7 0.6 0.1 0.7 0.6 0. 1

Notes: The SO 2 and annual NOX emissions in this table reflect EGUs in the 23 states covered by this rule for purposes of the 24 - hour and/or annual PM2.5 NAAQS (Alabama, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri,*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 431 of 1339 Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin). The ozone - season NOX emissions reflect EGUs in the 20 states covered by this rule for purposes of the o zone NAAQS (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia) and the six states that would be covered for the ozone NAAQS if EPA finalizes its supplemental proposal (Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin). Tables VIII.A- 3 through VIII.A- 5 present projected state level emissions with and without the Transport Rule in 2 012 and 2014 from fossil - fuel - fired EGUs greater than 25 MW in covered states. Table VIII.A- 2 – Projected SO2 and NOX Electric Generating Unit Emission Reductions in Covered States with the Transport Rule Compared to 2005 Actual Emissions (Million Tons) 2005 Actual Emissions 2012

Transport Rule Emissions 2012

Emissions Reductions from 2005 2014

Transport Rule Emissions 2014

Emissions Reductions from 2005 SO 2 8.8 3.0 5.8 2.4 6.4 Annual NO X 2.6 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.4
Ozone Season NO X 0.9 0.6 0.3 0.6 0.3

Not es: The SO 2 and annual NOX emissions in this table reflect EGUs in the 23 states covered by this rule for purposes of the 24 - hour and/or annual PM2.5 NAAQS (Alabama, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missour i, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 432 of 1339 Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin). The ozone - season NOX emissions reflect EGUs in the 20 states covered by this rule for purposes of the ozone NAAQS (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia) and the six states that would be covered for the ozone NAAQS if EPA finalizes its supplemental proposal (Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin). Table VIII.A- 3 – Projected State - level Annual SO2 Emissions from Fossil - Fired Electric Generating Units Greater than 25 MW in Covered States in 2012 and 2014 in Base Case and with Transport Rule (tons) Base Case Transport Rule 2012 2014 2012 2014 Alabama 455,503 417,009 219,067 173,231 Georgia 405,933 169,702 158,581 92,605 Illinois 485,417 137,522 209,701 128, 143 Indiana 776,359 711,265 241,258 177,222 Iowa 121,663 127,354 75,003 77,931 Kansas 68,490 69,767 41,433 45,681 Kentucky 520,531 487,990 146,133 116,912 Maryland 49,942 42,926 26,630 30,368 Michigan 252,411 265,611 190,274 158,394 Minnesota 64,524 66,268 42,862 45,143 Missouri 375,771 381,939 181,662 177,359 Nebraska 70,754 71,821 65,079 70,087 New Jersey 26,346 38,857 5,518 6,243 New York 51,243 40,416 20,378 12,689 North Carolina 144,554 120,441 117,383 63,382 Ohio 871,401 831,648 230,216 1 50,784 Pennsylvania 493,206 507,360 250,484 123,224 South Carolina 184,045 209,538 84,435 96,589 Tennessee 324,372 284,463 96,520 64,716 Texas 445,715 452,978 244,239 266,288 Virginia 80,889 64,917 66,640 38,562 West Virginia 535,586 497,398 119,174 83,235 Wisconsin 131,199 124,862 77,505 44,139 Total 6,935,853 6,122,051 2,910,173 2,242,927*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 433 of 1339 Table VIII.A- 4 – Projected State - level Annual NOX Emissions from Fossil - Fired Electric Generating Units Greater than 25 MW in Covered States in 2012 and 201 4 in Base Case and with Transport Rule (tons) Base Case Transport Rule 2012 2014 2012 2014 Alabama 82,005 74,937 73,600 68,119 Georgia 66,384 47,808 61,464 39,817 Illinois 51,969 54,661 47,635 48,533 Indiana 119,625 116,552 109,773 109,392 Iowa 42 ,563 44,614 36,953 38,302 Kansas 37,106 32,390 30,603 23,938 Kentucky 88,136 83,481 83,856 76,026 Maryland 16,602 17,444 15,665 17,061 Michigan 60,594 64,345 59,405 57,311 Minnesota 36,833 37,952 30,524 30,849 Missouri 53,199 54,528 51,329 48,888 Nebraska 42,985 43,410 26,488 26,552 New Jersey 7,391 7,858 7,355 7,562 New York 17,556 18,505 17,616 17,250 North Carolina 51,902 46,130 47,679 41,676 Ohio 100,420 99,389 84,679 84,126 Pennsylvania 129,125 132,299 117,612 116,994 South Carolina 34,635 37,862 33,144 35,591 Tennessee 37,674 29,256 32,984 20,490 Texas 136,124 140,788 133,406 136,638 Virginia 34,567 35,798 33,244 34,891 West Virginia 61,792 64,182 55,808 53,335 Wisconsin 36,701 36,904 30,643 29,688 Total 1,345,888 1,321,092 1,221,466 1,163,027 Table VIII.A- 5 – Projected State - level Ozone - Season NOX Emissions from Fossil - Fired Electric Generating Units Greater than 25 MW in Covered States in 2012 and 2014 in Base Case and with Transport Rule (tons)

Base Case Transport Rule 2012 2014 2012 2014 Alabama 34,074 31,365 31,607 29,532*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 434 of 1339 Arkansas 15,037 16,644 15,087 16,728 Florida 41,646 45,993 27,645 29,435 Georgia 29,106 19,293 26,660 17,838 Illinois 21,371 22,043 21,102 21,210 Indiana 46,877 46,086 46,789 46,564 Iowa 18,307 19,4 40 15,746 16,346 Kansas 16,126 13,967 13,425 10,217 Kentucky 37,588 35,296 34,969 31,547 Louisiana 13,433 13,924 13,669 13,943 Maryland 7,179 7,540 6,705 7,248 Michigan 25,989 28,037 25,476 24,248 Mississippi 10,161 11,212 10,639 10,960 Missouri 23, 156 23,759 21,788 20,805 New Jersey 3,440 3,668 3,403 3,518 New York 8,336 9,031 8,404 8,399 North Carolina 22,902 20,169 21,081 18,154 Ohio 42,274 41,327 34,576 35,769 Oklahoma 31,415 31,723 20,910 21,200 Pennsylvania 52,895 54,217 50,384 50,446 So uth Carolina 15,145 16,586 13,810 15,058 Tennessee 15,505 12,141 14,305 8,461 Texas 64,711 65,492 62,824 63,749 Virginia 15,148 15,339 14,311 14,744 West Virginia 26,464 27,099 23,352 22,406 Wisconsin 15,876 16,048 12,840 12,768 Total 654,161 647,439 591,508 571,293 B. The Impacts on PM2.5 and Ozone of the Final SO 2 and NOX Strategy The air quality modeling platform described in section V. was used by EPA to model the impacts of the final rule SO 2 and NOX emission reductions on annual average PM2.5 , 24 - hour PM2.5 , and 8 - hour ozone concentrations. In brief, we ran the CAMx model for the meteorological conditions in the year of 2005 for the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 435 of 1339 eastern U.S. modeling domain 83 . Modeling was performed for the 2014 base case and the 2014 “Limited Interstate T rading” (i.e. , remedy) scenario to assess the expected effects of the final rule on projected PM2.5 and ozone design value concentrations and nonattainment and maintenance. The procedures used to project future design values and nonattainment and maintena nce are described in section V. The projected 2014 concentrations of annual PM2.5 , 24 - hour PM2.5 , and ozone at each monitoring site in the East for which projections were made are provided in the Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document. The numb er of nonattainment and/or maintenance sites in the East for the 2012 base case, 2014 base case, and 2014 remedy for annual PM2.5 , 24 - hour PM2.5 , and ozone are provided in Table VIII.B - 1 84 . The average and peak reductions in annual PM2.5 , 24 - hour PM2.5 , an d ozone predicted at 2012 nonattainment and/or maintenance sites due the emission reductions between 2012 and the 2014 remedy ar e provided in Table VIII.B - 2.

83 As described in the Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document, the eastern U.S. was modeled at a horizontal resolution of 12 x 12 km. The remainder of the U.S. was modeled at a resolution of 36 x 36 km. 84 To provide a point of reference, Table VIII.B - 1 also includes the number of nonattainment and/maintenance sites based on ambient design values for the period 2003 through 2007.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 436 of 1339 Table VIII.B - 1. Projected Reduction in Nonattainment and/or Maintenance Problems for PM2.5 and Oz one in the Eastern U.S.

Ambient (2003 - 2007) 2012

Base Case 2014

Base Case 2014

Remedy Percent

Reduction: 2012 Base Case vs. 2014 Remedy Percent

Reduction: 2014 Base Case vs. 2014 Remedy Annual PM2.5 Nonattainment Sites 85 103 12 7 0 100 percent 100 percen t Annual PM2.5 Maintenance Only Sites 22 4 3 0 100 percent 100 percent
24 - hour PM2.5 Nonattainment Sites 151 20 10 1 95 percent 90 percent 24 - hour PM2.5 Maintenance Only Sites 48 21 12 4 81 percent 67 percent
Ozone Nonattainment Site s 104 7 4 4 43 percent No Change Ozone Maintenance Only Sites 65 9 6 6 33 percent No Change
Table VIII.B - 2. Average and Peak Reduction in Annual PM2.5 , 24 - Hour PM2.5 , and Ozone for S ites that are Projected to have Nonattainment and/or Maintenance Problems in the 2012 Base Case Average Reduction: 2012 Base Case to 2014 Remedy Peak Reduction: 2012 Base case to 2014 Remedy Annual PM2.5 Nonattainment Sites 2.73 μg/m3 3.32 μg/m3 Annual PM2.5 Maintenance - Only Sites 2.99 μg/m3 3.26 μg/m3 24 - hour PM2.5 Nonattainment Sites 6. 8 μg/m3 11.7 μg/m3 24 - hour PM2.5 Maintenance - Only Sites 6.5 μg/m3 11.0 μg/m3 Ozone Nonattainment Sites 1.9 ppb 2.3 ppb
85 “Nonattainment” is used to denote s ites that are projected to have both nonattainment and maintenance problems.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 437 of 1339 Ozone Maintenance - Only Sites 1.8 ppb 2.1 ppb
The information in Table VIII.B - 1 shows that there will be significant reductions in the extent of nonattainment and maintenance problems for annual PM2.5 , 24 - hour PM2.5 , and ozone between 2012 and 2014 as a result of the emission budgets in this rule coupled with emission reductions during this time period fr om other existing control programs. Specifically, the results of the air quality modeling indicate that no sites are projected to be in non attainment or projected to have a maintenance problem for annual PM2.5 in 2014 with the emission reductions expected from the Transport Rule. As indicated in Table VIII.B - 2, the average reduction in annual PM2.5 across the 12 2012 nonattainment sites is 2.73 μg/m3 and the peak reduction at an individual nonattainment site is 3.32 μg/m3 . Large reductions are also proje cted at annual PM2.5 maintenance - only sites. For 24 - hour PM2.5 , we project that the number of nonattainment sites will be reduced by 95 percent and the number maintenance - only sites by 81 percent in 2014 compared to the 2012 base case. The average reduc tion in 24 - hour PM2.5 across the 20 2012 nonattainment sites is 6.8 μg/m3 and the peak reduction at an individual nonattainment site is 11.7 μg/m3 .*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 438 of 1339 Similarly large reductions are projected at 24 - hour PM2.5 maintenance - only sites, as indicated in Table VIII .B - 2. The emission reductions in the Transport Rule will result in considerable progress toward attainment and maintenance at the 5 sites that remain as nonattainment and/or maintenance for the 24 - hour the PM2.5 standard. On average for these 5 sites, the predicted amount of PM2.5 reduction in 2014 is 64 percent of what is needed for these sites to attain and/or maintain the 24
- hour standard. Thus, the SO 2 and NOX emission reductions which will result from the Transport Rule will greatly reduce the exten t of PM2.5 nonattainment and maintenance problems by 2014 and beyond. As described previously, these emission reductions are expected to substantially reduce the number of PM2.5 nonattainment and/or maintenance sites in the East and make attainment easier for those counties that remain nonattainment by substantially lowering PM2.5 concentrations in residual nonattainment sites. The emission reductions will also help those locations that may have maintenance problems. Based on the 2012 base air quality modeling for ozone, 16 sites in the East are projected to be nonattainment or have problems maintaining the 1997 ozone standard. The summer NOX reductions are projected to lower 8 - hour ozone concentration by 1.8 ppb, on average by 2014, at monitoring sites projected to be*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 439 of 1339 nonattainment and/or have maintenance problems in the 2012 base case. We expect that the number of nonattainment sites will be reduced by 43 percent and the number maintenance - only sites by 33 percent in 2014 compared to the 2012 base case . Thus, our modeling indicates that by 2014 the summer NOX emission reductions in this rule , coupled with other existing control programs, will lower ozone concentrations in the East and help bring areas closer to attainment for the 8 - hour ozone NAAQS. As discussed in section III of this preamble, EPA plans to finalize its reconsideration of the 2008 revised ozone NAAQS soon, and these reductions will help areas achieve those revised NAAQS. C. Benefits 1. Human Health Benefit Analysis To estimate the human health benefits of the final Transport Rule, EPA used the BenMAP model to quantify the changes in PM2.5 and ozone - related health impacts and monetized benefits based on changes in air quality. For context, it is important to note that the magnitude of the PM2.5 benefits is largely driven by the concentration response function for premature mortality. Experts have advised EPA to consider a variety of assumptions, including estimates based both on empirical (epidemiological) studies and judgments elicited f rom scientific experts, to characterize the uncertainty in the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 440 of 1339 relationship between PM2.5 concentrations and premature mortality. For this rule we cite two key empirical studies, one based on the American Cancer Society cohort study 86 and the other based o n the extended Six Cities cohort study 87 . The estimated benefits of this rule are substantial, particularly when viewed within the context of the total public health burden of PM2.5 and ozone air pollution. A recent EPA analysis estimated that 2005 levels of PM2.5 and ozone were responsible for between 130,000 and 320,000 PM2.5 - related and 4,700 ozone - related premature deaths, or about 6.1 percent of total deaths from al l causes in the continental U.S. (using the lower end of the range for premature deaths) . 88 In other words, 1 in 20 deaths in the U.S. is attributable to PM2.5 and ozone exposure. This same analysis attributed almost 200,000 non fatal heart attacks, 90,000 hospital admissions due to respiratory or cardiovascular illness, 2.5 million cases of aggravated asthma among children, and many other human health impacts to exposure to these two air pollutants. 86 Pope et al., 2002. ‘‘Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long - term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution.’’ Journal of the American Medical Association. 287:1132

– 11 41. 87 Laden et al., 2006. ‘‘Reduction in Fine Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality.’’ American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 173:667

– 672. 88 Fann N, Lamson A, Wesson K, Risley D, Anenberg SC, Hubbell BJ. Estimating the National Publi c Health Burden Associated with Exposure to Ambient PM2.5 and Ozone. Risk Analysis; 2011 In Press.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 441 of 1339 We estimate that PM2.5 improvements under the Transport Rule will , starting in 2014, annually reduce between 13,000 and 34,000 PM2.5 - related premature deaths, 15,000 non - fatal heart attacks, 8,700 incidences of chronic bronchitis, 8,500 hospital admissions and 400,000 cases of aggravated asthma while also reducing 10 million days of restricted activity due to respiratory illness and approximately 1.7 million work - loss days. We also estimate substantial health improvements for children from fewer cases of upper and lower respiratory illness and acute bronchitis. Ozone health - related benefits are expected to occur during the summer ozone season (usua lly ranging from May to September in the eastern U.S.). Based upon modeling for 2014, annual ozone related health benefits are expected to include between 27 and 120 fewer premature mortalities, 240 fewer hospital admissions for respiratory illnesses, 86 f ewer emergency room admissions for asthma, 160,000 fewer days with restricted activity levels, and 51,000 fewer days where children are absent from school due to illnesses. Table VIII.C - 1 presents the primary estimates of annual reduced incidence of PM2.5 and ozone - related health effects for the final rule based on 2014 air quality improvements. When adding the PM and ozone - related mortalities together, we find that the Transport Rule will yield between 13,000 and 34,000*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 442 of 1339 fewer premature mortalities annual ly. By 2014, in combination with other federal and state air quality actions, the Transport Rule will address a substantial fraction of the total public health burden of PM2.5 and ozone air pollution.
VIII.C - 1 Estimated Annual Reductions in Incidences of Health

Effects Based on 2014 Modelinga

Health Effect Within transport region Beyond

transport region Total PM-Related endpoints Premature Mortality

Pope et al. (2002) (age >30) 13,000 (5,200
—21,000) 33 (5
— 60) 13,000

(5,200
—21,000) Laden et al . (2006) (age >25) 34,000 (18,000
—49,000) 84 (31
—140) 34,000

(18,000
—49,000) Infant (< 1 year) 59 ( - 47
—160) 0.15 ( - 0.2
—0.5) 59 ( - 47
—160) Chronic Bronchitis 8,700 (1,600
—16,000) 23 ( - 5
—50) 8,700

(1,600
—16,000) Non - fatal heart attacks (age > 18) 15,000 ( 5,600
—24,000) 40 (7
—72) 15,000

(5,600
—24,000) Hospital admissions

— respiratory (all ages) 2,700 (1,300
—4,000) 5 (2
— 9) 2,700

(1,300
—4,000) Hospital admissions

— cardiovascular (age > 18) 5,700 (4,200
— 6,600) 15 (10
—19) 5,800

(4,200
— 6,600) Emergency room vis its for asthma (age < 18) 9,800 (5,800
—14,000) 21 (7
—36) 9,800

(5,800
—14,000) Acute bronchitis (age 8 - 12) 19,000 ( - 630
—37,000) 50 ( - 29
—130) 19,000

( - 660
—37,000) Lower respiratory symptoms (age 7 - 14) 240,000 (120,000
—360,000) 630 (130
—1,100) 240,000

(12 0,000
—360,000) Upper respiratory symptoms (asthmatics age 9 - 18) 180,000 (57,000
—310,000) 480 ( - 25
— 980) 180,000

(57,000
—310,000) Asthma exacerbation (asthmatics 6 - 18) 400,000 (45,000
— 1,100,000) 1,100 ( - 250
—2,900) 400,000 (45,000
— 1,100,000)*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 443 of 1339 Lost work da ys (ages 18 - 65) 1,700,000 (1,500,000
— 1,900,000) 4,300

(3,500
—5,200) 1,700,000 (1,500,000
— 1,900,000) Minor restricted- activity days (ages 18 - 65) 10,000,000 (8,400,000
— 11,000,000) 26,000 (20,000
— 32,000) 10,000,000

(8,400,000
— 12,000,000) Ozone - related endpoints Premature mortalityMulti-cityand NMMAPS Bell et al. (2004)

(all ages) 27 (11
—42) 0.1

(0.01
—0.3) 27 (11
—42) Schwartz et al. (2005) (all ages) 41 (17
— 64) 0.2

(0.1
—0.4) 41 (17
— 65) Huang et al. (2005) (all ages) 37 (17
—57) 0.2

(0.1
—0.4) 3 7 (17
—57)Meta-analyses Ito et al. (2005) (all ages) 120 (78
—160) 0.6 (0.3
—0.9) 120 (79
—160) Bell et al. (2005) (all ages) 87 (48
—130) 0.5 (0.2
—0.8) 87 (48
—130) Levy et al. (2005) (all ages) 120 (89
—150) 0.7 (0.4
—0.9) 120 (90
—160) Hospital admissions

— respiratory causes (ages > 65) 160 (21
—280) 1.2 (0.1
—2.3) 160 (21
—290) Hospital admissions

— respiratory causes (ages <2) 83 (43
—120) 0.5 (0.2
—0.8) 84 (43
—120) Emergency room visits for asthma (all ages) 86 ( - 2
—260) 0.4

( - 0.2
—1.4) 86 ( - 2
—260) Minor restr icted- activity days (ages 18 - 65) 160,000 (80,000
—240,000) 910 (240
—1,600) 160,000

(80,000
—240,000) School absence days 51,000 (22,000
—73,000) 290 (59
—490) 51,000

(22,000
—74,000) a Values rounded to two significant figures. Benefits from reducing other cr iteria pollutants and hazardous air pollutants and ecosystem effects are not included here Source: EPA, 2011 2. Quantified and Monetized Visibility Benefits Only a subset of the expected visibility benefits

—those for Class I areas
—are included in the mon etary benefits estimates we*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 444 of 1339 project for this rule. We anticipate improvement in visibility in residential areas where people live, work and recreate within the Transport Rule region for which we are currently unable to monetize benefits. For the Class I ar eas we estimate annual benefits of $ 4 . 1 billion beginning in 2014 for visibility improvements. The value of visibility benefits in areas where we are unable to monetize benefits could be substantial. 3. Benefits of Reducing GHG Emissions When fully implemented in 2014, the Transport Rule would reduce emissions of CO 2 from electrical generating units by about 25 million metric tons annually. Using a ‘‘social cost of carbon’’ (SCC) estimate that accounts for the marginal dollar value (i.e., cost) of climate - related damages resulting from CO 2 emissions, previous analyses including the RIA for the Final Rulemaking to Establish Light - Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency Standards have found the total benefit of C O 2 reductions is substantial. The monetary value of these avoided damages also grows over time. Readers interested in learning more about the calculation of the SCC metric should refer to the SCC TSD, Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Un der Executive Order 12866 [Docket No. EPA

– HQ
– OAR
– 2009
– 0472]. 4. Total Monetized Benefits*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 445 of 1339 Table VIII.C - 2 presents the estimated annual monetary value of reductions in the incidence of health and welfare effects. These estimates account for increases in the value of risk reduction over time. Total monetized benefits are driven primarily by the reduction in premature fatalities each year, which account for between 8 9 and 96 percent of total benefits.
VIII.C - 2 Estimated Annual Monetary Value of Reductions in Incidence of Health and Welfare Effects Based on 2014 Modeling (Billions of 2007$) A

Health Effect Pollutant Within Transport Rule Region Beyond Transport

Rule Region B Total Premature Mortality (Pope et al. 2002 PM mortality and Bell et al. 2004 ozone mortality estimates) 3% discount rate PM2.5 & O 3 $100 ($8.3

—$320) $0.3 ($0.01

—$0.9) $100

($8.3

—$320) 7% discount rate PM2.5 & O 3 $94 ($7.5

—$280) $0.2 ($0.01

—$0.8) $94

($7.5

—$290) Premature Mortality (Laden et al. 2006 PM mortality and Levy et al. 2005 ozone mortality estimates) 3% discount rate PM2.5 & O 3 $270 ($23

—$770) $0.7 ($0.05

—$2) $270

($23

—$770) 7% discount rate PM2.5 & O 3 $240 ($21

—$700) $0.6

($0.05

—$1.8) $240 ($21

—$700) Chronic Bronchitis PM2.5 $4.2 ($0.2

—$19) $0.01

($ - 0.003
—$0.06) $4.2 ($0.2

—$19) Non - fatal heart attacks 3% discount rate PM2.5 $1.7 ($0.3

—$4.2) $0.004

($0.003

—$0.01) $1.7 ($0.3

—$4.2) 7% discount rate PM2.5 $1.3 ($0.3

—$3.1) $0.004

($0.002

—$0.001) $1.3 ($0.3

—$3.1) Hospital admissions

— respiratory PM2.5 & O 3 $0.04 ($0.02

—$0.06) --- $0.04 ($0.02

— $0.06) Hospital admissions

— cardiovascular PM2.5 $0.09 ($0.01

—$0.2) --- $0.09 ($0.01

— $0.2) Emergency room PM2.5 & O 3 $0.003 --- $0.003*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 446 of 1339 visits for asthma ($0.002

— $0.006) ($0.002

— $0.006) Acute bronchitis PM2.5 $0.008 (<$ - 0 .01
— $0.02) c --- $0.008 (<$ - 0.01
— $0.02) c Lower respiratory symptoms PM2.5 $0.004 ($0.002

— $0.009) --- $0.004 ($0.002

— $0.009) Upper respiratory symptoms PM2.5 $0.005 (<$0.01

— $0.014) --- $0.005 (<$0.01

— $0.014) Asthma exacerbation PM2.5 $0.02 ($0.002

—$0.0 8) --- $0.02 ($0.002

— $0.08) Lost work days PM2.5 $0.2 ($0.17

—$0.24) --- $0.2 ($0.17

— $0.24) School loss days O 3 $0.01 ($0.004

— $0.013) --- $0.01 ($0.004

— $0.013) Minor restrictedactivity days PM2.5 & O 3 $0.7 ($0.3

—$1) --- $0.7 ($0.3

—$1) Recreational vi sibility, Class I areas PM2.5 $ 4 . 1 Social cost of carbon (3% discount rate, 2014 value) CO 2 $0.6
Monetized total Benefits (Pope et al. 2002 PM2.5 mortality and Bell et al. 2004 ozone mortality estimates) 3% discount rate PM2.5 , O 3 $110 ($8.8

—$3 40) $0. 28 ($0.0 1
—$0.9) $1 2 0 ($ 1 4
—$3 5 0) 7% discount rate PM2.5 , O 3 $100 ($8

—$310) $0. 25

($0.0 1
—$0. 85 ) $1 1 0 ($ 13
—$3 2 0) Monetized total Benefits (Laden et al. 2006 PM2.5 mortality and Levy et al. 2005 ozone mortality estimates) 3% discount rate PM2.5 , O 3 $270 ($24

—$800) $0.7

($0.05

—$2 .1 ) $2 8 0 ($2 9
—$8 1 0) 7% discount rate PM2.5 , O 3 $250 ($22

—$720) $0.6

($0.04

—$1.9) $250 ($2 6
—$7 3 0) A Values rounded to two significant figures. Benefits from reducing other criteria pollutants and hazardous air pollutant s and ecosystem effects are not included here . B Monetary value of endpoints marked with dashes are < $100,000.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 44 7 of 1339 C The negative estimates for certain endpoints are the result of the weak statistical power of the study used to calculate these health impacts and do not suggest that increases in air pollution exposure result in decreased health impacts. Source: EPA, 2011 5. How Do the Benefits in 2012 Compare to 2014? The magnitude of SO 2 emission reductions achieved under the rule is actually larger in 2012 t han in 2014, due to substantial emission reductions expected to occur in the baseline (i.e., unrelated to the Transport Rule) between those years. As a consequence, EPA expects correspondingly greater reductions in harmful effects to accrue in 2012 compar ed to 2014. As presented in T able VIII.C - 1, the Transport Rule is expected to prevent between 1 3 ,000 and 3 4 ,000 premature deaths annually from 2014 onward due to reductions in ambient PM2.5 concentrations , which are most significantly impacted by SO 2 emiss ion reductions . Based on EPA 's analysis of power sector emission reductions under the Transport Rule , the decline in SO 2 in 2012 is 4 percent greater than the decline in SO 2 in 2014 in the states modeled. EPA therefore anticipates that the Transport Rule will deliver greater reductions in ambient PM2.5 concentrations in 2012 and increased annual benefits to human health and welfare beyond those presented in this section . 6. How Do the Benefits Compare to the Costs of this Final Rule? The estimated annual private costs to implement the emission reduction requirements of the final rule for the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 448 of 1339 Transport Rule region are $1.85 billion in 2012 and $0.83 billion in 2014 (2007$). These costs are the annual incremental electric generation production costs that a re expected to occur with the Transport Rule. The EPA uses these costs as compliance cost estimates in developing cost - effectiveness estimates. In estimating the net benefits of regulation, the appropriate cost measure is ‘‘social costs.’’ Social costs represent the welfare costs of the rule to society. These costs do not consider transfer payments (such as taxes) that are simply redistributions of wealth. The social costs of this rule are estimated to be approximately $0.81 billion in 2014 assuming eithe r a 3 percent discount rate or a 7 percent discount rate. Thus, the annual net benefit (social benefits minus social costs) as shown in Table VIII.C - 3 for the Transport Rule is approximately $120 to $280 billion or $1 10 to $250 billion (3 percent and 7 pe rcent discount rates) in 2014. Implementation of the rule is expected to provide society with a substantial net gain in social welfare based on economic efficiency criteria.

A listing of the benefit categories that could not be quantified or monetized in our benefit estimates are provided in Table VIII.C - 4. Table VIII.C–3 Summary of Annual Benefits, Costs, and Net Benefits of the Final Transport Rule in 2014

(Billions of 2007$) a Description Transport Rule Remedy*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 449 of 1339 Social costs 3 % discount rate $0.8 1 7 % discount rate $0.8 1 Total monetized benefitsb 3 % discount rate 7 % discount rate $ 120 to $ 280 $ 110 to $ 250 Net benefits (benefits - costs ) 3 % discount rate 7 % discount rate $ 120 to $ 280 $ 1 1 0 to $ 250 a All estimates are for 2014, and are rounded to two significant figures. bThe total monetized benefits reflect the human health benefits associated with reducing exposure to PM2.5 and ozone and the welfare benefits associated with improved visibility in Class I areas. The reduction in premature mortalities account for over 90 percent of total monetized PM2.5 and ozone benefits. The annualized regional cost of the rule, as quantified here, is EPA’s best assessment of the cost of implementing the Transport Rule. These costs are generated from rigorous economic modeling of changes in the power sector expected from the rule. This type of analysis using IPM has undergone peer review and been upheld in federal courts. The direct cost includes, but is not limited to, capital investments in pollution controls, oper ating expenses of the pollution controls, investments in new generating sources, and additional fuel expenditures. The EPA believes that these costs reflect, as closely as possible, the additional costs of the Transport Rule to industry. The relatively sma ll cost associated with monitoring emissions, reporting, and recordkeeping for affected sources is not*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 450 of 1339 included in these annualized cost estimates, but EPA has done a separate analysis and estimated the cost to be about $2 6 million ( see section XII.B., Pap erwork Reduction Act ). However, there may exist certain costs that EPA has not quantified in these estimates. These costs may include costs of transitioning to this rule, such as the costs associated with the retirement of smaller or less efficient EGUs, employment shifts as workers are retrained at the same company or re - employed elsewhere in the economy, and certain relatively small permitting costs associated with Title V that new program entrants face. An optimization model was employed that assumes co st minimization. Costs may be understated if the regulated community chooses not to minimize its compliance costs in the same manner to comply with the rules. Although EPA has not quantified these costs, the Agency believes that they are small compared to the quantified costs of the program on the power sector. However, EPA’s experience and results of independent evaluation suggests that costs are likely to be lower by some degree (see RIA for details). The annualized cost estimates presented are the best and most accurate based upon available information. In a separate analysis, EPA estimates the indirect costs and impacts of higher electricity prices on the entire economy. These impacts are summarized in the RIA for this final rule.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 451 of 1339 Every benefit - cost anal ysis examining the potential effects of a change in environmental protection requirements is limited to some extent by data gaps, limitations in model capabilities (such as geographic coverage), and uncertainties in the underlying scientific and economic s tudies used to configure the benefit and cost models. Gaps in the scientific literature often result in the inability to estimate quantitative changes in health and environmental effects. Gaps in the economics literature often result in the inability to as sign economic values even to those health and environmental outcomes that can be quantified. While uncertainties in the underlying scientific and economics literatures (that may result in overestimation or underestimation of benefits) are discussed in deta il in the economic analyses and its supporting documents and references, the key uncertainties which have a bearing on the results of the benefit - cost analysis of this rule include the following: • EPA’s inability to quantify potentially significant benef it categories; • Uncertainties in population growth and baseline incidence rates; • Uncertainties in projection of emission inventories and air quality into the future; • Uncertainty in the estimated relationships of health and welfare effects to change s in pollutant concentrations including*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 452 of 1339 the shape of the C
–R function, the size of the effect estimates, and the relative toxicity of the many components of the PM mixture; • Uncertainties in exposure estimation; and • Uncertainties associated with the e ffect of potential future actions to limit emissions. Despite these uncertainties, we believe the benefit - cost analysis provides a reasonable indication of the expected economic benefits of the rulemaking in future years under a set of reasonable assumpti ons. This approach calculates a mean value across VSL estimates derived from 26 labor market and contingent valuation studies published between 1974 and 1991. The mean VSL across these studies is $6.3 million (2000$). 89 The benefits estimates generated for this rule are subject to a number of assumptions and uncertainties, which are discussed throughout the RIA document. As Table VIII.C - 2 indicates, total annual monetary benefits are driven primarily by the reduction in premature mortalities each year. Some key assumptions underlying the primary estimate for the premature mortality category include the following:

89 In this analysis, we adjust the VSL to account for a different currency year (2007$) and to account for income growth to 2014. After applying these adjustments to the $6.3 million value, the VSL is $8.7 million.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 453 of 1339 (1) EPA assumes inhalation of fine particles is causally associated with premature death at concentrations near those experienced by most Americans on a 24 - hour basis. Plausible biological mechanisms for this effect have been hypothesized for the endpoints included in the primary analysis and the weight of the available epidemiological evidence supports an assumption of causality. (2) EPA assumes all fine particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality. This is an important assumption, because the proportion of certain components in the PM mixture produced via precursors emitted from EGUs may differ significantly from direct PM released from automotive engines and other industrial sources, but no clear scientific grounds exist for supporting differential effects estimates by particle type. (3) We assume that the health impact function for fine particles is linear down to the lowest air quality levels modeled in this analysis. Thus, the estimates include health benefits from reducing fine particles in areas with varied concentrations of PM2.5 , including both regions that are in attainment with the fine particle standard and those that do not meet the standard down to the lowest modeled concentrations. The EPA recognizes the difficulties, assumptions, and inherent uncertainties in the overall enterprise. The analyses*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 454 of 1339 upon which the Transport Rule is based were selected from the peer - reviewed scientific literature. We used up - to - date assessment tools, and we believe the results are highly useful in assessing this rule. There are a number of health and environmental effects that we were unable to qu antify or monetize. A complete benefit - cost analysis of the Transport Rule requires consideration of all benefits and costs expected to result from the rule, not just those benefits and costs which could be expressed here in dollar terms. A listing of the benefit categories that were not quantified or monetized in our estimate are provided in Table VIII.C - 4. Table VIII.C– 4 Unquantified and Non -Monetized Effects of the Transport Rule Pollutant/ E ffect Endpoint PM: Health a Low birth weight Pulmonary functi on Chronic respiratory diseases other than chronic bronchitis Non - asthma respiratory emergency room visits UVb exposure b PM: Welfare Household soiling Visibility in residential areas Visibility in non - class I areas and class 1 areas in NW, NE, and Centra l regions UVb exposure b Global climate impacts b Ozone: Health Chronic respiratory damage Premature aging of the lungs Non - asthma respiratory emergency room visits UVb exposure b Ozone: Welfare Yields for:

—Commercial forests*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 455 of 1339 —Fruits and vegetables, and

—Other commercial and noncommercial crops Damage to urban ornamental plants Recreational demand from damaged forest aesthetics Ecosystem functions Increased exposure to UVbb Climate impacts NO 2 : Health Respiratory hospital admissions Respiratory emergenc y department visits Asthma exacerbation Acute respiratory symptoms Premature mortality Pulmonary function NO 2 : Welfare Commercial fishing and forestry from acidic deposition effects Commercial fishing, agriculture and forestry from nutrient deposition eff ects Recreation in terrestrial and estuarine ecosystems from nutrient deposition effects Other ecosystem services and existence values for currently healthy ecosystems Coastal eutrophication from nitrogen deposition effects SO 2 : Health Respiratory hospita l admissions Asthma emergency room visits Asthma exacerbation Acute respiratory symptoms Premature mortality Pulmonary function SO 2 : Welfare Commercial fishing and forestry from acidic deposition effects Recreation in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems fr om acid deposition effects Increased mercury methylation Mercury: Health Incidence of neurological disorders Incidence of learning disabilities Incidences in developmental delays Mercury: Welfare Impact on birds and mammals (e.g. , reproductive effects) Impacts to commercial, subsistence and recreational fishing Source: EPA a In addition to primary economic endpoints, there are a number of biological responses that have been associated with PM health effects including morphological changes and altered h ost defense*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 456 of 1339 mechanisms. The public health impact of these biological responses may be partly represented by our quantified endpoints. b May result in benefits or disbenefits . 7. What Are the Unquantified and Non -monetized Benefits of the Transport Rule Emission Reductions? Important benefits beyond the human health and welfare benefits quantified in this section and the RIA are expected to occur from this rule. These other benefits occur directly from NOX and SO 2 emission reductions and from co -benefits due to Transport Rule compliance. These benefits are listed in Table VIII.C - 4. Some of the more important examples include: reduced acidification and, in the case of NOX , eutrophication of water bodies; possible reduced nitrate contamination of drinking wa ter; and reduced acid and particulate deposition that causes damages to cultural monuments, as well as, soiling and other materials damage. To illustrate the important nature of benefit categories EPA is currently unable to monetize, we discuss four catego ries of public welfare and environmental impacts related to reductions in emissions required by the Transport Rule: reduced acid deposition, reduced eutrophication of estuaries, reduced mercury methylation and deposition, and reduced vegetation impairment from ozone. a. What Are the Benefits of Reduced Deposition of Sulfur and Nitrogen to Aquatic, Forest, and Coastal Ecosystems?*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 457 of 1339 Atmospheric deposition of sulfur and nitrogen, often referred to as acid rain, occurs when emissions of SO 2 and NOX react in the atmosphere (with water, oxygen, and oxidants) to form various acidic compounds. These acidic compounds fall to earth in either a wet form (rain, snow, and fog) or a dry form (gases and particles). Prevailing winds can transport acidic compounds hundreds o f miles, across state borders. Together these emissions are deposited onto terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems across the U.S., contributing to the problems of acidification. (1) Acid Deposition and Acidification of Lakes and Streams The extent of adverse effects of acid deposition on freshwater and forest ecosystems depends largely upon the ecosystem’s ability to neutralize the acid. The neutralizing ability depends largely on the watershed’s physical characteristics, such as geology, soils, and size. A key indicator of neutralizing ability is termed Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC). Higher ANC indicates greater ability to neutralize acidity. Acidic conditions occur more frequently during rainfall and snowmelt that cause high flows of water and less common ly during low - flow conditions, except where chronic acidity conditions are severe. Biological effects are primarily attributable to a combination of low pH and high inorganic aluminum concentrations. Biological effects of episodes include*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 458 of 1339 reduced fish condition factor, changes in species composition and declines in aquatic species richness across multiple taxa, ecosystems and regions, as well as fish mortality. Waters that are sensitive to acidification tend to be located in small watersheds that have few a lkaline minerals and shallow soils. Conversely, watersheds that contain alkaline minerals, such as limestone, tend to have waters with a high ANC. Areas especially sensitive to acidification include portions of the Northeast (particularly, the Adirondack and Catskill Mountains, portions of New England, and streams in the mid-Appalachian highlands) and southeastern streams. This regulatory action will decrease acid deposition within and downwind of the transport region and is likely to have positive effects on the health and productivity of aquatic ecosystems in the region. (2) Acid Deposition and Forest Ecosystem Impacts Acidifying deposition has altered major biogeochemical processes in the U.S. by increasing the nitrogen and sulfur content of soils, acce lerating nitrate and sulfate leaching from soil to drainage waters, depleting base cations (especially calcium and magnesium) from soils, and increasing the mobility of aluminum. Inorganic aluminum is toxic to some tree roots. Plants affected by high level s of aluminum from the soil often have reduced root growth, which restricts the ability of the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 459 of 1339 plant to take up water and nutrients, especially calcium. 90 These direct effects can, in turn, influence the response of these plants to climatic stresses such as droughts and cold temperatures. They can also influence the sensitivity of plants to other stresses, including insect pests and disease, 91 leading to increased mortality of canopy trees. Both coniferous and deciduous forests throughout the eastern U.S. ar e experiencing gradual losses of base cation nutrients from the soil due to accelerated leaching from acidifying deposition. This change in nutrient availability may reduce the quality of forest nutrition over the long term. Evidence suggests that red spru ce and sugar maple in some areas in the eastern U.S. have experienced declining health because of this deposition. For red spruce (Picea rubens), dieback or decline has been observed across high elevation landscapes of the northeastern U.S. and, to a lesse r extent, the southeastern

90 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2008 . Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen and Sulfur

–Ecological Criteria National (Final Report). National Center for Environme ntal Assessment, Research Triang le Park, NC. EPA/600/R
- 08/139. December. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=201485. 91 Joslin, J.D., Kelly, J.M., van Miegroet, H. 1992. Soil chemistry and nutrition of North American spruce - fir stands: evi dence for recent change. Journal of Environmental Quality, 21, 12 - 30.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 460 of 1339 U.S. Acidifying deposition has been implicated as a causal factor. 92 This regulatory action will decrease acid deposition within and downwind of the transport region and is likely to have positive effects on the health and produc tivity of forest systems in the region. b. Coastal Ecosystems Since 1990, a large amount of research has been conducted on the impact of nitrogen deposition to coastal waters. Nitrogen is often the limiting nutrient in coastal ecosystems. Increasing the levels of nitrogen in coastal waters can cause significant changes to those ecosystems. In recent decades, human activities have accelerated nitrogen nutrient inputs, causing excessive growth of algae and leading to degraded water quality and associated impairments of estuarine and coastal resources. Atmospheric deposition of nitrogen is a significant source of nitrogen to many estuaries. The amount of nitrogen entering estuaries due to atmospheric deposition varies widely, depending on the size and locati on of the estuarine watershed and other sources of nitrogen in the watershed. A recent assessment of 141 estuaries nationwide by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) concluded that 19 estuaries (13 percent) 92 DeHayes, D.H., P.G. Schaberg, G.J. Hawley, and G.R. Strimbeck. 1999. Acid rain impacts on calcium nutrition and forest health. Bioscience 49(10):789

– 800 .*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 461 of 1339 suffered from moderately hi gh or high levels of eutrophication due to excessive inputs of both N and phosphorus, and a majority of these estuaries are located in the coastal area from North Carolina to Massachusetts. 93 For estuaries in the Mid-Atlantic region, the contribution of atmospheric distribution to total N loads is estimated to range between 10 percent and 58 percent. 94 Eutrophication in estuaries is associated with a range of adverse ecological effects. The conceptual framework developed by NOAA emphasizes four main types of eutrophication effects: low dissolved oxygen (DO), harmful algal blooms (HABs), loss of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), and low water clarity. Low DO disrupts aquatic habitats, causing stress to fish and shellfish, which, in the short - term, can lead t o episodic fish kills and, in the long - term, can damage overall growth in fish and shellfish populations. Low DO also degrades the aesthetic qualities of surface water. In addition to often being toxic to fish and shellfish, and leading to fish kills and a esthetic impairments of estuaries, HABs can, in some instances, also be harmful to human health. SAV provides critical habitat for many
93 National Oceanic and Atmo spheric Administration (NOAA). 2007. Annual Commercial Landing Statistics. August . http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/commercial/landings/annual_landi ngs.html . 94 Valigura, R.A., R.B. Alexander, M.S. Castro, T.P. Meyers, H.W. Paerl, P.E. Stacy, and R.E. Turn er. 2001. Nitrogen Loading in Coastal Water Bodies: An Atmospheric Perspective. Washington, DC: American Geophysical Union .*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 462 of 1339 aquatic species in estuaries and, in some instances, can also protect shorelines by reducing wave strength. Therefore, declines in SAV due to nutrient enrichment are an important source of concern. Low water clarity is the result of accumulations of both algae and sediments in estuarine waters. In addition to contributing to declines in SAV, high levels of turbidity also degrade the aesthetic qualities of the estuarine environment. Estuaries in the eastern United States are an important source of food production, in particular fish and shellfish production. The estuaries are capable of supporting large stocks of resident c ommercial species, and they serve as the breeding grounds and interim habitat for several migratory species. This rule is anticipated to reduce nitrogen deposition within and downwind of the Transport Rule region. Thus, reductions in the levels of nitroge n deposition will have a positive impact upon current eutrophic conditions in estuaries and coastal areas in the region. c. Mercury Methylation and Deposition Mercury is a highly neurotoxic contaminant that enters the food web as a methylated compound, methylmercury. 95 The

95 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2008. Integrated Science Assessment for Sulfur Oxides - Health Criteria (Final Report). National Center for Environmental*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 463 of 1339 contaminant is concentrated in higher trophic levels, including fish eaten by humans. Experimental evidence has established that only inconsequential amounts of methylmercury can be produced in the absence of sulfate. Current evidence in dicates that in watersheds where mercury is present, increased SO X deposition very likely results in methylmercury accumulation in fish. 96 , 97 The SO 2 ISA concluded that evidence is sufficient to infer a casual relationship between sulfur deposition and incre ased mercury methylation in wetlands and aquatic environments. d. Ozone Vegetation Effects Ozone causes discernible injury to a wide array of vegetation. 98 In terms of forest productivity and ecosystem diversity, ozone may be the pollutant with the greate st

Assessment, Research Triangle Park, NC. September. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=198843 . 96 Drevnick, P.E., D.E. Canfield, P.R. Gorski, A.L.C. Shinneman, D.R. Engstrom, D.C.G. Muir, G.R. Smi th, P.J. Garrison, L.B. Cleckner, J.P. Hurley, R.B. Noble, R.R. Otter, and J.T. Oris. 2007. Deposition and cycling of sulfur controls mercury accumulation in Isle Royale fish. Environmental Science and Technology 41(21):7266
– 7272. 97 Munthe, J., R.A. Boda ly, B.A. Branfireun, C.T. Driscoll, C.C. Gilmour, R. Harris, M. Horvat, M. Lucotte, and O. Malm. 2007. Recovery of mercury - contaminated fisheries. AMBIO:A Journal of the Human Environment 36:33

– 44. 98 Fox, S., Mickler, R. A. (Eds.). 1996. Impact of Air P ollutants on Southern Pine Forests. Ecological Studies. (Vol. 118, 513 pp.) New York: Springer -Verlag.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 464 of 1339 potential for regional - scale forest impacts. 99 Studies have demonstrated repeatedly that ozone concentrations commonly observed in polluted areas can have substantial impacts on plant function. 100 , 101 Assessing the impact of ground- level ozone on forests in the eastern United States involves understanding the risks to sensitive tree species from ambient ozone concentrations and accounting for the prevalence of those species within the forest. As a way to quantify the risks to particular plants from ground- level ozone, scientists have developed ozone exposure/tree
- response functions by exposing tree seedlings to different ozone levels and measuring reductions in growth as ‘‘biomass loss.’’ Typically, seedlings are used because they are easy to manipulate and measure their growth loss from ozone pollution. The mechanisms of susceptibility to ozone within the leaves of seedlings and mature trees are identical, and the decreases predicted using the seedlings should be related to the decrease in overall plant fitne ss for mature trees, but the

99 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2006. Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final). EPA/600/R
- 05/004a F - cF. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA. February. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/CFM/recordisplay.cfm?deid=149923 . 100 De Steiguer, J., Pye, J., Love, C. 1990. Air Pollution Damage to U.S. Forests. Journal of Forestry, 88(8), 17 - 22. 101 Pye, J.M. 1988. Impact of ozone on the growth and yield of trees: A review. Journal of Environmental Quality, 17, 347 - 360.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 465 of 1339 magnitude of the effect may be higher or lower depending on the tree species. 102 In areas where certain ozone - sensitive species dominate the forest community, the biomass loss from ozone can be significant. Significant biomass lo ss can be defined as a more than 2 percent annual biomass loss, which would cause long term ecological harm as the short - term negative effects on seedlings compound to affect long - term forest health. 103 Urban ornamentals are an additional vegetation categor y likely to experience some degree of negative effects associated with exposure to ambient ozone levels. Because ozone causes visible foliar injury, the aesthetic value of ornamentals (such as petunia, geranium, and poinsettia) in urban landscapes would be reduced. Sensitive ornamental species would require more frequent replacement and/or increased maintenance (fertilizer or pesticide application) to maintain the desired appearance because of exposure to ambient ozone. 104 In addition, many

102 Chappelka, A.H., Samuelson, L.J. 1998. Ambient ozone effects on forest trees of the eastern United States: a review. New Phytologist, 139, 91 - 108. 103 Heck, W.W . &Cowling E.B. 1997. The need for a long term cumulative secondary ozone standard

– an ecological perspective. Environmental Management, January, 23 - 33. 104 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2007. Review of the National Ambient Air Quality S tandards for Ozone: Policy assessment of scientific and technical information. Staff paper. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. EPA- 452/R
- 07 - 007a. July.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 466 of 1339 businesses rely on healthy - looking vegetation for their livelihoods (e.g., horticulturalists, landscapers, Christmas tree growers, farmers of leafy crops, etc.) and a variety of ornamental species have been listed as sensitive to ozone. 105 D. Costs and Employment Impacts 1. Transport Rule Costs and Employment Impacts For the affected region, the projected annual private incremental costs of the rule to the power industry are $1. 4 billion in 2012 and $0.8 billion in 2014. These costs represent the private compliance cost to the electric generating industry of reducing NOX and SO 2 emissions to meet the requirements set forth in the rule. Estimates are in 2007 dollars. In estimating the net benefits of regulation, the appropriate cost measure is ‘‘social costs.’’ Social costs represent the welfare costs of the rule to society. These costs do not consider transfer payments (such as taxes) that are simply redistributions of wealth. The social costs of this rule are estimated to be approximately $0.8 billion annually in 2014. Overall, the economic impacts of the Transport Rule are modest in 2014, particularly in light of the large benefits ($1 2 0 to http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/ozone/data/2007_07_ozone_ staff_paper.pdf. 105 Abt As sociates, Inc. 2005. U.S. EPA. Urban ornamental p lants: sensitivity to ozone and potential economic losses. Memorandum to Bryan Hubbell and Zachary Pekar .*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 467 of 1339 $2 8 0 billion annually at a 3 percent discount rate and $ 110 to $2 5 0 billion annually at a 7 percent discount rate) we expect as shown in section XII.A. of this preamble. Ultimately, we believe the electric power industry will pass along most of the costs of the rule to consumers, so that the costs of the rule will largely fall upon the consumers of electricity. For more information o n electricity price changes that result from this final rule, please refer to section XII.H (Statement of Energy Effects) later in this preamble. For this rule, EPA analyzed the costs using the Integrated Planning Model (IPM). The IPM is a dynamic linear programming model that can be used to examine the economic impacts of air pollution control policies for SO 2 and NOX throughout the contiguous United States for the entire power system. Documentation for IPM can be found in the docket for this rulemaking or at http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/epa
ipm/index.html . EPA also included an analysis of impacts of the final rule to industries outside of the electric power sector by using the Multi -Market Model. This model is a partial equilibrium economic impact model that includes 100 sectors that cover energy, manufacturing, and service applications and is designed to capture the short - run effects associated with an environmental regulation. This model was used to estimate*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 468 of 1339 economic impacts for the proposed Toxics Rule, and the promulgated industrial boilers major and area source standards and CISWI standard. We use the Multi -Market Model to estimate the social costs of the final rule. Using this model, we estimate the social costs of the final rule to be approximately $0.8 billion (2007 dollars), which is close to the compliance costs [will insert final results when available and change associated text if necessary]. Documentation for the Multi -Market Model can be found in the RIA for this final rule. Als o note that as explained in section V.B (Baseline for Pollution Transport Analysis), the baseline used in this analysis assumes no CAIR. If EPA’s base case analysis were to assume that reductions from CAIR would continue indefinitely, areas that are in at tainment solely due to controls required by CAIR would again face nonattainment problems because the existing protection from upwind pollution would not be replaced. As explained in that section, EPA believes that this is the most appropriate baseline to use for purposes of determining whether an upwind state has an impact on a downwind monitoring site in violation of section 110(a)(2)(D). Although a stand- alone analysis of employment impacts is not included in a standard cost -benefit analysis, the current economic climate has led to heightened concerns about potential*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 469 of 1339 job impacts. Such an analysis is of particular concern in the current economic climate as sustained periods of excess unemployment may introduce a wedge between observed (market) wages and the social cost of labor. In such conditions, the opportunity cost of labor required by regulated sectors to bring their facilities into compliance with an environmental regulation may be lower than it would be during a period of full employment (particula rly if regulated industries employ otherwise idled labor to design, fabricate, or install the pollution control equipment required under this rule). For that reason, EPA also includes estimates of job impacts associated with the final rule. EPA presents an estimate of short - term employment opportunities as a result of increased demand for pollution control equipment. Overall, the results suggest that the final rule could support a net of roughly 2,250 job - years in direct employment impacts in 2014. The basic approach to estimate these employment impacts involved using projections from IPM from the final rule analysis such as the amount of capacity that will be retrofit with control technologies, for various energy market implications, along with data on labor and resource needs of new pollution controls and labor productivity from secondary sources, to estimate employment impacts for 2014. This analysis was also applied for the proposed Toxics Rule. For more information,*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 470 of 1339 please refer to the TSD for thi s analysis, “Employment Estimates of Direct Labor in Response to the Final Transport Rule in 2014.” EPA relied on Morgenstern, et al. (2002), a study that is a basis for employment impacts estimated for the final industrial boiler major and area source rul es and CISWI standard, and the proposed Toxics Rule. The Morgenstern study identifies three economic mechanisms by which pollution abatement activities can indirectly influence jobs: (1) higher production costs raise market prices, higher prices reduce consumption, and employment within an industry falls (“demand effect”); (2) pollution abatement activities require additional labor services to produce the same level of output (“cost effect”); and (3) post regulation production technologies may be more or less labor intensive (i.e., more/less labor is required per dollar of output) (“factor - shift effect”). Using plant - level Census information between the years 1979 and 1991, Morgenstern, et al., estimate the size of each effect for four polluting and regul ated industries (petroleum, plastic material, pulp and paper, and steel). On average across the four industries, each additional $1 million spending on pollution abatement results in an small net increase of 1.6 jobs; the estimated effect is not statistic ally significant different from zero. As a result, the authors conclude that*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 471 of 1339 increases in pollution abatement expenditures do not necessarily cause economically significant employment changes. The conclusion is similar to Berman and Bui ( 2001 ) who found that increased air quality regulation in Los Angeles did not cause large employment changes. For more information, please refer to the RIA for this final rule.

The ranges of job effects calculated using the Morgenstern, et al., approach are listed in Table V I II.D - 1 .
Table VIII.D - 1 . Range of Job E ffects for the Electricity Sector Estimates using Morgenstern, et al. (2002) Demand Effect Cost Effect Factor Shift Effect Net Effect Change in Full - Time Jobs per Million Dollars of Environmental Expenditure a − 3.56 2.42 2.68 1.55

Standard Error 2.03 0.83 1.35 2.24
EPA E stimate for Final Rule b +200 to -

3,000 +400 to 2,000 0 to 2,000 - 1,000 to +3,000

a Expressed in 1987 dollars. See footnote a of Table 8 - 3 in the RIA for inflation adjustment factor used in the analysis. b According to the 2007 Economic Census, the electric power generation, transmission and distribution sector (NAICS 2211) had approximately 510,000 paid employees.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 472 of 1339 EPA recognizes there may be other job effects which are not considered in the Morgenstern, et al., study. Although EPA has considered some economy - wide changes in industry output as shown earlier with the Multi -Market model, we do not have sufficient information to quantify other associated job effects associated with this rule. 2. End- Use Energy Efficiency EPA believes that achievement of energy efficiency improvements in homes, buildings, and industry (EE) is an important component of achieving emission reductions from the power sector while minimizing associated compliance cos ts. By reducing electricity demand, energy efficiency avoids emissions of all pollutants associated with electricity generation, including emissions of NOX and SO 2 targeted by this final rule and reduces the need for investments in EGU emissions control te chnologies in order to meet emission reduction requirements. Moreover, energy efficiency can often be implemented at a lower cost than traditional control technologies. EPA recognizes that significant opportunities remain for energy efficiency improveme nts in businesses, homes, and industry. However, there are several informational and market barriers that limit investment in cost - effective energy efficient practices. Several federal programs authorized under*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 473 of 1339 the CAA, including ENERGY STAR, are designe d to address these barriers. Congress, EPA, and states have all recognized the value of incorporating energy efficiency into air regulatory programs. Several allowance -based programs -- including the Acid Rain Program, EPA’s NOX Budget Trading program, and the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (an effort of 10 states from the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions) - – have provided mechanisms for rewarding energy efficiency through either the award of allowances, typically through the use of a fixed set - aside pool, or the use of revenues obtained through the auction of allowances. The emissions caps established by these programs are unaffected by this approach. However, to the extent electricity demand reductions are realized, compliance costs are reduced. In addition to these allowance -based programs, EPA has also provided guidance 106 concerning the recognition, in SIPs, of emission reduction benefits of energy efficiency and has approved the inclusion of EE measures in individual SIPs. 107

106 U.S. EPA. 2004. Guidance on State Implementation Plan (SIP) Credits for Emission Reductions from Electric - Sector Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Measures. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/ereseerem_gd.pdf 107 Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments developed a regional air quality plan for the eight - hour ozone standard for the DC Region non - attainment area that included an EE measure. The plan was adopted by Virginia, Maryland, and the District of*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 474 of 1339 While all remedy opt ions considered in the proposed rule would have lead to an increase in the relative cost effectiveness of EE investments by internalizing environmental costs associated with emission of these pollutants, EPA took comment on whether EPA has authority, and whether it would be appropriate for EPA, to consider EE in developing the allowance allocation methodology and to consider other approaches for encouraging EE in the Transport Rule. Some commenters suggested that EPA has authority to consider EE in developi ng the allocation methodology. Other commenters do not believe EPA has the authority to consider EE. Some commenters suggested that EPA should establish an EE set - aside provision. Other commenters suggested that EPA should allow, and help, states to es tablish EE set - asides as states transition from Transport Rule FIPs to SIPs. EPA believes that, while EE set - asides can be effective at encouraging incremental investments in EE, EE set - asides are more likely to be more practically and effectively impleme nted at the state level. Establishing EE set - asides in the allowance allocation provisions in the final rule would not allow for the tailoring of the set - asides to the unique characteristics of individual states and would not build on the existing EE prog ram delivery Columbia and the respective ozone SIPs were approved by the EPA regions in 2007.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 475 of 1339 infrastructure that many states already possess. Instead of establishing EPA- administered EE set - asides in the final rule, EPA is clarifying that it allows and supports EE set - asides (including auction -based approaches) in abbreviated or ful l SIPs that states may submit, as provided in the final rule. Under this approach states have the ability to implement EE set - asides tailored to their state circumstances if they choose. EPA anticipates providing additional information in the future for states on EE set - asides, as needed. 108 As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, the final rule provides for submission and approval of abbreviated and full SIPs providing for continued state participation in the Transport Rule trading programs and adopting alternative allowance allocation methodologies (which may include EE set asides) to the allocation methodologies adopted in the FIPs. While the final rule establishes certain requirements for approval of any such alternative allocation methodology, the fi nal rule provides states flexibility to create state implemented EE set - asides. IX. Related Programs and the Transport Rule
108 Because the question of EPA authority to create EE set - asides in the FIPs would be best addressed in the context of actual FIP provisions for EPA- created EE set - asides and EPA is, for other reasons, not adopting such provisions in the final rule, EPA is not addressing in the final rule the question of EPA ’s authority.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 476 of 1339 A. Transition from the Clean Air Interstate Rule 1. Key Differences between the Transport Rule and CAIR The Transport Rule replace s CAIR and its associated trading programs. There are a number of differences between implementation of the Transport Rule and implementation of CAIR. This section describes key implementation differences including differences in states covered, complian ce deadlines, applicability, structure of the remedy, provisions for early reductions, and provisions for SIPs. The next section discusses the transition from CAIR to the Transport Rule. States covered . The states covered by the Transport Rule differ somewhat from states covered by CAIR. This section summarizes differences in state coverage. EPA’s approach to determine states covered by the Transport Rule is discussed in sections V and VI of this preamble. The Transport Rule’s SO 2 and annual NOX requirements apply to covered sources in the 23 states listed in Table III - 1 in section III of this preamble. CAIR’s SO 2 and annual NOX requirements applied to covered sources in 25 states. There are many states in common between the Transport Rule and CAIR SO 2 and annual NOX programs. The differences are summarized in Table IX.A- 1. Table IX.A- 1 - Differences in SO2 and Annual NOX State Coverage

between the Transport Rule and CAIR*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 477 of 1339 State Transport Rule SO2 and Annual NOX Programs CAIR SO2 and Annual NOX Programs Kansas Yes No Minnesota Yes No Nebraska Yes No Delaware No Yes District of Columbia No Yes Florida No Yes Louisiana No Yes Mississippi No Yes
The Transport Rule’s ozone - season NOX requirements apply to covered sources in the 20 states listed in Table III - 1 in section III of this preamble, while CAIR’s ozone - season NOX requirements applied to 26 states. There are many states in common between the Transport Rule and CAIR ozone - season NOX programs. The differences are summarized in Table IX.A- 2 . Table IX.A- 2 - Differences in Ozone - Season NOX State Coverage

between the Transport Rule and CAIR State Transport Rule Ozone Season NOX Program CAIR Ozone - Season NOX Program Georgia Yes No Texas Yes No Connecticut No Yes Delaware No Yes District of Columbia No Yes

Iowa No Yes Massachusetts No Yes*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 478 of 1339 Michigan No Yes Missouri No Yes Wisconsin No Yes
In addition, EPA is proposing a supplemental notice to apply Transport Rule ozone - season requirements to the states of Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Miss ouri, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin, as discussed in section III of this preamble. The transition from CAIR to the Transport Rule is discussed in the next section and State Implementation Plans (SIPs) are discussed in section X of this preamble. Compliance deadl ines . The first phase of Transport Rule reductions commences January 1, 2012 for annual NOX and SO 2 requirements and May 1, 2012 for ozone - season NOX requirements. The second phase commences January 1, 2014 for annual NOX and SO 2 requirements and May 1, 2014 for ozone - season NOX requirements. In contrast, the first phase of CAIR NOX reductions commenced January 1, 2009 for annual NOX requirements and May 1, 2009 for ozone - season NOX requirements. On January 1, 2010, the first phase of CAIR SO 2 requiremen ts commenced. However, in anticipation of CAIR, SO 2 reductions actually started as early as 2006 because of the incentive to reduce emissions and bank Title IV Acid Rain Program SO 2 allowances for use when their value would increase under CAIR in 2010 and later. The second phase*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 479 of 1339 of CAIR reductions would have (if not replaced by the Transport Rule) commenced January 1, 2015 for annual NOX and SO 2 requirements, and May 1, 2015 for ozone - season NOX requirements. Applicability . Except for the changes to the states covered, the general applicability provisions of the final Transport Rule trading programs are essentially the same as the CAIR general applicability provisions, with a few exceptions. First, the final Transport Rule does not allow any non covered units to opt into the trading programs, for the reasons discussed in section VII.B of this preamble. In contrast, under CAIR, through SIPs the states could elect to allow boilers, combustion turbines, and other combustion devices to opt into the CAIR tradi ng programs under opt - in provisions specified by EPA. Second, the Transport Rule FIPs ’ ozone - season NOX trading program applicability provisions do not cover NOX SIP Call small EGUs and non - EGUs that a number of CAIR states brought into the CAIR ozone - seas on NOX trading program. The Transport Rule does allow any state in the ozone - season NOX program, through SIPs, to expand the applicability of the Transport Rule ozone - season NOX trading program to cover small EGUs. However, the Transport Rule does not al low states to expand the applicability to cover NOX SIP Call non - EGUs, for the reasons discussed elsewhere in this preamble.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 480 of 1339 In contrast, in the CAIR trading programs, a NOX SIP Call state could expand the applicability of the CAIR ozone - season NOX trading program in the state in order to include all units subject to the NOX Budget Trading Program under the NOX SIP Call. A number of states chose to expand the CAIR ozone - season NOX trading program applicability in this way. The transition from CAIR to the Transport Rule is discussed in the following section and SIPs are discussed in section X of this preamble. Structure of the remedy . The CAIR FIPs (and CAIR model trading rules adopted by a number of states in their CAIR SIPs) implemented reductions through SO 2 , annual NOX , and ozone - season NOX interstate emissions trading programs covering primarily large EGUs. The owners and operators of a covered source could buy allowances from or sell allowances to other covered sources (or other market participants) and were required to surrender allowances equal to the source’s emissions for each compliance period. CAIR’s trading programs did not impose limitations on interstate allowance trading or on the aggregate emissions from covered units within any covered st ate. The Transport Rule FIPs will also achieve the required reductions through SO 2 , annual NOX , and ozone - season NOX interstate trading programs. However, in contrast to CAIR and for the reasons discussed in section VII of this preamble, the Transport Rul e FIPs include assurance provisions specifically*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 481 of 1339 designed to ensure that no state’s emissions will exceed that state’s emission budget plus the variability limit, i.e., the state’s assurance level. Another difference in the remedy structure is in the design of the SO 2 trading programs. In CAIR all of the states required to reduce SO 2 emissions were grouped together in one SO 2 trading program with no restriction on the use of SO 2 allowances from any state in the program by any source in the program. In con trast, and for the reasons discussed in section VI of this preamble, the Transport Rule divides states required to reduce SO 2 emissions into two groups with emission reduction requirements of different stringency starting in 2014 ( SO 2 Group 1, whose reduct ion requirements become more stringent starting in 2014, and SO 2 Group 2, whose reduction requirements in 2014 and thereafter do not change). A covered source may only use for compliance -- with the requirements to hold allowances covering emissions and, if applicable, to surrender allowances under the assurance provisions -- an SO 2 allowance issued for the SO 2 Group in which the source’s state is included. In other words, an SO 2 Group 1 source may only use a SO 2 Group 1 allowance for compliance, and likewise an SO 2 Group 2 source may only use a SO 2 Group 2 allowance for compliance. Provisions for early reductions . CAIR included provisions for covered sources to make early reductions prior to the start*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 482 of 1339 of CAIR’s SO 2 and NOX trading programs, bank emission allowances, and carry banked allowances into its trading programs. In contrast, the Transport Rule does not include provisions for covered sources to carry over any allowances (i.e., Title IV SO 2 allowances or CAIR annual or ozone - season NOX allowances) into the Transport Rule trading programs. EPA’s reasons for not allowing the use of banked Title IV SO 2 allowances or CAIR annual or ozone - season NOX allowances in the Transport Rule trading programs are discussed in the next section. Provisions for SIPs . The following is a summary of the key differences between the Transport Rule and CAIR provisions for SIPs. A more detailed discussion of Transport Rule SIPs is in section X of this preamble. The SIP provisions in the Transport Rule and CAIR are very similar. Both include provisions that allow states to submit SIP revisions (referred to as full SIPs) that replace an applicable FIP trading program with a comparable SIP trading program that has certain limited differences from the FIP trading program. Similarly, both rules include provisions that allow states to submit SIP revisions (referred to as abbreviated SIPs) that may modify certain limited provisions in the FIP trading program, which remain in place. Inclusion of this provision in the Transport Rule allows a state to modify certain elements of a Transport Rule FIP trading program in order to*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 483 of 133 9 better meet the needs of the state. Both the Transport Rule and CAIR allow full or abbreviated SIPs that involve one or more applicable FIP trading programs. However, there are a few differences. In particular, under the Transport Rule, states may submit SIP revisions under which the state determines allocations for the applicable trading program using either full or abbreviated SIP revisions. States could s ubmit similar revisions under CAIR. Under the Transport Rule, the state may use the same allocation methodology as that currently used in the Transport Rule FIP trading program or some other allocation methodology. However, if some other methodology is u sed, the Transport Rule specifies certain requirements that must be met concerning, for example, the timing of such allocation determinations, and expressly allows allowance auctions to be used. CAIR did not include similar provisions . Further, the SIP s ubmission deadlines, allocation submission, and allocation recordation dates are different between the Transport Rule and CAIR. The Transport Rule SIP submission deadlines and allocation recordation dates are discussed in section X of this preamble. In addition, both the Transport Rule and CAIR include provisions that allow states to submit SIP revisions under which the state expands the general applicability provisions of the ozone - season NOX trading programs to cover certain units subject*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 484 of 1339 to the NOX SIP Call. However, for the reasons discussed elsewhere in this preamble, this flexibility is more limited in the Transport Rule than it was in CAIR. While CAIR allowed states to adopt, through full or abbreviated SIPs, opt - in provisions, the Transport Rule do es not allow for opt - in provisions. The reasons for this are discussed in section VII.B of this preamble. Details of the Transport Rule provisions for abbreviated and full SIP revisions, including deadlines for submission to EPA, are discussed in section X of this preamble. 2. Transition from the Clean Air Interstate Rule to the Transport Rule The Transport Rule replaces CAIR and its associated trading programs. This section elaborates on areas of transition from CAIR to the Transport Rule. a. Sunsetting o f CAIR, CAIR SIPs, and CAIR FIPs The proposal explained that, for control period in 2012 and thereafter, CAIR, CAIR SIPs, and CAIR FIPs would be replaced entirely by the Transport Rule provisions. The proposal outlined implementation of the sunsetting of CAIR and CAIR FIPs, through revisions to CAIR, §§ 51.123 and 51.124, and the CAIR FIPs, §§ 52.35 and 52.36. For the control period in these years, the CAIR trading programs would not continue, and the Administrator would not carry out any of the functions*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 485 of 1339 established for the Administrator in the CAIR model trading rule, the CAIR FIPs, or any state trading programs approved under CAIR. Offset and automatic penalty provisions under CAIR would not apply to excess emissions for 2011 control periods. Also di scussed were the processes for modifying provisions in Part 52 reflecting state - specific CAIR SIP and CAIR FIP requirements, which would vary depending on whether a state has an approved CAIR SIP or a CAIR FIP. The proposal further explained that sources in some states covered by CAIR or the CAIR FIPs would not be subject to the Transport Rule and that to the extent that CAIR reductions were needed or relied upon to satisfy other SIP requirements, states might need to find alternative ways to satisfy requi rements for their SIPs. EPA is finalizing regulatory changes to sunset CAIR and the CAIR FIPs. The final rule revises the general CAIR and CAIR FIP provisions in Parts 51 and 52 applicable to all CAIR states. For control periods in 2012 and thereafter, t he Administrator rescinds the determination that states must meet SIP requirements under CAIR, and the requirements of the CAIR FIPs are not applicable. Further, with regard to these control periods, the Administrator will no longer carry out any of the functions established for the Administrator in the CAIR model trading rule, the CAIR FIPs, or any state trading programs*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 486 of 1339 approved under CAIR with the exception of enforcing the provisions for the previous control periods, if necessary . For the reasons dis cussed in the proposed rule preamble (75 FR 45337), CAIR allowances allocated for these control periods cannot be used in any CAIR trading program and, as discussed below, in any Transport Rule trading program. Specifically, for the reasons discussed in t he proposed rule, offset and automatic allowance penalty provisions in the CAIR trading programs will not be applied to 2011 control period excess emissions, which will remain subject to discretionary civil penalties under CAA section 113. EPA still retai ns all enforcement options for excess emissions during the 2011 control period. CAIR allowances allocated for 2012 and thereafter are not usable in any CAIR or Transport Rule trading program. In light of that fact, in order to prevent any confusion by owners and operators and other members of the public concerning the status of such allowances, the final rule provides that, within 90 days after publication of the final Transport Rule, the Administrator will remove post - 2011 CAIR Annual NOX and Ozone - Seaso n allowances from the Allowance Tracking System.

The CAIR SO 2 trading program, of course, uses Acid Rain allowances, which will remain in the Allowance Tracking System because they were created by CAA Title IV and continue to be usable in the Acid Rain P rogram.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 487 of 1339 The final rule also adopts the discussion in the proposed rule concerning state - specific Part 52 provisions concerning CAIR (75 FR 45337 - 38). With regard to Part 52 provisions reflecting EPA’s adoption of an ongoing CAIR FIPs for some individual states, the final rule revises the CAIR FIP provisions to make them inapplicable to control periods in 2012 and thereafter and to require the Administrator to remove from the Allowance Tracking System, CAIR allowances for these control periods. The final , state - specific CAIR FIP provisions in Part 52 essentially echo the language in the final, general CAIR provisions in Part 52 discussed above. In making the CAIR FIP provisions inapplicable to control period in 2012 and thereafter, the final, state - speci fic provisions sunset the applicable CAIR FIP trading programs whether or not the CAIR FIPs were revised by approved, abbreviated CAIR SIPs. (Under CAIR, abbreviated CAIR SIPs were adopted by certain states so that states, rather than EPA, made NOX allowance allocations.) Consequently, states with approved, abbreviated CAIR SIPs will not need to revise their abbreviated CAIR SIPs in order to sunset the CAIR trading programs to which these abbreviated SIPs applied. Thus, although such abbreviated SIPs may remain in the state SIPs, they will have no force and effect once the CAIR FIPs sunset. With regard to Part 52 provisions reflecting EPA’s approval of full CAIR SIPs submitted to EPA by many individual states,*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 488 of 1339 the Court’s North Carolina decision essentiall y overrides these Agency approvals of individual CAIR SIPs. (Under CAIR, full CAIR SIPs were adopted by certain states to replace CAIR FIPs but continue to participate in the CAIR trading programs.) The Court found CAIR to be illegal and only allowed it to remain in effect temporarily. For this reason, the CAIR SIPs though approved, can have no force and effect once CAIR is replaced by this rule. For this reason, although the proposed rule indicated that states would need to submit SIP revisions to, amo ng other things, make the CAIR SIPs inapplicable to control periods after 2011, the final rule does not require states to take any actions to revise their full or abbreviated CAIR SIPs. For states covered by CAIR or CAIR FIPs that are not subject to the T ransport Rule and have relied on CAIR reductions to satisfy other SIP requirements, EPA will discuss with states alternative ways to satisfy requirements for those SIP requirements, e.g., through intrastate cap and trade programs that require the level of reductions on which the state has recently relied. b. NOX SIP Call Units The NOX Budget Trading program was used by states to reduce ozone - season NOX emissions from EGUs and large non - EGUs under NOX SIP Call requirements. The program started in 2003 and e nded in 2008. Under CAIR, a state subject to the NOX SIP Call was allowed to expand the applicability of the CAIR ozone - season NOX*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 489 of 1339 trading program in the state in order to include all units subject to the NOX Budget Trading Program under the NOX SIP Call and thereby to continue to meet the state’s NOX SIP Call requirements. Fourteen states chose to expand the CAIR ozone season NOX applicability in this way, while six states chose not to expand the applicability and instead to meet their NOX SIP Call obligations in other ways. EPA proposed to not allow this expansion in applicability for the Transport Rule, primarily because these sources as a group did not actually reduce emissions for the NOX Budget Trading Program or CAIR. EPA took comment on the propo sed approach. Several commenters generally advocated allowing, at state discretion, all NOX Budget Trading Program units to be regulated under the Transport Rule ozone - season NOX trading program. Some also questioned how states would otherwise satisfy NOX SIP Call requirements for these units. Some commenters argued that some units did in fact make emission reductions in the NOX Budget Trading Program, but did not provide information on specific units. The final rule provides states an option to expand the general applicability provisions of the Transport Rule ozone season NOX trading program to cover small EGUs, but not other units in the NOX SIP Call. Specifically, consistent with the comments, EPA determined that it is appropriate to allow states*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 490 of 1339 to expand the applicability of the Transport Rule Ozone - Season NOX trading program to include units serving a generator with a nameplate capacity equal to or greater than 15 MWe producing electricity for sale. This will allow states with NOX SIP Call obligat ions to meet those requirements with respect to these small EGUs. These units can be brought into the program through abbreviated or full Transport Rule SIPs. However, if a state chooses to expand the general applicability provisions, the state Transport Rule Ozone - Season NOX budget cannot be increased. EPA believes that the level of emissions from small EGUs is sufficiently small that the existing Transport Rule state budget can accommodate these units. This is consistent with the approach taken in the NOX Budget Trading Program, where the states that added these small EGUs did not increase their NOX SIP Call EGU budgets. This also removes concern (expressed in the proposed rule) that increasing state budgets in the Transport Rule ozone - season NOX trading program, as part of the expansion of the applicability provisions to include small EGUs, would jeopardize elimination of a state’s significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance. With regard to large non - EGUs that were in cluded in the NOX Budget Trading Program (the remainder of the sources in the NOX Budget Trading Program), the final Transport Rule, like the proposed rule, does not allow expansion of the general*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 491 of 1339 applicability provisions for the ozone - season NOX trading p rogram to include such units. As explained in the proposed rule (75 FR 43340), while some of these units may have installed controls around the start of the NOX Budget Trading Program, EPA analysis shows that, as a group, these units did not collectively reduce emissions, their current emission rates are nearly identical to their emission rates before the start of the NOX Budget Trading Program, and their allocations are about twice their emissions, with the result that the excess allocations were sold to covered EGUs. 109 Moreover, EPA believes that there are little or no emission reductions available by non - EGUs at the cost thresholds used in the final rule and so no basis for developing for non EGUs state budgets reflecting the elimination of significant c ontribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance. For these reasons, the final rule allows states to expand the ozone - season NOX trading program to cover small EGUs that were in the NOX Budget Trading Program, but not to cover large non - EGUs that were in that program. As explained in the proposed rule, if a state were to do so, emissions from these units jeopardize the state’s ability to show that significant contribution to
109 Although the proposed rule discussed the EPA analysis in the context of considering the treatment of both small EGUs and large non - EGUs from the NOX Budget Trading Program, the analysis actually addresses, and draws conclusions about emissi on reductions, emission rates, and allowance allocations concerning only large non - EGUs.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 492 of 1339 nonattainment or interference with maintenance has been eliminated. ( See 75 FR 45340.) For states that relied on large non - EGUs for emission reductions required by the NOX SIP Call, EPA will assist in identifying ways to ensure continued, future compliance with the NOX SIP Call requirements. c. Early Reduction Provision s Substantial emission reductions have occurred as a result of the CAIR programs. This has lead to substantial “banks” of allowances (i.e., holdings of unused allowances allocated for years before the programs sunset) in each of the CAIR programs. In the proposal, EPA requested comment on whether to allow banked CAIR allowances to be used in the Transport Rule trading programs. For the reasons explained below, EPA has decided not to allow banked CAIR allowances to be used in any of the Transport Rule trading programs. (1) SO 2 Allowance Bank The bank of Title IV allowances was more than 12 million tons at the end of 2009. This bank is the result of emission reductions under the Title IV Acid Rain Program. Under the CAIR SO 2 trading program, EPA allowed banked (as well as future year) Title IV allowances to be used in the CAIR SO 2 trading program -- in lieu of being used in the Acid Rain Program -- for compliance with the requirement to hold allowances covering emissions.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 493 of 1339 This approach encouraged early reductions for the CAIR SO 2 trading program, but was held to be unlawful in North Carolina . In the proposed rule, EPA took comment on whether sources should be allowed to use banked Title IV allowances in the Transport Rule SO 2 program. EPA proposed to not a llow the use of Title IV allowances either as the basis for allocating Transport Rule SO 2 allowances or directly for compliance with allowance holding requirements, in part, because EPA was concerned that those approaches would be perceived as inconsistent with the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) as interpreted by the Co u rt in North Carolina . See 75 FR 45338 - 39. A number of commenters advocated that EPA recognize Title IV allowance holdings in the Transport Rule, either by allowing full or limited carryover of the allowances or by allocating all or a portion of the Transport Rule SO 2 allowances based on Title IV allowance holdings. Other commenters agreed with EPA’s assessment that allowing Title IV allowance carryover in the Transport Rule is inconsist ent with North Carolina and that any linkage of Transport Rule allocations with Title IV allowance holdings would carry unnecessary, significant legal risk. Therefore, for the reasons explained above and in the proposal, EPA has decided not to permit sour ces to use Title IV allowances for compliance with the Transport Rule SO 2 trading programs.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 494 of 1339 In addition, unlike CAIR, in the Transport Rule, EPA decided not to base allocation of Transport Rule SO 2 allowances on the specific distribution of existing titl e IV allowances. Title IV allowances continue, of course, to be usable for compliance in the Acid Rain Program. 110 (2) NOX Allowance Banks In the proposed rule, EPA estimated that the CAIR ozone season NOX bank would contain over 600,000 allowances and the CAIR annual NOX bank would contain about 720,000 allowances after completion of true - up of allowance holdings and emissions for 2011. EPA considered the alternatives of allowing or not allowing pre - 2012 CAIR NOX allowances and CAIR ozone - season NOX allowances to be used in the Transport Rule NOX trading programs. EPA also described and requested comment on several possible approaches for handling banked pre - 2012 CAIR NOX allowances in the Transport Rule NOX trading programs and the pros and cons of each (7 5 FR 45339):
 Allow all such banked CAIR allowances to be brought into the Transport Rule NOX programs, make the assurance provisions effective starting in 2012, and rely on the assurance provisions to ensure that each state continues to

110 The Title IV allowance bank is expected to be about 14 million tons at the beginning of 2012.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 495 of 1339 eliminate all of its significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance;
 Allow only a limited amount of banked pre - 2012 CAIR allowances to be brought into the Transport Rule NOX programs;
 Factor the bank into the calculation of state NOX budgets by reducing the state NOX budgets to take account of the banked pre - 2012 CAIR allowances; and
 Do not allow the use of any banked pre - 2012 CAIR allowances in the Transport Rule NOX programs. EPA proposed the last of these approaches and requested comment on all of the described approaches or suggestions on other ways to handle banked pre - 2012 CAIR allowances in the Transport Rule NOX programs.
 Many commenters advocated allowing the carryover of CAIR NOX allowances to the Transport Rule. Reasons given include d: preservation of early reduction investments; need for market continuity; increased flexibilit y during program start up and early years of the programs; preservation of the credibility of, and certainty under, trading approaches; and the lack of a prohib ition in North Carolina of carryover of CAIR NOX allowances. Commenters also suggested that surrender ratios be used to limit the amount, and negative effects, of a carryover.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 496 of 1339  Many other commenters were against allowing CAIR NOX allowance carryover into t he Transport Rule. Reasons given included: unnecessary, significant legal risk; concerns about the efficacy of the Transport Rule if state budgets are supplemented by a carryover; and differences in the nature of the programs (the NOX Budget Trading Prog ram, which addressed the 1 - hour ozone NAAQS, and the CAIR ozone season NOX trading program, which addressed the 1997 8 - h ou r ozone NAAQS and was reversed in North Carolina ) under which the allowances were banked and the Transport Rule ozone season NOX tradi ng program, which addresses the 1997 8 - h ou r ozone NAAQS. For the reasons explained below, after evaluating all comments on this issue, EPA decided not to allow the use of CAIR NOX allowances in the Trading Rule NOX trading programs. EPA reevaluated the es timated size of the potential carryover (allowances that will remain unused in the CAIR programs at the end of 2011 compliance periods), taking into account 2010 emissions. EPA estimates that more than 440,000 CAIR ozone season NOX allowances will remain and that more than 460,000 CAIR annual NOX allowances will remain at the end of the 2011 compliance periods. EPA considered whether to allow these CAIR ozone season NOX and CAIR annual NOX allowances to be used in the Transport Rule NOX trading programs. The CAIR ozone season NOX*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 497 of 1339 allowances expected to remain unused represent nearly three quarters of aggregate state ozone season NOX budgets 111 in a single year under the final Transport Rule. The allowances expected to remain unused in the annual NOX program represent more than one - third of aggregate state annual NOX budgets in a single year under the Transport Rule. As discussed in the proposal, if these allowances were carried over in addition to the Transport Rule state budgets, EPA could not be assured that significant contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance would be eliminated. EPA therefore rejects any approach under which all banked CAIR NOX allowances would be added to the Transport Rule trading programs on top of each state’s annual NOX and/or ozone
- season budgets. In response to public comments, EPA considered whether the Transport Rule trading programs should allow some form of exchange of banked CAIR annual NOX and ozone - season allowances for new Transport Rule NOX allowan ces within each state’s annual NOX and/or ozone
- season budgets, respectively. However, EPA believes that this type of approach carries substantial legal and technical problems. First, the state -by - state distribution

111 This analysis is for all states identified to be contributing significantly to nonattainment or interfering with maintenance. When the analysis is conducted using the aggregate state budgets for only those states for which we are finalizing ozone season requirements in this rule, the percentage increases.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 498 of 1339 of CAIR NOX allowances resulted from t he methodology applied by EPA in CAIR of using fuel factors to set the total amounts of allowance allocations in each state (i.e., the state NOX budgets). The CAIR NOX allowance banks therefore are -- at least in part -- the results of this methodology , which was reversed in North Carolina . See North Carolina, 531 F.3d at 918 - 22. Thus, EPA did not use fuel factors in developing the Transport Rule state budgets. However, EPA is concerned that the distribution of some or all Transport Rule NOX allowances through exchanges of banked CAIR NOX allowances for Transport Rule NOX allowances would blur the bright line between the methodology used for setting budgets in the Transport Rule and the methodology used for setting budgets in CAIR which was rejected by the Court. At least to some extent, the parties that were advantaged under EPA’s budget - setting methodology in CAIR would continue to have an advantage under the Transport Rule by receiving more Transport Rule NOX allowances. EPA therefore believes that allowing exchange of banked CAIR NOX allowances for Transport Rule NOX allowances carries significant legal risk. Second, establishing a procedure for exchanging banked CAIR NOX allowances for Transport Rule NOX allowances within each state’s budget would mean that Transport Rule NOX allowances could not be allocated until after completion of the process for determining compliance with allowance - holding requirements for*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 499 of 1339 the 2011 in the CAIR NOX trading programs. This process cannot begin until after the al lowance transfer deadline for the 2011 control periods (i.e., March 1, 2012 for the CAIR annual NOX program and November 1, 2011 for the CAIR ozone - season NOX program) and will not likely be completed until mid- 2012. At that time, EPA could begin the proce dure of implementing, state by - state, the exchanges of the remaining CAIR NOX allowance banks held by parties (owners and operators, brokers, and other entities) for some or all of the allowances in the state NOX budgets for 2012. The portion of each stat e budget that would be used up by such exchanges would likely vary from state to state. The resulting delay, and uncertainty about the unit -by unit amounts, of Transport Rule NOX allowance allocations for 2012 would undermine Transport Rule allowance market liquidity, significantly disrupt planning by owners and operators for compliance with allowance - holding requirements for the 2012 control periods, and likely impose increased compliance costs under the Transport Rule NOX trading programs or impact the ability to comply with the 2012 limits . In light of the specific circumstances in this case and the above - described legal and technical problems that would result from a carryover of CAIR NOX allowances into the Transport Rule trading programs, the final rule does not allow any such carryover. EPA acknowledges that, as a general principle, it is*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 500 of 1339 desirable to provide continuity between sequential regulatory programs involving emissions trading and thereby to ensure that allowances in the past program continue to have some value in the new program. However, after CAIR was remanded by the Court in North Carolina , 550 F.3d 1176, in December 2008, EPA was concerned about the future status of CAIR NOX allowances and consequently advised the public -- through a s tatement posted on the EPA website on April 14, 2009 -- that “EPA's continued recording of CAIR NOX allowances does not guarantee or imply that any allowances will continue to be usable for compliance after a replacement rule is finalized or that they will continue to have value in the future.” 112 Balancing the general desirability of providing program continuity against the potential negative consequences of a carryover in, and the specific circumstances of, this case, EPA concludes that the carryover of ba nked CAIR NOX allowances into the Transport Rule trading programs should not be allowed. EPA believes its decision to disallow carryover of banked allowances here reflects the specific factors in this case and should not be treated as setting any preceden t for the

112 http :// epa . gov / airmarkets / business / cairallowancestatus . html . EPA posed similar statements in the on - line systems for trading CAIR NOX allowances. See 40 CFR 96.102 and 96.302 (definitions of “CAIR NOX Allowance Tracking System” and “CAIR NOX Ozone Season Allowance Tracking System”) .*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 501 of 1339 treatment, in any future trading programs, of any past trading program’s banked allowances. B. Interactions with NOX SIP Call The proposed rule explained that states covered by both the NOX SIP Call and the Transport Rule would be required to comply with the requirements of both rules and that the Transport Rule would not preempt or replace the requirements of the NOX SIP Call. Most, but not all, NOX SIP Call states would be included in the Transport Rule. The proposed rule further explained th at the Transport Rule ozone - season NOX trading pro gram would achieve the emission reductions required by the NOX SIP Call from EGUs serving generators with a nameplate greater than 25 MW and producing electricity for sale in most NOX SIP Call states. (Thi s would not be the case, of course, for those NOX SIP Call states not covered by the Transport Rule.) The NOX SIP Call states used the NOX Budget Trading Program to comply with the NOX SIP Call requirements for EGUs serving a generator with a nameplate cap acity greater than 25 MW and large non - EGUs with a maximum rated heat input capacity greater than 250 MMBtu /h ou r. (In some states, EGUs serving a generator with a nameplate capacity of 25 MW or less were also included in the NOX Budget Trading Program as a carryover from the Ozone Transport Commission NOX Budget Trading Program.) EPA stopped*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 502 of 1339 administering the NOX Budget Trading Program under the NOX SIP Call after the completion of compliance activities related to the 2008 ozone - season control period, and states used other mechanisms to comply with the NOX SIP Call requirements. The proposal further explained that, if EPA promulgated a final rule that did not allow the expansion of the Transport Rule to NOX Budget Trading Program units, any state that allowed these units to participate in the CAIR Ozone - Season NOX trading program would need to submit a SIP revision to address the state’s NOX SIP Call requirement for the reductions. The proposal also explained that states in the CAIR ozone - season NOX tradin g program or the NOX Budget Trading Program that would not be in the Transport Rule ozone - season NOX trading program would need to submit SIP revisions addressing the NOX SIP Call requirements for any emission reductions (by EGUs and non - EGUs) addressed in the NOX Budget Trading Program and not addressed in some other way. ( See 75 FR 45340 - 41.) As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, the final Transport Rule allows states to expand the general applicability provisions of the Transport Rule ozone - season NOX trading program to include small EGUs, which were included by some states in the NOX Budget Trading Program, but not for large non - EGUs, which were included in the NOX Budget Trading Program. This will allow states with NOX SIP Call obligations to meet those requirements*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 503 of 1339 with respect to small EGUs brought into the Transport Rule trading program, but not with regard to large non - EGUs. With the issuance of the final Transport Rule, NOX SIP Call requirements remain in place. See 40 CFR 51.121. EPA is n ot changing any of the NOX SIP Call requirements. The NOX SIP Call generally requires that states choosing to rely on large EGUs and large non - EGUs for meeting NOX SIP Call emission reduction requirements must establish a NOX mass emissions cap on each so urce and require Part 75, subpart H monitoring. As an alternative to source -by - source NOX mass emissions caps, a state may impose NOX emission rate limits on each source and use maximum operating capacity for estimating NOX mass emissions or may rely on o ther requirements that the state demonstrates to be equivalent to either the NOX mass emissions caps or the NOX emission rate limits that assume maximum capacity. Collectively, the caps or their alternatives cannot exceed the portion of the state budget f or those sources. ( See 40 CFR 51.121(f)(2) and (i)(4).) EPA will work with states to ensure that NOX SIP Call obligations continue to be met (e.g., through intrastate cap and trade programs that require the level of reductions on which the state has recen tly relied). C. Interactions with Title IV Acid Rain Program*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 504 of 1339 The final rule does not affect any Acid Rain Program requirements. Acid Rain requirements are established independently in Title IV of the CAA and are not replaced by the Transport Rule. Title IV sources that are subject to final Transport Rule provisions still need to continue to comply with all Acid Rain provisions. Title IV SO 2 and NOX requirements continue to apply independently of the Transport Rule provisions. For the reasons explained above, Title IV SO 2 allowances are not allowed to be used in the Transport Rule trading programs. Similarly, Transport Rule SO 2 allowances are not usable in the Acid Rain Program. The final Transport Rule does not include any opt - in unit provisions in the FIPs and does not allow SIP revisions to include opt - in unit provisions in the Transport Rule trading programs. Consequently, no sources, including those that have opted in to the Acid Rain Program, can opt - in to the Transport Rule trading programs. There will likely be changes to emissions at some Acid Rain unit s outside of the Transport Rule area as a result of the transition from CAIR to the Transport Rule. Namely, emissions at some non - Transport Rule Acid Rain units in the states that border the Trans port Rule states may increase because of potential load- shifting from units in Transport Rule states and because of a potential decrease in the Title IV allowance price.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 505 of 1339 There is a discussion of possible emissions increases in non covered states in sectio n VI.C of this preamble. D. Other State Implementation Plan Requirements In this final action, EPA has not conducted any technical analysis to determine whether compliance with the Transport Rule would satisfy RACT requirements for EGUs in any nonattainme nt areas, nor Regional Haze BART - related requirements. For that reason, we are neither making determinations nor establishing any presumptions that compliance with the Transport Rule satisfies any RACT or BART - related requirements for EGUs. Based on anal yses that states conduct on a case -by - case basis, states may be able to conclude that compliance with the Transport Rule for certain EGUs fulfills nonattainment area RACT requirements. EPA intends to undertake a separate analysis to determine if complianc e with the Transport Rule would provide sufficient reductions to satisfy BART requirements for EGUs in accordance with Regional Haze Rule requirements for alternative BART compliance options as soon as practicable following promulgation of the Transport Ru le. X. Transport Rule State Implementation Plans EPA explained in proposal (75 FR 45342) that for each upwind state covered by the proposed Transport Rule, EPA*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 506 of 1339 proposed state - specific emission reductions requirements with respect to one or more of three ai r quality standards

– - the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 24 - hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 1997 ozone NAAQS. In CAIR, EPA allowed the states to replace the CAIR FIP with SIPs and provided substantial flexibility and proposed to allow similar flexibility to states for addressing the s ection 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) transport issues through a SIP. EPA proposed to allow a state to submit a SIP for the ozone requirements only, for the PM2.5 requirements only, or for both the ozone and the PM2.5 requirements with the specific quantity of emission reductions necessary for a state’s SIP determined based on the state emission budgets provided in the final T ransport Rule. EPA received comments suggesting that if the proposal’s remedy is finalized, EPA should allow states to replace the FIP allowance allocation provisions in the proposed Transport Rule trading programs by state - developed allocation provisions. Commenters referenced the two alternatives provided to states 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*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 507 of 1339 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. Comments on the Tra nsport Rule proposal supported these two types of approaches for allowing states to replace EPA alloca tions under the proposed Transport Rule trading programs by state allocations. EPA requested additional comment on this topic in the NODA published January 7, 2011 (76 FR 1109). Two approaches with associated deadlines were explained in the NODA. 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 control periods in years after 2012, applicable to one or more of the proposed Transport Rule FIP trading programs that apply to the state. The NODA gave the specific provisions in the FIP that could be replaced. 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*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 508 of 1339 trading program, then EPA would approve the abb reviated 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. The NODA went on to describe the requirements for EPA approval of an abbreviated SIP (76 FR 1119) including that the total amount of allowances allocated each year could not exceed the applicable budget, allocations would need to be reported to EPA by the permitting authority (usually the state) by particular dates prior to the applicable control period depending on whether allowances were going to existing or new sources, and that no other provisions of the FIP are changed. 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 corr ecting 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. Upon*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 509 of 1339 EPA approval of a state’s full SIP, the state’s SIP -based trading program would be integrated with the comparable FIP based Transport Rule 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 SIP -based st ate trading program would be interchangeable with the allowances issued in the comparable FIP -based Transport Rule trading program. The NODA went on to describe the limited changes that states could make under the full SIP option. Only allocation provisio ns could be modified with the same requirements as for abbreviated SIPs including that the total amount of allowances allocated each year could not exceed the applicable budget and that allocations would need to be reported to EPA by the permitting authori ty (usually the state) by particular dates prior to the applicable control period depending on whether allowances were going to existing or new sources. The NODA also discussed the option for states to submit SIPs using emission 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 which EPA would review on a case -by - case basis (76 FR 1120).*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 510 of 1339 Suggested deadlines for abbreviated and full SIPs were given in tables in the NODA (76 FR 1120) and generally required states to submit SIPs about 2 years ahead of a particular control period for which state allocations would apply to give EPA time to review and approve the SIP and record allowances. There were also c omments that supported EPA’s proposed approach. Most commenters advocated for state allocation options within the preferred FIP remedy. NODA comments largely supported state allocation options which replace FIP allocations with SIP -based state allocation s. In the final rule, EPA adopts, with some revisions, both of the approaches described in the January 7, 2011 NODA. Under the first approach, a state may submit an abbreviated SIP that modifies a final Transport Rule FIP trading program in only a limited way: i.e., by replacing the allowance allocation provisions (in §§97.411(a) and (b) and 97.412(a) (for the annual NOX trading program), §§97.511(a) and (b) and 97.512(a) (for the ozone - season NOX trading program), §§97.511(a) and (b) and 97.612(a) (for the SO 2 Group 1 trading program), and §§97.511(a) and (b) and 97.612(a) (for the SO 2 Group 2 trading program). In the state’s replacement provisions, the state may allocate allowances to Transport Rule units (whether existing or new*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 511 of 1339 units) 113 or other entitie s (such as renewable energy facilities) or may auction allowances. Additionally, state SIPs can address one or all of the pollutants addressed by the FIPs. For PM2.5 , EPA is finalizing the flexibility for a state SIP to address either SO 2 or NOX , or both . Further, if a state is required to make ozone - season and annual NOX reductions, the SIP could address either ozone - season or annual NOX emissions, or both. In other words, states can replace all FIPs that apply or some subset of the FIPs that apply to a particular state leaving in place the FIPs for the requirements not addressed by a SIP. Further, only if the state replacement for the Transport Rule FIP allocation provisions meet certain requirements and the abbreviated SIP does not change any other pr ovisions in the Transport Rule FIP trading program, EPA will approve the abbreviated SIP. For EPA approval, the state allocation provisions must meet the following requirements. First, the provisions must provide that, for each year for which the state al location provisions will apply, the total amount of control period (annual or ozone - season) allowances allocated and, where applicable, auctioned in accordance with these provisions cannot exceed the applicable state budget (less any applicable Indian coun try new unit set - aside, which will continue to be

113 EPA is not finalizing opt - in provisions, so the reference to federal - only allocations given in the NODA has been removed.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 512 of 1339 administered by EPA) for that year under the relevant Transport Rule FIP trading program. Second, to the extent the state provisions provide for allocations for, or auctions open to, existing units, the pr ovisions must require that the permitting authority under title V of the CAA for the state submit to the Administrator final allocations and, if any auction is to be held, final auction results in accordance with a schedule of deadlines discussed below. T o the extent the provisions provide for allocations for or auctions open to new units or any other entities, the provisions must require that the permitting authority submit to the Administrator final allocations and, if applicable, auction results by July 1 of the year of the control period for which the allowances will be distributed. The allocation and auction results must be final and cannot be subject to modification (e.g., through an allowance surrender adjusting the allocation or auction results). As noted above, the state’s submission to the Administrator of allocations or auction results with regard to existing units must meet a specified schedule of deadlines. These submission deadlines reflect, and are necessarily coordinated with, the deadlines for recordation by the Administrator of allowance allocations and any auction results under the Transport Rule trading programs. The recordation deadlines, which are*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 513 of 1339 discussed in detail in section XI of this preamble, provide that the Administrator must record existing - unit allowance allocations and auction results by: July 1, 2013 for the applicable control periods in 2014 and 2015; July 1, 2014 for the applicable control periods in 2016 and 2017; July 1, 2015 for the applicable control periods in 2018 a nd 2019; and July 1, 2016 and July 1 of each year thereafter for the control period in the fourth year after the year of the applicable recordation deadline. In order to provide the Administrator 1 month to review the submissions of allocations and auctio n results to ensure that the submissions include sufficient information (e.g., the correct identification for each unit involved) to record correctly the submitted allocations and auction results, the permitting authority must make these submissions to the Administrator by: June 1, 2013 for the applicable control periods in 2014 and 2015; June 1, 2014 for the applicable control periods in 2016 and 2017; June 1, 2015 for the applicable control periods in 2018 and 2019; and June 1, 2016 and June 1 of each yea r thereafter for the applicable control period in the fourth year after the year of the applicable submission deadline. Third, to the extent the state provisions establish an allowance auction, the provisions must require the following treatment of each allowance purchased by a covered unit in the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 514 of 1339 state in such an auction. Solely for purposes of defining and determining “common designated representative’s share” for implementation of the assurance provisions, each such allowance must be treated as an al lowance allocated to that unit. Under the second approach, a state may submit a full SIP adopting a Transport Rule trading program that differs from the comparable Transport Rule FIP trading program in only a limited way: i.e., by including new allocation or auction provisions instead of the Transport Rule FIP allowance allocation provisions other than those concerning the Indian country new unit set - aside. (The state’s full SIP trading program must include provisions that are the same as those in the Tran sport Rule FIP trading program for the Indian country new unit set aside.) In the state allocation or auction provisions, the state may allocate allowances to Transport Rule units (whether existing or new units) or other entities (such as renewable energy facilities) or may auction allowances. EPA will approve the full SIP only if the state allocation or auction provisions meet certain requirements and all other provisions in the Transport Rule trading program in the full SIP are the same as those in the Transport Rule FIP trading program. For EPA approval, the state allocation provisions must meet the same requirements, as discussed above, that state allocation or auction provisions in an abbreviated SIP must meet.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 515 of 1339 A Transport Rule trading program adopted by a state in a full SIP, and approved by EPA, under the second approach will be fully integrated with the comparable Transport Rule FIP trading program (i.e., the proposed TR Annual NOX , TR NOX Ozone - Season, TR SO 2 Group 1, or TR SO 2 Group 2 Trading Program respectively) for other states. This will apply whether the comparable 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 such an abbreviated SIP. The integ ration of these three types of trading programs will be accomplished primarily through the definitions of the terms, ‘‘TR Annual NOX allowance’’, ‘‘TR Ozone - Season NOX allowance”;, ‘‘TR SO 2 Group 1 allowance’’, and ‘‘TR SO 2 Group 2 allowance’’ in the full SIPs approved by EPA and the TR FIP trading programs (whether or not the programs were modified by abbreviated SIPs). ‘‘TR Annual NOX allowance’’ will be defined in the state and Transport Rule FIP trading programs as including allowances issued under any of the following trading programs: the comparable EPA- approved state Transport Rule trading programs; the comparable Transport Rule FIP trading program with EPA- approved state allocation and auction provisions; and the Transport Rule FIP trading program wi th EPA allocation provisions. Similarly, the definitions in the state and Transport Rule FIP trading programs of ‘‘TR Ozone Season NOX allowance’’, ‘‘TR SO 2 Group 1 allowance’’, and ‘‘TR*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 516 of 1339 SO 2 Group 2 allowance’’ respectively will include allowances issued under all three types of trading programs. As a result, allowances issued in one approved state Transport Rule trading program will 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 will be available for use 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 stat e and the proposed Transport Rule FIP trading programs will also be reflected in the definitions of ‘‘TR Annual NOX Trading Program,’’ ‘‘TR Ozone - Season NOX Trading Program’’, ‘‘TR SO 2 Group 1 Trading Program’’, and ‘‘TR SO 2 Group 2 Trading Program’’. Each of these definitions in the state Transport Rule and Transport Rule FIP trading programs will expressly encompass the comparable Transport Rule FIP trading programs (whether or not modified by an abbreviated SIP) and the comparable EPA- approved state ful l SIP trading program. The final rule also sets deadlines for the submission of complete abbreviated and full SIPs. These deadlines are based on the first year for which the state wants to allocate or auction allowances, reflect the above - discussed deadli nes for the Administrator’s recordation of allocations and auction results, and build in a 6 -month period for EPA review, provision*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 517 of 1339 of notice and opportunity for public comment, and approval of the SIP revisions. This 6 -month period is built into the fina l rule’s SIP submission deadlines because that is the period EPA found was needed for reviewing, providing notice and comment for, and approving state trading program provisions in abbreviated and full SIPs under CAIR. As a result, the final rule requires that complete abbreviated and full SIPs must be submitted to the Administrator by: January 1, 2013 in order to govern allowance allocation and auction for control periods in 2014 and 2015; January 1, 2014 in order to govern control periods in 2016 and 201 7; January 1, 2015 in order to govern allowance allocation and auction for control periods in 2018 and 2019; and January 1, 2016 and by January 1 of any year thereafter in order to govern allowance allocation and auction for control periods in the fourth year after such submission deadline. This final rule not only allows a state to choose to submit an abbreviated or a full SIP; it also allows a state to choose to submit either form of SIP to replace any or all of the FIPs in this rule as they apply to a pa rticular state. By promulgating these Transport Rule FIPs, EPA in no way affects the right of a state 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 st ate, the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 518 of 1339 state’s SIP must provide adequate provisions to prohibit NOX and SO 2 emissions that contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in another state or states. The Transport Rule FIPs remain in place in each covered state until a state’s SIP was submitted and approved by EPA to replace a FIP. In response to numerous comments urging EPA to allow states to determine allowance allocations as soon as possible, EPA has developed a SIP revision procedure that applies to 2013 allowance allocations only. In developing this procedure, EPA is balancing the desire to allow states the flexibility to tailor allowance allocations to the specific needs and situations in a particular state with the need to provide certainty to source owner s and operators by having allowances recorded sufficiently ahead of the control period for which the allocations are made in order to facilitate owners’ and operators’ efforts to optimize their compliance strateg ies . This final rule allows states to make 2013 allowance allocations through the use of a SIP revision that is narrower in scope than the other SIP revisions states can use to replace the FIPs and/or to make allocation decisions for 2014 and beyond. For 2013 allocation s , the scope of the SIP revi sion is limited to allocation s made to units that commence commercial operation before January 1, 2010 and provided in the form of a list of*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 519 of 1339 those units and their corresponding allocation s for 2013. Additionally, this particular SIP revision may allocate only the portion s of the state budgets set forth in Tables X - 1 through X 3, i.e., each state budget minus the new unit set - aside and the Indian country new unit set - aside. In developing this procedure, EPA set deadlines for submissions of the SIP revisions for 2013 allocations and for recordation of the allocations that balanced the need to record allowances sufficiently ahead of the control period with the desire to allow state flexibility for 2013. EPA set deadlines that will allow sufficient time for EPA to review and approve these SIP revisions, taking into account that EPA approval must be final and effective before the 2013 allocations can be recorded and the allowances are available for trading. In order to ensure that EPA review and approval (which must include public notice and opportunity for comment) can be completed in time, the final rule necessarily limits the allowed scope of the SIP revisions for 2013 allocations, as set forth in the requirements discussed below, and thereby limits the issue s that must be considered and addressed in the review and approval process. Further, the final rule prescribes the form in which the state allocations for 2013 must be provided to EPA in order to facilitate rapid recordation of the allocations upon their approval.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 520 of 1339 States, along with their sources, will need to weigh the trade offs of a relatively short period of recording before the control period for which the allocation is made (about 6 months) with the desire to have state allocations in 2013 , when deci ding whether to pursue a SIP revision for 2013 allocation s . States may choose to submit a SIP revision for one or more of the trading programs. In other words, state allocations for 2013 could apply in one trading program while 2013 FIP allocations apply in another. States can make 2013 allowance allocations provided the state meets certain requirements.
 By [INSERT DATE 70 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER ] , a state must provide notification to EPA if the state intends to submit s tate allocations for 2013. The notification must be in a format prescribed by the Administrator and submitted electronically.
 By April 1, 2012, the state must submit a SIP revision to EPA that: o Allocates to existing units 114 only , provides a list of the uni ts and their state allocations to EPA electronically and in a format prescribed by EPA , and does not provide for any change in the units and

114 Existing unit means a unit that commences commercial operation before January 1, 2010.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 521 of 1339 allocations on the list and in any allocation previously determined and recorded by the Administrator ; o Allocates a total amount of allowances for 2013 that does not exceed the applicable amount in Tables X - 1 through X - 3 for each trading program that applies in that particular state, o Provides no set - asides and does not alter the new unit set - asides, the Indian country new unit set - asides, and any aspect of the FIP rules other than the existing - unit allocations for 2013. If EPA does not receive notification from a state by [INSERT DATE 70 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] , EPA will record FIP a llocations for 2012 and 2013 as scheduled (90 days after publication of the rule). If EPA receives timely notification from a state, EPA will record FIP allocations for 2012 only and wait to record 2013 allocations. If the state provides a timely (not la ter than April 1, 2012) SIP revision meeting all the above - described requirements and EPA approves the SIP revision, EPA will record state - determined allocations for 2013 by October 1, 2012. Otherwise, EPA will record the EPA- determined allocations for 20 13.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 522 of 1339 Table X- 1 Portion of the Annual NOX Trading Budget available for State Allocation in 2013 State Portion of the NOX Annual

Trading Budget available for state allocation in 2013 Alabama 71,237 Georgia 60,770 Illinois 44,042 Indiana 106,434 Iowa 37,5 69 Kansas 30,099 Kentucky 81,683 Maryland 16,300 Michigan 58,989 Minnesota 28,980 Missouri 50,803 Nebraska 24,590 New Jersey 7,121 New York 17,016 North Carolina 47,551 Ohio 90,849 Pennsylvania 117,586 South Carolina 31,849 Tennessee 34,989 Texas 129,587 Virginia 31,580 West Virginia 56,498 Wisconsin 29,730 Table X- 2 Portion of the Ozone - Season NOX Trading Budget

available for State Allocation in 2013 State Portion of the Ozone Season NOX

Trading Budget available for state allocation in 2013 Alabama 31,111 Arkansas 14,736 Florida 27,268 Georgia 27,385 Illinois 19,511*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 523 of 1339 Indiana 45,470 Kentucky 34,720 Louisiana 13,029 Maryland 7,035 Mississippi 9,957 New Jersey 3,314 New York 8,081 North Carolina 20,838 Ohio 39,262 Pennsylvania 51,157 South Carolina 13,631 Tennessee 14,610 Texas 61,152 Virginia 13,729 West Virginia 24,019 Table X- 3 Portion of the SO2 Trading Budget available for State Allocation in 2013 State Portion of the SO2 Trading Budget available for state

allocatio n in 2013 Alabama 211,712 Georgia 155,356 Illinois 223,145 Indiana 276,861 Iowa 104,943 Kansas 40,697 Kentucky 177,975 Maryland 29,518 Michigan 190,646 Minnesota 41,141 Missouri 203,317 Nebraska 62,450 New Jersey 5,463 New York 20,088 North Carolina 125,930 Ohio 304,025 Pennsylvania 273,078 South Carolina 86,847*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 524 of 1339 Tennessee 145,187 Texas 231,756 Virginia 67,987 West Virginia 135,942 Wisconsin 75,506 EPA will work with states that wish to submit SIPs to ensure a smooth integration. T he Agency will provide information and tools to assist states in their rulemaking efforts including electronic versions of the Transport Rule trading rules and other products states feel may be helpful. States that submit approvable SIPs or abbreviated SI Ps to implement one or all of the Transport Rule trading programs are not required to include an additional technical demonstration relating to elimination of emissions that contribute significantly to nonattainment or contribute to maintenance in downwind areas. XI. Structure and Key Elements of Transport Rule Trading Program Rules for Limited Interstate Trading In order to make the final FIP trading program rules as simple and consistent as possible, EPA designed them so that the final rules (like the pr oposed rules) for each of the trading programs (i.e., the Transport Rule Annual NOX trading program, Transport Rule Ozone - Season NOX trading program, Transport Rule SO 2 Group 1 trading program, and Transport Rule SO 2 Group 2*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 525 of 1339 trading program) are parallel i n structure and contain the same basic elements. For example, the rules for the Transport Rule Annual NOX , Ozone - Season NOX , SO 2 Group 1, and SO 2 Group 2 trading programs are located, respectively, in subparts AAAAA (§§97.401, et seq. ), BBBBB (§§97.501, e t seq. ), CCCCC (§§97.601, et seq. ), and DDDDD (§§97.701, et seq. ) of Part 97 in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Moreover, the order of the specific provisions for each trading program is the same, and the provisions have parallel numbering. The key elements of the final Transport Rule trading program rules are as follows. (1) General Provisions (i) §§97.402 and 97.403, 97.502 and 97.503, 97.602 and 97.603, and 97.702 and 97.703 -- Definitions and Abbreviations Most of the definitions in the f inal Transport Rule trading program rules are essentially the same as in the proposed rules and for each of the Transport Rule trading programs (except where necessary to reflect the different pollutants ( NOX and SO 2 ), control periods (for annual and ozone - season NOX , and for annual SO 2 ), and geographic coverage involved in the trading programs). Moreover, many of the definitions in the final rules that are essentially the same as in the proposed rule and are also essentially the same as in prior EPA- admin istered trading programs. However, as discussed in more detail below, some of*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 526 of 1339 the definitions in the final rules clarify, or differ from, the definitions in the proposed rule. As noted, several definitions in the final rules are essentially the same as t hose both in the proposed rules and in prior EPA- administered trading programs. Examples include the definitions of “source,” “allowance transfer deadline,” “owner,” “operator”, “Allowance Management System” (used instead of the term “Allowance Tracking S ystem”), and “continuous emission monitoring system.” One example of a definition in the final rules that is the same as in the proposed rule, but that clarifies the definition used in prior trading programs is the definition of “fossil fuel.” In the fin al rule, the term “fossil fuel” is defined in general as including natural gas, petroleum, coal, or any form of fuel derived from such material, regardless of the purpose for which such material is derived. For example, with regard to consumer products th at are made of materials derived from natural gas, petroleum, or coal, are used by consumers and then used as fuel, these materials in the consumer products qualify as fossil fuel. The definition in the final rules also includes language establishing a na rrower meaning of “fossil fuel” that is not generally applicable, but rather is applicable only for purposes of applying the limitation on fossil - fuel use under the solid waste incineration unit exemption (which is discussed*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 527 of 1339 elsewhere in this preamble). T his latter portion of the “fossil fuel” definition makes explicit an interpretation that EPA adopted in CAIR that -- solely for purposes of applying the fossil - fuel use limitation in that exemption -- the term “fossil fuel” is limited to natural gas, petro leum, coal, or any form of fuel derived from such material “for the purpose of creating useful heat.” For example, applying this narrower meaning, consumer products made from natural gas, petroleum, or coal are not fossil fuel, for purposes of determining qualification under the fossil - fuel use limitation, because the products (e.g., tires) were derived from natural gas, petroleum, or coal in order to meet certain consumer needs (e.g., to meet transportation needs), not in order to create fuel (i.e., mater ial that would be combusted to produce useful heat). As noted above, some of definitions in the final rules clarify definitions in the proposed rules. The definitions of “allowable NOX emission rate” and “allowable SO 2 emission rate” are clarified by exp laining that such a rate is the most stringent state or federal emission rate limitation, expressed in lb/MWhr or, if originally expressed in lb/MMBtu, converted to lb/MWhr by multiplying it by the unit’s heat rate in MMBtu/MWhr. This clarification ensure s consistency from unit to unit in determining a unit’s allowable rate.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 528 of 1339 By further example, while the proposed rules used the same definition of “commence commercial operation” as in prior EPAadministered trading programs, the final rules clarify the defi nition. Under the definition in the proposed rules, a unit that is physically changed is treated as the same unit. However, the proposed rules were unclear about the treatment of a unit that is replaced and whether moving a unit to a different location o r source constitutes a physical change. The definition of “commence commercial operation” in the final rules clarifies that a unit that is physically changed (which includes a unit that is replaced) continues to be treated, for purposes of this final rule , as the same unit with the same commence commercial - operation date. The definition also clarifies that moving a unit to a different location or source is treated the same as a physical change, and so the unit continues to be treated as the same unit. The definition also continues to state that a unit (the replacement unit) that replaces a unit at the same source is treated as a separate unit with a new commence - commercial - operation date. (The definition of “commence operation” is removed in the final ru les because they do not use this term.) By further example, while the proposed rules used the same definition of “unit” as in prior EPA- administered trading programs, the final rules clarify the definition. The “unit”*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 529 of 1339 definition is clarified by expanding it to incorporate explicitly the concepts

– - set forth in the definition in the final rules of “commence commercial operation” and thus already applicable to all units -- that a unit that is physically changed, moved to a different location or source, or replaced continues to be treated as the same unit and that a replacement unit at the same source is treated as a separate unit. EPA believes that it is preferable to provide a comprehensive definition of “unit” in one place because the term is used so fre quently in the final rules. By further example, the definition of “nameplate capacity” is clarified in the final rules by explaining that it is expressed in MWe rounded to the nearest tenth. This is the same rounding convention that is used in the report ing of nameplate capacity to the Energy Information Administration. By further example, the final rules clarify the definition of “State” by explaining that, by covering each state that is subject to the Transport Rule trading program involved, the term in cludes Indian country located within the borders of the state. This ensures that units outside of Indian country and within Indian country will be treated the same, except in the case of the final rule provisions (discussed elsewhere in this preamble) con cerning the new unit set - aside for Indian country, which is expressly limited to Indian country new units.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 530 of 1339 As noted above, some of the definitions in the final rules are similar to those in the proposed rules but have some substantive differences. For ex ample, in the proposed rules, the definitions of “cogeneration unit” and “fossil - fuel - fired” are similar to those in prior trading programs but with changes to minimize the need for data concerning individual units or combustion devices for periods before 1990. In order to qualify as fossil - fuel - fired, a unit would have to combust any amount of fossil fuel in 1990 or thereafter. In order to qualify as a cogeneration unit, a unit would have to meet certain efficiency and operating standards during the late r of: the 12
–month period starting when the unit begins producing electricity; or 1990. For a topping - cycle unit, useful power plus one - half of useful thermal energy output of the unit must equal no less than a certain percentage of the total energy input and useful thermal energy must be no less than a certain percentage of total energy output, and, for a bottoming - cycle unit, useful power must be no less than a certain percentage of total energy input. EPA proposed to limit to 1990 or later the historic al period for which information on fuel consumption and on cogeneration unit efficiency and operations would be required to apply the “fossil - fuel - fired” and “cogeneration unit” definitions. This limitation was proposed because EPA was concerned that some owners and operators could have difficulty obtaining pre - 1990*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 531 of 1339 information about older units, particularly for units whose ownership has changed over time. While EPA proposed to use 1990 as the earliest year for which information would be required under t hese definitions, EPA requested comment on whether a more recent year should be used. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, the final rule uses 2005 (about 5 years before this rule’s promulgation), rather than 1990, as the reference year. Consequently , the “fossil fuel - fired” and “cogeneration unit” definitions in the final rule specifically reference 2005, rather than 1990. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, consistent with the use of 2005 as the starting point for applying these definitions, t he final rule also uses January 1, 2005 (rather than November 15, 1990) as the reference date in the applicability provisions. With this change in the reference date for the requirement to meet the operating and efficiency standards under the “cogeneratio n unit” definition, a unit would have to meet these standards every year starting the later of 2005 or the 12

–month period starting when the unit begins producing electricity. EPA requested comment on whether these standards should be applied to a calenda r year when the unit involved did not combust any fuel, i.e., did not operate at all. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, the final rules expressly provide that the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 532 of 1339 operating and efficiency standards do not have to be met for a calendar year througho ut which a unit did not operate at all. In addition, under the proposed rules, if a group of cogeneration units operating as an integrated cogeneration system met the efficiency standards, a topping - cycle unit in that system would be deemed to meet those standards. EPA requested comment on whether this provision should also apply to a bottoming - cycle unit. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, this provision in the final rules is not limited to topping - cycle units. By further example of definitions in the final rules that have substantive differences from the definitions in the proposed rules, the proposed definitions of “TR Annual NOX allowance,” “TR Ozone - Season NOX allowance,” “TR SO 2 Group 1 allowance,” “TR SO 2 Group 1 allowance,” “TR Annual NOX Tr ading Program,” “TR Ozone - Season NOX Trading Program,” “TR SO 2 Group 1 Trading Program,” and “TR SO 2 Group 1 Trading Program” are changed in the final rules. Language is added to the definitions in order to reference comparable allowances and trading prog rams established through SIP revisions submitted by states and approved by the Administrator. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, the final Transport Rule provides that, if a state submits SIP revisions meeting certain specified requirements, the sta te (rather than the Administrator) will*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 533 of 1339 allocate allowances, and the covered sources in the state will participate - – along with covered sources in states remaining subject to the Transport Rule FIPs -- in an integrated, region wide program with limited in terstate trading under which both any allowance allocated by the Administrator and any allowance allocated by the state will each authorize one ton of emissions of the relevant pollutant and will be usable by any source for compliance with the requirement to hold allowances covering emissions. As noted above, the final rules include some definitions that were not used in prior EPA- administered trading programs and that reflect unique provisions of the Transport Rule trading programs. For example, the terms , “assurance account,” “TR Annual NOX unit,” “TR Ozone - Season NOX unit,” “TR SO 2 Group 1 unit,” “TR SO 2 Group 2 unit,” “common designated representative,” “common designated representative’s assurance level,” and “common designated representative’s share” are used and defined in the final rule. While the proposed rules included definitions for the terms, “owner’s assurance level” and “owner’s share”, the final rules replace these terms and instead define the terms, “common designated representative,” “common designated representative’s assurance level,” and “common designated representative’s share.” This is because, as discussed elsewhere in this preamble, the final rules include*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 534 of 1339 assurance provisions similar to those in the proposed rules but that are imp lemented based on groups of units having a common designated representative, instead of being implemented on an owner -by - owner basis. The definition of “common designated representative’s share” is simpler than the definition of “owner’s share” because implementing the assurance provisions at the designated representative level means it is no longer necessary to address, in the definition, owner - and unit - level issues that may arise when a unit has multiple owners or where two or more units emit through the same stack. Finally, some definitions are added to the final rules that are not in the proposed rules. For example, because the term, “business day,” was used, but not defined, in the proposed rule, its meaning was unclear. Specifically, it was uncle ar whether a day that was uniquely a state holiday, and not a federal holiday, was a business day for purposes of the federally administered Transport Rule trading programs, e.g., whether the allowance transfer deadline applicable to all sources in all sta tes in a Transport Rule trading program could fall on a day that was a unique state holiday in one or a few states or whether the allowance transfer deadline would be advanced to the next business day for all sources in all states or perhaps only for sourc es in the state with the state holiday. EPA believes that, for a federally administered trading program covering*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 535 of 1339 sources in multiple states, the deadlines should be clear and uniform for all sources, regardless of the state in which the sources are locate d, and should not be affected by unique state holidays of which owners and operators of sources in other states may not even be aware. Consequently, the “business day” definition is added in the final rules and means a day that does not fall on a weekend or a federal holiday. By further example, a definition for “natural gas” was added in the final rules. That definition, as well as the definitions for “coal” and “fuel oil”, incorporate the corresponding definitions in Part 72 of the Acid Rain Program r egulations. The Part 72 definitions are incorporated because they are also used in the Part 75 monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping provisions, which provisions are already incorporated in the final Transport Rule Trading Program rules. (ii) §§97.404 and 97.405, 97.504 and 97.505, 97.604 and 97.605, and 97.704 and 97.705 -- Applicability and Retired Units The applicability provisions in the final rules are, except as discussed herein, essentially the same as in the proposed rules and for each of the T ransport Rule trading programs. Of course, for each trading program, the definition of “State” reflects differences in the specific states whose electric generating units are covered by the respective trading program.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 536 of 1339 Under the general applicability provi sions of the proposed rules, the Transport Rule trading programs would cover fossil fuel - fired boilers and combustion turbines serving

– - at any time starting November 15, 1990 or later -- an electrical generator with a nameplate capacity exceeding 25 MWe and producing power for sale, with the exception of certain cogeneration units and solid waste incineration units. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, the general applicability provisions in the final rules reference January 1, 2005 (about 5 years before this rule’s promulgation), rather than November 15, 1990.Cogeneration unit exemption. Under the final rules (as well as the proposed rules) certain cogeneration units or solid waste incinerators otherwise covered by the general category of covered units are exempt from the FIP requirements. In particular, the final rules include an exemption for a unit that qualifies as a cogeneration unit throughout the later of 2005 or the first 12 months during which the unit first produces electricity and continues to qualify each year thereafter and that meets the limitation on electricity sales to the grid. In order to meet the definition of “cogeneration unit” in the final rules, a unit (i.e., a boiler or combustion turbine) must operate as part of a “c ogeneration system,” which is defined as an integrated group of equipment at a source (including a boiler*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 537 of 1339 or combustion turbine, and a steam turbine generator) designed to produce useful thermal energy for industrial, commercial, heating, or cooling purpos es and electricity through the sequential use of energy. In order to qualify as a cogeneration unit, a unit also must meet, on a 12 -month or annual basis, the above described efficiency and operating standards. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, EPA clarifies that the electricity sales limitation under the exemption is applied in the same way whether a unit serves only one generator or serves more than one generator. In both cases, the total amount of electricity produced annually by a unit and s old to the grid cannot exceed the greater of one - third of the unit’s potential electric output capacity or 219,000 MWhr. Solid waste incineration unit exemption. The final rules also include an exemption for a unit that qualifies as a solid waste inciner ation unit during the later of 2005 or the first 12 months during which the unit first produces electricity, that continues to qualify each year thereafter, and that meets the limitation on fossil - fuel use. In contrast, the exemption for solid waste incin eration units in the proposed rules distinguished between units commencing operation before January 1, 1985 and those commencing operation on or after that date and established somewhat different criteria for these two categories*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 538 of 1339 of units. As discussed el sewhere in this preamble, the final rules remove the distinction based on whether a solid waste incineration unit commences operation before January 1, 1985 or on or after January 1, 1985. In order to be exempt, the unit must qualify as a solid waste inci neration units during the later of 2005 or the first 12 months during which the unit first produces electricity, must continue to qualify each year thereafter, and must meet the limitation on fossil - fuel use on a three - year average basis during the first 3 years of operation starting no earlier than 2005 and every 3 years of operation thereafter. Retired unit exemption. The final rule provisions exempting permanently retired units from most of the requirements of the Transport Rule trading programs are e ssentially the same as in the proposed rules and for each of the Transport Rule trading programs. The retired unit provisions exempt these units from the requirements for emission monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting and for holding allowances, as of the allowance transfer deadline, sufficient to cover their emissions. However, the permanently retired units in a state must be included in determining whether owners and operators must surrender allowances, and, if so, how many, to comply with the assurance provisions (which are discussed elsewhere in this*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 539 of 1339 preamble) if the state’s total covered- unit emissions exceed the state assurance level. Specifically, a designated representative must include these units in determining whether his or her share of to tal emissions of covered units in a state exceed his or her share (generally based on the allowances allocated to the units that he or she represents) of the state trading budget with the variability limit and thus whether the owners and operators of the units that he or she represents would have to surrender allowances under the assurance provisions. (iii) §§97.406, 97.506, 97.606, and 97.706 -- Standard requirements The basic requirements applicable to owners and operators of units and sources covered by the Transport Rule trading programs and presented as standard requirements in the final rules are, except as discussed herein, essentially the same as in proposed rules and for each of the Transport Rule trading programs. These basic requirements include: designated representative requirements; emissions monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements; emissions requirements comprising emissions limitations and assurance provisions; permit requirements; additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements; liability provisions; and provisions describing*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 540 of 1339 the effect of the Transport Rule trading program requirements on other CAA provisions. In particular, the paragraphs addressing emissions requirements for owners and operators describe these requiremen ts in detail and reference other sections of the final rules that set forth the procedures for determining compliance with the emissions limitations and assurance provisions. The paragraphs in the final rules concerning compliance with the emissions limit ations clarify that owners and operators of a source and each covered unit at the source must hold allowances at least equaling the total control period emissions of all covered units at the source. Further, the paragraphs in the final rules concerning compliance with the assurance provisions differ from those in the proposed rules in that, as discussed elsewhere in this preamble, the final rules implement the assurance provisions based on groups of units with a common a designated representative, instead of being implemented on an owner -by - owner basis, as proposed. Under the final rules, the assurance provisions are triggered when total control period emissions by covered units in a state (starting in 2012) exceed the state trading budget plus variability limit. If the assurance provisions are triggered for a state for a control period in a given year, owners’ and operators’ responsibility for the resulting penalty (i.e, the surrender of allowances for*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 541 of 1339 deduction through the transfer of such allowances to the assurance account created by the Administrator for such owners and operators) is determined on a designated representative basis. For purposes of implementing the assurance provisions, covered units in a state are in effect grouped by designated repre sentative (as distinguished from the alternate designated representative). The control period emissions of all covered units with the same designated representative are compared with the allowance allocations of such units plus their share of the state va riability limit. The owners and operators of the units in each group that has emissions in excess of allocations plus share of variability are subject to the assurance provisions penalty. The owners and operators of the units in each group must transfer to the assurance account created for such owners and operators a total amount of allowances equal to such owners’ and operators’ proportionate share of the state’s excess of covered- unit emissions over the state trading budget plus variability. The group’ s proportionate share is the percentage resulting from division of the amount of the group’s excess of emissions over allocations plus share of variability by the sum of these excess amounts for all groups of units with a common designated representative i n the state. The final rule makes it clear that*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 542 of 1339 this percentage is not rounded to the nearest whole number, but rather that the calculated amount of allowances resulting from application of this percentage is rounded to the nearest whole number because, i n the Transport Rule trading programs, only whole (not fractional) allowances are used. If instead this percentage were rounded before its application, each group’s share would be either 100 percent or 0 percent, which would be contrary to the intent of t he assurance provisions in both the final rules and the proposed rules. The provisions addressing the assurance requirements in the final rules reflect this designated- representative -based approach. For example, as discussed elsewhere in this preamble, these provisions use the terms, “designated representative’s share” and “designated representative’s assurance level,” in lieu of the terms, “owner’s share” and “owner’s assurance level,” used in the proposed rules. By further example, these final rule provisions refer to both “designated representatives” and “owners and operators,” rather than simply “owners.” The final rules also clarify the standard emissions requirements by explaining further what is meant by the provision that an allowance is a limited authorization to emit. The final rule clarifies that an allowance provides authorization to emit during the control period in one year and is limited in both its use and its duration. For example, an*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 543 of 1339 allowance provides an emission authorization that can only be used in accordance with the requirements of the respective Transport Rule trading program, such as the requirements specifying what allowances are available for use, and how such allowances must be held or transferred, in order to cover emissions or meet the assurance provisions. By further example, the authorization to emit that is provided by an allowance will not necessarily remain unchanged in the future. Under the final rules, the Administrator has the express authority to terminate or limit the authorization to the extent he or she determines to be necessary or appropriate to implement any provision of the CAA. The remaining paragraphs in the standard requirements section address permitting, recordkeeping and reporting, liability provisions , and the effect on other CAA provisions. For example, the paragraphs concerning permitting requirements are limited to stating that no title V permit revisions are necessary to account for allowance allocation, holding, deduction, or transfer and that the minor permit modification procedures can be used to add or change general descriptions in the title V permits of the monitoring and reporting approach used by the units covered by each title V permit. These provisions remain the same in the final rules as in the proposed rules.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 544 of 1339 (iv) §§96.407, 97.507, 97.607, and 97.707 -- Computation of Time These sections address how to determine the deadlines referenced in the Transport Rule trading program rules and are, except as discussed herein, essentially the same as in the proposed rules and for each of the Transport Rule trading programs. The final rules revise the proposed rule provisions concerning the treatment of the final date in any time period in order to make the provision consistent with the approach discussed above with regard to the new definition of “business day.” The revised provision states that, if the final date is not a “business day”, then the time period is extended to the next “business day.” (v) §§97.408, 97.508, 97.608, 97.708 and Part 7 8 -- Administrative Appeal Procedures Under the final Transport Rule, final decisions of the Administrator under the Transport Rule trading programs are appealable to EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board under the regulations set forth in Part 78 (40 CFR p art 78), which are revised by the final Transport Rule to accommodate such appeals. The provisions in the final Transport Rule concerning appeals are, except as discussed herein, essentially the same as in the proposed Transport Rule. The proposed Transp ort Rule would add a provision in Part 78 explaining who is an “interested person” with regard to a decision, i.e., a person who submitted*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 545 of 1339 comments, testimony, or objections as part of the process of making the decision or a person who submitted his or her name to the Administrator to be placed to an interested persons list. The final Transport Rule includes that provision, but with additional language that clarifies the process for submitting a name to be placed on such a list. (2) Allowance Allocations Sections 97.410 through 97.412, 97.510 through 97.512, 97.610 through 97.612, and 97.710 through 97.712 set forth: certain information related to allowance allocation and for implementation of the assurance provisions; the timing for allocation of al lowances to existing and new units; and the procedures for new unit allocations. In particular, these sections include tables providing, for each state covered by the particular Transport Rule trading program and for each year, the state trading budget (w ithout the variability limit), new unit set - aside, and variability limits. These provisions in the final rules differ in several ways, from the proposed rules and are essentially the same for each of the Transport Rule trading programs. With regard to the tables in the final rules for the state trading budgets (without the variability limits), new unit set asides, and variability limits, the identity of the specific states involved and the values for each state differ from the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 546 of 1339 tables in the proposed rule s. The final rule values reflect the determinations and modeling underlying the final rules and discussed elsewhere in this preamble. With regard to existing unit allocations, the final rules provide that these allocations will be set forth in a notice o f data availability to be issued by the Administrator. In contrast, the proposed rules stated that existing unit allocations would be set forth in an appendix to the rules for each Transport Rule trading program. EPA believes that including these allocat ions in a notice of data availability referencing the EPA website (rather than publishing them in tables requiring a large number of pages in the Federal Register for each Transport Rule trading program) is a more efficient method of making these allocatio ns public, particularly since these allocations may be changed for 201 3 and thereafter by states through SIP revisions. In addition, under the final rules the allocations for an existing unit can change if the unit does not operate (i.e., has no heat inpu t) for two consecutive years starting in 2012. In that case, the unit continues to receive its existing unit allocation for those years plus only two more years. As explained elsewhere in this preamble, this is a modification of the proposed rules, under which a unit that did not operate for three consecutive years*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 547 of 1339 would continue to receive its existing unit allocation for those years plus three more years. Under the final rule provisions for new units, the Administrator allocates allowances from the new unit set - aside for the state where the respective unit is located and for each year when the unit first becomes eligible for an allocation and each year thereafter. The units eligible for new unit set - aside allocations include units commencing commercia l operation on or after January 1, 2010, as well as several other categories of units, such as, for example, existing units that were not initially but then become covered units, existing units whose allocations are lost due to lack of unit operation and t hat subsequently begin operating again, and units that lost their allocations because they changed location from one state to another. The approach in the final rules differs from the proposed rules, which required that owners and operators initially requ est allowances from the new unit set - aside when the unit first became eligible for an allocation. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, under the final rules, EPA identifies which units become eligible and when they become eligible, based on informatio n provided in other submissions (e.g., certificates of representation, monitoring system certifications, and quarterly emissions reports) that such units must make to EPA, and the requirement that owners and operators*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 548 of 1339 to submit requests for new unit set - as ide allocations is removed in the final rules. The final rules also provide for two rounds of allocations from the new unit set - aside, in contrast with the proposed rules that provided for only one round. In the first round in the final rules (as in the s ingle round in the proposed rules), a unit’s new unit set - aside allocation initially equals that unit’s emissions

– - as determined in accordance with §§97.430 - 97.435, 97.530 - 97.535, 97.630 - 97.635, and 97.730 - 97.735 of the final rules and Part 75 (40 CFR pa rt 75)
– - for the control period (annual or ozone season, depending on the Transport Rule trading program involved) in the preceding year. If the new unit set - aside lacks sufficient allowances to provide this initial allocation for all of the new units, t hen each unit is allocated its proportionate share (based on its initial allocation amount) of the allowances in the new unit set - aside. The Administrator issues a notice of data availability informing the public of the specific new unit allocations and p rovides an opportunity for submission of objections on the grounds that the allocations are not consistent with the requirements of the relevant final rule provisions. A second notice of data availability is subsequently issued in order to make any necess ary corrections in the specific new unit allocations. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, the final rules establish*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 549 of 1339 a somewhat different schedule for issuance of these notices of data availability than the proposed rules. In particular, a single set of dates (i.e., for the first notice, June 1 of the year for which the new unit allocations are described in the notice and, for the second notice, August 1 of that year) is established for all of the Transport Rule trading programs. For the reasons discussed elsewhere in this preamble, the final rules provide for a second round of allocations to the extent that any allowances remain in the new unit set - aside after the allocations are made to new units in the first round. (In the proposed rules, remainin g allowances were immediately allocated to existing units.) The units eligible for allocations in the second round are new units that commenced commercial operation during the control period for which allocations are being made and during the prior contro l period. The second round allocation for each such unit initially equals the difference between the unit’s first round allocation (if any) and the unit’s emissions during the control period for which allocations are being made. If the amount of allowanc es remaining in the new unit set - aside after the first round is insufficient to provide this initial allocation for all of the second round units, then each such unit is allocated its proportionate share of the allowances remaining in the new unit set - aside. The Administrator uses notices of data availability*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 550 of 1339 (which are issued by December 15 (for the annual trading programs) and September 15 (for the ozone season trading program) of the control period involved and February 15 (for the annual trading programs) and November 15 (for the ozone season trading program) before the allowance transfer deadline for the control period involved, in a manner analogous to the use of such notices in the first round, to inform the public about the identification of the uni ts in the second round allocations and obtain and consider any objections and to inform the public about the amounts of the second round allocations. If, after both rounds of allocations, any allowances remain in the new unit set - aside, those allowances a re allocated to existing units in proportion to such units’ allocations. The final rules also establish a separate Indian country new unit set - aside in each state where Indian country is located (i.e., in Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnes ota, Mississippi, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin). As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, the Administrator operates the Indian country new unit set - aside in essentially the same manner as state new unit set - asi de, except that unallocated allowances remaining in the Indian country after the two rounds of new unit set - aside allocations are first placed in the new unit set - aside in the state where the Indian country involved is located and then, if still*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 551 of 1339 unallocate d, are allocated to existing units in the state. As with the state new unit set - aside, EPA will identify the new units qualifying for the Indian country new unit set - aside, calculate the allocations, and issue notices of data availability using the same s chedules as notices for the state new unit set - aside. Under the final rules (like under the proposed rules), if a unit in certain specified categories is allocated allowances that should not have received them, the Administrator applies procedures under which the allocation is not recorded or the amount of the recorded allocations is deducted, with one exception. The exception is where the determination of compliance with the emission limitation for the source that includes the unit has already been compl eted, in which case no action is taken to account for the erroneous allocation for the control period involved. While this procedure concerning recordation or deduction of allocations is the same as under the proposed rules, the final rules change the des cription of the circumstances under which this procedure concerning recordation or deduction of allocations is applied. Under both the final rules and the proposed rules, this procedure is applied to a unit (whether an existing unit or a new unit) that re ceives an allocation but is not actually a covered unit. However, under the final rules,*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 552 of 1339 another category of units -- i.e., any existing unit that is not located
– - as of January 1 of the control period for which the allocation is received - – in the state from whose trading budget the allocation was made is also subject to this procedure. Although relatively few units are moved from one state to another, EPA believes that it is important to address what happens to such units’ allocations, both because ea ch state has a limited trading budget out of which all allocations for a year to existing and new units in that state must be made and because, under the assurance provisions, determinations are made about owners’ surrender of allowances based on, among ot her things, the allocations for units in a specific state. Because, under the final rules, a unit that is moved from one state to another may lose its existing unit allocation in the first state under the above - described procedure, the final rules also ma kes such a unit eligible for allocations from the new - unit set - aside of the second state. Finally, the final rules remove, as no longer necessary, one category of units that the proposed rules included as subject to this procedure. The proposed rules, tre ated, as existing units, some units that had not yet operated but were projected to operate by January 1, 2012, and so the proposed rules made these units subject to the procedure for not recording or for deducting allocations if they actually were not*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 553 of 1339 required to certify their monitoring systems and hold allowances covering emissions starting January 1, 2012. The final rule does not treat projected units as existing units and so this category of units no longer needs to be made subject to this procedure. (3) Designated Representatives and Alternate Designated Representatives Sections 97.413 through 97.418, 97.513 through 97.518, 97.613 through 97.618, and 97.713 through 97.718 establish the procedures for certifying and authorizing the designated repres entative, and alternate designated representative, of the owners and operators of a source and the units at the source and for changing the designated representative and alternate designated representative. These sections also describe the designated repr esentative’s and alternate designated representative’s responsibilities and the process through which he or she can delegate to an agent the authority to make electronic submissions to the Administrator. Except as discussed herein, the provisions in the final rules are the essentially same as in the proposed rules and for each of the Transport Rule trading programs. The designated representative is the individual (i.e., the natural person) authorized to represent the owners and operators of each covered s ource and covered unit at the source in matters*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 554 of 1339 pertaining to all Transport Rule trading programs to which the source and units were subject. One alternate designated representative (also an individual) can be selected to act on behalf of, and legally bin d, the designated representative and thus the owners and operators. Because the actions of the designated representative and alternate legally bind the owners and operators, the designated representative and alternate must submit a certificate of represen tation certifying that each was selected by an agreement binding on all such owners and operators and is authorized to act on their behalf. In the final rules (like in the proposed rules), the certificate of representation must contain: specified identify ing information for the covered source (including location) and the covered units at the source and for the designated representative and alternate; the name of every owner and operator of the source and units; and certification language and signatures of the designated representative and alternate. The final rules require an additional piece of identifying information, i.e., whether the unit is located in Indian country. This is necessary in order for the Administrator to implement the above - described In dian country new unit set - aside. All submissions (e.g., monitoring plans, monitoring system certifications, and allowance transfers) under the final rules for a covered source or covered unit must be submitted, signed,*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 555 of 1339 and certified by the designated repr esentative or alternate, except that electronic submission may be delegated. In order to change the designated representative or alternate, a new certificate of representation must be received by the Administrator. A new certificate of representation must also be submitted to reflect changes in the owners and operators of the source and units involved. The new certificate must be submitted within 30 days of such changes. The final rules make explicit an implied requirement of the proposed rules, i.e., that, if a unit is added to a source or is moved from one source to a second source, a certificate of representation needs to be submitted to reflect the change. This requirement is implicit in the proposed rules when a unit is added to a source because the designated representative would not be authorized to make submissions concerning the added unit unless that unit were included on the certificate of representation. Similarly, where a unit is moved to another source, new certificates of representation would need to be submitted in order for the correct designated representative to be authorized to make submissions concerning the moved unit. Moreover, because compliance accounts in the Allowance Management System would cover all units at a given source and would be based on the information in the certificate of representation submitted by the designated representative for*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 556 of 1339 the source, when a unit is moved from a source to a second source, the designated representative of the second source would need to s ubmit a certificate of representation removing the moved unit from the list of units. The final rules explicitly require that a new certificate of representation be submitted to reflect changes (whether caused by the addition or removal of units) in which units are located at a source. In addition, the final rules impose a deadline on the submission requirement of 30 days from the date of the change in the units. This is analogous to the maximum time period between a change in a unit’s owner or operator a nd the deadline for submission of a new certificate of representative reflecting to the change. Long before any actual move of a unit to a new location, owners and operators will need to make decisions about, and plan the implementation of, such a move. Consequently, EPA believes that a 30 - day deadline after any move for reflecting the move in the certificate of representation is reasonable. In the event the change involves the addition of a unit that operated before being located at the source, the fina l Transport Rule also requires that the designated representative provide in the certificate of representation information on the entity from which the unit was obtained, the date on which the unit was obtained, and the date on which the unit became locate d at the source. In the event of*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 557 of 1339 a change involving the removal of a unit, the designated representative must provide in the certificate of representation information on the entity that obtained the unit, the date on which that entity obtained the unit, and the date on which the unit became no longer located at the source. This information will enable the Administrator to determine what actions are necessary to reflect the change in units located at the sources involved. For example, if a covered unit is moved from one source to second source, the Administrator will have the information necessary to determine whether the unit’s allocation should be changed to reflect movement of the unit from one state to another. (4) Allowance Management System Section s 97.420 through 97.428, 97.520 through 97.528, 97.620 through 97.628, and 97.720 through 97.728 establish the procedures and requirements for using and operating the Allowance Management System (which is the electronic data system through which the Admini strator handles allowance allocation, holding, transfer, and deduction), and for determining compliance with the emissions limitations and assurance provisions, in an efficient and transparent manner. The Allowance Management System also provides the allowance markets with a record of ownership of allowances, dates of allowance transfers, buyer and seller information, and the serial numbers*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 558 of 1339 of allowances transferred. These sections of the final rules are essentially the same as in the proposed rules and f or each of the Transport Rule trading programs. (i) §§97.420, 97.520, 97.620, and 97.720

– - Compliance, Assurance, and General Accounts Under the final rules, the Allowance Management System contains three types of accounts. One type comprises complian ce accounts, one of which the Administrator establishes for each covered source upon receipt of the certificate of representation for the source. A compliance account is the account in which all allowance allocations must be recorded and in which any allowances used by the covered source for compliance with the emissions limitations must be held. The designated representative and alternate for the source is also the authorized account representative and alternate for the compliance account. A seco nd type comprises general accounts, which can be established by any entity upon receipt by the Administrator of an application for a general account. General accounts can be used by any person or group for holding or trading allowances. To open a general account, a person or group must submit an application for a general account, which is similar in many ways to a certificate of representation. The provisions for changing the authorized account representative and alternate, for*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 559 of 1339 submitting a superseding application to take account of changes in the persons having an ownership interest with respect to allowances, and for delegating authority to make electronic submissions are analogous to those applicable to comparable matters for designated representatives and alternates. A third type comprises assurance accounts. The Administrator establishes one assurance account for each group of units having a common designated representative and located in a state where the assurance provisions are triggered by total emissions exceeding the state trading budget plus variability. (ii) §§97.421 through 97.423, 97.521 through 97.523, 97.621 through 97.623, and 97.721 through 97.723
– - Recordation of Allowance Allocations and Transfers Under the final rules, by [INSERT DATE 90 DAYS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the Administrator must record allowance allocations for existing units, as set forth in a required notice of data availability, for the Transport Rule annual NOX , ozone - season NOX , and SO 2 trading programs for 2012 and 2013, unless, as discussed elsewhere in this preamble, a State notifies the Administrator that the State will submit a SIP revisions with existing - unit allocations for 2013 by May 1, 2012. If the Administrator approves that SIP r evision by October 1, 2012, the Administrator will record the State determined existing - unit allocations for 2013, and, in the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 560 of 1339 absence of such approval by that date, the Administrator will record the EPA- determined existing - unit allocations for 2013. By July 1, 2013, the Administrator must record existing - unit allowance allocations (whether EPA- or State - determined) for each Transport Rule trading program for 2014 and 2015. By July 1, 2014, the Administrator must record existing - unit allowance allocations for each Transport Rule trading program for 2016 and 2017. By July 1, 2015, the Administrator must record existing unit allowance allocations for each Transport Rule trading program for 2018 and 2019. By July 1, 2016 and July 1 of each year thereafter, the Administrator must record existing - unit allowance allocations for each Transport Rule trading program for the control period in the fourth year after the year of the applicable recordation deadline. By August 1, 2012 and August 1 of each year thereaft er, the Administrator must record new - unit allowance allocations for each Transport Rule trading program for that year. These recordation deadlines differ from those in the proposed rules for two reasons. First, as discussed elsewhere in this preamble, E PA is adopting provisions that allow states to submit, and EPA to approve, SIP revisions (abbreviated or full SIPs) under which the state, rather than the Administrator, determines the distribution of allowances under one or more of the Transport Rule trading programs applicable in the state. In*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 561 of 1339 selecting allocation recordation deadlines, EPA took into account and balanced certain countervailing factors. On one hand, EPA considered the need to provide a reasonable time for a state to develop, propose, and finalize, and for EPA to review and propose and finalize approval of, the SIP revision and the desirability of providing a reasonable opportunity for state distributions to become effective for a year relatively soon after the 2012 commencement of the Transport Rule trading programs. EPA’s experience with prior trading programs has shown that the process for development and submission of SIP revisions by states and approval by EPA in many cases about 18 months and in some cases even longer. On the other hand, EPA considered the desirability of owners and operators having allocations in their compliance accounts a reasonable time before the year (referred to as the vintage year) for which the allocations are made. Having the allocations recorded, to the e xtent possible, before the vintage year facilitates compliance decisions and use of the allowance market in implementing such decisions. EPA believes that optimally allocations would be recorded at least 3 years in advance of the vintage year. In balanci ng these countervailing factors, EPA is adopting an allocation recordation schedule that provides initially for recordation ranging from 6 months to 18 months before the beginning of the control period in the first two years (i.e.,*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 562 of 1339 2012 and 2013) for which allocations are made and that, as allocations for control periods in subsequent years are recorded, gradually increases the amount of time between recordation and the beginning of the year of the control period involved until allocations are recorded abou t three and one - half years in advance. With regard to the need to facilitate states’ distribution of allowances, this approach gives states multiple opportunities to develop, submit, and obtain EPA approval for SIPs under which the states (rather than EPA ) will distribute allowances under the Transport Rule trading programs for control periods relatively early in the programs. Because of time (which has in the past ranged from about 6 months to about 2 years) it may take for a state to develop and submit such a SIP and because of the time (which has in the past been at least 6 months) it will likely take EPA to review and approve such a SIP, EPA believes that 2013 is the first year for which a state can determine allowance distributions and have them recor ded some minimal time before the control period involved. With regard to the need to record allowances in advance, this approach achieves recordation at least 6 months in advance and eventually achieves recordation by what EPA believes is an optimal amoun t of time (greater than 3 years) before the control period for which recorded allowances are issued.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 563 of 1339 As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, the approach to allowance recordation in the final rules results in following schedule for submission of abbrevia ted or full SIPs under the final Transport Rule. SIP revisions with existing - unit allocations for 2013 control periods must be submitted to the Administrator by May 1, 2012. Complete abbreviated and full SIPs must be submitted to the Administrator by: Ja nuary 1, 2013 in order to govern allowance allocation and auction for control periods in 2014 and 2015; January 1, 2014 in order to govern control periods in 2016 and 2017; January 1, 2015 in order to govern allowance allocation and auction for control per iods in 2018 and 2019; and January 1, 2016 and by January 1 of any year thereafter in order to govern allowance allocation and auction for control periods in the fourth year after such submission deadline. The second reason for the differences in the reco rdation deadlines in the final rules, as compared to the proposed rules, is that, in order to simplify the recordation schedule for owners and operators and EPA, EPA set uniform recordation deadlines for all of the Transport Rule trading programs. EPA bel ieves that these deadlines provide the Agency sufficient time, after receipt of any information necessary to determine allocations (e.g., for new unit set - aside allocations, the emissions data from the control period in the prior year), to*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 564 of 1339 complete the rec ordation of allocations and, as discussed above, makes the allocations available to owners and operators before the year for which the allocations are made. EPA notes that these are deadlines and that the Administrator has the discretion, where feasible and appropriate, to record allocations before such deadlines. Under the final rules (as under the proposed rules), the process for transferring allowances from one account to another is quite simple. A transfer is submitted providing, in a format presc ribed by the Administrator, the account numbers of the accounts involved, the serial numbers of the allowances involved, and the name and signature of the transferring authorized account representative or alternate. If the transfer form containing all the required information is submitted to the Administrator and, when the Administrator attempts to record the transfer, the transferor account includes the allowances identified in the form, the Administrator records the transfer by moving the allowances from the transferor account to the transferee account within 5 business days of the receipt of the transfer form. (iii) §§97.424, 97.524, 97.624, and 97.724

– - Compliance with Emissions Limitations Under the final rules (as under the proposed rules), once a control period has ended (i.e., December 31 for the Transport*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 565 of 1339 Rule NOX and SO 2 annual trading programs and September 30 for the ozone - season NOX trading program), covered sources have a window of opportunity -- until the allowance transfer deadline of midn ight on March 1 or December 1 following the control period for the annual and ozone - season trading programs respectively -- to evaluate their reported emissions and obtain any allowances that they need to cover their emissions during that control period. Each allowance issued in each Transport Rule trading program authorizes emission of one ton of the pollutant involved, and so is usable for compliance in that trading program, for a control period in the year for which the allowance was allocated or a late r year. Consequently, each source needs
– - as of the allowance transfer deadline

– - to have in its compliance account, or properly submit a transfer that moves into its compliance account, enough allowances usable for compliance to authorize the source’s total emissions for the control period. If a source fails to hold sufficient allowances for compliance, then the owners and operators must provide, for deduction by the Administrator, two allowances allocated for the control period in the next year for every allowance that the owners and operators failed to hold as required to cover emissions. In addition, the owners and operators are subject to discretionary civil penalties for each violation.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 566 of 1339 (iv) §§97.425, 97.525, 97.625, and 97.725

– - Compliance wi th Assurance Provisions Under the final rules (as under the proposed rules), the assurance provisions ensure that each state will eliminate its significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance that EPA identifies in this action. A requirement that owners surrender allowances under the assurance provisions is triggered only for certain owners and operators of sources and units in a state where the total state covered- unit emissions for a control period exceed the applicable state trading budget with the variability limit. Moreover, the surrender requirement is implemented based on groups of sources and units with a common designated representative. For each group of sources and units with a common designated representative, the owners and operators of such sources and units must surrender allowances only if the units’ emissions (referred to as the designated representative’s share of emissions) during the control period involved exceed the units’ allocations plus share of the stat e variability limit (referred to as the designated representative’s share of the state trading budget with variability). As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, EPA decided to implement the assurance provisions on a common designated representative basis , rather than on an owner basis. The final*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 567 of 1339 rules implement in a series of steps the process of determining which states have total covered- unit emissions sufficient to trigger the allowance surrender requirement for a given control period and determining, using the approach based on common designated representatives, which owners and operators are subject to the allowance surrender and whether those owners and operators are in compliance. This designated- representative based process is more streamlined than the owner -based process in the proposed rules. First, the Administrator performs the calculations necessary to determine whether any state has total covered- unit emissions for a control period greater than the state trading budget with the one - year vari ability limit. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, EPA decided not to use a three - year variability limit because, among other things, such a limit seems unnecessary to ensuring elimination of significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance and would make compliance planning extremely difficult for owners and operators. By May 1, 2013 and May 1 of each year thereafter, the Administrator promulgates a notice of data availability of the results of these calculations. Second, by July 1, for states identified in the May 1 notice of data availability as having emissions exceeding the state trading budget with variability, the designated*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 568 of 1339 representative of each new unit in the state that operated during but did not receive an alloc ation for the year involved must submit a statement to the Administrator with certain information about the unit. This information -- i.e., the unit’s allowable emission rate for the pollutant involved ( NOX or SO 2 ) and heat rate -- is used to calculate a surrogate allocation for the unit to be used solely for the purposes of determining whether the group of units with a common designated representative that includes the unit, had emissions exceeding allocations plus share of the state’s variability limit. Third, the Administrator calculates, for each state identified in the May 1 notice of data availability and for each common designated representative of a group of units (which groups can include one or more units and sources) in the state, the designated representative’s share of emissions, the designated representative’s share of the state trading budget with the variability limit, and the amount (if any) that the groups of owners and operators of units represented by the designated representative (which groups can include one or more owners and operators) in the state must surrender under the assurance provisions (i.e., the designated representative’s proportionate share of the excess of state emissions over the state trading budget with the variability limit). The Administrator promulgates by August 1 a notice of data*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 569 of 1339 availability of the results of these calculations, provides an opportunity for submission of objections, and promulgates by October 1 a second notice of availability of any necessary adjus tments to the calculations. In contrast with the proposed rules, objections may be submitted concerning information in the August 1 notice, whether or not that information was also provided in the May 1 notice. In short, the process of issuing notices is shortened in the final rules by providing one, comprehensive opportunity to submit objections to the May 1 and August 1 notices, rather than two separate opportunities, one for each notice. Also in contrast with the proposed rules, the deadlines for issue of notices of data availability for implementation of the assurance provisions are made uniform under the final rules for all of the Transport Rule trading programs. EPA is taking this approach for the same reasons that the deadlines for issuance of noti ces of data availability for new unit set - aside allocations are made uniform for all of these trading programs. Fourth, the owners and operators identified in the August 1 notice of data availability as being required to surrender allowances under the ass urance provisions must transfer, by November 1, to the assurance account created by the Administrator for such owners and operators the amount of allowances (usable for compliance) that the Administrator*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 570 of 1339 determined in the August 1 notice of data availabili ty. Where the August 1 notice indicates that a specified surrender amount is owed by a group of two or more owners and operators, all the group members are liable for the surrender amount, and it is up to the owners and operators in the group to decide wh o will actually surrender allowances. This is analogous to the situation where a group of two or more owners and operators of covered units at a source is required to hold allowances covering the unit’s emissions and therefore the group of owners and oper ators is liable. See 58 FR 3590, 3599 (January 11, 1993) (discussing liability of owners and operators under allowance - holding requirements of Acid Rain Program). As part of implementing the designated- representative -based approach of the assurance provis ions in the final Transport Rule, the final rules provide that the Administrator (instead of the owners, as in the proposed rules) will create an assurance account for each group of the owners and operators of units with a common designated representative in each state where the assurance provisions are triggered. Because the final rules require owners and operators to transfer surrendered allowances to the appropriate assurance account (rather than requiring the Administrator to deduct from assurance acco unts established by the owners), there is no need for the proposed rule provisions concerning identification of which allowances are to be deducted*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 571 of 1339 and first - in, first - out deduction in the absence of such identification. The final Transport Rule provides that, in general, the surrender amounts specified in the August 1 notice for owners and operators are final and will not be revised even if the underlying data (e.g., emissions data) used in the calculations underlying the August 1 notice are subsequently revised. However, the final rule sets forth limited exceptions to this: where such data are revised as a result of a decision in or settlement of litigation concerning the data on appeal. EPA believes that the limitation on revisions of the surrender amo unts specified in the August 1 notice are necessary to provide some certainty to owners and operators and avoid the potential for multiple changes in owners’ and operators’ required surrender amounts. Because the surrender amount for each group of owners and operators of units with a common designated representative in a state is calculated using emission data from all of the covered units in that state, each change in one or a few units’ emission data that might occur after issuance of the August 1 notice could otherwise change the calculated surrender amounts for all or many groups in the state. For the limited exceptions where the final rules provide that the surrender amounts specified in the August 1 notice may be revised, the final rules require the Administrator to set a*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 572 of 1339 new surrender deadline for any additional surrender required and to transfer allowances back out of the assurance account involved for any reduced surrender requirement, as appropriate. Under the final rules (as under the proposed rules), it is not a violation of the CAA for total state covered- unit emissions to exceed the state trading budget with the variability limit or for an owner or operator to become subject to the allowance surrender requirement under the assurance provisions . However, the failure of any owner or operator or group of two or more owners and operators to surrender the required amount of allowances in the assurance account created for such owners and operators violates the CAA and is subject to discretionary pen alties, with each required allowance that was not surrendered and each day of the control period involved constituting a violation. (v) §§97.426 through 97.428, 97.526 through 97.528, 97.626 through 97.628, and 97.726 through 97.728
– - Miscellaneous Provi sions These sections in the final rules (as in the proposed rules) include provisions allowing banking of the allowances issued in the Transport Rule trading programs, i.e., the retention of unused Transport Rule allowances allocated for a given control period for use or trading in a later control period. While this can potentially cause emissions from sources*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 573 of 1339 in some states in some control periods to be greater than the allowances allocated for those control periods, the assurance provisions limit such emissions in a way that ensures that each state’s significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance that EPA has identified in this action will be eliminated. These sections also include provisions stating that the Administrator c an, at his or her discretion and on his or her own motion, correct any type of error that he or she finds in an account in the Allowance Management System. In addition, the Administrator can review any submission under the Transport Rule trading programs, make adjustments to the information in the submission, and deduct or transfer allowances based on such adjusted information. (5) Emissions Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting. Sections 97.430 through 97.435, 97.530 through 97.535, 97.630 through 97 .635, and 97.730 through 97.735 establish emissions monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for Transport Rule units. These provisions reference the relevant sections of Part 75 (40 CFR part 75), where the specific procedures and requirement s for monitoring and reporting NOX and SO 2 mass emissions are set forth. The provisions in the final rules are virtually the same as the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 574 of 1339 proposed rules and under previous EPA- administered tradin g programs, e.g., the Acid Rain Program and NOX Budget and CAIR trading programs. The final rule provisions are also essentially the same for each of the Transport Rule trading programs, except for differences reflecting the different pollutants and contr ol periods involved. Under the provisions of the final rules and under Part 75, a unit has several options for monitoring and reporting. A unit’s options are to use: a CEMS; an excepted monitoring methodology ( NOX mass monitoring for certain peaking uni ts and SO 2 mass monitoring for certain oil - and gas - fired units); low mass emissions monitoring for certain, non - coal - fired, low emitting units; or an alternative monitoring system approved by the Administrator through a petition process. In addition, uni t owners and operators may submit, and the Administrator can approve, petitions for alternatives to Transport Rule and Part 75 monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, the final rules and Part 75 spec ify that each CEMS must undergo rigorous initial certification testing and periodic quality assurance testing thereafter. In addition, when a monitoring system is not operating properly, standard substitute data procedures are applied and result in a cons ervative estimate of emissions for the period involved. Further, the final rules and Part 75*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 575 of 1339 require electronic submission, to the Administrator and in a format prescribed by the Administrator, of a quarterly emissions report. The final rules include revised language in §§97.430(b)(3), 97.530(b)(3), 97.630(b)(3) that incorporates by reference, and thereby applies to units in the Transport Rule trading programs, clarification that EPA recently adopted in §75.4(e) of Part 75 (for Acid Rain Program units) concerning the requirements for certification, recertification, and diagnostic testing of emission monitoring systems when a unit adds a new stack or new add- on SO 2 or NOX emission control device. See 76 FR 17288, 17298 - 300 (March 28, 2011) . The revised language is adopted for the reasons set forth in the preamble of that Acid Rain Program final rule and in order to continue the approach, in the Transport Rule trading program rules, of adopting monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements that a re generally consistent with those in the Acid Rain Program, which covers many units in the Transport Rule trading programs. XII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 576 of 1339 Under EO 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is an “economically significant regulatory action” because it is likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the OMB for review under EO 12866 and EO 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011) and any changes in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action. In addition, EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and benefits for this action. This analy sis is contained in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for this action. For more information on the costs and benefits for this rule, please refer to Table VIII.C - 3 of this preamble. When estimating the human health benefits and compliance costs in Tabl e VIII.C - 3 of this preamble, EPA applied methods and assumptions consistent with the state - of - the - science for human health impact assessment, economics and air quality analysis. EPA applied its best professional judgment in performing this analysis and be lieves that these estimates provide a reasonable indication of the expected benefits and costs to the nation of this rulemaking. The RIA available in*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 577 of 1339 the docket describes in detail the empirical basis for EPA’s assumptions and characterizes the various so urces of uncertainties affecting the estimates below. In doing what is laid out above in this paragraph, EPA adheres to EO 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” (76 FR 3,821, January 21, 2011), which is a supplement to EO 12866. In addition to estimating costs and benefits, EO 13563 focuses on the importance of a “regulatory system [that]...promote[s] predictability and reduce[s] uncertainty” and that “identify[ies] and use[s] the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achievi ng regulatory ends.” EO 13563 also states that “[i]n developing regulatory actions and identifying appropriate approaches, each agency shall attempt to promote such coordination, simplification, and harmonization. Each agency shall also seek to identify, as appropriate, means to achieve regulatory goals that are designed to promote innovation.” We recognize that the utility sector has compliance obligations related to multiple environmental statutes authorizing regulatory action, including this rule’s re quirements to reduce interstate transport of harmful ozone and fine particles and their precursors, as well as other rules’ requirements to reduce air toxic emissions, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to safely manage coal combustion wastes, and to prot ect aquatic wildlife from water intake procedures. In the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 578 of 1339 wake of promulgating this final rule, EPA recognizes that moving forward the agency needs to approach these rulemakings in ways that allow the industry to make practical investment decisions that minimize costs in complying with all of the final rules, while still securing the fundamentally important environmental and public health benefits that led Congress to enact those authorities in the first place. At the same time, EPA notes that the flexibi lity inherent in the allowance - trading mechanism included in this rule affords utilities themselves a degree of latitude to determine how best to integrate compliance with the emissions reduction requirements of this rule and those of the other rules. The final rule will also reduce emissions of directly emitted PM and ozone precursors, and estimates of the PM2.5 - related benefits of these air quality improvements may be found in Table s VIII.C 1 and VIII.C - 2 of this preamble. When characterizing uncertainty in the PM-mortality relationship, EPA has historically presented a sensitivity analysis applying alternate assumed thresholds in the PM concentration - response relationship. In its synthesis of the current state of the PM science, EPA’s 2009 Integrated Sc ience Assessment for Particulate Matter concluded that a no - threshold log - linear model most adequately portrays the PM-mortality concentration response relationship. In the RIA accompanying this rulemaking,*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 579 of 1339 rather than segmenting out impacts predicted to be associated levels above and below a “bright line” threshold, EPA includes a “lowest measured level” (LML) analysis that illustrates the increasing uncertainty that characterizes exposure attributed to levels of PM2.5 below the LML of each epidemiologica l study used to estimate PM2.5 - related premature death. Figures provided in the RIA show the distribution of baseline exposure to PM2.5 , as well as the lowest air quality levels measured in each of the epidemiology cohort studies. This information provides a context for considering the likely portion of PM- related mortality benefits occurring above or below the LML of each study; in general, our confidence in the size of the estimated reduction PM2.5 - related premature mortality diminishes as baseline conc entrations of PM2.5 are lowered. Approximately 69 percent of the avoided impacts occur at or above an annual mean PM2.5 level of 10 μg/m3 (the LML of the L aden et al. 2006 study); about 96 percent occur at or above an annual mean PM2.5 level of 7.5 μg/m3 (the LML of the Pope et al. 2002 study). Although the LML analysis provides some insight into the level of uncertainty in the estimated PM mortality benefits, EPA does not view the LML as a threshold and continues to quantify PM- related mortality impacts using a full range of modeled air quality concentrations. It is important to note that the monetized benefits include many but not all health effects associated with*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 580 of 1339 PM2.5 exposure. Benefits are shown as a range from Pope, et al., (2002) to Laden, et al., (2006). These models assume that all fine particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality because there is no clear scientific evidence that would support the development of differential effects estimates by particle type. The cost analysis is also subject to uncertainties. Estimating the cost conversion from one process to another is more difficult than estimating the cost of adding control equipment because it is more dependent on plant specific in formation. More information on the cost uncertainties can be found in the RIA. A summary of the monetized benefits and net benefits for the final rule at discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent is in Table VIII.C - 3 of this preamble. For more informatio n on the benefits analysis, please refer to the RIA for this rulemaking, which is available in the docket. B. Paperwork Reduction Act EPA is required to document the information collection burden imposed by the Transport Rule on industry, s tates, and EPA in an information collection request (ICR). The ICR describes the information collection requirements associated with the Transport Rule and estimates the incremental costs of*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 581 of 1339 compliance with all such requirements, such as the requirement for industry to monitor, record, and report emissions data to EPA. The ICR for the final Transport Rule has been submitted for approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq ., and the information collection requirements it documents are not enfor ceable until such approval has been granted. An ICR was also submitted to OMB in support of the proposed Transport Rule; no adverse comment was received by EPA on either the information collection requirements or their associated cost estimates as describ ed in that document. The costs associated with the information collection requirements of the Transport Rule include start up and capital costs for units newly affected by an emissions trading program, or whose reporting status has changed (e.g., from oz one season only to annual reporting), as well as the additional operation and maintenance costs for Transport Rule - affected units already participating in an EPA- administered cap and trade program. More information on the ICR analysis is included in the f inal Transport Rule docket. The records and reports generated by these activities will be used by EPA and states to ensure that affected facilities comply with emissions limits and other requirements. Such records and reports are also helpful to EPA and states in both*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 582 of 1339 identifying affected facilities that may not be in compliance with applicable requirements and in discerning which units and what records or processes should be inspected. The incremental capital and operating costs associated with the rec ordkeeping and reporting burden to Transport Rule affected sources in states participating in the Transport Rule trading program are approximately $2 6 million annually in 2010 dollars. The total number of burden hours associated with the recordkeeping and reporting burden to Transport Rule - affected sources in states participating in the Transport Rule trading program is approximately 185,000 hours annually. These estimates include the annualized cost of installing and operating appropriate SO 2 and NOX emi ssions monitoring equipment to measure and report the total emissions of these pollutants from affected EGUs (serving generators greater than 25 megawatt electrical). The burden to state and local air agencies, as documented in the ICR, includes any neces sary SIP revisions, performance of monitor certifications, and fulfillment of audit responsibilities. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). The amendments do not require any notifications or reports beyond those required by the General Provisions. The recordkeeping requirements require only the specific information needed to determine compliance, which is specifically authorized by CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 583 of 1339 to EPA for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be sa feguarded according to EPA policies in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, Confidentiality of Business Information. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When this ICR is approved by OMB, the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control numb er for the approved information collection requirements contained in this final rule. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of this final rule on small entities, small entity is defined as:*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 584 of 1339 (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) re gulations at 13 CFR 121.201. For the electric power generation industry, the small business size standard is an ultimate parent entity defined as having a total electric output of 4 million megawatt - hours (MW- h ou r) or less in the previous fiscal year. ( 2) A small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) A small organization that is any not - for -profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
Table XII.C - 1 — Potentially Regulated Categories and Entities a Category NAICS

Codeb Examples of Potentially Regulated Entities Industry 221112 Fossil - fuel - fired electric utility steam generating units. Federal Government 221112 c Fossil - fuel - fired electric utility steam generating units owned by the

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

municipalities. Tribal Government 921150 Fossil - fuel - fired electric utility steam generating units in Indian*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 585 of 1339Country. a Include NAICS categories for source categories that own and operate electric generating units only. b North American Industry Classification System. c Federal, state, or local government - owned and operated establishments are classified according to the activity in which they are engaged. After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small entities, EPA certifies that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (No SISNOSE). This certification is based on the economic impact of this final rule to all affected small entities across all industries affected. EPA assessed the potential impact of this action on small entities and found that there are about 660 potentially affected small units (i.e., greater than 25 MW and generating less than 4MM MWh) out of 3,625 existing units in the TR region. The majority of these EGUs are owned by en tities that do not meet the small entity definition. The remaining 271 of the 660 EGUs are owned by 108 potentially affected small entities and are likely to be affected by this rule. EPA estimates that 2 4 of the 108 identified small entities will have annualized costs greater than 1 percent of their revenues, and the other 8 4 are projected to incur costs less than 1 percent of revenues. This is compared to 30 of 81 potentially affected small entities that EPA projected in the proposal would have annuali zed costs*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 586 of 1339 greater than 1 percent of their revenues and 51 entities projected to incur costs less than 1 percent of revenues. While the total number of small entities has increased as a result of updated modeling and changes in geographic coverage, the number with compliance costs greater than 1 percent of revenues has fallen and the percentage of significantly impacted small entities (costs greater than 3 percent of revenues) is also slightly lower . EPA received a small number of comments regarding its ec onomic impact analysis for small entities and expressed disagreement with EPA’s finding of No SISNOSE. Commenters did not provide adequate information to refute EPA’s analysis or demonstrate that this final rule would likely impact a greater number of sma ll entities. EPA acknowledges that it anticipates some small entities will experience increased costs under this final rule, but that it does not expect the number to be substantial. Although this final rule will not have a significant economic impact o n a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. In EPA’s modeling, most of the cost impacts for these small entities and their associated units are driven by lower electricity genera tion relative to the base case. Specifically, two small units reduce their generation by significant amounts,*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 587 of 1339 driving the bulk of the costs for all small entities. Excluding these two units, one of the main drivers of small entity impacts are higher fuel c osts, which the affected units would incur irrespective of whether they had to comply with this rule. In addition, EPA’s decision to exclude units smaller than 25 MWe has already significantly reduced the burden on small entities. Hence, EPA has conclude d that there is no SISNOSE for this rule. For more information on the small entity impacts associated with the final rule, please refer to the Regulatory Impact Analysis for this final rule. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandat es Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531 - 1538, requires federal agencies, unless otherwise prohibited by law, to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This rule contains a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. Accordingly, EPA has prepared under section 202 of the UMRA a written statement which is summarized later. Consistent with the intergovernmental consultation provisions of section 204 of the UMRA EPA held consultations*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 588 of 1339 with the governmental entities affected by this rule during the proposal phase. Subsequently, EPA sent a letter to the ten Repr esentative National Organizations to draw their attention to the Transport Rule Notice of Data Availability (NODA) on allowance allocations and other related matters and to invite their comments. During the NODA comment period, EPA participated in informa tional calls with the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) and the National Governors Association to provide information about the NODA directly to state and local officials. There were no new concerns raised during these informational calls. In addition, EPA also conducted consultations with federally recognized tribes prior to finalizing this rule and invited them to comment on the allowance allocation NODA. EPA has added a new unit set - aside for EGUs constructed in Indian country provision to th is final rule to ensure allowances are available to tribes and tribal sovereignty is respected. Consistent with section 205, EPA identified and considered a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives. In the proposal, EPA included three remedy options t hat it considered when developing this final rule: (1) the final remedy of limited interstate trading programs, (2) State Budgets/Intrastate Trading, and (3) Direct Controls. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least co stly, most*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 589 of 1339 cost - effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted.

EPA examined the potential economic impacts on state and municipality - owned entities associated with this rulemaking based on assumptions of how the affected states will implement control measures to meet program requirements. Although EPA does not conclude that the requirements of the UMRA apply to the Transport Rule, these impacts have been calculated to provide additional understanding of the nature of potential impacts and additional information. EPA has determined that this rule contains a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more in 1 year. EPA has de termined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments and that development of a small government plan under section 203 of the Act is not required. The costs of compliance will be borne p redominately by sources in the private sector although a small number of sources owned by state and local governments may also be impacted. The requirements in this action do not distinguish EGUs based on ownership, either for those units that are include d within the scope of the rule or for those units that are exempted by the generating capacity cut - off. Therefore, this rule is not*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 590 of 1339 subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the s tates, on the relationship between the national government and the s tate s, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. The final rule primarily affects private industry, and does not impose significant economic costs on state or local gove rnments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the final rule. Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the final rule, EPA did provide information to state and local officials during development of both the proposal and final rule. EPA sent a letter to the ten Representative National Organizations to draw their attention to the Transport Rule Notice of Data Availability (NODA) on allowance allocations and other related matters and to invite their comments. Following that lette r in early 2011, EPA participated in informational calls with the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) and the National Governors Association to provide information about*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 591 of 1339 the NODA directly to state and local officials. There were no new concerns rai sed during these informational calls. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments Under Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), EPA may not issue a regulation that has tribal implications, that impo ses substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by tribal governments, or EPA consults with tribal officials early in the p rocess of developing the proposed regulation and develops a tribal summary impact statement. EPA has concluded that this action may have tribal implications if a new unit covered by the rule is built in Indian country. Additionally, tribes have a vested i nterest in how this final rule affects their air quality. However, it will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. EPA consulted with tribal officials during the process of finalizing this regulatio n to permit them to have meaningful and timely input into its development.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 592 of 1339 EPA received comments on the proposed Transport Rule that the Agency did not properly conduct consultation during the proposal phase of the rulemaking process. In response to these comments, EPA sent a letter to all federally - recognized tribes in the country offering consultation. In addition, several commenters also noted that the Agency did not adequately consider opportunities for tribes to enter into any of the trading programs and, in particular, did not consider sovereignty issues when addressing how to distribute allowances to potential new units in Indian country. On January 7, 2011, EPA issued a NODA requesting comment on allocations for new units in Indian country, among ot her topics. The Agency held a consultation call with three tribes on January 21, 2011. A follow up call was held on February 4, 2011 with two of the three original tribes plus 12 additional tribes and representatives from the National Tribal Air Associatio n. In all ten tribes participated in these calls as consultation and five participated as information - sharing. EPA considered the additional input from these consultation and information calls, in conjunction with the public comments, in the development of the final rule. Accordingly, EPA created an Indian country new unit set - aside to specifically address tribes’ concerns regarding the protection of tribal sovereignty in the distribution of allowances for new units in Indian country. See*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 593 of 1 339 section VII.D.2 of this preamble for details on the Indian country set - aside for new units constructed in Indian country within states covered by the Transport Rule. As required by section 7(a) of the Executive Order, EPA’s Tribal Consultation Official has certified tha t the requirements of the Executive Order have been met in a meaningful and timely manner. A copy of the certification is included in the docket for this action. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19,885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: 1) is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under EO 12866, and 2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of this planned rule on children, and explain why this planned regulation is preferable to other potentia lly effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not involve decisions on environmental health or safety risks that may disproportionately affect children. EPA believes*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 594 of 1339 that the emission reductions from the strategies in this rule will further improve air quality and will further improve children’s health. Analyses by EPA that show how the emission reductions from the strategies in this rule will further improve air quality and children’s health can be found in the RIA for this rule. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) provides that agencies shall prepare and submit to the Administrator of the Office of Regulatory Affairs, OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for certain actions identified as “significant energy actions.” Section 4(b) of Executive Order 13211 defines “significant energy action” as “any acti on by an agency (normally published in the Federal Register ) that promulgates or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule or regulation, including notices of inquiry, advance notices of proposed rulemaking, and notices of proposed rulemaking : (1) (i) that is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 or any successor order, and (ii) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (2) that is designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 595 of 1339 energy action.” This rule is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, and this rule is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. EPA prepared a Statement of Energy Effects for this action as follows. Under the provisions of this rule, EPA projects that approximately 4 .8 GW of additional coal - fired generation may be removed from operation by 2014. In practice, however, the units projected to be uneconomic to maintain may be “mothballed,” retired, or kept in service to ensure transmission reliability in certain parts of the grid. These units are predominantly small and infrequently - used generating units dispersed throughout the area affected by the rule. If current forecasts of either natural gas prices or electricity demand were revised in the future to be higher, that would create a greater incentive to keep these units operational. EPA estimates that average retail elect ricity price could increase in the contiguous U.S. by about 1.7 percent in 2012 and 0.8 percent in 2014. This is generally less of an increase than often occurs with fluctuating fuel prices and other market factors. Related to this, EPA projects limited impacts on coal and gas prices. The average delivered coal price decreases by about 1.4 percent in 2012 and 0.9 percent in 2014 relative to the base case as a result of decreased coal demand and shifts in*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 596 of 1339 the type of coal demanded. EPA also projects that electric power sector - delivered natural gas price will increase by about 0.3% over the 2012 - 2030 timeframe and that natural gas use for electricity generation will increase by approximately 200 billion cubic feet (BCF) by 2014. These impacts are well wit hin the range of price variability that is regularly experienced in natural gas markets. Finally, under the Transport Rule, EPA projects that coal production for use by the power sector will increase above 2009 levels by 21 million tons in 2012 and a further 14 million tons in 2014, as opposed to 30 million tons in 2012 and a further 26 million tons in 2014 without the Transport Rule in place. The Transport Rule is not projected to impact production of coal for uses outside the power sector (e.g., export, industrial sources), which represent approximately 6% of total coal production in 2009. EPA does not believe that this rule will have any other impacts (e.g., on oil markets) that exceed the significance criteria. EPA believes that a number of features o f the rulemaking serve to reduce its impact on energy supply. First, the trading component of the Transport Rule provides flexibility to the power sector and enables industry to comply with the emission reduction requirements in the most cost - effective manner compared to the alternative remedy approaches on which EPA took comment in the proposal , thus minimizing overall costs and the ultimate impact*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 597 of 1339 on energy supply. Second, the more stringent budgets for SO 2 are set in two phases, providing adequate time for EGUs to install pollution controls. In addition, both the operational flexibility of trading and the ability to bank allowances for future years helps industry plan for and ensure reliability in the electrical system. For more details concerning ener gy impacts, see the RIA for the Transport Rule. I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104

– 113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedu res, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This rule will require all sources to meet the applicable monitoring requirements of 40 CFR part 75. Part 75 already incorporates a number of voluntary consensus standards.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 598 of 1339 Consistent with the Agency’s Performance Based Measurement System (PBMS), Part 75 s ets forth performance criteria that allow the use of alternative methods to the ones set forth in Part 75. The PBMS approach is intended to be more flexible and cost effective for the regulated community; it is also intended to encourage innovation in anal ytical technology and improved data quality. At this time, EPA is not recommending any revisions to Part 75; however, EPA periodically revises the test procedures set forth in Part 75. When EPA revises the test procedures set forth in Part 75 in the future , EPA will address the use of any new voluntary consensus standards that are equivalent. Currently, even if a test procedure is not set forth in Part 75, EPA is not precluding the use of any method, whether it constitutes a voluntary consensus standard or not, as long as it meets the performance criteria specified; however, any alternative methods must be approved through the petition process under 40 CFR 75.66 before they are used. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low - Income Populations Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 599 of 1339 extent practicable and p ermitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority, low - income, and Tribal populations in the United States. During development of this final Transport Rule, EPA considered its impacts on low - income, minority, and tribal communities in several ways and provided multiple opportunities for these communities to meaning fully participate in the rulemaking process. The proposed Transport Rule included an analysis of its effects on these populations; this section describes additional analysis conducted since proposal, EPA’s responses to key comments on environmental justic e issues raised during the comment period, and the public outreach and comment opportunities for this rule. A summary of the history, statutory authority, and key components of this final Transport Rule are described in the Executive Summary (section III) of this preamble. That section also summarizes a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPR) that EPA is publishing simultaneously with this final rule to correct a procedural flaw by providing an opportunity for public comment on issues that arose from new analyses with updated inventories and modeling platforms.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 600 of 1339 Briefly, this final Transport Rule will reduce emissions of SO 2 and NOX in 23 eastern and central states in 2012 and 2014 that contribute to the annual and/or 24
- hour PM2.5 nonattainment o r interfere with maintenance in downwind states. It will also reduce emissions of ozone - season NOX in 20 eastern and central states in 2012 and 2014 that contribute to the 1997 ozone nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in downwind states. This rul e is replacing an earlier rule (the 2005 Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)) that was first vacated and then remanded to EPA by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2008. 1. Consideration of Environmental Justice in the Transp ort Rule Development Process and Response to Comments The effects of this final Transport Rule on the most highly exposed populations were integral in its development. This rule uses EPA’s authority in CAA section 110(a)(2)(d) to reduce SO 2 and nitrogen ox ide NOX pollution that significantly contributes to downwind PM2.5 and ozone nonattainment or maintenance areas. As a result, the rule will reduce exposures to ozone and PM2.5 in the most - contaminated areas (i.e., areas that are not meeting the 1997 ozone and 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)). In addition, the rule separately identifies both nonattainment areas and maintenance areas (maintenance areas are those that currently meet the NAAQS but*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 601 of 1339 that, based on past data, a re in danger of exceeding the standards in the future). This requirement reduces the likelihood that any areas close to the level of the standard will exceed the current health -based standards in the future. This final Transport Rule implements these emis sion reductions using a limited emissions trading mechanism with assurance provisions for power plants. EPA recognizes that many environmental justice communities have voiced concerns in the past about emissions trading and the potential for any emissions increases in any location. EPA also received several comments on this issue during the comment period for the proposed Transport Rule. As described below, we believe this final rule addresses the concerns raised on this issue during the comment period. PM2.5 and ozone pollution from power plants have both local and regional components: part of the pollution in a given location

– even in locations near emissions sources

– is due to emissions from nearby sources and part is due to emissions that travel hundr eds of miles and mix with emissions from other sources. Therefore, in many instances the exact location of the upwind reductions does not affect the levels of air pollution downwind. It is important to note that the section of the Clean Air Act providing authority for this rule, section 110(a)(2)(D), unlike some other provisions, does not dictate levels of control*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 602 of 1339 for particular facilities. As at least one commenter noted, none of the alternatives put forward by EPA in the proposed rule could have ensure d no emission increases at any facility. Under the direct control alternative, the emission rate for each facility would have been reduced but each facility could emit more by increasing their power output in order to meet electricity reliability or other goals. Under the intrastate trading option, state emissions would have stayed constant but individual facilities within each state could have increased their emissions as long as another facility in the state had decreased theirs. The rule tightly constr ains the influence of emission trading by requiring a strict emission ceiling in each state (the budget plus variability limit) while allowing limited ability to trade emissions between facilities or states. In addition, assurance provisions in the rule o utline the allowance surrender penalties for failing to meet the budget plus variability limits; there are additional allowance penalties as well as financial penalties for failing to hold an adequate number of allowances to cover emissions. This approach eliminates emissions in each state that significantly contributes to downwind nonattainment or maintenance areas, while allowing power companies to adjust generation as needed and ensure that the country’s electricity needs will continue to*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 603 of 1339 be met. EPA ma intains that the existence of these assurance provisions, including the penalties imposed when triggered, will ensure that state emissions will stay below the level of the budget plus variability limit. In addition, all sources must hold enough allowances to cover their emissions. Therefore, if a source emits more than its allocation in a given year, either another source must have used less than its allocation and be willing to sell some of the excess, or the source itself had used less than its allocation in one or more previous years (i.e., banked allowances for future use). In summary, the final remedy addresses commenter concerns about localized hot spots and reduces ambient concentrations of pollution where they are most needed by sensitive and vulne rable populations by: considering the science of ozone PM2.5 transport to set strict state budgets to eliminate significant contributions to ozone and PM2.5 nonattainment and maintenance (i.e., the most polluted) areas; limiting the amount of interstate tr ading possible; requiring any emissions above the level of the allocations to be offset by emission decreases; and imposing strict penalties for sources that contribute to a state’s exceedance of its budget plus variability limit. In addition, it is import ant to note that nothing in this final*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 604 of 1339 rule allows sources to violate their title V permit or any other federal, state, or local emissions or air quality requirements. EPA received comments from several tribal commenters regarding the lack of allocations i n the proposal to new units in Indian Country. EPA responded to these comments by changing the allocation approach in the final rule to create Indian country new unit set - asides. In order to protect tribal sovereignty, these set - asides will be managed and distributed by the federal government regardless of whether the Transport Rule in the adjoining or surrounding state is implemented through a federal implementation plan (FIP) or state implementation plan (SIP). While there are no existing power plants in Indian country covered by this Transport Rule, the Indian country set asides will ensure that any future new units built in Indian country will be able to get the necessary allowances. A full discussion of the Indian country new unit set - asides can be foun d in section VII.D.2. EPA also received several comments during the comment period from individuals and groups requesting additional emission reductions to further protect sensitive and vulnerable communities. While EPA has adjusted the emission requiremen ts somewhat in the final rule to accommodate revised data and updated modeling results, we are finalizing emission reductions very similar to the level in the proposal. This is because EPA*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 605 of 1339 believes that the emission reductions required by this final rule are appropriate to meet the statutory requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(d) and respond to the concerns raised by the Court’s opinion in North Carolina that remanded the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to the agency in 2008. In addition, it is important to note that CAA section 110(a)(2)(d), which addresses transport of criteria pollutants between states, is only one of many provisions of the CAA that provide EPA, states, and local governments with authorities to reduce exposure to ozone and PM2.5 in c ommunities. These legal authorities work together to reduce exposure to these pollutants in communities, including for minority, low - income, and tribal populations, and provide substantial health benefits to both the general public and sensitive sub -popul ations. For example, the recently -proposed Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) would also result in significant reductions in SO 2 emissions and provide significant health and environmental benefits nationwide. This and other actions described in secti on III will have substantial and long - term effects on both the U.S. power industry and on communities currently breathing dirty air. Therefore, we anticipate significant interest in many, if not most, of these actions from environmental justice communitie s, among many others. EPA will continue to provide multiple opportunities for comment on these actions, similar to*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 606 of 1339 the opportunities provided during the comment process for this rule detailed at the end of this section. We encourage environmental justice communities to review and comment on these actions. 2. Potential Environmental and Public Health Impacts among Populations Susceptible or Vulnerable to Air Pollution EPA expects that this final rule will provide significant health and environmental benefi ts to, among others, people with asthma, people with heart disease, and people living in ozone or fine particle ( PM2.5 ) nonattainment areas. EPA’s analysis of the effects of this rule, including information on air quality changes and the resulting health benefits, is presented both in section VIII of this preamble and in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for this rule. These documents can be accessed through the rule docket No. EPA- HQ - OAR- 2009 - 0491 and from the main EPA webpage for the rule www.epa.gov /airtransport . EPA considered several aspects of the effects of the Transport Rule on minority, low - income, and tribal populations. These included: amount of emission reductions and where they take place (including any potential for areas of increased emi ssions); the changes in ambient concentrations across the affected area; the estimated health benefits; and how the estimated health benefits are distributed among different*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 607 of 1339 populations, including those susceptible and vulnerable to air pollution health impacts. a. Emission reductions EPA’s emissions modeling data indicate that implementation of the Transport Rule will substantially reduce SO 2 emissions from electric generating units (EGUs). As noted in section III, emissions in states covered by the Transp ort Rule will decrease by 6.4 million tons (73 percent) in 2014 compared to 2005 (the year the Clean Air Interstate Rule was finalized). Emissions are also projected to decrease when compared to the base case (the base case estimates emissions in 2014 in t he absence of this rule or the Clean Air Interstate Rule it is replacing). EPA estimates that SO 2 emissions in 2014 in covered states will be 3.9 million tons lower (62 percent lower) compared to the base case. EPA also assessed emission changes in states not covered by the Transport Rule. Emissions in the states not covered by the Transport Rule are also projected to decrease substantially compared to 2005 levels; in 2014 SO 2 emissions are projected to be approximately 430,000 tons lower (30 percent lower ) than in 2005.As described in section VI.C, EPA’s modeling does project that some states not covered by any of the fine particle control programs in the final Transport Rule may experience increases of*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 608 of 1339 SO 2 emissions greater than 5,000 tons compared to t he base case. These states are Arkansas, Colorado, Louisiana, Montana, and Wyoming. These emission increases are the result of forecasted changes in operation of power plant units outside of the Transport Rule region due to the interconnected nature of th e utility grid (i.e., shifts in generation of electricity to sources outside the Transport Rule region) or influence of the rule on the market for lower sulfur coal. For example, EPA projects that the rule will raise demand for lower sulfur coal in the st ates covered by the Transport Rule for PM2.5 (thereby raising its price), which may lead sources in states not covered for PM2.5 to choose higher - sulfur coals that increase SO 2 emissions in those states. EPA is not requiring SO 2 emission reductions in thes e states under this rule because our modeling indicates none of these states’ contributions would increase enough to cause them to meet or exceed the thresholds described in section V.D for either of the PM2.5 standards. EPA’s authority under CAA section 110(a)(2)(d) is limited to addressing this significant contribution and interference with maintenance. However, as noted above, EPA has recently proposed the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards that will apply nationwide and result in significant additional SO 2 emission reductions, including in states not covered by the Transport Rule.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 609 of 1339 EPA’s emission modeling data indicates that ozone - season NOX emissions from EGUs in states covered by the Transport Rule will be approximately 340,000 tons lower (36 percent lower) in 2014 than they were in 2005. Emissions in states not covered by the Transport Rule are also expected to decrease somewhat (approximately 82,000 tons or 25 percent). EPA’s modeling does project that two states (California and Pennsylvania) may exp erience increases of NOX emissions greater than 5,000 tons in 2014 compared to 2005 levels. California is not covered by the Transport Rule; in Pennsylvania, 2005 was an unusually low emitting year and sources are projected to increase their heat input sli ghtly (usually meaning they are generating more power) after the rule takes effect. EPA also assessed the expected changes in seasonal NOX emissions with implementation of the Transport Rule compared to the base case (i.e., without the rule) in 2014. The modeling indicates ozone - season NOX emissions from EGUs in both covered states and non - Transport Rule states under this rule will be lower than they would have been in 2014 in the base case. Seasonal NOX emissions in covered states are projected to decrea se by approximately 74,000 tons (11 percent); seasonal NOX emissions in non - Transport Rule states are projected to decrease by approximately 10,000 tons (4 percent). Both California and Pennsylvania are projected to have lower NOX emissions in 2014*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 610 of 1339 under the Transport Rule as compared to the base case. In addition, EPA anticipates that additional upcoming actions, including likely additional interstate transport reductions to help states attain the upcoming new ozone NAAQS, will result in significant addi tional NOX reductions in the future. b. Air quality improvements EPA assessed the air quality metrics (called “design values”) for each NAAQS addressed in this rule: 24 - hour PM2.5 , annual PM2.5 , and ozone. We then compared these metrics for the final rule to the same metrics in the recent past (2003 - 2007 average ambient air quality) and for the 2014 base case to assess improvements in air quality. EPA’s modeling indicates that there will be significant improvements in air quality as measured by the 24 - hour PM2.5 standard. Throughout much of the eastern half of the U.S. 24 - hour PM2.5 design values are projected to improve over 10 μg/ m3 compared to the 2003 - 2007 average levels. In addition, compared to the 2014 base case levels, we project the Transport Rule will result in improvements of 8 - 10 μg/ m3 in a broad swath of states stretching from far southwestern New York through Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Maryland, Indiana, southern Illinois, eastern Missouri, eastern Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, northern Alabama, and northern Mississippi. Isolated areas of Virginia and northern New Jersey are also expected to see this*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 611 of 1339 level of improvement. Improvements of 2 - 6 μg/m3 are projected in surrounding states stretching from New England and New York to Minnesot a, Iowa, the far eastern edge of Nebraska, Missouri, eastern Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, the Gulf of Mexico states, and the states bordering the Atlantic Ocean from Florida to New Hampshire. EPA modeling indicates that air quality as measured by the annual PM2.5 design value will also improve. Improvements range from 2 to over 4 μg/m3 compared to the 2003 - 2007 average levels throughout the eastern half of the U.S. Annual PM2.5 air quality with the transport Rule are also projected to improve compared to the 20 14 base case levels. The largest improvements of up to 4 μg/m3 are projected to occur in northern West Virginia and a small area in northwestern Tennessee. Improvements of up to 3 μg/m3 are projected for portions of the Ohio River valley areas of southwest ern Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia; Kentucky, central Tennessee, and southern Indiana. Improvements of up to 2 μg/m3 are projected to take place in a ring of surrounding states including all or most of New York, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Ar kansas, the far eastern edge of Oklahoma, the northeastern edge of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. Smaller improvements are*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 612 of 1339 projected in New Englan d, Wisconsin, the Plains states, southeastern New Mexico, and Florida. EPA modeling indicates that ozone air quality will improve greatly (10 - 12 ppb or more) across much of the eastern U.S. between the average levels seen in 2003 - 2007 and implementation of the Transport Rule. Most of the improvements take place in the base case; that is, they are the result of federal and state programs other than the Transport Rule. However, ozone air quality is projected to improve somewhat as a direct result of the Trans port Rule. Improvements in ozone design values compared to the base case of more than 1 ppb are projected for portions of Florida, eastern Oklahoma, and areas along the upper reaches of the Ohio River. In addition, improvements in ozone design values of up to 1 ppb are projected over a wide area across the eastern U.S. from New England to Texas and north to Minnesota. Improvements are also projected in north - central Colorado. EPA’s modeling does indicate small increases in annual PM2.5 air quality design values in the final rule compared to the 2014 base case in two counties outside of the Transport Rule region: one county in northern Colorado and one county in eastern Montana. As noted above in the section on emissions, these increases are likely the res ult of forecasted changes in electricity generation due to the interconnected nature of both the utility grid and the national low - sulfur coal market. It*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 613 of 1339 should be noted that 2003 - 2007 average air quality levels in these counties is well below the level of the NAAQS and that it does get even cleaner under the final rule. In addition, other actions, including federal rules such as the recently proposed Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, state, or local actions may also improve air quality in these areas over the next few years. As described in section VI II . B , EPA anticipates that this final rule will reduce, but not eliminate, the number of nonattainment and maintenance areas for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. As noted above, ozone and PM2.5 co ncentrations are the result of both local emissions and long range transport of pollution. Even when the significant contributions of upwind states are fully eliminated, additional emission reductions within the nonattainment area and/or the downwind stat e will be needed for some areas to attain and maintain the NAAQS. c. Estimated Health benefits This rule reduces concentrations of PM2.5 and ozone pollution. Exposure to these pollutants can cause, or contribute to, adverse health effects that affect many minority, low income, and tribal individuals and communities. PM2.5 and ozone are particularly (but not exclusively) harmful to children, the elderly, and people with existing heart and lung diseases, including asthma. Exposure to these pollutants can cause*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 614 of 1339 premature death and trigger heart attacks, asthma attacks in those with asthma, chronic and acute bronchitis, emergency room visits and hospitalizations, as well as milder illnesses that keep children home from school and adults home from work. High r ates of heart disease (e.g., high blood pressure) 115 and asthma 116 exist in many environmental justice communities, making these populations more susceptible to air pollution health impacts. In addition, many individuals in these communities lack access to hi gh quality health care to treat these illnesses 117 . We estimate that in 2014 the PM- related annual benefits of the final rule include approximately 13,000 to 34,000 fewer premature mortalities, 8,700 fewer cases of chronic bronchitis, 15,000 fewer non - fatal heart attacks, 8,500 fewer hospitalizations (for respiratory and cardiovascular disease combined), 10 million fewer days of restricted activity due to respiratory illness and approximately 1.7 million fewer lost work days. We also estimate substantial hea lth improvements for

115 Neighborhood of Re sidence and Incidence of Coronary Heart Disease Ana V. Diez Roux, M.D., Ph.D. et al. N Engl J Med 2001; 345:99 - 106; July 12, 2001. 116 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2007 National Health 11. Interview Survey Data. Table 4 - 1. Current Asthma Preva lence Percents by Age, United States: National Health Interview Survey, 2007. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, CDC, 2010. Accessed June 1, 2010. 117 R. Nelson, Eds. National Institute of Medicine, 2003.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 615 of 1339 children in the form of fewer cases of upper and lower respiratory illness, acute bronchitis, and asthma attacks. Ozone health - related benefits are expected to occur during the summer ozone season (usually ranging from May to September in the eastern U.S.). Based upon modeling for 2014, annual ozone related health benefits are expected to include (in addition to the PM- related benefits above) between 27 - 120 fewer premature mortalities, 240 fewer hospital admissions for respiratory illn esses in children and older adults, 86 fewer emergency room admissions for asthma, 160,000 fewer days with restricted activity levels, and 51,000 fewer “school absence” days when children are absent from school due to illnesses. When adding the PM and ozo ne - related mortalities together, we find that the final rule will yield between 13,000 to 34,000 fewer premature mortalities. It should be noted that, as discussed in the RIA, that there are other benefits to the emission reductions discussed here, inclu ding many other health benefits beyond reducing the risk of premature mortality. Additional benefits of reducing emissions of SO 2 include improved visibility, reduced acidification of lakes and streams, and reduced mercury methylation in contaminated wate rs; additional benefits of NOX reductions include improved visibility, reduced acidification of lakes and streams and reduced coastal eutrophication.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 616 of 1339 d. Distribution of Health Benefits Among Different Populations EPA also estimated the PM2.5 mortality ri sks according to race, income, and educational attainment before and after implementation of this Transport Rule. We used premature mortality for this analysis for several reasons: it is the most serious health effect of exposure to PM2.5 ,and EPA has acce ss to nationwide incidence and demographic data at an appropriate scale to conduct this type of analysis. EPA included educational attainment in this assessment because research on the effects of PM2.5 has found that educational attainment is inversely re lated to the risk of all - cause mortality. That is, populations with lower levels of education (in particula r, less than grade 12) experience higher rates of PM2.5 mortality. Krewski and colleagues 118 note in their analysis of this relationship that the level of education attainment is likely to be a surrogate for the effects of complex socioeconomic processes (including factors such as race and income) on mortality. It should be noted that, due to timing constraints, this analysis used air quality and bene fits data from the

118 Krewski D, Jerrett M, Burne tt RT, Ma R, Hughes E, Shi Y, Turner C, Pope CA, Thurston G, Calle EE, Thunt MJ. Extended follow - up and spatial analysis of the American Cancer Society study linking particulate air pollution and mortality. HEI Research Report, 140, 2009; Health Effects I nstitute, Boston, MA.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 617 of 1339 proposed Transport Rule. However, the air quality modeling results for this final rule indicate that the geographic distribution of air quality improvements is very similar to those projected in modeling for the proposed Transport Rule. As a result, we expect this distributional analysis to be a reasonable estimate of the effects of this final rule. In the first step of the analysis, we estimated baseline (2005) PM2.5 mortality risk by race (White, Black, Asian, Native American) among pe ople living in the counties with the highest (top 5 percent) PM2.5 mortality risk and the highest (top 5 percent) poverty rate in 2005. We also estimated the baseline (2005) PM2.5 mortality risk by educational attainment for people living in the highest PM2.5 mortality risk counties. In the second step, we estimated the changes in risk for different races among the people living in these “high - risk” and “high poverty” counties resulting from implementation of other existing rules in 2014 and from implementa tion of just the Transport Rule in 2014. Finally, in the third step we compared the effects of the Transport Rule by race in the high - risk and high -poverty counties with the effects on people (by race) living in all other counties. In 2005, people living i n the highest - risk counties and in the poorest counties had substantially higher risks of PM2.5 - related death than people living in the other 95 percent of*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 618 of 1339 counties. This was true regardless of race: the differences among races in both groups of counties was very small and dwarfed by the large difference between the two groups of counties for all races. For educational attainment, in contrast, our analysis found that people with less than high school education had significantly greater risks from PM2.5 mort ality than people with a greater than high school education. This was especially true for people living in the highest - risk counties, but also held true for people living in all other counties. In summary, in 2005, having less than a high school or high school education, living in one of the poorest counties, and living in a high air pollution risk county are associated with higher PM2.5 mortality risk; race is not. Our analysis of the effects of the Transport Rule on this underlying exposure pattern finds that the rule will significantly reduce the PM2.5 mortality among all populations of different races living throughout the U.S. compared to both 2005 and 2014 pre - rule (i.e., base case) levels. No group will experience any increases in PM2.5 mortality rate as a result of implementing the Transport Rule. The analysis indicates that the populations with the largest improvement (i.e., largest decline) in PM2.5 mortality risk as a result of the Transport Rule in 2014 (compared to the base case in 2014) are people living in the highest - risk*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 619 of 1339 counties. Among these counties, the largest improvements are for people with less than high school or high school education. These reductions in risk within the highest - risk counties, as well as the reductions in risk within the other 95 percent of counties, are distributed among populations of different races fairly evenly. Therefore, there is no indication that people of particular race receive a greater benefit (or smaller benefit) than others. The analysis indicates that people living in the poorest 5 percent of counties will experience somewhat smaller improvements in risk from this Transport Rule alone compared to their counterparts in the other 95 percent of counties. This is due to the fact that many of the counties wi th the highest levels of poverty are in areas outside the Transport Rule region and therefore experience little to no emission reductions as a result of the rule. There is little difference in the improvement in risk among races; in other words, people in the poorest counties experience the same improvement in risk regardless of race. The analysis also indicates that this rule, in conjunction with the implementation of existing or proposed rules (e.g., the proposed Mercury and Air Toxics Standards), will re duce the disparity in risk between the highest - risk counties and the other 95 percent of counties for all races and educational*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 620 of 1339 levels. In addition, implementation of this Transport Rule and other rules will, together, reduce risks in the poorest counties to the approximate level of risk for the rest of the counties before implementation. This analysis is presented in more detail in the RIA for this rule which is available in the rule docket No. EPA- HQ - OAR- 2009 - 0491 and from the main EPA webpage for the rul e www.epa.gov/airtransport . 3. Meaningful Public Participation EPA defines “Environmental Justice” to include meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and polic i es. To promote meaningful involvement, EPA developed a communication and outreach strategy to ensure that interested communities had access to the proposed Transport Rule, were aware of its content , and had an opportunity to comment during the comment period. These efforts are summarized below. As EPA began considering approaches to address the court remand of the 2005 Clean Air Interstate Rule, long before the rule was proposed, the agency also be gan gathering input from a large range of stakeholders. In the spring of 2009, EPA held a series of listening sessions to gather information and perspectives from stakeholders prior to the formal start of the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 621 of 1339 rulemaking process. These stakeholders included a number of environmental groups who requested that EPA consider several potential environmental justice issues during development of this rule. In addition, many environmental justice organizations were represented at a November 2009 EPA- Health and Human Services White House Stakeholder Briefing entitled “The Public Health Benefits of Energy Reform” in which EPA discussed our intention to propose this rule in the spring of 2010 and participants had the opportunity to respond. Finally, EPA notified Indian Tribes of our intent to propose this rule in the fall of 2009 during a regularly scheduled meeting to update the National Tribal Air Association members of upcoming EPA policies and regulations and to receive input from them on the effects of these eff orts in Indian country. These were not opportunities for stakeholders to comment on the specifics of the proposal, as they took place prior to its development, but they provided valuable information that EPA used in developing the proposal. Just after the rule was proposed in July 2010, EPA presented a summary of information related to the proposed Transport Rule at the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) meeting in Washington, DC, and responded to questions from NEJAC members regarding the proposed rule. EPA also solicited suggestions for how to engage environmental justice communities during the rule comment period.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 622 of 1339 During the public comment period, EPA held public hearings in Chicago, Philadelphia, and Atlanta. Each hearing was advert ised by EPA through a variety of products targeted to general audiences (e.g., fact sheets, press release, slide presentation, etc.); on EPA’s environmental justice listserve; and by non -profit organizations (e.g., American Lung Association). The public he arings were held in public buildings (i.e., no formal identification required to enter or to speak) and were open for 11 hours (9am - 8 pm) to accommodate commenters with various work schedules. All three hearings were well attended by members of the genera l public. During hearing breaks, EPA staff spent time talking with individuals, including those representing environmental justice organizations or communities, to understand their perspectives in greater detail. As noted above, several commenters at each hearing made comments related to the need to protect communities living near power plants and the most vulnerable individuals. Some of these commenters specifically mentioned environmental justice; others mentioned issues often of concern to environmental justice communities, such as hot spots, interest in additional emission reductions and greater environmental protection, and concern over the effects of the rule on the most sensitive and vulnerable populations.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 623 of 1339 In September 2010, during the comment period , EPA held a webinar for EJ communities on the proposed Transport Rule. A presentation tailored for an audience of environmental justice, community, and tribal representatives was specifically designed for this webinar. It was sent to registered participan ts beforehand and put on the Transport Rule webpage, where it remains posted. The presentation included both information on the context of the rule, plain language information describing the rule itself, and directions on how to comment on the rule. EPA s taff made a short presentation and answered questions about the Transport Rule on a standing bi -monthly Community conference call targeted to environmental justice and tribal representatives and organizations. In addition, at the fall 2010 NEJAC meeting in Kansas City, Missouri, EPA provided details of the proposed Transport Rule as part of a larger discussion of a sector -based approach to utility regulation. Regarding tribal consultation, EPA sent letters to all 565 federally - recognized Tribes in the count ry offering consultation on the proposed Transport Rule. In addition, the January 7 NODA on allowance allocation methodologies specifically requested comment on allocating allowances to new units in Indian Country. EPA held two formal consultation and info rmation - sharing calls with 14 interested Tribes in late January and early February 2011. Tribes participating on these consultation and information*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 624 of 1339 calls provided comments on the proposed rule and the allowance allocation NODA. As noted above, this additio nal input from the consultation process was taken into account in the development of the final rule. See Section XII.F for more information on tribal consultation. 4. Summary EPA believes that the vast majority of communities and individuals in areas cover ed by this rule, including numerous low - income, minority, and tribal individuals and communities in both rural areas and inner cities in the eastern and central U.S., will see significant improvements in air quality and resulting improvements in health. EPA’s assessment of the effects of the proposed and final Transport Rules on these communities included a) the structure of the rule and responses to comments received on issues specific to these communities; b) expected SO 2 and NOX emission reductions; c) expected PM2.5 and ozone air quality improvements; d) expected health benefits, including asthma and other health effects of particular concern for environmental justice communities; and e) a quantitative assessment of the expected socioeconomic distributi on of a key health benefit (reduction in premature mortality). All of these analyses indicate large health and environmental benefits for these communities; none show evidence of adverse effects. As a result, EPA concludes that we do not expect disproporti onately*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 625 of 1339 high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low - income, or tribal populations in the United States as a result of implementing this final Transport Rule. K. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to pub lication of the rule in the Federal Register. A Major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective [ insert date 60 days after publication ]. L. Judicial Review Petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION]. Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA indic ates which*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 626 of 1339 Federal Courts of Appeal have venue for petitions of review of final actions by EPA. This section provides, in part, that petitions for review must be filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit if (i) the agency action c onsists of ‘‘nationally applicable regulations promulgated, or final action taken, by the Administrator,’’ or (ii) such action is locally or regionally applicable, if ‘‘such action is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect and if in taking such action the Administrator finds and publishes that such action is based on such a determination.’’ Any final action related to the Transport Rule is ‘‘nationally applicable’’ within the meaning of section 307(b)(1). Through this rule, EPA interprets s ection 110 of the CAA, a provision which has nationwide applicability. In addition, the Transport Rule applies to 27 States. The Transport Rule is also based on a common core of factual findings and analyses concerning the transport of pollutants between the different states subject to it. For these reasons, the Administrator also is determining that any final action regarding the Transport Rule is of nationwide scope and effect for purposes of section 307(b)(1). Thus, pursuant to section 307(b) any peti tions for review of final actions regarding the Transport Rule must be filed in the Court of Appeals for the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 627 of 1339 District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days from the date final action is published in the Federal Register. Filing a petition for reconsideratio n of this action does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. In additio n, pursuant to CAA section 307(b)(2) this action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 628 of 1339 Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and

Ozone ( Page 628 of 1339 )
In addition , this action is subject to the provisions of section 307(d). CAA section 307(d)(1)(B) provides that section 307(d) applies to, among other things, to "the promulgation or revision of an implementation plan by the Administrator under CAA section 110(c)" (42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(1)(B)). The Agency has complied with procedural requirements of CAA section 307(d) during the course of this rulemaking. DATE:________________________

______________________________ Lisa P. Jackson , Administrator.

For the reasons s et forth in the preamble, parts 51, 52, 72, 78, and 97 of chapter I of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows: PART 51— [AMENDED]*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 629 of 1339 1. The authority citation for Part 51 continues to read as follows: Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U. S.C. 7401 - 7671q § 51.121 [Amended] 2. Section 51.121 is amended by revising paragraph (r)(2) by removing the words “ § 51.123(bb)” and adding, in their place, the words “ § 51.123(bb) with regard to an ozone season that occurs before January 1, 2012”. § 51.12 3 [Amended] 3. Section 51.123 is amended by adding a new paragraph (ff) to read as follows: § 51.123 Findings and requirements for submission of State implementation plan revisions relating to emissions of oxides of nitrogen pursuant to the Clean Air Interstate Rule. * * * * * (ff) Notwithstanding any provisions of paragraphs (a) through (ee) of this section, subparts AA through II and AAA through III of part 96 of this chapter, subparts AA through II and AAAA through IIII of part 97 of this chapter, and any State’s SIP to the contrary:*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 6 30 of 1339 (1) With regard to any control period that begins after December 31, 2011, the Administrator: (i) Rescinds the determination in paragraph (a) of this section that the States identified in paragraph (c) of this section must submit a SIP revision with respect to the fine particles (PM2.5 ) NAAQS and the 8 - hour ozone NAAQS meeting the requirements of paragraphs (b) through (ee) of this section; and (ii) Will not carry out any of the functions set forth for the Administrator in subparts AA through II and AAAA through IIII of part 96 of this chapter, subparts AA through II and AAAA through IIII of part 97 of this chapter, or in any emissions trading program provisions in a State’s SIP approved under this section; (2) The Admi nistrator will not deduct for excess emissions any CAIR NOX allowances or CAIR NO X Ozone Season allowances allocated for 2012 or any year thereafter ; (3) By [INSERT DATE 90 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the Administrator will remove from the CAIR NOX Allowance Tracking System accounts all CAIR NO X allowances allocated for a control period in 2012 and any subsequent year, and, thereafter, no surrender or deduction of such allowances for excess emissions in any control period will be requi red; and*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 631 of 1339 (4) By [INSERT DATE 90 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the Administrator will remove from the CAIR NO X Ozone Season Allowance Tracking System accounts all CAIR NOX Ozone Season allowances allocated for a control period in 2012 an d any subsequent year, and, thereafter, no surrender or deduction of such allowances for excess emissions in any control period will be required . § 51.124 [Amended] 4. Section 51.124 is amended by adding a new paragraph (s) to read as follows: § 51.124 Findings and requirements for submission of State implementation plan revisions relating to emissions of sulfur dioxide pursuant to the Clean Air Interstate Rule. * * * * * (s) Notwithstanding any provisions of paragraphs (a) through (r) of this sect ion, subparts AAA through III of part 96 of this chapter, subparts AAA through III of part 97 of this chapter, and any State’s SIP to the contrary: (1) With regard to any control period that begins after December 31, 2011, the Administrator:*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 632 of 1339 (i) Rescinds the determination in paragraph (a) of this section that the States identified in paragraph (c) of this section must submit a SIP revision with respect to the fine particles (PM2.5 ) NAAQS meeting the requirements of paragraphs (b) through (r) of this sectio n; and (ii) Will not carry out any of the functions set forth for the Administrator in subparts AAA through III of part 96 of this chapter, subparts AAA through III of part 97 of this chapter, or in any emissions trading program in a State’s SIP approved under this section; and (2) The Administrator will not deduct for excess emissions any CAIR SO 2 allowances allocated for 2012 or any year thereafter. § 51.125 [Reserved] 5. Section 51.125 is removed and reserved. PART 52— [AMENDED] 6. The authority citat ion for Part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. Subpart A

—General Provisions § 52.35 [Amended]*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 633 of 1339 7. Section 52.35 is amended by adding a new paragraph (f) to read as follows: § 5 2.35 What are the requirements of the Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) for the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) relating to emissions of nitrogen oxides? * * * * * (f) Notwithstanding any provisions of paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section, subparts AA through II and AAAA through IIII of part 97 of this chapter, and any State’s SIP to the contrary: (1) With regard to any control period that begins after December 31, 2011, (i) The provisions in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section relating to NOX annual or ozone season emissions s hall not be applicable; and (ii) The Administrator will not carry out any of the functions set forth for the Administrator in subparts AA through II and AAAA through IIII of part 97 of this chapter; (2) The Administrator will not deduct for excess emissio ns any CAIR NOX allowances or CAIR NO X Ozone Season allowances allocated for 2012 or any year thereafter ;*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 634 of 1339 (3) By [INSERT DATE 90 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the Administrator will remove from the CAIR NO X Allowance Tracking System acco unts all CAIR NOX allowances allocated for a control period in 2012 and any subsequent year, and, thereafter, no surrender or deduction of such allowances for excess emissions in any control period will be required; and (4) By [INSERT DATE 90 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the Administrator will remove from the CAIR NO X Ozone Season Allowance Tracking System accounts all CAIR NO X Ozone Season allowances allocated for a control period in 2012 and any subsequent year, and, thereafter, no su rrender or deduction of such allowances for excess emissions in any control period will be required . § 52.36 [Amended] 8. Section 52.36 is amended by adding a new paragraph (e) to read as follows: § 52.36 What are the requirements of the Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) for the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) relating to emissions of sulfur dioxide?

* * * * **** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 635 of 1339 (e) Notwithstanding any provisions of paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section, subparts AAA through III of part 97 of this chapter an d any State’s SIP to the contrary: (1) With regard to any control period that begins after December 31, 2011, (i) The provisions of paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section relating to SO 2 emissions shall not be applicable; and (ii) The Administrator wi ll not carry out any of the functions set forth for the Administrator in subparts AAA through III of part 97 of this chapter; and (2) The Administrator will not deduct for excess emissions any CAIR SO 2 allowances allocated for 2012 or any year thereafter. 9. Subpart A is amended by adding §§ 52.37 and 52.38 to read as follows: § 52.3 7 What are the requirements of the Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) under the Transport Rule (TR) relating to emissions of nitrogen oxides?
(a)(1) The TR NOX Annual Trading Program provisions of part 97 of this chapter constitute the TR Federal Implementation Plan provisions that relate to annual emissions of nitrogen oxides (NO X ).*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 636 of 1339 (2) The provisions of subpart AAAAA of part 97 of this chapter, regarding the TR NOX Annu al Trading Program, apply to the sources in the following States : Alabama, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texa s, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
( 3 ) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a)(1) of this section, a State listed in paragraph (a)(2) may adopt and include in a SIP revision, and the Administrator will approve, as TR NOX Annual allowance allocation provisions replacing the provisions in §97.411(a) with regard to the control period in 2013, a list of TR NOX Annual units and the amount of TR NO X Annual allowances allocated to each unit on such list , provided that the list of units and allocations meets the following requirements:
(i ) All of the units on the list must be units that are in the State and commenced commercial operation before January 1, 2010; (ii) The total amount of TR NO X Annual allowance allocations on the list mu st not exceed the amount of the State’s TR NO X Annual trading budget minus the sum of the amounts of the State’s new unit set - aside and Indian country new unit set - aside for 2013 under §97.4 10(a) ; (iii) The list must be submitted electronically in a format specified by the Administrator; and*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 637 of 1339 (iv) The SIP revision must not provide for any change in the units and allocations on the list after approval of the SIP revision by the Administrator and must not provide for any change in any allocation determined and recorded by the Administrator under subpart AAAAA of part 97 of this chapte r; (v) Provided that: (A) By [INSERT DATE 70 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDRAL REGISTER], the State must notify the Administrator electronically in a format specified by the Administrator of the State’s intent to submit to the Administrator a complete SIP revision meeting the requirements of paragraph (a)(3)(i) through (iv) of this section by April 1, 2012 ; and (B) The State must submit to the Administrator a complete SIP revision described in paragraph (a)(3)(v)(A) of this section by April 1, 2012. (4) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a)(1) of this section, a State listed in paragraph (a)(2) may adopt and include in a SIP revision, and the Administrator will approve, regulations revising the TR NOX Annual Trading Program as follows and not making any other substantive revisions of the TR NO X Annual Trading Program: (i) The State may adopt, as TR NO X Annual allowance allocation provisions replacing the provis ions in §§97.411(a) and (b) and*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 638 of 1339 97.412(a) with regard to the control period in 2014 and thereafter, provisions substantively identical to those provisions, except that the State or the permitting authority allocates in lieu of the Administrator; or
(ii) The State may adopt, as TR NOX Annual allowance allocation or auction provisions replacing the provisions in §§97.411(a) and (b) and 97.412(a) with regard to the control period in 2014 and thereafter, any methodology under which the State or the permittin g authority allocates in lieu of the Administrator or auctions TR NOX Annual allowances, and may adopt, in addition to the definitions in §97.402, one or more definitions that shall apply only to terms as used in the adopted TR NO X Annual allowance allocat ion or auction provisions, if such methodology -- (A) Requires that the total amount of TR NO X Annual allowances allocated and, if applicable, auctioned by the State or the permitting authority for such control period not exceed the amount of the State’s TR NOX Annual trading budget, minus the amounts of the State’s Indian country new unit set - aside and of TR NO X Annual allowances already allocated and recorded by the Administrator, for such control period. (B) Requires, to the extent the State adopts prov isions for allocations to or auction of TR NO X Annual allowances for any TR NO X Annual units covered by §97.411(a) for any such control period , that the State or the permitting authority submit such allocations or the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 639 of 1339 results of such auction for such cont rol period (except allocations to or auctions for such units of TR NO X Annual allowances remaining unallocated or not auctioned in a set - aside for recipients other than such units after completion of such allocations or auctions) to the Administrator no la ter than the following dates:
Year of the control period for which TR NOX Annual allowances are allocated or auctioned Deadline for

submission of allocations or auction results to Administrator 2014 June 1, 2013 2015 June 1, 2013 2016 June 1, 2014 201 7 June 1, 2014 2018 June 1, 2015 2019 June 1, 2015 2020 and any year thereafter June 1 of the

fourth year before the year of the control period
(C) Requires, to the extent the State adopts provisions for allocations to or auctions of TR NO X Annual al lowances for any TR NO X Annual units covered by §§97.411(b)(1) and 97.412(a), that the State or the permitting authority submit such allocations or the results of such auction (except allocations to or auctions for such units of TR*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 640 of 1339 NOX Annual allowances remaining unallocated or not auctioned in a set aside for any recipients after completion of such allocations or auctions) to the Administrator by July 1 of the year of such control period. (D) Does not provide for any change, after the submission deadlines in paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(B) and (C) of this section, in the allocations submitted to the Administrator by such deadlines and does not provide for any change in any allocation determined and recorded by the Administrator under subpart AAAAA of part 97 of this chapte r; ; (iii) Provided that the State must submit a complete SIP revision meeting the requirements of paragraph (a)(4)(i) or (ii) of this section by December 1 of the year before the year of the deadline for submission of allocations or auction res ults under paragraphs (a)(4)(ii)(B) and (C) of this section for the first control period for which the State wants to make allocations or hold an auction under paragraph (a)(4)(i) or (ii) of this section. (5) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph ( a)(1) of this section, a State listed in paragraph (a)(2) may adopt and include in a SIP revision, and the Administrator will approve, as correcting the deficiency in the SIP that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan set forth in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section, regulations thatare substantively identical to the TR NOX*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 641 of 1339 Annual Trading Program set forth in §§97.402 through97.435, except that the SIP revision may:
(i) Adopt, as TR NO X Annual allowance allocation provisions repla cing the provisions in §§97.411(a) and (b) and 97.412(a) with regard to the control period in 2014 and thereafter, provisions substantively identical to those provisions, except that the State or the permitting authority allocates in lieu of the Administra tor; or (ii) Adopt, as TR NOX Annual allowance allocation or auction provisions replacing the provisions in §§97.411(a) and (b) and 97.412(a) with regard to the control period in 2014 and thereafter, any methodology under which the State or the permittin g authority allocates in lieu of the Administrator or auctions TR NOX Annual allowances and that -- (A) Requires the State or the permitting authority to allocate and, if applicable, auction a total amount of TR NO X Annual allowances for the control period not exceeding the amount of the State’s TR NO X Annual trading budget minus the amounts of the State’s Indian country new unit set - aside and of TR NO X Annual allowances already allocated and recorded by the Administrator, for such control period. (B) Requ ires, to the extent the State adopts provisions for allocations or auction of TR NO X Annual allowances for any TR NO X Annual units covered by §97.411(a) for any control period starting in 2014, that the State or the permitting authority submit such*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 642 of 1339 allocat ions or the results of such auction for such control period (except allocations to or auctions for such units of TR NO X Annual allowances remaining unallocated or not auctioned in a set - aside for recipients other than such units after completion of such al locations or auctions) to the Administrator no later than the following dates:
Year of the control period for which TR NOX Annual allowances are allocated or auctioned Deadline for

submission of allocations or auction results to Administrator 2014 June 1, 2013 2015 June 1, 2013 2016 June 1, 2014 2017 June 1, 2014 2018 June 1, 2015 2019 June 1, 2015 2020 and any year thereafter June 1 of the

fourth year before the year of the control period (C) Requires, to the extent the State adopts provisions for allocations or auction of TR NO X Annual allowances for any TR NO X Annual units covered by §97.411(a) for any control period in 2020 and any year thereafter, that the State or the permitting authority submit such allocations or the results of such aucti on (except allocations to or auctions for such units of TR NO X Annual allowances remaining*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 643 of 1339 unallocated or not auctioned in a set - aside for any recipients after completion of such allocations or auctions) to the Administrator no later than June 1 of the fou rth year before the year of such control period. (D) Requires, to the extent the State adopts provisions for allocations or auctions of TR NO X Annual allowances for any TR NO X Annual units covered by §§97.411(b) and 97.412(a), that the State or the permit ting authority submit such allocations or the results of such auction (except allocations to or auctions for such units of TR NOX Annual allowances remaining unallocated or not auctioned in a set aside for any recipients after completion of such allocation s or auctions) to the Administrator by July 1 of the year of such control period. (E) Does not provide for any change, after the submission deadlines in paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(B), (C), and (D) of this section, in the allocations submitted to the Administra tor by such deadlines and does not provide for any change in any allocation determined and recorded by the Administrator under subpart AAAAA of part 97 of this chapte r. (iii) Provided that the State may adopt, in addition to the definitions in §97.402, one or more definitions that shall apply only to terms as used in the TR NO X Annual allowance allocation or auction provisions adopted under paragraph (a)(4)(ii) of this section ; and*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 644 of 1339 (iv) Provided that the State must submit a complete SIP revision meeting the requirements of paragraph (a)(4)(i) or paragraphs (a)(4)(ii) and (4)(iii) of this section by December 1 of the year before the year of the deadline for submission of allocations or auction results under paragraphs (a)(4)(ii)(B) and (C) of this section applicable to the first control period for which the State wants to make such allocations or hold such auction under paragraph (a)(4)(i) or paragraphs (a)(4)(ii) and (4)(iii) of this section.
(6) Following promulgation of an approval by the Administrat or of a State's SIP revision as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan described in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section , the provisions of paragraph (a)(2) of this section will no longer apply to the sources in the State, unless the Administrator's approval of the SIP revision is partial or conditional . ( 7 ) Notwithstanding the provision s of paragraph (a)( 5 ) of this section, if, at the time of such approval of the State's SIP revision , the Adminis trator has already allocated any TR NOX Annual allowances to sources in the State for any years, the provisions of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation of TR NOX Annual allowances for those years shall continue t o apply, unless provide d otherwise by such approval of the State’s SIP revision . (b)(1) The TR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program provisions of part 97 of*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 645 of 1339 this chapter constitute the TR Federal Implementation Plan provisions that relate to emissions of NOX during the ozone season, defined as May 1 through September 30 of a calendar year.
(2) The provisions of subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter , regarding the TR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program, apply to sources in each of the following States : Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia.
( 3 ) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (b)(1) of this section, a State listed in paragraph (b)(2) may adopt and include in a SIP revision, and the Administrator will approve, as TR NOX Ozone Season allowance allocation provisions replacing the provisions in §97. 5 11(a) with regard to the control period in 2013, a list of TR NOX Ozone Season units and the amount of TR NO X Ozone Season allowances allocated to each unit on such list , provided that the list of units and allocations meets the following requirements:
(i ) All of the units on the list must be units that are in the State and commenced commercial operation before January 1, 2010; (ii) The total amount of TR NO X Ozone Season allowance allocations on the list must not exceed the amount of the State’s TR NO X Ozone Season trading budget minus the sum of the amounts of the State’s new unit*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 646 of 1339 set - aside and Indian country new unit set - aside for 2013 under §97. 510(a) ; (iii) The list must be submitted electronically in a format specified by the Administrator; and
(iv) The SIP revision must not provide for any change in the units and allocations on the list after approval of the SIP revision by the Administrator and must not provide for any change in any allocation determined and recorded by the Administrator under subpart BBBBB of part 9 7 of this chapte r; (v) Provided that: (A) By [INSERT DATE 70 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDRAL REGISTER], the State must notify the Administrator electronically in a format specified by the Administrator of the State’s intent to submit to the Adminis trator a complete SIP revision meeting the requirements of paragraph (b)(3)(i) through (iv) of this section by April 1, 2012 ; and (B) The State must submit to the Administrator a complete SIP revision described in paragraph (b)(3)(v)(A) of this section by April 1, 2012. (4) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (b)(1) of this section, a State listed in paragraph (b)(2) may adopt and include in a SIP revision, and the Administrator will approve, regulations revising*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 647 of 1339 the TR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program as follows and not making any other substantive revisions of the TR NO X Ozone Season Trading Program:
(i ) The State may adopt, as applicability provisions replacing the provisions in §§97.504(a)(1) and (2), provisions substantively identical to th ose provisions, except that the words “25 MWe” are replaced in each place where such words appear by an uniform amount of megawatts that is less than 25 MWe and not less than 15 MWe; (ii) The State may adopt, as TR NO X Ozone Season allowance allocation provisions replacing the provisions in §§97.511(a) and (b) and 97.512(a) with regard to the control period in 2014 and thereafter, provisions substantively identical to those provisions, except that the State or the permitting authority allocates in lieu of the Administrator; or (iii) The State may adopt, as TR NOX Ozone Season allowance allocation or auction provisions replacing the provisions in §§97.511(a) and (b) and 97.512(a) with regard to the control period in 2014 and thereafter, any methodology under which the State or the permitting authority allocates in lieu of the Administrator or auctions TR NOX Ozone Season allowances, and may adopt, in addition to the definitions in §97.502, one or more definitions that shall apply only to terms as used i n the adopted TR NO X Ozone Season allowance allocation or auction provisions, if such methodology --*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 648 of 1339 (A) Requires the State or the permitting authority to allocate and, if applicable, auction a total amount of TR NO X Ozone Season allowances for the control period not exceeding the amount of the State’s TR NO X Ozone Season trading budget minus the amounts of the State’s Indian country new unit set - aside and of TR NO X Ozone Season allowances already allocated and recorded by the Administrator, for such contro l period. (B) Requires, to the extent the State adopts provisions for allocations or auction of TR NO X Ozone Season allowances for any TR NO X Ozone Season units covered by §97.511(a) for any control period starting in 2014, that the State or the permittin g authority submit such allocations or the results of such auction for such control period (except allocations to or auctions for such units of TR NO X Ozone Season allowances remaining unallocated or not auctioned in a set - aside for recipients other than s uch units after completion of such allocations or auctions) to the Administrator no later than the following dates:
Year of the control period for which TR NOX Ozone Sesaon allowances are allocated or auctioned Deadline for

submission of allocations or auction results to Administrator
2014 June 1, 2013 2015 June 1, 2013*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 649 of 1339 2016 June 1, 2014 2017 June 1, 2014 2018 June 1, 2015 2019 June 1, 2015 2020 and any year thereafter June 1 of the

fourth year before the year of the control period (C) Requires, to the extent the State adopts provisions for allocations or auction of TR NO X Ozone Season allowances for any TR NO X Ozone Season units covered by §97.511(a) for any control period in 2020 and any year thereafter, that the State or the permitting authorit y submit such allocations or the results of such auction (except allocations to or auctions for such units of TR NO X Ozone Season allowances remaining unallocated or not auctioned in a set aside for any recipients after completion of such allocations or au ctions) to the Administrator no later than June 1 of the fourth year before the year of such control period. (D) Requires, to the extent the State adopts provisions for allocations or auctions of TR NO X Ozone Season allowances for any TR NOX Ozone Season units covered by §§97.511(b) and 97.512(a), that the State or the permitting authority submit such allocations or the results of such auction (except allocations to or auctions for such units of TR NO X Ozone Season allowances remaining unallocated or not auctioned in a set - aside for any recipients after completion of such*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 650 of 1339 allocations or auctions)to the Administrator by July 1 of the year of such control period. (E) Does not provide for any change, after the submission deadlines in paragraphs (b)(3)(ii)(B) , (C), and (D) of this section, in the allocations submitted to the Administrator by such deadlines and does not provide for any change in any allocation determined and recorded by the Administrator under subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this chapte r;

(iv) P rovided that the State must submit a complete SIP revision meeting the requirements of paragraph (b)(3)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this section by December 1 of the year before the year of the deadline for submission of allocations or auction results under para graphs (3)(ii)(B) and (C) of this section applicable to the first control period for which the State wants to replace the applicability provisions, make such allocations, or hold such auction under paragraph (b)(3)(ii) or (iii) of this section.
(5) Notwi thstanding the provisions of paragraph (b)(1) of this section, a State listed in paragraph (a)(2) may adopt and include in a SIP revision, and the Administrator will approve, as correcting the deficiency in the SIP that is the basis for the TR Federal Impl ementation Plan set forth in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section, regulations that are substantively identical to the TR NOX*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 651 of 1339 Ozone Season Trading Program set forth in §§97.502 through 97.535, except that the SIP revision may:
(i ) Adopt, as appli cability provisions replacing the provisions in §§97.504(a)(1) and (2), provisions substantively identical to those provisions, except that the words “25 MWe” are replaced in each place where such words appear by an uniform amount of megawatts that is less than 25 MWe and not less than 15 MWe;
(ii) Adopt, as TR NO X Ozone Season allowance allocation provisions replacing the provisions in §§97.511(a) and (b) and 97.512(a) with regard to the control period in 2014 and thereafter, provisions substantively ide ntical to those provisions, except that the State or the permitting authority allocates in lieu of the Administrator; or (iii) Adopt, as TR NOX Ozone Season allowance allocation provisions replacing the provisions in §§97.511(a) and (b) and 97.512(a) with regard to the control period in 2014 and thereafter, any methodology under which the State or the permitting authority allocates in lieu of the Administrator or auctions TR NOX Ozone Season allowances and that -- (A) Requires the State or the permitting authority to allocate and, if applicable, auction a total amount of TR NO X Ozone Season allowances for the control period not exceeding the amount of the State’s TR NO X Ozone Season trading budget minus the amounts of the State’s Indian country new unit se t - aside and of TR NO X Ozone Season allowances*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 652 of 1339 already allocated and recorded by the Administrator, for such control period. (B) Requires, to the extent the State adopts provisions for allocations or auction of TR NO X Ozone Season allowances for any TR NO X Ozone Season units covered by §97.511(a) for any control period starting in 2014, that the State or the permitting authority submit such allocations or the results of such auction for such control period (except allocations to or auctions for such units o f TR NOX Ozone Season allowances remaining unallocated or not auctioned in a set - aside for recipients other than such units after completion of such allocations or auctions) to the Administrator no later than the following dates:
Year of the control peri od for which TR NOX Ozone Sesaon allowances are allocated or auctioned Deadline for

submission of allocations or auction results to Administrator
2014 June 1, 2013 2015 June 1, 2013 2016 June 1, 2014 2017 June 1, 2014 2018 June 1, 2015 2019 June 1, 2 015 2020 and any June 1 of the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 653 of 1339 year thereafter fourth year

before the year of the control period (C) Requires, to the extent the State adopts provisions for allocations or auction of TR NO X Ozone Season allowances for any TR NO X Ozone Season units cover ed by §97.511(a) for any control period in 2020 and any year thereafter, that the State or the permitting authority submit such allocations or the results of such auction (except allocations to or auctions for such units of TR NO X Ozone Season allowances r emaining unallocated or not auctioned in a set aside for any recipients after completion of such allocations or auctions) to the Administrator no later than June 1 of the fourth year before the year of such control period. (D) Requires, to the extent the State adopts provisions for allocations or auctions of TR NO X Ozone Season allowances for any TR NOX Ozone Season units covered by §§97.511(b) and 97.512(a), that the State or the permitting authority submit such allocations or the results of such auction (except allocations to or auctions for such units of TR NO X Ozone Season allowances remaining unallocated or not auctioned in a set - aside for any recipients after completion of such allocations or auctions)to the Administrator by July 1 of the year of such control period. (E) Does not provide for any change, after the submission deadlines in paragraphs (b)(4)(ii)(B) and (C) of this section, in the allocations*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 654 of 1339 submitted to the Administrator by such deadlines and does not provide for any change in any alloc ation determined and recorded by the Administrator under subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this chapte r; (iv) Provided that the State may also adopt, in addition to the definitions in §97.502, one or more definitions that shall apply only to terms as used in the TR NOX Ozone Season allowance allocation or auction provisions adopted under paragraph (b)(4)(iii) of this section ; and (v) Provided that the State must submit a complete SIP revision meeting the requirements of paragraph (b)(4)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this section by December 1 of the year before the year of the deadline for submission of allocations or auction results under paragraphs (4)(ii)(B) and (C) of this section applicable to the first control period for which the State wants to replace the appli cability provisions, make such allocations, or hold such auction under paragraph (b)(4)(ii) or (iii) of this section.
(6) Following promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a State's SIP revision as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan set forth in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section, the provisions of paragraph (b)(2) of this section will no longer apply to sources in the State, unless the Administrator's approval of the SIP revisi on is partial or*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 655 of 1339 conditional . ( 7 ) Notwithstanding the provision s of paragraph (b)( 5 ) of this section, if, at the time of such approval of the State's SIP revision , the Administrator has already allocated any TR NOX Ozone Season allowances to sources in the State for any years, the provisions of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation of TR NOX Ozone Season allowances for those years shall continue to apply, unless provided otherwise by such approval of the State’s SIP revision.
§ 52.3 8 What are the requirements of the Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) for the Transport Rule (TR) relating to emissions of sulfur dioxide?
(a) The TR SO 2 Group 1 Trading Program and TR SO 2 Group 2 Trading Program provisions of part 97 of this chapter constitute the TR Federal Implementation Plan provisions that relate to emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ).
(b) The provisions of subpart CCCCC of part 97 of this chapter, regarding the TR SO 2 Group 1 Trading Program, apply to sour ces in each of the following States : Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 656 of 1339 (c) The provisions of subpart DDDDD of par t 97 of this chapter, regarding the TR SO 2 Group 2 Trading Program, apply to sources in each of the following States : Alabama, , Georgia, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, South Carolina, and Texas. (d) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, a State listed in paragraph (b) may adopt and include in a SIP revision, and the Administrator will approve, as TR SO 2 Group 1 allowance allocation provisions replacing the provisions in §97. 6 11(a) with regard to the control period in 2013, a lis t of TR SO 2 Group 1 units and the amount of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances allocated to each unit on such list , provided that the list of units and allocations meets the following requirements:
( 1) All of the units on the list must be units that are in the St ate and commenced commercial operation before January 1, 2010; ( 2) The total amount of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowance allocations on the list must not exceed the amount of the State’s TR SO 2 Group 1 trading budget minus the sum of the amounts of the State’s new unit set - aside and Indian country new unit set - aside for 2013 under §97. 610(a) ; (3) The list must be submitted electronically in a format specified by the Administrator; and*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 657 of 1339 (4) The SIP revision must not provide for any change in the units and allocati ons on the list after approval of the SIP revision by the Administrator and must not provide for any change in any allocation determined and recorded by the Administrator under subpart CCCCC of part 97 of this chapte r; (5) Provided that: (i) By [INSERT DATE 70 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDRAL REGISTER], the State must notify the Administrator electronically in a format specified by the Administrator of the State’s intent to submit to the Administrator a complete SIP revision meeting the requirements of paragraph (d)(1) through (4) of this section by April 1, 2012 ; and (ii) The State must submit to the Administrator a complete SIP revision described in paragraph (d)(5)(i) of this section by April 1, 2012. (e) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, a State listed in paragraph (b) may adopt and include in a SIP revision, and the Administrator will approve, regulations revising the TR SO 2 Group 1 Trading Program as follows and not making any other substantive revisions of the TR SO 2 Group 1 Trading Program: (1) The State may adopt, as TR SO 2 Group 1 allowance allocation provisions replacing the provisions in §§97.611(a) and (b) and*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 658 of 1339 97.612(a) with regard to the control period in 2014 and thereafter, provisions substantively iden tical to those provisions, except that the State or the permitting authority allocates in lieu of the Administrator; or (2) The State may adopt, as TR SO 2 Group 1 allowance allocation provisions replacing the provisions in §§97.611(a) and (b) and 97.612( a) with regard to the control period in 2014 and thereafter, any methodology under which the State or the permitting authority allocates in lieu of the Administrator or auctions TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances and may adopt, in addition to the definitions in §97 .602, one or more definitions that shall apply only to terms as used in the adopted TR SO 2 Group 1 allowance allocation or auction provisions, if such methodology -- (i) Requires the State or the permitting authority to allocate and, if applicable, auction a total amount of TR SO 2 Group 1allowances for the control period not exceeding the amount of the State’s TR SO 2 Group 1 trading budget minus the amounts of the State’s Indian country new unit set - aside and of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances already allocated and recorded by the Administrator, for such control period. (ii) Requires, to the extent the State adopts provisions for allocations or auction of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances for any TR SO 2 Group 1 units covered by §97.611(a) for any control period starting in 2014, that the State or the permitting authority submit such*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 659 of 1339 allocations or the results of such auction for such control period (except allocations to or auctions for such units of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances remaining unallocated or not auctioned in a se t - aside for recipients other than such units after completion of such allocations or auctions) to the Administrator no later than the following dates:
Year of the control period for which TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances are allocated or auctioned Deadline for

submission of allocations or auction results to Administrator 2014 June 1, 2013 2015 June 1, 2013 2016 June 1, 2014 2017 June 1, 2014 2018 June 1, 2015 2019 June 1, 2015 2020 and any year thereafter June 1 of the

fourth year before the year of the control period (iii) Requires, to the extent the State adopts provisions for allocations or auction of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances for any TR SO 2 Group 1 units covered by §97.611(a) for any control period in 2020 and any year thereafter, that the State or the permitting authority submit such allocations or the results of such auction (except allocations to or auctions for such units of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances remaining*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 660 of 1339 unallocated or not auctioned in a set - aside for any recipients after completion of such allocations or auctions) to the Administrator no later than June 1 of the fourth year before the year of such control period. (iv) Requires, to the extent the State adopts provisions for allocations or auctions of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances for any TR SO 2 Group 1 units covered by §§97.611(b) and 97.612(a), that the State or the permitting authority submit such allocations or the results of such auction (except allocations to or auctions for such units of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances remaining unallocated or not auctioned in a set aside for any recipients after completion of such allocations or auctions) to the Administrator by July 1 of the year of such control period. (v) Does not provide for any change, after the submission deadlines in paragraphs (d)(2)( ii), (iii), and (iv) of this section, in the allocations submitted to the Administrator by such deadlines and does not provide for any change in any allocation determined and recorded by the Administrator under subpart CCCCC of part 97 of this chapte r; (3) Provided that the State must submit a complete SIP revision meeting the requirements of paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this section by December 1 of the year before the year of the deadline for submission of allocations or auction results under paragraphs (d)(2)(ii) and (iii) of this section applicable to the first control period for which*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 661 of 1339 the State wants to make such allocations or hold such auction under paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this section. (f) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, a State listed in paragraph (b) may adopt and include in a SIP revision, and the Administrator will approve, as correcting the deficiency in the SIP that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan set forth in paragraphs (a) and (d) of this section, regulations that are substantively identical to the TR SO 2 Group 1 Trading Program set forth in §§97.602 through 97.635, except that the SIP revision may:
(1) Adopt, as TR SO 2 Group 1 allowance allocation provisions replacing the provisions i n §§97.611(a) and (b) and 97.612(a) with regard to the control period in 2014 and thereafter, provisions substantively identical to those provisions, except that the State or the permitting authority allocates in lieu of the Administrator; or (2) Adopt, as TR SO 2 Group 1 allowance allocation provisions replacing the provisions in §§97.611(a) and (b) and 97.612(a) with regard to the control period in 2014 and thereafter, any methodology under which the State or the permitting authority allocates in lieu of the Administrator or auctions TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances and that -- (i) Requires the State or the permitting authority to allocate and, if applicable, auction a total amount of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances for the control period not exceeding the amount of t he State’s SO 2 Group 1*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 662 of 1339 trading budget minus the amounts of the State’s Indian country new unit set - aside and of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances already allocated and recorded by the Administrator, for such control period. (ii) Requires, to the extent the State adopts provisions for allocations or auction of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances for any TR SO 2 Group 1 units covered by §97.611(a) for any control period starting in 2014, that the State or the permitting authority submit such allocations or the results of such auction for such control period (except allocations to or auctions for such units of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances remaining unallocated or not auctioned in a set - aside for recipients other than such units after completion of such allocations or auctions) to the Administrator no later than the following dates:
Year of the control period for which TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances are allocated or auctioned Deadline for

submission of allocations or auction results to Administrator 2014 June 1, 2013 2015 June 1, 201 3 2016 June 1, 2014 2017 June 1, 2014 2018 June 1, 2015 2019 June 1, 2015 2020 and any year June 1 of the

fourth year*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 663 of 1339 thereafter before the

year of the control period (iii) Requires, to the extent the State adopts provisions for allocations or aucti on of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances for any TR SO 2 Group 1 units covered by §97.611(a) for any control period in 2020 and any year thereafter, that the State or the permitting authority submit such allocations or the results of such auction (except allocations to or auctions for such units of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances remaining unallocated or not auctioned in a set - aside for any recipients after completion of such allocations or auctions) to the Administrator no later than June 1 of the fourth year before the year of such control period. (iv) Requires, to the extent the State adopts provisions for allocations or auctions of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances for any TR SO 2 Group 1 units covered by §§97.611(b) and 97.612(a), that the State or the permitting authority submit such allocations or the results of such auction (except allocations to or auctions for such units of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances remaining unallocated or not auctioned in a set aside for any recipients after completion of such allocations or auctions) to the Administrator by July 1 of the year of such control period. (v) Does not provide for any change, after the submission deadlines in paragraphs (d)(1)(ii)(B) and (C) of this section, in the allocations*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 664 of 1339 submitted to the Administrator by such deadlines and does not provide for any change in any allocation determined and recorded by the Administrator under subpart CCCCC of part 97 of this chapte r; (3) Provided that the State may also adopt, in addition to the definitions in §97.602, one or more definition s that shall apply only to terms as used in the TR SO 2 Group 1 allowance allocation or auction provisions adopted under paragraph (e)(2) of this section ; and (4) Provided that the State must submit a complete SIP revision meeting the requirements of parag raph (e)(1) or paragraphs (e)(2) and (3) of this section by December 1 of the year before the year of the deadline for submission of allocations or auction results under paragraphs (e)(2)(ii) and (iii) of this section applicable to the first control perio d for which the State wants to make such allocations or hold such auction under paragraph (e)(1) or (2) of this section. (g) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, a State listed in paragraph (c) may adopt and include in a SIP revision, and the Administrator will approve, as TR SO 2 Group 2 allowance allocation provisions replacing the provisions in §97. 7 11(a) with regard to the control period in 2013, a list of TR SO 2 Group 2 units and the amount of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances all ocated to each unit on such list , provided that the list of units and allocations meets the following requirements:*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 665 of 1339 ( 1) All of the units on the list must be units that are in the State and commenced commercial operation before January 1, 2010; ( 2) The t otal amount of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowance allocations on the list must not exceed the amount of the State’s TR SO 2 Group 2 trading budget minus the sum of the amounts of the State’s new unit set - aside and Indian country new unit set - aside for 2013 under §97. 710(a) ; (3) The list must be submitted electronically in a format specified by the Administrator; and (4) The SIP revision must not provide for any change in the units and allocations on the list after approval of the SIP revision by the Administrator and must not provide for any change in any allocation determined and recorded by the Administrator under subpart DDDDD of part 97 of this chapte r; (5) Provided that: (i) By [INSERT DATE 70 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDRAL REGISTER], the State must no tify the Administrator electronically in a format specified by the Administrator of the State’s intent to submit to the Administrator a complete SIP revision meeting the requirements of paragraph (g)(1) through (4) of this section by April 1, 2012 ; and*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 666 of 13 39 ( ii) The State must submit to the Administrator a complete SIP revision described in paragraph (g)(5)(i) of this section by April 1, 2012. (h) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, a State listed in paragraph (c) may adopt and include in a SIP revision, and the Administrator will approve, regulations revising the TR SO 2 Group 2 Trading Program as follows and not making any other substantive revisions of the TR SO 2 Group 2 Trading Program: (1) The State may adopt, as TR SO 2 Group 2 allowance allocation provisions replacing the provisions in §§97.711(a) and (b) and 97.712(a) with regard to the control period in 2014 and thereafter, provisions substantively identical to those provisions, except that the State or the permitting auth ority allocates in lieu of the Administrator; or (2) The State may adopt, as TR SO 2 Group 2 allowance allocation provisions replacing the provisions in §§97.711(a) and (b) and 97.712(a) with regard to the control period in 2014 and thereafter, any methodology under which the State or the permitting authority allocates in lieu of the Administrator or auctions TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances and may adopt, in addition to the definitions in §97.702, one or more definitions that shall apply only to terms as used in the adopted TR SO 2 Group 2 allowance allocation or auction, if such methodology
—*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 667 of 1339 (i) Requires the State or the permitting authority to allocate and, if applicable, auction a total amount of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances for the control period not exceeding the amount of the State’s TR SO 2 Group 2 trading budget minus the amounts of the State’s Indian country new unit set - aside and of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances already allocated and recorded by the Administrator, for such control period. (ii) Requires, to the extent the State adopts provisions for allocations or auction of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances for any TR SO 2 Group 2 units covered by §97.711(a) for any control period starting in 2014, that the State or the permitting authority submit such allocations or the results of such auction for such control period (except allocations to or auctions for such units of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances remaining unallocated or not auctioned in a set - aside for recipients other than such units after completion of such allocations or auctions) to the Administrator no later than the following dates:
Year of the control period for which TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances are allocated or auctioned Deadline for

submission of allocations or auction results to Administrator 2014 June 1, 2013 2015 June 1, 2013 2016 June 1, 2014*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 668 of 1339 2017 June 1, 2014 2018 June 1, 2015 2019 June 1, 2015 2020 and any year thereafter June 1 of the

fourth year before the year of the control period (iii) Requires, to the extent the State adopts provisions for allo cations or auction of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances for any TR SO 2 Group 2 units covered by §97.711(a) for any control period in 2020 and any year thereafter, that the State or the permitting authority submit such allocations or the results of such auction (ex cept allocations to or auctions for such units of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances remaining unallocated or not auctioned in a set - aside for any recipients after completion of such allocations or auctions) to the Administrator no later than June 1 of the fourth year before the year of such control period. (iv) Requires, to the extent the State adopts provisions for allocations or auctions of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances for any TR SO 2 Group 2 units covered by §§97.711(b) and 97.712(a), that the State or the permitti ng authority submit such allocations or the results of such auction (except allocations to or auctions for such units of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances remaining unallocated or not auctioned in a set aside for any recipients after completion of such allocations or*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 669 of 1339 auctions) to the Administrator by July 1 of the year of such control period. (v) Does not provide for any change, after the submission deadlines in paragraphs (d)(2)(ii) and (iii) of this section, in the allocations submitted to the Administrator by s uch deadlines and does not provide for any change in any allocation determined and recorded by the Administrator under subpart DDDDD of part 97 of this chapte r; (3) Provided that the State must submit a complete SIP revision meeting the requirements of pa ragraph (f)(1) or (2) of this section by December 1 of the year before the year of the deadline for submission of allocations or auction results under paragraphs (f)(2)(ii) and (iii) of this section applicable to the first control period for which the Sta te wants to make such allocations or hold such auction under paragraph (f)(1) or (2) of this section. (i) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, a State listed in paragraph (c) may adopt and include in a SIP revision, and the Administrator will approve, as correcting the deficiency in the SIP that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan set forth in paragraphs (a) and (f) of this section, regulations that are substantively identical to the TR SO 2 Group 2 Trading Prog ram set forth in §§97.702 through 97.735, except that the SIP revision may:*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 670 of 1339 (1) Adopt, as TR SO 2 Group 2 allowance allocation provisions replacing the provisions in §§97.711(a) and (b) and 97.712(a) with regard to the control period in 2014 and thereafter , provisions substantively identical to those provisions, except that the State or the permitting authority allocates in lieu of the Administrator; or (2) Adopt, as TR SO 2 Group 2 allowance allocation provisions replacing the provisions in §§97.711(a) an d (b) and 97.712(a) with regard to the control period in 2014 and thereafter, any methodology under which the State or the permitting authority allocates in lieu of the Administrator or auctions TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances and that -- (i) Requires the State or the permitting authority to allocate and, if applicable, auction a total amount of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances for the control period not exceeding the amount of the State’s SO 2 Group 2 trading budget minus the amounts of the State’s Indian country new unit set - aside and of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances already allocated and recorded by the Administrator, for such control period. (ii) Requires, to the extent the State adopts provisions for allocations or auction of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances for any TR SO 2 Gr oup 2 units covered by §97.711(a) for any control period starting in 2014, that the State or the permitting authority submit such allocations or the results of such auction for such control period (except allocations to or auctions for such units of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances remaining unallocated or not auctioned in a set - aside for*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 671 of 1339 recipients other than such units after completion of such allocations or auctions) to the Administrator no later than the following dates:
Year of the control period for which TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances are allocated or auctioned Deadline for

submission of allocations or auction results to Administrator 2014 June 1, 2013 2015 June 1, 2013 2016 June 1, 2014 2017 June 1, 2014 2018 June 1, 2015 2019 June 1, 2015 2020 and any year thereafter June 1 of the

fourth year before the year of the control period (iii) Requires, to the extent the State adopts provisions for allocations or auction of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances for any TR SO 2 Group 2 units covered by §97.711(a) for any control period in 2020 and any year thereafter, that the State or the permitting authority submit such allocations or the results of such auction (except allocations to or auctions for such units of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances remaining unallocated or not au ctioned in a set - aside for any recipients after completion of such allocations or auctions)to the Administrator no*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 672 of 1339 later than June 1 of the fourth year before the year of such control period. (iv) Requires, to the extent the State adopts provisions for al locations or auctions of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances for any TR SO 2 Group 2 units covered by §§97.711(b) and 97.712(a), that the State or the permitting authority submit such allocations or the results of such auction (except allocations to or auctions for s uch units of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances remaining unallocated or not auctioned in a set aside for any recipients after completion of such allocations or auctions) to the Administrator by July 1 of the year of such control period. (v) Does not provide for any change, after the submission deadlines in paragraphs (d)(1)(ii)(B) and (C) of this section, in the allocations submitted to the Administrator by such deadlines and does not provide for any change in any allocation determined and recorded by the Adminis trator under subpart DDDDD of part 97 of this chapte r; (3) Provided that the State may also adopt, in addition to the definitions in §97.702, one or more definitions that shall apply only to terms as used in the TR SO 2 Group 2 allowance allocation or auct ion provisions adopted under paragraph (g)(2) of this section ; and (4) Provided that the State must submit a complete SIP revision meeting the requirements of paragraph (g)(1) or paragraphs (g)(2) and*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 673 of 1339 (3) of this section by December 1 of the year before the year of the deadline for submission of allocations or auction results under paragraphs (g)(2)(ii) and (iii) of this section applicable to the first control period for which the State wants to make such allocations or hold such auction under paragraph (g)(1) or (2) of this section. (j) Following promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a State's SIP revision as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan, the provisions of paragraph (b) and (c) of this section, as applicable, will no longer apply to sources in the State, unless the Administrator's approval of the SIP revision is partial or conditional.
( k ) Notwithstanding the provision s of paragraph ( h ) of this section, if, at the time of such approval of the State's SIP revision , the Administrator has already allocated any TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances or any TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances (as applicable) to sources in the State for any years, the provisions of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation of TR SO 2 Group 1 a llowances or TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances (as applicable) for those years shall continue to apply, unless provide d otherwise by such approval of the State’s SIP revision . Subpart B

— Alabama*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 674 of 1339 10. Sectio n 52.54 is added to read as follows: § 52. 54 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of nitrogen oxides? (a )(1) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in the State of Alabama and for which requirements are set forth under the TR NOX Annual Trading Program in subpart AAAAA of part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements. The obligation to comply with such requirements will be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to Alabama’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan under § 52.37(a), except to the extent the Administrator’s approval is part ial or conditional.
(2) Notwithstanding the provision s of paragraph ( a ) (1) of this section, if, at the time of the approval of Alabama’s SIP revision described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section , the Administrator has already allocated any TR NOX Annual allowances to unit in the State for any years, the provisions of subpart AAAAA of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation of TR NOX Annual allowances for those years shall continue to apply, unless provided otherwis e by such approval of the State’s SIP revision.
( b)(1) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in the State of Alabama and for which requirements are set forth under the TR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program in subpart BBBBB of part 97 of*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 675 of 1339 this chapter must comply with such requirements. The obligation to comply with such requirements will be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to Alabama’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SI P’s deficiency that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan under § 52.37(b), except to the extent the Administrator’s approval is partial or conditional.
(2) Notwithstanding the provision s of paragraph ( b)(1 ) of this section, if, at the time o f the approval of the Alabama’s SIP revision described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section , the Administrator has already allocated any TR NOX Ozone Season allowances to unit in the State for any years, the provisions of subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation of TR NOX Ozone Season allowances for those years shall continue to apply, unless provided otherwise by such approval of the State’s SIP revision.
1 1 . Section 52.55 is added to read as foll ows: § 52. 55 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of sulfur dioxide ? ( a) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in the State of Alabama and for which requirements are set forth under the TR SO 2 Group 2 Trading Program in subpart DDDDD of part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements. The obligation to comply with such requirements will be eliminated by the promulgation of an*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 676 of 1339 approval by the Administrator of a revision to Alabama’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan under § 52.38, except to the extent the Administrator’s approval is partial or conditional.
(b) Notwithstandi ng the provision s of paragraph ( a ) of this section, if, at the time of the approval of Alabama’s SIP revision described in paragraph (a) of this section , the Administrator has already allocated any TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances to unit in the State for any yea rs, the provisions of subpart DDDDD of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances for those years shall continue to apply, unless provided otherwise by such approval of the State’s SIP revi sion. Subpart E—

Arkansas
1 2 . Section 52.184 is added to read as follows: § 52. 184 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of nitrogen oxides? (a ) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in the State of Arkansas and for which requirements are set forth under the TR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program in subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements. The obligation to comply with such requiremen ts will be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to Arkansas’ State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 677 of 1339 the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan under § 52.37(b), except to the extent the Administrator’s approval is partial or conditional.
(b) Notwithstanding the provision s of paragraph ( a ) of this section, if, at the time of the approval of Arkansas’ SIP revision described in paragraph (a) of this section , the Administrato r has already allocated any TR NOX Ozone Season allowances to unit in the State for any years, the provisions of subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation of TR NOX Ozone Season allowances for those years shall continue to apply, unless provided otherwise by such approval of the State’s SIP revision. Subpart I—

Delaware 1 3 . Section 52.440 is amended by adding a new paragraph (c) to read as follows: § 52.440 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of nitrogen oxides? * * * * * (c) Notwithstanding any provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section and subparts AA through II and AAAA through IIII of part 97 of this chapter to the co ntrary:*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 678 of 1339 (1) With regard to any control period that begins after December 31, 2011, (i) The provisions in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section relating to NOX annual or ozone season emissions shall not be applicable; and (ii) The Administrator will not c arry out any of the functions set forth for the Administrator in subparts AA through II and AAAA through IIII of part 97 of this chapter; and (2) The Administrator will not deduct for excess emissions any CAIR NOX allowances or CAIR NO X Ozone Season allowances allocated for 2012 or any year thereafter ; (3) After recording in the appropriate compliance accounts the deductions required for the control period in 2011 for compliance with the CAIR NO X emissions limitation and for any related excess emissions, the Administrator will remove the CAIR NOX allowances in the CAIR NO X Allowance Tracking System accounts, and, thereafter, no surrender or deduction of such allowances for excess emissions in any control period will be required; and (4) After recording in t he appropriate compliance accounts the deductions required for the control period in 2011 for compliance with the CAIR NO X Ozone Season emissions limitation*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 679 of 1339 and for any related excess emissions, the Administrator will remove the CAIR NOX Ozone Season allowances in the CAIR NO X Ozone Season Allowance Tracking System accounts, and, thereafter, no surrender or deduction of such allowances for excess emissions in any control period will be required . 1 4 . Section 52.441 is amended by designating the introductory text as paragraph (a) and adding a new paragraph (b) to read as follows: § 52.441 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of sulfur dioxide? * * * * * (b) Notwithstanding any provisions of paragraph (a) of this section and subparts AAA through III of part 97 of this chapter and any State’s SIP to the contrary: (1) With regard to any control period that begins after December 31, 2011, (i) The provisions of paragraph (a) of this section rela ting to SO 2 emissions shall not be applicable; and (ii) The Administrator will not carry out any of the functions set forth for the Administrator in subparts AAA through III of part 97 of this chapter; and*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 680 of 1339 (2) The Administrator will not deduct for excess emissions any CAIR SO 2 allowances allocated for 2012 or any year thereafter. Subpart J

— District of Columbia

1 5 . Section 52.484 is amended by adding a new paragraph (c) to read as follows: § 52.4 84 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of nitrogen oxides? * * * * * (c) Notwithstanding any provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section and subparts AA through II and AAAA through IIII of part 97 of this chapter to the contrary: (1) With regard to any control period that begins after December 31, 2011, (i) The provisions in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section relating to NOX annual or ozone season emissions shall not be applicable; and (ii) The Administrator will not carry out any of the functions set forth for the Administrator in subparts AA through II and AAAA through IIII of part 97 of this chapter; and*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 681 of 1339 (2) The Administrator will not deduct for excess emissions any CAIR NOX allowances or CAIR NO X Ozone Season allowances allocated f or 2012 or any year thereafter ; (3) After recording in the appropriate compliance accounts the deductions required for the control period in 2011 for compliance with the CAIR NO X emissions limitation and for any related excess emissions, the Administrato r will remove the CAIR NOX allowances in the CAIR NO X Allowance Tracking System accounts, and, thereafter, no surrender or deduction of such allowances for excess emissions in any control period will be required; and (4) After recording in the appropriate compliance accounts the deductions required for the control period in 2011 for compliance with the CAIR NO X Ozone Season emissions limitation and for any related excess emissions, the Administrator will remove the CAIR NOX Ozone Season allowances in the CAIR NOX Ozone Season Allowance Tracking System accounts, and, thereafter, no surrender or deduction of such allowances for excess emissions in any control period will be required .
1 6 . Section 52.485 is amended by designating the introductory text as parag raph (a) and adding a new paragraph (b) to read as follows:*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 682 of 1339 § 52.4 85 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of sulfur dioxide? * * * * * (b) Notwithstanding any provisions of paragraph (a ) of this section and subparts AAA through III of part 97 of this chapter and any State’s SIP to the contrary: (1) With regard to any control period that begins after December 31, 2011, (i) The provisions of paragraph (a) of this section relating to SO 2 emissions shall not be applicable; and (ii) The Administrator will not carry out any of the functions set forth for the Administrator in subparts AAA through III of part 97 of this chapter; and (2) The Administrator will not deduct for excess emissions any CAIR SO 2 allowances allocated for 2012 or any year thereafter. Subpart K

—Florida
1 7 . Section 52.540 is added to read as follows: § 52. 540 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of nitrogen oxides? (a ) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in the State of Florida and for which requirements are set forth under the TR*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 683 of 1339 NOX Ozone Season Trading Program in subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements. The obligation to comply with such requirements will be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to Florida’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis for the TR Fe deral Implementation Plan under § 52.37(b), except to the extent the Administrator’s approval is partial or conditional.
(b) Notwithstanding the provision s of paragraph ( a ) of this section, if, at the time of the approval of Florida’s SIP revision describe d in paragraph (a) of this section , the Administrator has already allocated any TR NOX Ozone Season allowances to unit in the State for any years, the provisions of subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allo cation of TR NOX Ozone Season allowances for those years shall continue to apply, unless provided otherwise by such approval of the State’s SIP revision. Subpart L -- Georgia
1 8 . Section 52.584 is added to read as follows: § 52. 584 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of nitrogen oxides? (a )(1) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in the State of Georgia and for which requirements are set forth under the TR NOX Annual Trading Program in subpart AAAAA of part 97 of this*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 684 of 1339 chapter must comply with such requirements. The obligation to comply with such requirements will be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to Georgia’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan under § 52.37(a), except to the extent the Administrator’s approval is partial or conditional.
(2) Notwithstanding the provision s of paragraph ( a ) (1) of this section, if, at the time of the approval of Georgia’s SIP revision described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section , the Administrator has already allocated any TR NOX Annual allowances to unit in the State for any years, the provisions of s ubpart AAAAA of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation of TR NOX Annual allowances for those years shall continue to apply, unless provided otherwise by such approval of the State’s SIP revision.
( b)(1) The owne r and operator of each source and each unit located in the State of Georgia and for which requirements are set forth under the TR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program in subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements. The obligati on to comply with such requirements will be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to Georgia’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan under § 52.37(b),*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 685 of 1339 except to the extent the Administrator’s approval is partial or conditional.
(2) Notwithstanding the provision s of paragraph ( b)(1) of this section, if, at the time of the approval of Georgia’s SIP revision described in paragraph (b )(1) of this section , the Administrator has already allocated any TR NOX Ozone Season allowances to unit in the State for any years, the provisions of subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation of TR NOX Ozone Season allowances for those years shall continue to apply, unless provided otherwise by such approval of the State’s SIP revision.
19. Section 52.585 is added to read as follows: § 52. 585 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of sulfur dioxide ? (a ) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in the State of Georgia and for which requirements are set forth under the TR SO 2 Group 2 Trading Program in subpart DDDDD of part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements. The obligation to comply with such requirements will be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to Georgia’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan under § 52.38, except to the extent the Administrator’s approval is partial or conditional.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 686 of 1339 (b) Notwithstanding the provision s of paragraph ( a ) of this section, if, at the time of the approval of Georgia’s SIP revision described in paragraph (a) of this section , the Administrator has already allocated any TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances to unit in the State for any years, the provisions of subpart DDDDD of part 97 of this chapter autho rizing the Administrator to complete the allocation of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances for those years shall continue to apply, unless provided otherwise by such approval of the State’s SIP revision. Subpart O-- Illinois 20 . Section 52.745 is added to read as follows: § 52. 745 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of nitrogen oxides? (a )(1) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in the State of Illinois and for which requirements are set forth under the TR NOX Annual Trading Program in subpart AAAAA of part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements. The obligation to comply with such requirements will be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the Adminis trator of a revision to Illinois’ State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan under § 52.37(a), except to the extent the Administrator’s approval is partial or conditional.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 687 of 1339 (2) Notwithstanding the provision s of paragraph ( a ) (1) of this section, if, at the time of the approval of Illinois’ SIP revision described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section , the Administrator has already allocated any TR NOX Annual allowances to unit in the State for any years, the provisions of subpart AAAAA of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation of TR NOX Annual allowances for those years shall continue to apply, unless provided otherwise by such approval of the State’s SIP revision.
( b)(1) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in the State of Illinois and for which requirements are set forth under the TR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program in subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter must c omply with such requirements. The obligation to comply with such requirements will be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to Illinois’ State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan under § 52.37(b), except to the extent the Administrator’s approval is partial or conditional.
(2) Notwithstanding the provision s of paragraph ( b)(1) of this section, if, at the time of the approval of Illin ois’ SIP revision described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section , the Administrator has already allocated any TR NOX Ozone Season allowances to unit in the State for any years, the provisions of subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Admin istrator to complete the allocation*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 688 of 1339 of TR NOX Ozone Season allowances for those years shall continue to apply, unless provided otherwise by such approval of the State’s SIP revision.
21. Section 52.746 is added to read as follows: § 52. 746 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of sulfur dioxide ? (a ) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in the State of Illinois and for which requirements are set forth under the TR SO 2 Group 1 Trading Program in subpart CCCCC of part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements. The obligation to comply with such requirements will be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to Illinois’ S tate Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan under § 52.38, except to the extent the Administrator’s approval is partial or conditional.
(b) Notwithstanding the provision s of par agraph ( a ) of this section, if, at the time of the approval of Illinois’ SIP revision described in paragraph (a) of this section , the Administrator has already allocated any TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances to unit in the State for any years, the provisions of subpart CCCCC of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances for those years shall continue to apply, unless provided otherwise by such approval of the State’s SIP revision.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 689 of 1339 Subpart P

—Indiana 22 . Section 52.789 is amended by adding paragraph s (c) , (d), and (e) to read as follows: § 52. 789 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of nitrogen oxides? * * * * * (c) Notwithstandin g any provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section and subparts AA through II and AAAA through IIII of part 97 of this chapter to the contrary: (1) With regard to any control period that begins after December 31, 2011, (i) The provisions in paragr aphs (a) and (b) of this section relating to NOX annual or ozone season emissions shall not be applicable; and (ii) The Administrator will not carry out any of the functions set forth for the Administrator in subparts AA through II and AAAA through IIII of part 97 of this chapter; and (2) The Administrator will not deduct for excess emissions any CAIR NOX allowances or CAIR NO X Ozone Season allowances allocated for 2012 or any year thereafter ;*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 690 of 1339 (3) By October 31, 2011, the Administrator will remove from CAIR NOX Allowance Tracking System accounts all CAIR NO X allowances allocated for a control period in 2012 and any subsequent year, and, thereafter, no surrender or deduction of such allowances for excess emissions in any control period will be required; and (4) By October 31, , the Administrator will remove from the CAIR NOX Ozone Season Allowance Tracking System accounts all CAIR NO X Ozone Season allowances allocated for a control period in 2012 and any subsequent year, and, thereafter, no surrender or deduc tion of such allowances for excess emissions in any control period will be required . ( d)(1) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in the State of Indiana and for which requirements are set forth under the TR NOX Annual Trading Program in subpart AAAAA of part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements. The obligation to comply with such requirements will be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to Indiana’s State Implementation Pl an (SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan under § 52.37(a), except to the extent the Administrator’s approval is partial or conditional.
(2) Notwithstanding the provision s of paragraph ( d ) (1) of th is section, if, at the time of the approval of Indiana’s SIP revision*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 691 of 1339 described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section , the Administrator has already allocated any TR NOX Annual allowances to unit in the State for any years, the provisions of subpart AAAAA of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation of TR NOX Annual allowances for those years shall continue to apply, unless provided otherwise by such approval of the State’s SIP revision.
( e)(1) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in the State of Indiana and for which requirements are set forth under the TR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program in subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements. The obligation to comply wi th such requirements will be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to Indiana’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan under § 52 .37(b), except to the extent the Administrator’s approval is partial or conditional.
(2) Notwithstanding the provision s of paragraph ( e)(1) of this section, if, at the time of the approval of Indiana’s SIP revision described in paragraph (e)(1) of this se ction , the Administrator has already allocated any TR NOX Ozone Season allowances to unit in the State for any years, the provisions of subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation of TR NOX Ozone Season allowances for those years shall continue to*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 692 of 1339 apply, unless provided otherwise by such approval of the State’s SIP revision.
23 . Section 52.790 is amended by designating the introductory text as paragraph (a) and adding new paragraph s (b) and (c) to rea d as follows: § 52. 790 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of sulfur dioxide? * * * * * (b) Notwithstanding any provisions of paragraph (a) of this section and subparts AAA through III of part 97 of this chapter and any State’s SIP to the contrary: (1) With regard to any control period that begins after December 31, 2011, (i) The provisions of paragraph (a) of this section relating to SO 2 emissions shall not be applicable; and (ii) The Administrator will not carry out any of the functions set forth for the Administrator in subparts AAA through III of part 97 of this chapter; and (2) The Administrator will not deduct for excess emissions any CAIR SO 2 allowances allocated for 2012 or any year thereafter.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 693 of 1339 ( c)(1) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in the State of Indiana and for which requirements are set forth under the TR SO 2 Group 1 Trading Program in subpart CCCCC of part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements. The obligation to comply with such requirements will be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to Indiana’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan under § 52.38, except to the extent the Administrator’s approval is partial or conditional.
(2) Notwithstanding the provision s of paragraph ( c ) (1) of this section, if, at the time of the approval of Indiana’s SIP revision described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section , the Administrator has already allocated any TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances to unit in the State for any years, the provisions of subpart CCCCC of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances for those years shall continue to apply, unless provided otherwise by such approval of the State’s SIP revision. Subpart Q

—Iowa
24 . Section 52.840 is added to read as follows: § 52. 840 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of nitrogen oxides? (a )(1) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in the State of Iowa and for which requirements are set forth under the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 694 of 1339 TR NOX Annual Tradi ng Program in subpart AAAAA of part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements. The obligation to comply with such requirements will be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to Iowa’s State Implementat ion Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan under § 52.37(a), except to the extent the Administrator’s approval is partial or conditional.
(2) Notwithstanding the provision s of paragraph ( a ) (1) of this section, if, at the time of the approval of Iowa’s SIP revision described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section , the Administrator has already allocated any TR NOX Annual allowances to unit in the State for any years, the provisions of subpart AAAAA of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation of TR NOX Annual allowances for those years shall continue to apply, unless provided otherwise by such approval of the State’s SIP revision.
( b) [Reserved]
25. Sectio n 52.841 is added to read as follows: § 52. 841 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of sulfur dioxide ? (a ) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in the State of Iowa an d for which requirements are set forth under the TR SO 2 Group 1 Trading Program in subpart CCCCC of part 97 of this chapter*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 695 of 1339 must comply with such requirements. The obligation to comply with such requirements will be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to Iowa’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan under § 52.38, except to the extent the Administrator’s approval is partial or co nditional.
(b) Notwithstanding the provision s of paragraph ( a ) of this section, if, at the time of the approval of Iowa’s SIP revision described in paragraph (a) of this section , the Administrator has already allocated any TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances to uni t in the State for any years, the provisions of subpart CCCCC of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances for those years shall continue to apply, unless provided otherwise by such approval of the State’s SIP revision. Subpart R

— Kansas
26 . Section 52.882 is added to read as follows: § 52. 882 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of nitrogen oxides? (a )(1) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in the State of Kansas and for which requirements are set forth under the TR NOX Annual Trading Program in subpart AAAAA of part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements. The obligation to comply
w ith such requirements will be eliminated by the promulgation of an*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 696 of 1339 approval by the Administrator of a revision to Kansas’ State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan under § 52. 37(a), except to the extent the Administrator’s approval is partial or conditional.
(2) Notwithstanding the provision s of paragraph ( a ) (1) of this section, if, at the time of the approval of Kansas’ SIP revision described in paragraph (a)(1) of this secti on , the Administrator has already allocated any TR NOX Annual allowances to unit in the State for any years, the provisions of subpart AAAAA of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation of TR NOX Annual allowances for those years shall continue to apply, unless provided otherwise by such approval of the State’s SIP revision.
(b)[Reserved]
27. Section 52.883 is added to read as follows: § 52. 883 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of sulfur dioxide ? (a ) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in the State of Kansas and for which requirements are set forth under the TR SO 2 Group 2 Trading Program in subpart DDDDD of part 97 of thi s chapter must comply with such requirements. The obligation to comply with such requirements will be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to Kansas’ State*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 697 of 1339 Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP’s defic iency that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan under § 52.38, except to the extent the Administrator’s approval is partial or conditional.
(b) Notwithstanding the provision s of paragraph ( a ) of this section, if, at the time of the approval of Kansas’ SIP revision described in paragraph (a) of this section , the Administrator has already allocated any TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances to unit in the State for any years, the provisions of subpart DDDDD of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Adminis trator to complete the allocation of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances for those years shall continue to apply, unless provided otherwise by such approval of the State’s SIP revision. Subpart S --Kentucky 28 . Section 52.940 is added to read as follows: § 52. 94 0 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of nitrogen oxides? (a )(1) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in the State of Kentucky and for which requirements are set forth under the TR NOX Annual Trading Program in subpart AAAAA of part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements. The obligation to comply with such requirements will be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revisi on to Kentucky’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan under § 52.37(a),*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 698 of 1339 except to the extent the Administrator’s approval is partial or conditional.
(2) Notwithstanding the provision s of paragraph ( a ) (1) of this section, if, at the time of the approval of Kentucky’s SIP revision described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section , the Administrator has already allocated any TR NOX Annual allowances to unit in the State for any years, the provisions of subpart AAAAA of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation of TR NOX Annual allowances for those years shall continue to apply, unless provided otherwise by such approval of the State’s SIP revision.
( b)(1) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in the State of Kentucky and for which requirements are set forth under the TR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program in subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements. The obligation to comply with such requirements will be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to Kentucky’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan under § 52.37(b), except to the extent the Administrator’s approval is partial or conditional.
(2) Notwithstanding the provision s of paragraph ( b)(1) of this section, if, at the time of the approval of Kentucky’s SIP revis ion described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section , the Administrator has*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 699 of 1339 already allocated any TR NOX Ozone Season allowances to unit in the State for any years, the provisions of subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation of TR NOX Ozone Season allowances for those years shall continue to apply, unless provided otherwise by such approval of the State’s SIP revision.
29. Section 52.941 is added to read as follows: § 52. 941 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of sulfur dioxide ? (a ) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in the State of Kentucky and for which requirements are set forth under the TR SO 2 Group 1 Tradin g Program in subpart CCCCC of part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements. The obligation to comply with such requirements will be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to Kentucky’s State Implemen tation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan under § 52.38, except to the extent the Administrator’s approval is partial or conditional.
(b) Notwithstanding the provision s of paragraph ( a ) of this section, if, at the time of the approval of Kentucky’s SIP revision described in paragraph (a) of this section , the Administrator has already allocated any TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances to unit in the State for any years, the provisions of subpart CCCCC of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation of TR SO 2*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 700 of 1339 Group 1 allowances for those years shall continue to apply, unless provided otherwise by such approval of the State’s SIP revision. Subpart T—Louisiana 30 . Se ction 52.984 is amended by adding new paragraph s (c) and (d) to read as follows: § 52. 984 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of nitrogen oxides? * * * * * (c) Notwithstanding any provis ions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section and subparts AA through II and AAAA through IIII of part 97 of this chapter to the contrary: (1) With regard to any control period that begins after December 31, 2011, (i) The provisions in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section relating to NOX annual or ozone season emissions shall not be applicable; and (ii) The Administrator will not carry out any of the functions set forth for the Administrator in subparts AA through II and AAAA through IIII of part 97 of this chapter;*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 701 of 1339 (2) The Administrator will not deduct for excess emissions any CAIR NOX allowances or CAIR NO X Ozone Season allowances allocated for 2012 or any year thereafter ; (3) By October 31, 2011, the Administrator will remove from the CAIR NOX Allowance Tracking System accounts all CAIR NO X allowances allocated for a control period in 2012 and any subsequent year, and, thereafter, no surrender or deduction of such allowances for excess emissions in any control period will be required; and (4) By October 31, , the Administrator will remove from the CAIR NOX Ozone Season Allowance Tracking System accounts all CAIR NO X Ozone Season allowances allocated for a control period in 2012 and any subsequent year, and, thereafter, no surrender or deduction of such allowances for excess emissions in any control period will be required . ( d)(1) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in the State of Louisiana and for which requirements are set forth under the TR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program in subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements. The obligation to comply with such requirements will be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to Louisiana’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan under § 52.37(b),*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 702 of 1339 except to the extent the Administrator’s approval is partial or conditional.
(2) Notwithstanding the provision s of paragraph ( d)(1) of this section, if, at the time of the approval of Louisiana’s SIP revision described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section , the Administrator has already allocated any TR NOX Ozone Season allowances to unit in the State for any years, the provisions of subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation of TR NOX Ozone Season allowances for those years shall continue to apply, unless provided otherwise by such approval of the State’s SIP revision. Subpart V

— Maryland
31 . Section 52.1084 is added to read as follows: § 52. 1084 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of nitrogen oxides? (a )(1) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in the State of Maryland and for which requirements are set forth under the TR NOX Annual Trading Program in subpart AAAAA of part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements. The obligation to comply with such requirements will be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to Maryland’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan under § 52.37(a),*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 70 3 of 1339 except to the extent the Administrator ’s approval is partial or conditional.
(2) Notwithstanding the provision s of paragraph ( a ) (1) of this section, if, at the time of the approval of Maryland’s SIP revision described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section , the Administrator has already allocate d any TR NOX Annual allowances to unit in the State for any years, the provisions of subpart AAAAA of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation of TR NOX Annual allowances for those years shall continue to apply, unle ss provided otherwise by such approval of the State’s SIP revision.
( b)(1) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in the State of Maryland and for which requirements are set forth under the TR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program in subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements. The obligation to comply with such requirements will be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to Maryland’s State Implementation Plan (SIP ) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan under § 52.37(b), except to the extent the Administrator’s approval is partial or conditional.
(2) Notwithstanding the provision s of paragraph ( b)(1) of this sect ion, if, at the time of the approval of Maryland’s SIP revision described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section , the Administrator has*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 704 of 1339 already allocated any TR NOX Ozone Season allowances to unit in the State for any years, the provisions of subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation of TR NOX Ozone Season allowances for those years shall continue to apply, unless provided otherwise by such approval of the State’s SIP revision.
32. Section 52.1085 is a dded to read as follows: § 52. 1085 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of sulfur dioxide ? (a ) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in the State of Maryland and for wh ich requirements are set forth under the TR SO 2 Group 1 Trading Program in subpart CCCCC of part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements. The obligation to comply with such requirements will be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval b y the Administrator of a revision to Maryland’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan under § 52.38, except to the extent the Administrator’s approval is partial or condit ional.
(b) Notwithstanding the provision s of paragraph ( a ) of this section, if, at the time of the approval of Maryland’s SIP revision described in paragraph (a) of this section , the Administrator has already allocated any TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances to uni t in the State for any years, the provisions of subpart CCCCC of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation of TR SO 2*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 705 of 1339 Group 1 allowances for those years shall continue to apply, unless provided otherwise by such approval of the State’s SIP revision. Subpart X

— Michigan 33 . Section 52.1186 is amended by adding new paragraph s (c) and (d) to read as follows: § 52. 1186 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the FIP requirements for decreases in emissions o f nitrogen oxides? * * * * * (c) Notwithstanding any provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section and subparts AA through II and AAAA through IIII of part 97 of this chapter to the contrary: (1) With regard to any control period that begins af ter December 31, 2011, (i) The provisions in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section relating to NOX annual or ozone season emissions shall not be applicable; and (ii) The Administrator will not carry out any of the functions set forth for the Administrator in subparts AA through II and AAAA through IIII of part 97 of this chapter;*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 706 of 1339 (2) The Administrator will not deduct for excess emissions any CAIR NOX allowances or CAIR NO X Ozone Season allowances allocated for 2012 or any year thereafter ; (3) By October 3 1, , the Administrator will remove from the CAIR NOX Allowance Tracking System accounts all CAIR NO X allowances allocated for a control period in 2012 and any subsequent year, and, thereafter, no surrender or deduction of such allowances for excess emissio ns in any control period will be required; and (4) By October 31, 2011, the Administrator will remove from the CAIR NOX Ozone Season Allowance Tracking System accounts all CAIR NOX Ozone Season allowances allocated for a control period in 2012 and any sub sequent year, and, thereafter, no surrender or deduction of such allowances for excess emissions in any control period will be required . ( d)(1) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in the State of Michigan and for which requirements are set forth under the TR NOX Annual Trading Program in subpart AAAAA of part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements. The obligation to comply with such requirements will be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the Administrato r of a revision to Michigan’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan under § 52.37(a), except to the extent the Administrator’s approval is partial or conditional.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 707 of 1339 (2) Notwithstanding the provision s of paragraph ( a ) (1) of this section, if, at the time of the approval of Michigan’s SIP revision described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section , the Administrator has already allocated any TR NOX Annual allowances to unit in the S tate for any years, the provisions of subpart AAAAA of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation of TR NOX Annual allowances for those years shall continue to apply, unless provided otherwise by such approval of the S tate’s SIP revision.
(e) [Reserved]
34 . Section 52.1187 is amended by designating the introductory text as paragraph (a) and adding a new paragraph s (b) and (c) to read as follows: § 52.1187 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of sulfur dioxide? * * * * * (b) Notwithstanding any provisions of paragraph (a) of this section and subparts AAA through III of part 97 of this chapter and any State’s SIP to the contrary: (1) With regard to any control period that begins after December 31, 2011,*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 708 of 1339 (i) The provisions of paragraph (a) of this section relating to SO 2 emissions shall not be applicable; and (ii) The Administrator will not carry out any of the functions set forth for the Administrat or in subparts AAA through III of part 97 of this chapter; and (2) The Administrator will not deduct for excess emissions any CAIR SO 2 allowances allocated for 2012 or any year thereafter. ( c)(1)_ The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in the State of Michigan and for which requirements are set forth under the TR SO 2 Group 1 Trading Program in subpart CCCCC of part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements. The obligation to comply with such requirements will be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to Michigan’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan under § 52.38, except to the extent the Administr ator’s approval is partial or conditional.
(2) Notwithstanding the provision s of paragraph ( c ) (1) of this section, if, at the time of the approval of Maryland’s SIP revision described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section , the Administrator has already allo cated any TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances to unit in the State for any years, the provisions of subpart CCCCC of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation of TR*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 709 of 1339 SO 2 Group 1 allowances for those years shall continue to apply , unless provided otherwise by such approval of the State’s SIP revision. Subpart Y

— Minnesota
35 . Section 52.1240 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows: § 52. 1240 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of nitrogen oxides? * * * * * (c)(1) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in the State of Minnesota and for which requirements are set forth under the TR NOX Annual Trading Program in subpart AAAAA of part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements. The obligation to comply with such requirements will be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to Minnesota’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcti ng the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan under § 52.37(a), except to the extent the Administrator’s approval is partial or conditional.
(2) Notwithstanding the provision s of paragraph (c)(1) of this section, if, at the time of the approval of Minnesota’s SIP revision described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section , the Administrator has already allocated any TR NOX Annual allowances to unit in the State for any years, the provisions of subpart AAAAA of part 97 of this chapter*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 710 of 1339 authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation of TR NOX Annual allowances for those years shall continue to apply, unless provided otherwise by such approval of the State’s SIP revision. 36. Section 52.1241 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows: § 52. 1241 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of sulfur dioxide ? * * * * * ( c)(1) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in the State o f Minnesota and for which requirements are set forth under the TR SO 2 Group 2 Trading Program in subpart DDDDD of part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements. The obligation to comply with such requirements will be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to Minnesota’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan under § 52.38, except to the extent the Administrator’s approval is partial or conditional.
(2) Notwithstanding the provision s of paragraph ( c ) (1) of this section, if, at the time of the approval of Minnesota’s SIP revision described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section , the Administrator has already allocated any TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances to unit in the State for any years, the provisions of subpart DDDDD of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation of TR*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 711 of 1339 SO 2 Group 2 allowances for those years shall continue to apply, unless provided otherwise by such approval of the State’s SIP revision. Subpart Z—

Mississippi
37 . Section 52.1284 is added to read as follows: § 52. 1284 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of nitrogen oxides? ( a) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in the State of Mississippi and for which requirements are set forth under the TR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program in subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements. The obligation to comply with such requirements will be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to Mississippi’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan under § 52.37(b), except to the extent the Administrator’s approval is partial or conditional.
(b) Notwithstanding the provision s of paragraph ( a) of this section, if, at the time of the approval of Mississippi’s SIP revision described in paragraph (a) of this section , the Administrator has already allocated any TR NOX Ozone Season allowances to unit in the State for any years, the provisions of subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation of TR NOX Ozone Season allowances for those years shall continue to*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 712 of 1339 apply, unless provided otherwise by such approval of the State’s SIP revision. Subpart AA

— Missouri
38 . Section 52.1341 is added to read as follows: § 52. 1341 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of nitrogen oxides? ( a )(1) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in the State of Missouri and for which requirements are set forth unde r the TR NOX Annual Trading Program in subpart AAAAA of part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements. The obligation to comply with such requirements will be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to Missouri’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan under § 52.37(a), except to the extent the Administrator’s approval is partial or conditional.
(2) Notwithstanding the p rovision s of paragraph ( a ) (1) of this section, if, at the time of the approval of Missouri’s SIP revision described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section , the Administrator has already allocated any TR NOX Annual allowances to unit in the State for any years , the provisions of subpart AAAAA of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation of TR NOX*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 713 of 1339 Annual allowances for those years shall continue to apply, unless provided otherwise by such approval of the State’s SIP revisio n. (b) [Reserved]
39. Section 52.1342 is added to read as follows: § 52. 1342 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of sulfur dioxide ? (a ) The owner and operator of each source and each uni t located in the State of Missouri and for which requirements are set forth under the TR SO 2 Group 1 Trading Program in subpart CCCCC of part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements. The obligation to comply with such requirements will be el iminated by the promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to Missouri’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan under § 52.38, except to the extent the Administrator’s approval is partial or conditional.
(b) Notwithstanding the provision s of paragraph ( a ) of this section, if, at the time of the approval of Missouri’s S IP revision described in paragraph (a) of this section , the Administrator has already a llocated any TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances to unit in the State for any years, the provisions of subpart CCCCC of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances for those years shall continue to apply, unless provided otherwise by such approval of the State’s SIP revision.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 714 of 1339 Subpart CC—

Nebraska
40 . Section 52.1428 is added to read as follows: § 52. 1428 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the FIP requirements for decreases in emi ssions of nitrogen oxides? ( a) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in the State of Nebraska and for which requirements are set forth under the TR NOX Annual Trading Program in subpart AAAAA of part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements. The obligation to comply with such requirements will be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to Nebraska’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is the basi s for the TR Federal Implementation Plan under § 52.37(a), except to the extent the Administrator’s approval is partial or conditional.
(b) Notwithstanding the provision s of paragraph ( a ) of this section, if, at the time of the approval of Nebraska’s SIP r evision described in paragraph (a) of this section , the Administrator has already allocated any TR NOX Annual allowances to unit in the State for any years, the provisions of subpart AAAAA of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Administrator to complet e the allocation of TR NOX Annual allowances for those years shall continue to apply, unless provided otherwise by such approval of the State’s SIP revision.
41. Section 52.1429 is added to read as follows:*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 715 of 1339 § 52. 1429 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of sulfur dioxide ? (a ) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in the State of Nebraska and for which requirements are set forth under the TR SO 2 Group 2 Trading Program in subpart DDDDD of part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements. The obligation to comply with such requirements will be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to Nebraska’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan under § 52.38, except to the extent the Administrator’s approval is partial or conditional.
(b) Notwithstanding the provision s of paragraph ( a ) of this sect ion, if, at the time of the approval of Nebraska’s S IP revision described in paragraph (a) of this section , the Administrator has already allocated any TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances to unit in the State for any years, the provisions of subpart DDDDD of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances for those years shall continue to apply, unless provided otherwise by such approval of the State’s SIP revision. Subpart FF

— New Jersey 42 . Section 5 2.1584 is amended by adding new paragraph s (c) , (d), and (e) to read as follows:*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 716 of 1339 § 52.1584 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of nitrogen oxides? * * * * * (c) Notwithstanding any provi sions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section and subparts AA through II and AAAA through IIII of part 97 of this chapter to the contrary: (1) With regard to any control period that begins after December 31, 2011, (i) The provisions in paragraphs (a) an d (b) of this section relating to NOX annual or ozone season emissions shall not be applicable; and (ii) The Administrator will not carry out any of the functions set forth for the Administrator in subparts AA through II and AAAA through IIII of part 97 of this chapter; (2) The Administrator will not deduct for excess emissions any CAIR NOX allowances or CAIR NO X Ozone Season allowances allocated for 2012 or any year thereafter ; (3) By October 31, 2011, the Administrator will remove from the CAIR NOX Allowance Tracking System accounts all CAIR NO X allowances allocated for a control period in 2012 and any subsequent year, and, thereafter, no surrender or deduction of*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 717 of 1339 such allowances for excess emissions in any control period will be required; and (4) By Oct ober 31, 2011, the Administrator will remove from the CAIR NOX Ozone Season Allowance Tracking System accounts all CAIR NOX Ozone Season allowances allocated for a control period in 2012 and any subsequent year, and, thereafter, no surrender or deduction o f such allowances for excess emissions in any control period will be required . ( d)(1) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in the State of New Jersey and for which requirements are set forth under the TR NOX Annual Trading Program in subpart AAAAA of part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements. The obligation to comply with such requirements will be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to New Jersey’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan under § 52.37(a), except to the extent the Administrator’s approval is partial or conditional.
(2) Notwithstanding the provision s of paragraph ( d ) (1) of thi s section, if, at the time of the approval of New Jersey’s SIP revision described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section , the Administrator has already allocated any TR NOX Annual allowances to unit in the State for any years, the provisions of subpart AAAAA of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation of TR NOX*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 718 of 1339 Annual allowances for those years shall continue to apply, unless provided otherwise by such approval of the State’s SIP revision.
( e)(1) The owner and operato r of each source and each unit located in the State of New Jersey and for which requirements are set forth under the TR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program in subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements. The obligation to comp ly with such requirements will be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to New Jersey’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan under § 52.37(b), except to the extent the Administrator’s approval is partial or conditional.
(2) Notwithstanding the provision s of paragraph ( e)(1) of this section, if, at the time of the approval of New Jersey’s SIP revision described in paragraph (e)(1) of this section , the Administrator has already allocated any TR NOX Ozone Season allowances to unit in the State for any years, the provisions of subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation of TR NOX O zone Season allowances for those years shall continue to apply, unless provided otherwise by such approval of the State’s SIP revision.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 719 of 1339 43 . Section 52.1 5 85 is amended by designating the introductory text as paragraph (a) and adding new paragraph s (b) and (c) to read as follows: § 52.1585 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of sulfur dioxide? * * * * * (b) Notwithstanding any provisions of paragraph (a) of this section and subparts AAA through III of part 97 of this chapter and any State’s SIP to the contrary: (1) With regard to any control period that begins after December 31, 2011, (i) The provisions of paragraph (a) of this section relating to SO 2 emissions shall not be applicable ; and (ii) The Administrator will not carry out any of the functions set forth for the Administrator in subparts AAA through III of part 97 of this chapter; and (2) The Administrator will not deduct for excess emissions any CAIR SO 2 allowances allocated fo r 2012 or any year thereafter. ( c)(1) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in the State of New Jersey and for which requirements are set forth under the TR SO 2 Group 1 Trading Program in subpart CCCCC of part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements. The obligation to comply*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 720 of 1339 with such requirements will be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to New Jersey’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan under § 52.38, except to the extent the Administrator’s approval is partial or conditional.
(2) Notwithstanding the provision s of paragraph ( c ) (1) of this section, if, at the time of the approval of New Jersey’s SIP revision described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section , the Administrator has already allocated any TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances to unit in the State for any years, the provisions of subpart CCCCC of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Admini strator to complete the allocation of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances for those years shall continue to apply, unless provided otherwise by such approval of the State’s SIP revision. Subpart HH

— New York

44 . Section 52.1684 is amended to read as follows: § 5 2. 1684 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of nitrogen oxides? (a )(1) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in the State of New York and for which requirements are set forth under the TR NOX Annual Trading Program in subpart AAAAA of part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements. The obligation to comply with such requirements will be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a r evision to New York’s State*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 721 of 1339 Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan under § 52.37(a), except to the extent the Administrator’s approval is partial or conditional.
(2) Notwithstan ding the provision s of paragraph ( a ) (1) of this section, if, at the time of the approval of New York’s SIP revision described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section , the Administrator has already allocated any TR NOX Annual allowances to unit in the State for any years, the provisions of subpart AAAAA of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation of TR NOX Annual allowances for those years shall continue to apply, unless provided otherwise by such approval of the State’s S IP revision.
( b)(1) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in the State of New York and for which requirements are set forth under the TR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program in subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements. The obligation to comply with such requirements will be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to New York’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan under § 52.37(b), except to the extent the Administrator’s approval is partial or conditional.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 722 of 1339 (2) Notwithstanding the provision s of paragraph ( b)(1) of this section, if, at the time of the approval of New York’s SIP revision described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section , the Administrator has already allocated any TR NOX Ozone Season allowances to unit in the State for any years, the provisions of subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation of TR NOX Ozone Season allowances for those years shall continue to apply, unless provided otherwise by such approval of the State’s SIP revision.
45. Section 52.1685 is added to read as follows: § 52. 1685 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of sulfur dioxide ? (a ) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in the State of New York and for which requirements are set forth under the TR SO 2 Group 1 Trading Program in subpart CCCCC of part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements. The obligation to comply with such requirements will be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to New York’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan under § 52.38, except to the extent the Administrator’s approval is partial or conditional.
(b) Notwithstanding the provision s of paragraph ( a ) of this section, if, at the time of the approval of New York’s SIP revision described in paragraph (a) of this section , the Administrator has already*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 723 of 1339 allocated any TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances to unit in the State for any years, the provisions of subpar t CCCCC of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances for those years shall continue to apply, unless provided otherwise by such approval of the State’s SIP revision. Subpart II—

North Carolina
46 . Section 52.1784 is amended to read as follows: § 52. 1784 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of nitrogen oxides? (a )(1) The owner and operator of each source and each unit locat ed in the State of North Carolina and for which requirements are set forth under the TR NO X Annual Trading Program in subpart AAAAA of part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements. The obligation to comply with such requirements will be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to North Carolina’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan under § 52.37(a), except to the exte nt the Administrator’s approval is partial or conditional.
(2) Notwithstanding the provision s of paragraph ( a ) (1) of this section, if, at the time of the approval of North Carolina’s SIP revision described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section , the Administ rator has already allocated any TR NOX Annual allowances to*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 724 of 1339 unit in the State for any years, the provisions of subpart AAAAA of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation of TR NOX Annual allowances for those years sha ll continue to apply, unless provided otherwise by such approval of the State’s SIP revision.
( b)(1) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in the State of North Carolina and for which requirements are set forth under the TR NO X Ozo ne Season Trading Program in subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements. The obligation to comply with such requirements will be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to North Car olina’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan under § 52.37(b), except to the extent the Administrator’s approval is partial or conditional.
(2) Notwithstanding the provi sion s of paragraph ( b)(1) of this section, if, at the time of the approval of North Carolina’s SIP revision described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section , the Administrator has already allocated any TR NOX Ozone Season allowances to unit in the State for any years, the provisions of subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation of TR NOX Ozone Season allowances for those years shall continue to apply, unless provided otherwise by such approval of the State ’s SIP revision.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 725 of 1339 47. Section 52.1785 is amended to read as follows: § 52. 1785 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of sulfur dioxide ? (a ) The owner and operator of each source and each un it located in the State of North Carolina and for which requirements are set forth under the TR SO 2 Group 1 Trading Program in subpart CCCCC of part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements. The obligation to comply with such requirements wil l be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to North Carolina’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan under § 52.38, except to the extent the Administrator’s approval is partial or conditional.
(b) Notwithstanding the provision s of paragraph ( a ) of this section, if, at the time of the approval of North Carolina’s SIP revision described in paragraph (a) of this section , the Administ rator has already allocated any TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances to unit in the State for any years, the provisions of subpart CCCCC of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances for those years s hall continue to apply, unless provided otherwise by such approval of the State’s SIP revision. Subpart KK

— Ohio
48 . Section 52.1891 is added to read as follows:*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 726 of 1339 § 52. 1891 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of nitrogen oxides? (a )(1) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in the State of Ohio and for which requirements are set forth under the TR NOX Annual Trading Program in subpart AAAAA of part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements. The obligation to comply with such requirements will be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to Ohio’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that i s the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan under § 52.37(a), except to the extent the Administrator’s approval is partial or conditional.
(2) Notwithstanding the provision s of paragraph ( a ) (1) of this section, if, at the time of the approval of Ohi o’s SIP revision described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section , the Administrator has already allocated any TR NOX Annual allowances to unit in the State for any years, the provisions of subpart AAAAA of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Administrato r to complete the allocation of TR NOX Annual allowances for those years shall continue to apply, unless provided otherwise by such approval of the State’s SIP revision.
( b)(1) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in the State of Ohio and for which requirements are set forth under the TR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program in subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 727 of 1339 chapter must comply with such requirements. The obligation to comply with such requirements will be eliminated by the promulgat ion of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to Ohio’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan under § 52.37(b), except to the extent the Administrator’s approval i s partial or conditional.
(2) Notwithstanding the provision s of paragraph ( b)(1) of this section, if, at the time of the approval of Ohio’s SIP revision described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section , the Administrator has already allocated any TR NOX Ozon e Season allowances to unit in the State for any years, the provisions of subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation of TR NOX Ozone Season allowances for those years shall continue to apply, unless pr ovided otherwise by such approval of the State’s SIP revision.
49. Section 52.1892 is added to read as follows: § 52. 1892 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of sulfur dioxide ? (a ) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in the State of Ohio and for which requirements are set forth under the TR SO 2 Group 1 Trading Program in subpart CCCCC of part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements. The obligation to comply with such requirements will be eliminated by the promulgation of an*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 728 of 1339 approval by the Administrator of a revision to Ohio’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan un der § 52.38, except to the extent the Administrator’s approval is partial or conditional.
(b) Notwithstanding the provision s of paragraph ( a ) of this section, if, at the time of the approval of Ohio’s SIP revision described in paragraph (a) of this section , the Administrator has already allocated any TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances to unit in the State for any years, the provisions of subpart CCCCC of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances for those years shall continue to apply, unless provided otherwise by such approval of the State’s SIP revision. Subpart NN

—Pennsylvania
50 . Section 52.2040 is added to read as follows: § 52. 2040 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of nitrogen oxides? (a )(1) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in the State of Pennsylvania and for which requirements are set forth under the TR NO X Annual Trading Program in subpart AAAAA of part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements. The obligation to comply with such requirements will be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to Pennsylvania’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 729 of 1339 that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan under § 52.37(a), except to the extent the Administrator’s approval is partial or conditional.
(2) Notwithstanding the provision s of paragraph ( a ) (1) of this section, if, at the time of the approval of Pennsylvania’s SIP revision described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section , the Administrator has already allocated any TR NOX Annual allowances to unit in the State for any years, the provisions of subpart AAAAA of part 9 7 of this chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation of TR NOX Annual allowances for those years shall continue to apply, unless provided otherwise by such approval of the State’s SIP revision.
( b)(1) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in the State of Pennsylvania and for which requirements are set forth under the TR NO X Ozone Season Trading Program in subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements. The obligation to comply with such requirements will be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to Pennsylvania’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan under § 52.37(b), except to the extent the Administrator’s approval is partial or conditional.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 730 of 1339 (2) Notwithstanding the provision s of paragraph ( b)(1) of this section, if, at the time of the approval of Pennsylvania’s SIP revision described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section , the Administrator has already allocated any TR NOX Ozone Season allowances to unit in the State for any years, the provisions of subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation of TR NOX Ozon e Season allowances for those years shall continue to apply, unless provided otherwise by such approval of the State’s SIP revision.
51. Section 52.2041 is added to read as follows: § 52. 2041 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the FI P requirements for decreases in emissions of sulfur dioxide ? (a ) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in the State of Pennsylvania and for which requirements are set forth under the TR SO 2 Group 1 Trading Program in subpart CCCCC of part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements. The obligation to comply with such requirements will be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to Pennsylvania’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) as corre cting the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan under § 52.38, except to the extent the Administrator’s approval is partial or conditional.
(b) Notwithstanding the provision s of paragraph ( a ) of this section, if, at the time of the approval of Pennsylvania’s SIP revision described in paragraph (a) of this section , the Administrator has*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 731 of 1339 already allocated any TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances to unit in the State for any years, the provisions of subpart CCCCC of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances for those years shall continue to apply, unless provided otherwise by such approval of the State’s SIP revision. Subpart PP

—South Carolina
52 . Section 52.2140 is amended to read as follows: § 52. 2140 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of nitrogen oxides? (a )(1) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in the State of South Carol ina and for which requirements are set forth under the TR NO X Annual Trading Program in subpart AAAAA of part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements. The obligation to comply with such requirements will be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to South Carolina’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan under § 52.37(a), except to the extent the Administrator’s approva l is partial or conditional.
(2) Notwithstanding the provision s of paragraph ( a ) (1) of this section, if, at the time of the approval of South Carolina’s SIP revision described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section , the Administrator has already allocated an y TR NOX Annual allowances to*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 732 of 1339 unit in the State for any years, the provisions of subpart AAAAA of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation of TR NOX Annual allowances for those years shall continue to apply, unless p rovided otherwise by such approval of the State’s SIP revision.
( b)(1) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in the State of South Carolina and for which requirements are set forth under the TR NO X Ozone Season Trading Program in s ubpart BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements. The obligation to comply with such requirements will be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to South Carolina’s State Implementation P lan (SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan under § 52.37(b), except to the extent the Administrator’s approval is partial or conditional.
(2) Notwithstanding the provision s of paragraph ( b)(1) of this section, if, at the time of the approval of South Carolina’s SIP revision described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section , the Administrator has already allocated any TR NOX Ozone Season allowances to unit in the State for any years, the provisions of subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation of TR NOX Ozone Season allowances for those years shall continue to apply, unless provided otherwise by such approval of the State’s SIP revision.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 733 of 1339 53. Sectio n 52.2141 is amended to read as follows: § 52. 2141 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of sulfur dioxide ? (a ) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in the State of Sou th Carolina and for which requirements are set forth under the TR SO 2 Group 2 Trading Program in subpart DDDDD of part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements. The obligation to comply with such requirements will be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to South Carolina’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan under § 52.38, except to the extent the Administrator’s approval is partial or conditional.
(b) Notwithstanding the provision s of paragraph ( a ) of this section, if, at the time of the approval of South Carolina’s SIP revision described in paragraph (a) of this section , the Administrator has already allocated an y TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances to unit in the State for any years, the provisions of subpart DDDDD of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances for those years shall continue to apply, unless provided otherwise by such approval of the State’s SIP revision. Subpart RR

—Tennessee 54 . Section 52.2240 is amended by adding new paragraph s (c) , (d), and (e) to read as follows:*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 734 of 1339 § 52.2240 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of nitrogen oxides? * * * * * (c) Notwithstanding any provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section and subparts AA through II and AAAA through IIII of part 97 of this chapter to the contrary: (1) With re gard to any control period that begins after December 31, 2011, (i) The provisions in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section relating to NOX annual or ozone season emissions shall not be applicable; and (ii) The Administrator will not carry out any of the functions set forth for the Administrator in subparts AA through II and AAAA through IIII of part 97 of this chapter; and (2) The Administrator will not deduct for excess emissions any CAIR NOX allowances or CAIR NO X Ozone Season allowances allocated for 2 012 or any year thereafter ; (3) By October 31, 2011, the Administrator will remove from the CAIR NOX Allowance Tracking System accounts all CAIR NO X allowances allocated for a control period in 2012 and any subsequent year, and, thereafter, no surrender or deduction of*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 735 of 1339 such allowances for excess emissions in any control period will be required; and (4) By October 31, 2011, the Administrator will remove from the CAIR NOX Ozone Season Allowance Tracking System accounts all CAIR NOX Ozone Season allowances al located for a control period in 2012 and any subsequent year, and, thereafter, no surrender or deduction of such allowances for excess emissions in any control period will be required . ( d)(1) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in the State of Tennessee and for which requirements are set forth under the TR NOX Annual Trading Program in subpart AAAAA of part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements. The obligation to comply with such requirements will be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to Tennessee’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan under § 52.37(a), except to the extent the Administra tor’s approval is partial or conditional.
(2) Notwithstanding the provision s of paragraph ( d ) (1) of this section, if, at the time of the approval of Tennessee’s SIP revision described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section , the Administrator has already allo cated any TR NOX Annual allowances to unit in the State for any years, the provisions of subpart AAAAA of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation of TR NOX*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 736 of 1339 Annual allowances for those years shall continue to apply, unless provided otherwise by such approval of the State’s SIP revision.
( e)(1) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in the State of Tennessee and for which requirements are set forth under the TR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program i n subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements. The obligation to comply with such requirements will be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to Tennessee’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan under § 52.37(b), except to the extent the Administrator’s approval is partial or conditional.
(2) Notwithstanding the provision s of paragraph ( e)(1) of thi s section, if, at the time of the approval of Tennessee’s SIP revision described in paragraph (e)(1) of this section , the Administrator has already allocated any TR NOX Ozone Season allowances to unit in the State for any years, the provisions of subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation of TR NOX Ozone Season allowances for those years shall continue to apply, unless provided otherwise by such approval of the State’s SIP revision.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 737 of 1339 55 . Section 52.22 41 is amended by designating the introductory text as paragraph (a) and adding new paragraph s (b) and (c) to read as follows: § 52.2241 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of sulfur dioxide? * * * * * (b) Notwithstanding any provisions of paragraph (a) of this section and subparts AAA through III of part 97 of this chapter and any State’s SIP to the contrary: (1) With regard to any control period that begins after December 31, 2011, (i ) The provisions of paragraph (a) of this section relating to SO 2 emissions shall not be applicable; and (ii) The Administrator will not carry out any of the functions set forth for the Administrator in subparts AAA through III of part 97 of this chapter; and (2) The Administrator will not deduct for excess emissions any CAIR SO 2 allowances allocated for 2012 or any year thereafter. ( c)(1) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in the State of Tennessee and for which requirements are se t forth under the TR SO 2 Group 1 Trading Program in subpart CCCCC of part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements. The obligation to comply*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 738 of 1339 with such requirements will be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to Tennessee’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan under § 52.38, except to the extent the Administrator’s approval is partial or conditional.
(2) Notwithstanding the provision s of paragraph ( c ) (1) of this section, if, at the time of the approval of Tennessee’s SIP revision described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section , the Administrator has already allocated any TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances to unit in the State for any years, the provisions of subpart CCCCC of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances for those years shall continue to apply, unless provided otherwise by such approval of the State ’s SIP revision. Subpart SS—Texas 56 . Section 52.2283 is amended by adding new paragraph s (c) ,(d), and (e) to read as follows: § 52.2283 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of nitrogen oxides? * * * * * (c) Notwithstanding any provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section and subparts AA through II of part 97 of this chapter to the contrary:*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 739 of 133 9 (1) With regard to any control period that begins after December 31, 2011, (i) The provisions in paragraph (a) of this section relating to NOX annual emissions shall not be applicable; and (ii) The Administrator will not carry out any of the functions set forth for the Administrator in subparts AA through II of part 97 of this chapter; (2) The Administrator will not deduct for excess emissions any CAIR NOX allowances allocated for 2012 or any year thereafter ; (3) By October 31, 2011, the Administrator will remove from the CAIR NOX Allowance Tracking System accounts all CAIR NO X allowances a llocated for a control period in 2012 and any subsequent year, and, thereafter, no surrender or deduction of such allowances for excess emissions in any control period will be required; and (4) By October 31, 2011, the Administrator will remove from the CAIR NOX Ozone Season Allowance Tracking System accounts all CAIR NOX Ozone Season allowances allocated for a control period in 2012 and any subsequent year, and, thereafter, no surrender or deduction of such allowances for excess emissions in any control p eriod will be required .*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 740 of 1339 ( d)(1) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in the State of Texas and for which requirements are set forth under the TR NOX Annual Trading Program in subpart AAAAA of part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements. The obligation to comply with such requirements will be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to Texas’ State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan under § 52.37(a), except to the extent the Administrator’s approval is partial or conditional.
(2) Notwithstanding the provision s of paragraph ( d ) (1) of this section, if, at the time of the approval of Texas’ SIP revision described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section , the Administrator has already allocated any TR NOX Annual allowances to unit in the State for any years, the provisions of subpart AAAAA of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation of TR NOX Annual allowances for those years shall continue to apply, unless provided otherwise by such approval of the State’s SIP revision.
( e)(1) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in the State of Texas and for wh ich requirements are set forth under the TR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program in subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements. The obligation to comply with such requirements will be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to Texas’ State*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 741 of 1339 Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan under § 52.37(b), except to the extent the Administrator’s approval is partial or co nditional.
(2) Notwithstanding the provision s of paragraph ( e)(1) of this section, if, at the time of the approval of Texas’ SIP revision described in paragraph (e)(1) of this section , the Administrator has already allocated any TR NOX Ozone Season allowances to unit in the State for any years, the provisions of subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation of TR NOX Ozone Season allowances for those years shall continue to apply, unless provided otherwis e by such approval of the State’s SIP revision. 57 . Section 52.2284 is amended by designating the introductory text as paragraph (a) and adding new paragraph s (b) and (c) to read as follows: § 52.2284 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of sulfur dioxide? * * * * * (b) Notwithstanding any provisions of paragraph (a) of this section and subparts AAA through III of part 97 of this chapter and any State’s SIP to the contrary:*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 742 of 1339 (1) With r egard to any control period that begins after December 31, 2011, (i) The provisions of paragraph (a) of this section relating to SO 2 emissions shall not be applicable; and (ii) The Administrator will not carry out any of the functions set forth for the Administrator in subparts AAA through III of part 97 of this chapter; and (2) The Administrator will not deduct for excess emissions any CAIR SO 2 allowances allocated for 2012 or any year thereafter. ( c)(1) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in the State of Texas and for which requirements are set forth under the TR SO 2 Group 2 Trading Program in subpart DDDDD of part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements. The obligation to comply with such requirements will be elimina ted by the promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to Texas’ State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan under § 52.38, except to the extent the Administr ator’s approval is partial or conditional.
(2) Notwithstanding the provision s of paragraph ( c ) (1) of this section, if, at the time of the approval of Texas’ SIP revision described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section , the Administrator has already allocate d any TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances to unit in the State for any years, the provisions of subpart DDDDD of part 97 of this*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 743 of 1339 chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances for those years shall continue to apply, un less provided otherwise by such approval of the State’s SIP revision. Subpart VV

— Virginia
58 . Section 52.2440 is added to read as follows: § 52. 2440 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of nitrogen oxides? (a )(1) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in the State of Virginia and for which requirements are set forth under the TR NOX Annual Trading Program in subpart AAAAA of part 97 of this chapter must comply with su ch requirements. The obligation to comply with such requirements will be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to Virginia’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis fo r the TR Federal Implementation Plan under § 52.37(a), except to the extent the Administrator’s approval is partial or conditional.
(2) Notwithstanding the provision s of paragraph ( a ) (1) of this section, if, at the time of the approval of Virginia’s SIP revision described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section , the Administrator has already allocated any TR NOX Annual allowances to unit in the State for any years, the provisions of subpart AAAAA of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Administrator to compl ete the allocation of TR NOX*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 744 of 1339 Annual allowances for those years shall continue to apply, unless provided otherwise by such approval of the State’s SIP revision.
( b)(1) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in the State of Virginia and for which requirements are set forth under the TR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program in subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements. The obligation to comply with such requirements will be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to Virginia’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan under § 52.37(b), except to the extent the Administrator’s approval is partial or conditional.
(2) Notwithstanding the provision s of paragraph ( b)(1) of this section, if, at the time of the approval of Virginia’s SIP revision described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section , the Administrator has already allocated any TR NOX Oz one Season allowances to unit in the State for any years, the provisions of subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation of TR NOX Ozone Season allowances for those years shall continue to apply, unless provided otherwise by such approval of the State’s SIP revision.
59. Section 52.2241 is added to read as follows:*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 745 of 1339 § 52. 2241 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of sulfur dioxide ? (a ) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in the State of Virginia and for which requirements are set forth under the TR SO 2 Group 1 Trading Program in subpart CCCCC of part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements. The obligat ion to comply with such requirements will be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to Virginia’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementati on Plan under § 52.38, except to the extent the Administrator’s approval is partial or conditional.
(b) Notwithstanding the provision s of paragraph ( a ) of this section, if, at the time of the approval of Virginia’s SIP revision described in paragraph (a) o f this section , the Administrator has already allocated any TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances to unit in the State for any years, the provisions of subpart CCCCC of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances for those years shall continue to apply, unless provided otherwise by such approval of the State’s SIP revision. Subpart XX

— West Virginia
60 . Section 52.2540 is added to read as follows: § 52. 2540 Interstate pollutant transport provisions ; What are the FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of nitrogen oxides?*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 746 of 1339 (a )(1) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in the State of West Virginia and for which requirements are set forth under the TR NO X Annual Trading Program in subpart AAAAA of part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements. The obligation to comply with such requirements will be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to West Virginia’s State Implementati on Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan under § 52.37(a), except to the extent the Administrator’s approval is partial or conditional.
(2) Notwithstanding the provision s of paragraph ( a ) (1) of this section, if, at the time of the approval of West Virginia’s SIP revision described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section , the Administrator has already allocated any TR NOX Annual allowances to unit in the State for any years, the provisions of subpa rt AAAAA of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation of TR NOX Annual allowances for those years shall continue to apply, unless provided otherwise by such approval of the State’s SIP revision.
( b)(1) The owner an d operator of each source and each unit located in the State of West Virginia and for which requirements are set forth under the TR NO X Ozone Season Trading Program in subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements. The obliga tion to comply with such requirements will be eliminated by the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 747 of 1339 promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to West Virginia’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan under § 52.37(b), except to the extent the Administrator’s approval is partial or conditional.
(2) Notwithstanding the provision s of paragraph ( b)(1) of this section, if, at the time of the approval of West Virginia’s SIP revision described i n paragraph (b)(1) of this section , the Administrator has already allocated any TR NOX Ozone Season allowances to unit in the State for any years, the provisions of subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allo cation of TR NOX Ozone Season allowances for those years shall continue to apply, unless provided otherwise by such approval of the State’s SIP revision.
61. Section 52.2541 is added to read as follows: § 52. 2541 Interstate pollutant transport provis ions; What are the FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of sulfur dioxide ? (a ) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in the State of West Virginia and for which requirements are set forth under the TR SO 2 Group 1 Trading Program in subpart CCCCC of part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements. The obligation to comply with such requirements will be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to West Virginia’s State Implementat ion Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 748 of 1339 the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan under § 52.38, except to the extent the Administrator’s approval is partial or conditional.
(b) Notwithstanding the provision s of paragraph ( a ) of th is section, if, at the time of the approval of West Virginia’s SIP revision described in paragraph (a) of this section , the Administrator has already allocated any TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances to unit in the State for any years, the provisions of subpart CCCC C of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances for those years shall continue to apply, unless provided otherwise by such approval of the State’s SIP revision. Subpart YY

— Wisconsin 62 . Section 52. 2 587 is amended by adding new paragraph s (c) and (d) to read as follows: § 52. 2 587 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of nitrogen oxides? * * * * * (c) Notwithstanding any p rovisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section and subparts AA through II and AAAA through IIII of part 97 of this chapter to the contrary: (1) With regard to any control period that begins after December 31, 2011,*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 749 of 1339 (i) The provisions in paragraphs (a ) and (b) of this section relating to NOX annual or ozone season emissions shall not be applicable; and (ii) The Administrator will not carry out any of the functions set forth for the Administrator in subparts AA through II and AAAA through IIII of part 9 7 of this chapter; and (2) The Administrator will not deduct for excess emissions any CAIR NOX allowances or CAIR NO X Ozone Season allowances allocated for 2012 or any year thereafter ; (3) By October 31, 2011, the Administrator will remove from the CAIR NOX Allowance Tracking System accounts all CAIR NO X Ozone Season allowances allocated for a control period in 2012 and any subsequent year, and, thereafter, no surrender or deduction of such allowances for excess emissions in any control period will be requi red; and (4) By October 31, 2011, the Administrator will remove from the CAIR NOX Ozone Season Allowance Tracking System accounts all CAIR NOX Ozone Season allowances allocated for a control period in 2012 and any subsequent year, and, thereafter, no surr ender or deduction of such allowances for excess emissions in any control period will be required .*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 750 of 1339 ( d)(1) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in the State of Wisconsin and for which requirements are set forth under the TR NOX Annual Trading Program in subpart AAAAA of part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements. The obligation to comply with such requirements will be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to Wisconsin’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan under § 52.37(a), except to the extent the Administrator’s approval is partial or conditional.
(2) Notwithstanding the provision s of parag raph ( d ) (1) of this section, if, at the time of the approval of Wisconsin’s SIP revision described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section , the Administrator has already allocated any TR NOX Annual allowances to unit in the State for any years, the provisions of subpart AAAAA of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation of TR NOX Annual allowances for those years shall continue to apply, unless provided otherwise by such approval of the State’s SIP revision.
( e) [Reserved]
63 . Section 52. 2 588 is amended by designating the introductory text as paragraph (a) and adding a new paragraph s (b) and (c) to read as follows:*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 751 of 1339 § 52. 2 588 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of sulfur dioxide? * * * * * (b) Notwithstanding any provisions of paragraph (a) of this section and subparts AAA through III of part 97 of this chapter and any State’s SIP to the contrary: (1) With regard to any control period that begins a fter December 31, 2011, (i) The provisions of paragraph (a) of this section relating to SO 2 emissions shall not be applicable; and (ii) The Administrator will not carry out any of the functions set forth for the Administrator in subparts AAA through III of part 97 of this chapter; and (2) The Administrator will not deduct for excess emissions any CAIR SO 2 allowances allocated for 2012 or any year thereafter. ( c)(1) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in the State of Wisconsin and for which requirements are set forth under the TR SO 2 Group 1 Trading Program in subpart CCCCC of part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements. The obligation to comply with such requirements will be eliminated by the promulgation of an approva l by the Administrator of a revision to Wisconsin’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 752 of 1339 the basis for the TR Federal Implementation Plan under § 52.38, except to the extent the Administrator’s approval is partial or co nditional.
(2) Notwithstanding the provision s of paragraph ( c ) (1) of this section, if, at the time of the approval of Wisconsin’s SIP revision described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section , the Administrator has already allocated any TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances to unit in the State for any years, the provisions of subpart CCCCC of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances for those years shall continue to apply, unless provided otherwise by such approval of the State’s SIP revision. PART 72— [AMENDED] 64 . The authority citation for Part 72 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7403, 7410, 7411, 7426, 7601, et seq. § 72.2 [Amended] 65 . Section 72.2 is amended by removing t he definition of “interested person”. PART 78— [AMENDED] 66 . The authority citation for Part 78 continues to read as follows:*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 753 of 1339 Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7403, 7410, 7411, 7426, 7601, et seq. § 78.1 [Amended] 67 . Section 78.1 is amended by adding paragraph s (b)(13) through (b)(16) to read as follows: § 78.1 Purpose and scope. * * * * * (b) * * * (13) Under subpart AAAAA of part 97 of this chapter, (i) The decision on allocation of TR NO X Annual allowances under §97.411(a)(2) and (b) of this chapt er. (ii) The decision on the transfer of TR NO X Annual allowances under §97.423 of this chapter. (iii) The decision on the deduction of TR NO X Annual allowances under §§97.424 and 97.425 of this chapter. (iv) The correction of an error in an Allowan ce Management System account under §97.427 of this chapter. (iv) The adjustment of information in a submission and the decision on the deduction and transfer of TR NO X Annual*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 754 of 1339 allowances based on the information as adjusted under §97.428 of this chapt er. (vi) The finalization of control period emissions data, including retroactive adjustment based on audit. (vii) The approval or disapproval of a petition under §97.435 of this chapter. (14) Under subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter, (i) The decision on allocation of TR NO X Ozone Season allowances under §97.511(a)(2) and (b) of this chapter. (ii) The decision on the transfer of TR NO X Ozone Season allowances under §97.523 of this chapter. (iii) The decision on the deduction of TR NO X Ozon e Season allowances under §§97.524 and 97.525 of this chapter. (iv) The correction of an error in an Allowance Management System account under §97.527 of this chapter. (iv) The adjustment of information in a submission and the decision on the deduction and transfer of TR NO X Ozone Season allowances based on the information as adjusted under §97.528 of this chapter.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 755 of 1339 (vi) The finalization of control period emissions data, including retroactive adjustment based on audit. (vii) The approval o r disapproval of a petition under §97.535 of this chapter. (15) Under subpart CCCCC of part 97 of this chapter, (i) The decision on allocation of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances under §97.611(a)(2) and (b) of this chapter. (ii) The decision on the transfer o f TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances under §97.623 of this chapter. (iii) The decision on the deduction of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances under §§97.624 and 97.625 of this chapter. (iv) The correction of an error in an Allowance Management System account under §9 7.627 of this chapter. (iv) The adjustment of information in a submission and the decision on the deduction and transfer of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances based on the information as adjusted under §97.628 of this chapter. (vi) The finalization of c ontrol period emissions data, including retroactive adjustment based on audit.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 756 of 1339 (vii) The approval or disapproval of a petition under §97.635 of this chapter. (16) Under subpart DDDDD of part 97 of this chapter, (i) The decision on allocation of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances under §97.711(a)(2) and (b) of this chapter. (ii) The decision on the transfer of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances under §97.723 of this chapter. (iii) The decision on the deduction of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances under §§97.724 and 97.725 of thi s chapter. (iv) The correction of an error in an Allowance Management System account under §97.727 of this chapter. (iv) The adjustment of information in a submission and the decision on the deduction and transfer of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances based on the information as adjusted under §97.728 of this chapter. (vi) The finalization of control period emissions data, including retroactive adjustment based on audit. (vii) The approval or disapproval of a petition under §97.735 of this chapte r. * * * * **** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 757 of 1339 § 78.2 [Amended] 68 . Section 78.2 is revised to read as follows: § 78.2 General. (a) Definitions . (1) The terms used in this subpart with regard to a decision of the Administrator that is appealed under this section shall have the meaning as set forth in the regulations under which the Administrator made such decision and as set forth in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. (2) Interested person means, with regard to a decision of the Administrator : (i) Any person who submitted comments , or testified at a public hearing, pursuant to an opportunity for comment provided by the Administrator as part of the process of making such decision ; (ii) Who submitted objections pursuant to an opportunity for objections provided by the Administrator a s part of the process of making such decision ; or (iii) Who submitted , to the Administrator and in a format prescribed by the Administrator, his or her name, service address, telephone number, and facsimile number and identified*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 758 of 1339 such decision in order to b e placed on a list of persons interested in such decision ; (iv) Provided that the Administrator may update the list of interested persons from time to time by requesting additional written indication of continued interest from the persons listed and may de lete from the list the name of any person failing to respond as requested. (b) Availability of information . The availability to the public of information provided to, or otherwise obtained by, the Administrator under this subpart shall be governed by par t 2 of this chapter. (c) Computation of time . (1) In computing any period of time prescribed or allowed under this part, except as otherwise provided, the day of the event from which the period begins to run shall not be included, and Saturdays, Sundays, and federal holidays shall be included. When the period ends on a Saturday, Sunday, or federal holiday, the stated period shall be extended to include the next business day. (2) Where a document is served by first class mail or commercial delivery servi ce, but not by overnight or same - day delivery, 5 days shall be added to the time prescribed or allowed under this*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 759 of 1339 part for the filing of a responsive document or for otherwise responding. § 78.3 [Amended] 69 . Section 78.3 is amended by: a. In paragraphs ( a)(1)(iii), (a)(3)(ii), (a)(4)(ii), (a)(5)(ii), (a)(6)(ii), (a)(7)(ii), (a)(8)(ii), and (a)(9)(ii), adding, after the word “person”, the words “with regard to the decision”. b. Adding paragraph (a)(10); c. In paragraph (b)(3)(i), removing the words “parag raph (a)(1) and (2)” and adding, in their place, the words “paragraph (a)(1), (2), and (10)”; and d. Adding paragraph (d)(11) to read as follows: § 78.3 Petition for administrative review and request or evidentiary hearing. (a) * * * (10) The followi ng persons may petition for administrative review of a decision of the Administrator that is made under subparts AAAAA, BBBBB, CCCCC, and DDDDD of part 97 of this chapter:*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 760 of 1339 (i) The designated representative for a unit or source, or the authorized account r epresentative for any Allowance Management System account, covered by the decision; or (ii) Any interested person with regard to the decision. * * * * * (d) * * * (11) Any provision or requirement of subparts AAAAA, BBBBB, CCCCC, or DDDDD of part 97 of this chapter, including the standard requirements under §97.406, §97.506, §97.606, or §97.706 of this chapter and any emission monitoring or reporting requirements. § 78.4 [Amended] 70 . Section 78.4 is amended by: a. Revising paragraph (a) by: i. Removi ng the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and last sentences; ii. In the sixth and seventh sentences, removing the words “interest in” and adding, in their place, the words “ownership interest with respect to”; and iii. Redesignating the paragraph as pa ragraph (a)(1)(iii); and*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 761 of 1339 b. Adding paragraphs (a)(1) introductory text, (a)(1)(i), (a)(1)(ii) and (a)(2) to read as follows: § 78.4 Filings. (a)(1) All original filings made under this part shall be signed by the person making the filing or by an attorne y or authorized representative, in accordance with the following requirements: (i) Any filings on behalf of owners and operators of a affected unit or affected source, TR NO X Annual unit or TR NO X Annual source, TR NOX Ozone Season unit or TR NO X Ozone Sea son source, TR SO 2 Group 1 unit or TR SO 2 Group 1 source, TR SO 2 Group 2 unit or TR SO 2 Group 2 source, or a unit for which a TR opt - in application is submitted and not withdrawn shall be signed by the designated representative. Any filing on behalf of pe rsons with an ownership interest with respect to allowances, TR NO X Annual allowances, TR NO X Ozone Season allowances, TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances, or TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances in a general account shall be signed by the authorized account representative. ( ii) Any filings on behalf of owners and operators of a NO X Budget unit or NOX Budget source shall be signed by the NO X authorized account representative. Any filing on behalf of persons with an ownership interest with respect to NO X allowances*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 762 of 1339 in a genera l account shall be signed by the NO X authorized account representative. * * * * * (2) The name, address, e -mail address (if any), telephone number, and facsimile number (if any) of the person making the filing shall be provided with the filing. * * * * * § 78. 5 [Amended] 71 . Section 78. 5 is amended by , in paragraph (a):

a. Removing the words “public comment prior to” and adding, in their place, the words “submission of public comments or objections prior to”; b. Removing the words “public comment period” whenever their appear and adding, in their place, the words “period for submission of public comments or objections”. § 78. 12 [Amended] 72 . Section 78. 12 is amended by , in paragraph (a), removing the words “public comment” and adding, in the ir place, the words “submission of public comments or objections”.
PART 97 - [Amended]*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 763 of 1339 73 . The authority citation for Part 97 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7403, 7410, 7426, 7601, and 7651, et seq. 74 . Part 97 is amended by adding subpart AAAAA to read as follows: Subpart AAAAA

—TR NOX Annual Trading Program 97.401 Purpose. 97.402 Definitions. 97.403 Measurements, abbreviations, and acronyms. 97.404 Applicability. 97.405 Retired unit exemption. 9 7.406 Standard requirements. 97.407 Computation of time. 97.408 Administrative appeal procedures. 97.409 [Reserved]*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 764 of 1339 97.410 State NOX Annual trading budgets, new unit set asides, Indian country new unit set - asides and variability limits. 97 .411 Timing requirements for TR NO X Annual allowance allocations. 97.412 TR NOX Annual allowance allocations for new units. 97.413 Authorization of designated representative and alternate designated representative. 97.414 Responsibilities of designated representative and alternate designated representative. 97.415 Changing designated representative and alternate designated representative; changes in owners and operators. 97.416 Certificate of representation. 97.417 Objections concerning designated representative and alternate designated representative. 97.418 Delegation by designated representative and alternate designated representative. 97.419 [Reserved] 97.420 Establishment of compliance accounts and general accounts .*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 765 of 1339 97.421 Recordation of TR NOX Annual allowance allocations. 97.422 Submission of TR NOX Annual allowance transfers. 97.423 Recordation of TR NO X Annual allowance transfers. 97.424 Compliance with TR NO X Annual emissions limitation. 97.425 Compliance with TR NO X Annual assurance provisions. 97.426 Banking. 97.427 Account error. 97.428 Administrator’s action on submissions. 97.429 [RESERVED] 97.430 General monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. 97.431 Initial monitoring system certification and recertificatio n procedures. 97.432 Monitoring system out - of - control periods. 97.433 Notifications concerning monitoring. 97.434 Recordkeeping and reporting. 97.435 Petitions for alternatives to monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting requirements.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 766 of 1339 Subpart AAAAA

—TR NOX Annual Trading Program § 97.401 Purpose. This subpart sets forth the general, designated representative, allowance, and monitoring provisions for the Transport Rule (TR) NOX Annual Trading Program, under section 110 of the Cle an Air Act and §52.37of this chapter, as a means of mitigating interstate transport of fine particulates and nitrogen oxides. § 97.402 Definitions. The terms used in this subpart shall have the meanings set forth in this section as follows: Acid Rain Prog ram means a multi - state SO 2 and NOX air pollution control and emission reduction program established by the Administrator under title IV of the Clean Air Act and parts 72 through 78 of this chapter. Administrator means the Administrator of the United State s Environmental Protection Agency or the Director of the Clean Air Markets Division (or its successor) of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the Administrator's duly authorized representative under this subpart.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 767 of 1339 Allocate or allocation means , with regard to TR NO X Annual allowances, the determination by the Administrator , State, or permitting authority, in accordance with this subpart and any SIP revision submitted by the State and approved by the Administrator under § 52.37(a)(3), (4), or (5) of this chapter, of the amount of such TR NO X Annual allowances to be initially credited , at no cost to the recipient, to : (1) A TR NOX Annual unit; (2) A new unit set - aside ; (3) An Indian country new unit set - aside; or (4) An entity not listed in paragraphs (1) through (3) of this definition; (5) Provided that, if the Administrator, State, or permitting authority initially credits, to a TR NO X Annual unit qualifying for an initial credit, a credit in the amount of zero TR NO X Annual allowances, the TR NO X Annual unit will be treated as being allocated an amount (i.e., zero) of TR NO X Annual allowances. Allowable NOX emission rate means, with regard to a unit, the most stringent State or federal NOX emission rate limit (in lb/MWhr or, if in lb/mmBtu, converted to lb/MWhr by multiplying*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 768 of 1339 it by the unit’s heat rate in mmBtu/MWhr) that is applicable to the unit and covers the longest averaging period not exceeding one year. Allowance Management System means the system by which the Administrator records allo cations, deductions, and transfers of TR NOX Annual allowances under the TR NO X Annual Trading Program. Such allowances are allocated, recorded, held, deducted, or transferred only as whole allowances. Allowance Management System account means an accoun t in the Allowance Management System established by the Administrator for purposes of recording the allocation, holding, transfer, or deduction of TR NOX Annual allowances. Allowance transfer deadline means, for a control period in a given year , midnight o f March 1 (if it is a business day), or midnight of the first business day thereafter (if March 1 is not a business day), immediately after such control period and is the deadline by which a TR NO X Annual allowance transfer must be submitted for recordatio n in a TR NOX Annual source's compliance account in order to be available for use in complying with the source's TR NOX Annual emissions limitation for such control period in accordance with §§ 97.406 and 97.424.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 769 of 1339 Alternate designated representative means, with regard to a TR NOX Annual source and each TR NO X Annual unit at the source, the natural person who is authorized by the owners and operators of the source and all such units at the source, in accordance with this subpart, to act on behalf of the designated representative in matters pertaining to the TR NO X Annual Trading Program. If the TR NOX Annual source is also subject to the Acid Rain Program, TR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program, TR SO 2 Group 1 Trading Program, or TR SO 2 Group 2 Trading Program, then this natural person shall be the same natural person as the alternate designated representative , as defined in the respective program . Assurance account means an Allowance Management System account, established by the Administrator under §97.425 (b)(3 ) for certain owners and operators of a group of one or more TR NOX Annual source s and units in a given State , in which are held TR NO X Annual allowances available for use for a control period in a given year in complying with the TR NO X Annual assurance provisions in accordance with §§97. 406 and 97. 425. Authorized account representative means, with regard to a general account, the natural person who is authorized, in accordance with this subpart, to transfer and otherwise dispose of TR NOX Annual allowan ces held in the general account and, with*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 770 of 1339 regard to a TR NOX Annual source’s compliance account, the designated representative of the source. Automated data acquisition and handling system or DAHS means the component of the continuous emission monitoring s ystem, or other emissions monitoring system approved for use under this subpart, designed to interpret and convert individual output signals from pollutant concentration monitors, flow monitors, diluent gas monitors, and other component parts of the monito ring system to produce a continuous record of the measured parameters in the measurement units required by this subpart. Biomass means— (1) Any organic material grown for the purpose of being converted to energy; (2) Any organic byproduct of agriculture t hat can be converted into energy; or (3) Any material that can be converted into energy and is nonmerchantable for other purposes, that is segregated from other material that is nonmerchantable for other purposes, and that is;*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 771 of 1339 (i) A forest - related organic resource, including mill residues, precommercial thinnings, slash, brush, or byproduct from conversion of trees to merchantable material; or (ii) A wood material, including pallets, crates, dunnage, manufacturing and construction materials (other than pres sure treated, chemically - treated, or painted wood products), and landscape or right - of - way tree trimmings. Boiler means an enclosed fossil - or other - fuel - fired combustion device used to produce heat and to transfer heat to recirculating water, steam, or ot her medium. Bottoming - cycle unit means a unit in which the energy input to the unit is first used to produce useful thermal energy, where at least some of the reject heat from the useful thermal energy application or process is then used for electricity pr oduction. Business day means a day that does not fall on a weekend or a federal holiday. Certifying official means a natural person who is: (1) For a corporation, a president, secretary, treasurer, or vice -president or the corporation in charge of a princi pal business function or any other person who performs similar policy - or decision -making functions for the corporation;*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 772 of 1339 (2) For a partnership or sole proprietorship, a general partner or the proprietor respectively; or (3) For a local government entity or State, federal, or other public agency, a principal executive officer or ranking elected official. Clean Air Act means the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. Coal means “coal” as defined in § 72.2 of this chapter . Coal - derived fuel means any fuel (whe ther in a solid, liquid, or gaseous state) produced by the mechanical, thermal, or chemical processing of coal. Cogeneration system means an integrated group, at a source, of equipment (including a boiler, or combustion turbine, and a steam turbine generat or) designed to produce useful thermal energy for industrial, commercial, heating, or cooling purposes and electricity through the sequential use of energy. Cogeneration unit means a stationary, fossil - fuel - fired boiler or stationary, fossil - fuel - fired combustion turbine

— (1) Operating as part of a cogeneration system; and (2) Producing on an annual average basis during the later of 2005 or the 12 -month period starting on the date that the unit*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 773 of 1339 first produces electricity and during each calendar year after the later of 2005 or the calendar year in which the unit first produces electricity

— (i) For a topping - cycle unit, (A) Useful thermal energy not less than 5 percent of total energy output; and (B) Useful power that, when added to one - half of useful thermal energy produced, is not less th an 42.5 percent of total energy input, if useful thermal energy produced is 15 percent or more of total energy output, or not less than 45 percent of total energy input, if useful thermal energy produced is less than 15 pe rcent of total energy output. (ii) For a bottoming - cycle unit, useful power not less than 45 percent of total energy input; (3) Provided that the requirements in paragraph (2) of this definition shall not apply to a calendar year referenced in paragraph (2 ) of this definition during which the unit did not operate at all; ( 4 ) Provided that the total energy input under paragraphs (2)(i)(B) and (2)(ii) of this definition shall equal the unit's*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 774 of 1339 total energy input from all fuel, except biomass if the unit is a b oiler; and ( 5 ) Provided that, if , throughout its operation during the 12 - month period or a calendar year referenced in paragraph (2) of this definition, a unit is operated as part of a cogeneration system and the cogeneration system meets on a system- wide basis the requirement in paragraph (2)(i)(B) or (2)(ii) of this definition, the unit shall be deemed to meet such requirement during that 12 -month period or calendar year. Combustion turbine means an enclosed device comprising: (1) If the device is simple cycle, a compressor, a combustor, and a turbine and in which the flue gas resulting from the combustion of fuel in the combustor passes through the turbine, rotating the turbine; and (2) If the device is combined cycle, the equipment described in paragraph (1) of this definition and any associated duct burner, heat recovery steam generator, and steam turbine. Commence commercial operation means, with regard to a unit: (1) To have begun to produce steam, gas, or other heated medium used to generate electric ity for sale or use, including test generation, except as provided in §97.405.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 775 of 1339 (i) For a unit that is a TR NO X Annual unit under §97.404 on the later of January 1, 2005 or the date the unit commences commercial operation as defined in the introductory text of paragraph (1) of this definition and that subsequently undergoes a physical change or is moved to a new location or source , such date shall remain the date of commencement of commercial operation of the unit, which shall continue to be treated as the s ame unit. (ii) For a unit that is a TR NO X Annual unit under §97.404 on the later of January 1, 2005 or the date the unit commences commercial operation as defined in the introductory text of paragraph (1) of this definition and that is subsequently replac ed by a unit at the same or a different source, such date shall remain the replaced unit's date of commencement of commercial operation, and the replacement unit shall be treated as a separate unit with a separate date for commencement of commercial operat ion as defined in paragraph (1) or (2) of this definition as appropriate. (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) of this definition and except as provided in §97.405, for a unit that is not a TR NO X Annual unit under §97.404 on the later of January 1, 2005 or the date the unit commences commercial operation as defined in introductory text of paragraph (1) of this definition, the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 776 of 1339 unit's date for commencement of commercial operation shall be the date on which the unit becomes a TR NO X Annual unit under §97.404. (i ) For a unit with a date for commencement of commercial operation as defined in the introductory text of paragraph (2) of this definition and that subsequently undergoes a physical change) or is moved to a different location or source , such date shall rema in the date of commencement of commercial operation of the unit, which shall continue to be treated as the same unit. (ii) For a unit with a date for commencement of commercial operation as defined in the introductory text of paragraph (2) of this definiti on and that is subsequently replaced by a unit at the same or a different source, such date shall remain the replaced unit's date of commencement of commercial operation, and the replacement unit shall be treated as a separate unit with a separate date for commencement of commercial operation as defined in paragraph (1) or (2) of this definition as appropriate. Common designated representative means a designated representative where the same natural person is authorized under §§ 97.4 13(a) and 97.415(a) as t he designated representative for*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 777 of 1339 a group of one or more TR NO X Annual sources and units located in a State. Common designated representative’s assurance level means , with regard to a specific common designated representative and a State and control period in a given year for which the State assurance level is exceeded as described in §97.406(c)(2)(iii), the common designated representative’s share of the State NO X Annual trading budget with the one - year variability limit for the State for such control peri od. Common designated representative’s share means , with regard to a specific common designated representative : (1) With regard to a total amount of NO X emissions from all TR NOX Annual units in a State during a control period in a given year , the total tonnage of NOX emissions during such control period from a group of one or more TR NOX Annual units located in the State and having the common designated representative as of the allowance transfer deadline for such control period ; (2) With regard to a St ate NOX Annual trading budget for a control period in a given year , the amount (rounded to the nearest allowance) equal to the sum of the total amount of TR NOX Annual allowances allocated for such control period to a group of one or more TR NOX Annual uni ts located in the State and*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 778 of 1339 having the common designated representative as of the allowance transfer deadline for such control period and of the total amount of TR NOX Annual allowances purchased by an owner or operator of such TR NOX Annual units in an au ction for such control period and submitted to the Administrator for recordation in the compliance account s for such TR NOX Annual units in accordance with the TR NOX Annual allowance auction provisions in a SIP revision approved by the Administrator under § 52.37(a)(4) or (5) of this chapter, multiplied by the sum of the State NOX Annual trading budget under §97.410(a) and the State’s one - year variability limit under §97.410(b) for such control period and divided by such State NO X Annual trading budget; (3 ) Provided that, in the case of a unit that operates during, but has no amount of TR NO X Annual allowances allocated under §§97.411 and 97.412 for, a control period in a given year , the unit shall be treated, solely for purposes of this definition, as bein g allocated an amount (rounded to the nearest allowance) of TR NOX Annual allowances for such control period equal to the unit’s allowable NOX emission rate applicable to such control period, multiplied by a capacity factor of 0.8 7 (if the unit is a boile r combusting any amount of coal or coal - derived fuel during such control period) , 0.1 4 (if the unit is a simple*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 779 of 1339 combustion turbine during such control period ), 0. 70 (if the unit is a combined cycle turbine during such control period), 0.46 (if the unit is a boiler combusting only fuel oil or natural gas during such control period), or 0.71 (for any other unit) , multiplied by the unit’s maximum hourly load as reported in accordance with this subpart and by 8,760 hours/control period, and divided by 2,000 lb /ton . Common stack means a single flue through which emissions from 2 or more units are exhausted. Compliance account means an Allowance Management System account, established by the Administrator for a TR NO X Annual source under this subpart, in which an y TR NOX Annual allowance allocations for the TR NOX Annual units at the source are recorded and in which are held any TR NO X Annual allowances available for use for a control period in a given year in complying with the source's TR NOX Annual emissions limitation in accordance with §§ 97.406 and 97.424. Continuous emission monitoring system or CEMS means the equipment required under this subpart to sample, analyze, measure, and provide, by means of readings recorded at least once every 15 minutes and using an automated data acquisition and handling system (DAHS), a permanent record of NO X emissions,*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 780 of 1339 stack gas volumetric flow rate, stack gas moisture content, and O 2 or CO 2 concentration (as applicable), in a manner consistent with part 75 of this chapter and §§97.430 through 97.435. The following systems are the principal types of continuous emission monitoring systems: (1) A flow monitoring system, consisting of a stack flow rate monitor and an automated data acquisition and handling system and providing a p ermanent, continuous record of stack gas volumetric flow rate, in standard cubic feet per hour (scfh); (2) A NOX concentration monitoring system, consisting of a NO X pollutant concentration monitor and an automated data acquisition and handling system and providing a permanent, continuous record of NO X emissions, in parts per million (ppm); (3) A NOX emission rate (or NO X- diluent) monitoring system, consisting of a NOX pollutant concentration monitor, a diluent gas (CO 2 or O 2 ) monitor, and an automated data acquisition and handling system and providing a permanent, continuous record of NOX concentration, in parts per million (ppm), diluent gas concentration, in percent CO 2 or O 2 , and NOX emission rate, in pounds per million British thermal units (lb/mmBtu);*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 781 of 1339 (4) A moisture monitoring system, as defined in §75.11(b)(2) of this chapter and providing a permanent, continuous record of the stack gas moisture content, in percent H 2 O; (5) A CO 2 monitoring system, consisting of a CO 2 pollutant concentration monitor (o r an O 2 monitor plus suitable mathematical equations from which the CO 2 concentration is derived) and an automated data acquisition and handling system and providing a permanent, continuous record of CO 2 emissions, in percent CO 2 ; and (6) An O 2 monitoring system, consisting of an O 2 concentration monitor and an automated data acquisition and handling system and providing a permanent, continuous record of O 2 , in percent O 2 . Control period means the period starting January 1 of a calendar year, except as prov ided in §97.406(c)(3), and ending on December 31 of the same year, inclusive. Designated representative means, with regard to a TR NOX Annual source and each TR NO X Annual unit at the source, the natural person who is authorized by the owners and operators of the source and all such units at the source, in accordance with this subpart, to represent and legally bind each owner and operator in matters pertaining to the TR NO X Annual Trading Program. If*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 782 of 1339 the TR NOX Annual source is also subject to the Acid Rai n Program, TR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program, TR SO 2 Group 1 Trading Program, or TR SO 2 Group 2 Trading Program, then this natural person shall be the same natural person as the designated representative, as defined in the respective program . Emissions means air pollutants exhausted from a unit or source into the atmosphere, as measured, recorded, and reported to the Administrator by the designated representative , and as modified by the Administrator : (1 ) In accordance with this subpart ; and (2) With regard to a period before the unit or source is required to measure, record, and report such air pollutants in accordance with this subpart, in accordance with part 75 of this chapter . Excess emissions means any ton of emissions from the TR NOX Annual units a t a TR NOX Annual source during a control period in a given year that exceeds the TR NO X Annual emissions limitation for the source for such control period . Fossil fuel means— (1) Natural gas, petroleum, coal, or any form of solid, liquid, or gaseous fuel derived from such material; or*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 783 of 1339 (2) For purposes of applying the limitation on “average annual fuel consumption of fossil fuel” in §§97.404(b)(2)(i)(B) and (ii), natural gas, petroleum, coal, or any form of solid, liquid, or gaseous fuel derived from such material for the purpose of creating useful heat. Fossil - fuel - fired means, with regard to a unit, combusting any amount of fossil fuel in 2005 or any calendar year thereafter. Fuel oil means “fuel oil” as defined in § 72.2 of this chapter . General account me ans an Allowance Management System account, established under this subpart, that is not a compliance account or an assurance account . Generator means a device that produces electricity. Gross electrical output means, for a unit, electricity made available for use, including any such electricity used in the power production process (which process includes, but is not limited to, any on - site processing or treatment of fuel combusted at the unit and any on - site emission controls). Heat input means, for a unit for a specified period of time, the product (in mmBtu/time) of the gross calorific value of the fuel (in mmBtu/lb) fed into the unit multiplied by the fuel feed rate (in lb of fuel/time), as measured, recorded, and reported to the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 784 of 1339 Administrator by the desi gnated representative and as modified by the Administrator in accordance with this subpart and excluding the heat derived from preheated combustion air, recirculated flue gases, or exhaust.
Heat input rate means , for a unit, the amount of heat input (in mmBtu) divided by unit operating time (in hr) or, with regard to a specific fuel, the amount of heat input attributed to the fuel (in mmBtu) divided by the unit operating time (in hr) during which the unit combusts the fuel.
Heat rate means , for a unit, the unit’s maximum design heat input (in Btu/hr), divided by the product of 1,000 ,000 Btu / mmBtu and the unit’s maximum hourly load. Indian country means, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151: (1) All land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdict ion of the United States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and, including rights - of - way running through the reservation; (2) All dependent Indian communities within the borders of the United States whether within the original or subse quently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or without the limits of a state; and*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 785 of 1339 (3) All Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights - of - way running through the same. Life 

### - of - the - unit, firm power c ontractual arrangement means a unit participation power sales agreement under which a utility or industrial customer reserves, or is entitled to receive, a specified amount or percentage of nameplate capacity and associated energy generated by any specifie d unit and pays its proportional amount of such unit's total costs, pursuant to a contract: (1) For the life of the unit; (2) For a cumulative term of no less than 30 years, including contracts that permit an election for early termination; or (3) For a pe riod no less than 25 years or 70 percent of the economic useful life of the unit determined as of the time the unit is built, with option rights to purchase or release some portion of the nameplate capacity and associated energy generated by the unit at the end of the period. Maximum design heat input means , for a unit, the maximum amount of fuel per hour (in Btu/hr) that the unit is capable of combusting on a steady state basis as of the initial*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 786 of 1339 installation of the unit as specified by the manufacturer of the unit. Monitoring system means any monitoring system that meets the requirements of this subpart, including a continuous emission monitoring system, an alternative monitoring system, or an excepted monitoring system under part 75 of this chapter. Namepl ate capacity means, starting from the initial installation of a generator, the maximum electrical generating output (in MWe , rounded to the nearest tenth ) that the generator is capable of producing on a steady state basis and during continuous operation (when not restricted by seasonal or other deratings) as of such installation as specified by the manufacturer of the generator or, starting from the completion of any subsequent physical change in the generator resulting in an increase in the maximum electri cal generating output that the generator is capable of producing on a steady state basis and during continuous operation (when not restricted by seasonal or other deratings), such increased maximum amount (in MWe , rounded to the nearest tenth ) as of such c ompletion as specified by the person conducting the physical change. Natural gas means “natural gas” as defined in § 72.2 of this chapter.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 787 of 1339 Newly affected TR NO X Annual unit means a unit that was not a TR NOX Annual unit when it began operating but that ther eafter becomes a TR NOX Annual unit. Operate or operation means, with regard to a unit, to combust fuel. Operator means , with regard to a TR NOX Annual source or a TR NO X Annual unit at a source respectively , any person who operates, controls, or supervis es a TR NOX Annual unit at the source or the TR NOX Annual unit and shall include, but not be limited to, any holding company, utility system, or plant manager of such source or unit.
Owner means , with regard to a TR NO X Annual source or a TR NO X Annual un it at a source respectively, any of the following persons: (1) Any holder of any portion of the legal or equitable title in a TR NOX Annual unit at the source or the TR NO X Annual unit; (2) Any holder of a leasehold interest in a TR NO X Annual unit at the source or the TR NOX Annual unit, provided that, unless expressly provided for in a leasehold agreement, “owner” shall not include a passive lessor, or a person who has an equitable interest through such lessor, whose rental payments are not*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 788 of 1339 based (either directly or indirectly) on the revenues or income from such TR NOX Annual unit; and (3) Any purchaser of power from a TR NOX Annual unit at the source or the TR NO X Annual unit under a life - of - the - unit, firm power contractual arrangement. Permanently reti red means, with regard to a unit, a unit that is unavailable for service and that the unit’s owners and operators do not expect to return to service in the future. Permitting authority means “permitting authority” as defined in §§70.2 and 71.2 of this chapter. Potential electrical output capacity means , for a unit, 33 percent of the unit's maximum design heat input, divided by 3,413 Btu/kWh, divided by 1,000 kWh/MWh, and multiplied by 8,760 hr/yr. Receive or receipt of means, when referring to the Administ rator, to come into possession of a document, information, or correspondence (whether sent in hard copy or by authorized electronic transmission), as indicated in an official log, or by a notation made on the document, information, or correspondence, by the Administrator in the regular course of business.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 789 of 1339 Recordation, record, or recorded means, with regard to TR NO X Annual allowances, the moving of TR NO X Annual allowances by the Administrator into, out of, or between Allowance Management System accounts, f or purposes of allocation, auction, transfer, or deduction. Reference method means any direct test method of sampling and analyzing for an air pollutant as specified in §75.22 of this chapter. Replacement, replace, or replaced means, with regard to a unit, the demolishing of a unit, or the permanent retirement and permanent disabling of a unit, and the construction of another unit (the replacement unit) to be used instead of the demolished or retired unit (the replaced unit). Sequential use of energy means: (1) For a topping - cycle unit, the use of reject heat from electricity production in a useful thermal energy application or process; or (2) For a bottoming - cycle unit, the use of reject heat from useful thermal energy application or process in electricity production.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 790 of 1339 Serial number means, for a TR NOX Annual allowance, the unique identification number assigned to each TR NO X Annual allowance by the Administrator. Solid waste incineration unit means a stationary, fossil - fuel fired boiler or stationary, fossil - fuel - fired combustion turbine that is a “solid waste incineration unit” as defined in section 129(g)(1) of the Clean Air Act.
Source means all buildings, structures, or installations located in one or more contiguous or adjacent properties under common co ntrol of the same person or persons. This definition does not change or otherwise affect the definition of “major source”, “stationary source”, or “source” as set forth and implemented in a title V operating permit program or any other program under the Clean Air Act. State means one of the States that is subject to the TR NO X Annual Trading Program pursuant to §52.37(a) of this chapter and, when used to refer to a geographic area, includes Indian country located within the borders of such State . Submit or serve means to send or transmit a document, information, or correspondence to the person specified in accordance with the applicable regulation: (1) In person;*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 791 of 1339 (2) By United States Postal Service; or (3) By other means of dispatch or transmission and de livery; (4) Provided that compliance with any “submission” or “service” deadline shall be determined by the date of dispatch, transmission, or mailing and not the date of receipt. Topping - cycle unit means a unit in which the energy input to the unit is fir st used to produce useful power, including electricity, where at least some of the reject heat from the electricity production is then used to provide useful thermal energy. Total energy input means , for a unit, total energy of all forms supplied to the un it, excluding energy produced by the unit. Each form of energy supplied shall be measured by the lower heating value of that form of energy calculated as follows:
LHV = HHV − 10.55(W + 9H) Where: LHV = lower heating value of the form of energy in Btu/lb, HHV = higher heating value of the form of energy in Btu/lb, W = weight % of moisture in the form of energy, and*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 792 of 1339 H = weight % of hydrogen in the form of energy.
Tota l energy output means , for a unit, the sum of useful power and useful thermal energy produced by the unit.
TR NOX Annual allowance means a limited authorization issued and allocated or auctioned by the Administrator under this subpart , or by a State or permitting authority under a SIP revision approved by the Administrator under §52.37(a)(3), (4), or (5) of this chapter, to emit one ton of NO X during a control period of the specified calendar year for which the authorization is allocated or auctioned or of any calendar year thereafter under the TR NOX Annual Trading Program.
TR NOX Annual allowance deduction or deduct TR NOX Annual allowances means the permanent withdrawal of TR NO X Annual allowances by the Administrator from a compliance account ( e.g., in order to account for compliance with the TR NO X Annual emissions limitation ) or from an assurance account (e.g., in order to account for compliance with the assurance provisions ) . TR NOX Annual allowances held or hold TR NOX Annual allowances means the T R NOX Annual allowances treated as included in an Allowance Management System account as of a specified point in time because at that time they:*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 793 of 1339 (1) Have been recorded by the Administrator in the account or transferred into the account by a correctly submi tted, but not yet recorded, TR NOX Annual allowance transfer in accordance with this subpart; and (2) Have not been transferred out of the account by a correctly submitted, but not yet recorded, TR NO X Annual allowance transfer in accordance with this subp art.
TR NOX Annual emissions limitation means, for a TR NOX Annual source, the tonnage of NO X emissions authorized in a control period in a given year by the TR NOX Annual allowances available for deduction for the source under §97.424(a) for such control period.
TR NOX Annual source means a source that includes one or more TR NOX Annual units.
TR NOX Annual Trading Program means a multi - state NOX air pollution control and emission reduction program established in accordance with this subpart and § 52.37(a) of this chapter (including such a program that is revised in a SIP revision approved by the Administrator under §52.37(a)(3) or (4) of this chapter) or with a SIP revision approved by the Administrator under §52.37(a)(5) of this chapter , as a means of miti gating interstate transport of fine particulates and NO X .*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 794 of 1339 TR NOX Annual unit means a unit that is subject to the TR NO X Annual Trading Program.
TR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program means a multi - state NOX air pollution control and emission reduction program in accordance with subpart BBBBB of this part and 52.37(b) of this chapter (including such a program that is revised by a State in a SIP revision approved by the Administrator under §52.37(b)(3) or (4) of this chapter) or with a SIP revision approved by t he Administrator under §52.37(b)(5) of this chapter , as a means of mitigating interstate transport of ozone and NO X . TR SO 2 Group 1 Trading Program means a multi - state SO 2 air pollution control and emission reduction program established in accordance with subpart CCCCC of this part and 52.38(b) of this chapter (including such a program that is revised by a State in a SIP revision approved by the Administrator under §52.38(d) or (e) of this chapter) or with a SIP revision approved by the Administrator under §52.38(f) of this chapter , as a means of mitigating interstate transport of fine particulates and SO 2 . TR SO 2 Group 2 Trading Program means a multi - state SO 2 air pollution control and emission reduction program established in accordance with subpart DDDDD of this part and 52.38(c) of this chapter (including such a program that is revised by a State in*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 795 of 1339 a SIP revision approved by the Administrator under §52.38(g) or (h) of this chapter) or with a SIP revision approved by the Administrator under §52.38(i) of t his chapter , as a means of mitigating interstate transport of fine particulates and SO 2 . Unit means a stationary, fossil - fuel - fired boiler, stationary, fossil - fuel - fired combustion turbine, or other stationary, fossil - fuel - fired combustion device. A unit that undergoes a physical change or is moved to a different location or source shall continue to be treated as the same unit. A unit (the replaced unit) that is replaced by another unit (the replacement unit) at the same or a different source shall continue to be treated as the same unit, and the replacement unit shall be treated as a separate unit . Unit operating day means , with regard to a unit, a calendar day in which the unit combusts any fuel. Unit operating hour or hour of unit operation means , with regard to a unit, an hour in which the unit combusts any fuel. Useful power means , with regard to a unit, electricity or mechanical energy that the unit makes available for use, excluding any such energy used in the power production process (which process includes, but is not limited to, any on - site*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 796 of 1339 processing or treatment of fuel combusted at the unit and any on - site emission controls). Useful thermal energy means thermal energy that is: (1) Made available to an industrial or commercial process (not a powe r production process), excluding any heat contained in condensate return or makeup water; (2) Used in a heating application ( e.g., space heating or domestic hot water heating); or (3) Used in a space cooling application ( i.e., in an absorption chiller).
Ut ility power distribution system means the portion of an electricity grid owned or operated by a utility and dedicated to delivering electricity to customers. § 97.403 Measurements, abbreviations, and acronyms. Measurements, abbreviations, and acronyms use d in this subpart are defined as follows:
Btu
—British thermal unit
CO 2—carbon dioxide
H 2 O
—water*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 797 of 1339 hr
—hour kW
—kilowatt electrical kWh
—kilowatt hour lb
—pound
mmBtu
—million Btu
MWe
—megawatt electrical MWh
—megawatt hour NOX—nitrogen oxides
O 2—oxygen ppm—parts pe r million scfh
—standard cubic feet per hour
SO 2—sulfur dioxide
yr—year § 97.404 Applicability. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section:*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 798 of 1339 (1) The following units in a State (including Indian country located within the borders of such State) shall be TR NOX Annual units, and any source that includes one or more such units shall be a TR NOX Annual source, subject to the requirements of this subpart: any stationary, fossil - fuel - fired boiler or stationary, fossil - fuel - fired combustion turbine serving at any time, on or after January 1, 2005 , a generator with nameplate capacity of more than 25 MWe producing electricity for sale. (2) If a stationary boiler or stationary combustion turbine that, under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, is not a TR NO X Annual unit begins to combust fossil fuel or to serve a generator with nameplate capacity of more than 25 MWe producing electricity for sale, the unit shall become a TR NO X Annual unit as provided in paragraph (a)(1) of this section on the first date on which it both combusts fossil fuel and serves such generator. (b) Any unit in a State (including Indian country located within the borders of such State) that otherwise is a TR NO X Annual unit under paragraph (a) of this section and that meets the requireme nts set forth in paragraph (b)(1)(i), (b)(2)(i), or (b)(2)(ii) of this section shall not be a TR NO X Annual unit: (1)(i) Any unit:*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 799 of 1339 (A) Qualifying as a cogeneration unit throughout the later of 2005 or the 12 -month period starting on the date the unit first produces electricity and continuing to qualify as a cogeneration unit; and (B) Not supplying in 2005 or any calendar year thereafter more than one - third of the unit's potential electric output capacity or 219,000 MWh, whichever is greater, to any utility power distribution system for sale. (ii) If a unit qualifies as a cogeneration unit throughout the later of 2005 or the 12 -month period starting on the date the unit first produces electricity and meets the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1)(i) of this sect ion for at least one calendar year, but subsequently no longer meets such qualification and requirements, the unit shall become a TR NO X Annual unit starting on the earlier of January 1 after the first calendar year during which the unit first no longer qualifies as a cogeneration unit or January 1 after the first calendar year during which the unit no longer meets the requirements of paragraph (b)(1)(i)(B) of this section. (2)(i) Any unit: (A) Qualifying as a solid waste incineration unit throughout the l ater of 2005 or the 12 -month period starting on the date the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 800 of 1339 unit first produces electricity and continuing to qualify as a solid waste incineration unit; and (B) With an average annual fuel consumption of fossil fuel for the first 3 consecutive calendar years of operation starting no earlier than 2005 of less than 20 percent (on a Btu basis) and an average annual fuel consumption of fossil fuel for any 3 consecutive calendar years thereafter of less than 20 percent (on a Btu basis). (ii) If a unit qualifie s as a solid waste incineration unit throughout the later of 2005 or the 12 -month period starting on the date the unit first produces electricity and meets the requirements of paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section for at least 3 consecutive calendar years, but subsequently no longer meets such qualification and requirements, the unit shall become a TR NOX Annual unit starting on the earlier of January 1 after the first calendar year during which the unit first no longer qualifies as a solid waste incineration unit or January 1 after the first 3 consecutive calendar years after 2005 for which the unit has an average annual fuel consumption of fossil fuel of 20 percent or more. (c) A certifying official of an owner or operator of any unit or other equipment may submit a petition (including any supporting*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 801 of 1339 documents) to the Administrator at any time for a determination concerning the applicability, under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, of the TR NO X Annual Trading Program to the unit or other equipment. (1) Petition content. The petition shall be in writing and include the identification of the unit or other equipment and the relevant facts about the unit or other equipment. The petition and any other documents provided to the Administrator in connection with the petition shall include the following certification statement, signed by the certifying official: “I am authorized to make this submission on behalf of the owners and operators of the unit or other equipment for which the submission is made. I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined, and am familiar with, the statements and information submitted in this document and all its attachments. Based on my inquiry of those individuals with primary responsibility for obtaining the informati on, I certify that the statements and information are to the best of my knowledge and belief true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false statements and information or omitting required statements and i nformation, including the possibility of fine or imprisonment.”*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 802 of 1339 (2) Response. The Administrator will issue a written response to the petition and may request supplemental information determined by the Administrator to be relevant to such petition. The Admi nistrator's determination concerning the applicability, under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, of the TR NO X Annual Trading Program to the unit or other equipment shall be binding on any State or permitting authority unless the Administrator determi nes that the petition or other documents or information provided in connection with the petition contained significant, relevant errors or omissions. § 97.405 Retired unit exemption. (a)(1) Any TR NOX Annual unit that is permanently retired shall be exemp t from §97.406(b) and (c)(1), §97.424, and §§97.430 through 97.435. (2) The exemption under paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall become effective the day on which the TR NO X Annual unit is permanently retired. Within 30 days of the unit's permanent ret irement, the designated representative shall submit a statement to the Administrator. The statement shall state, in a format prescribed by the Administrator, that the unit was permanently retired on a specified date and will comply with the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 803 of 1339 (b) Special provisions. (1) A unit exempt under paragraph (a) of this section shall not emit any NO X , starting on the date that the exemption takes effect. (2) For a period of 5 years from the date the records are created, the owners and operators of a unit exempt under paragraph (a) of this section shall retain, at the source that includes the unit, records demonstrating that the unit is permanently retired. The 5 - year period for keeping records may be extended for cause, at any time before the end of the period, in writing by the Administrator. The owners and operators bear the burden of proof that the unit is permanently retired. (3) The owners and operators and, to the extent applicable, the designated representative of a unit exempt under paragraph (a) of this section shall comply with the requirements of the TR NO X Annual Trading Program concerning all periods for which the exemption is not in effect, even if such requirements arise, or must be complied with, after the exemption takes effect. (4) A unit exempt under paragraph (a) of this section shall lose its exemption on the first date on which the unit resumes operation. Such unit shall be treated, for purposes of applying allocation, monitoring, reporting, and recordke eping requirements under this subpart, as a unit that commences*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 804 of 1339 commercial operation on the first date on which the unit resumes operation. § 97.406 Standard requirements. (a) Designated representative requirements . The owners and operators shall comply with the requirement to have a designated representative, and may have an alternate designated representative, in accordance with §§97.413 through 97.418. (b) Emissions monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements . (1) The owners and operators, and the designated representative, of each TR NO X Annual source and each TR NO X Annual unit at the source shall comply with the monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements of §§97.430 through 97.435. (2) The emissions data determined in accordance with §§97.430 through 97.435 shall be used to calculate allocations of TR NO X Annual allowances under §§97.411(a)(2) and (b) and 97.412 and to determine compliance with the TR NO X Annual emissions limitation and assurance provisions under paragraph (c) of this section, provided that, for each monitoring location from which mass emissions are reported, the mass emissions amount used in calculating such allocations and determining such compliance shall be the mass emissions amount for the monitoring location*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 805 of 1339 determined in accordance with §§97.430 through 97.435 and rounded to the nearest ton, with any fraction of a ton less than 0.50 being deemed to be zero. (c) NOX emissions requirements . (1) TR NOX Annual emissions limitation. (i) As of the allowance trans fer deadline for a control period in a given year , the owners and operators of each TR NOX Annual source and each TR NO X Annual unit at the source shall hold, in the source's compliance account, TR NO X Annual allowances available for deduction for such con trol period under §97.424(a) in an amount not less than the tons of total NO X emissions for such control period from all TR NO X Annual units at the source. (ii) If total NOX emissions during a control period in a given year from the TR NOX Annual units at a TR NOX Annual source are in excess of the TR NO X Annual emissions limitation set forth in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section, then: (A) The owners and operators of the source and each TR NO X Annual unit at the source shall hold the TR NO X Annual allowances required for deduction under §97.424(d) ; and (B) The owners and operators of the source and each TR NOX Annual unit at the source shall pay any fine, penalty, or assessment or comply with any other remedy imposed, for the same*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 806 of 1339 violations, under the C lean Air Act , and e ach ton of such excess emissions and each day of such control period shall constitute a separate violation of this subpart and the Clean Air Act. (2) TR NOX Annual assurance provisions. (i) If total NOX emissions during a control period in a given year from all TR NOX Annual units at TR NOX Annual sources in a State exceed the State assurance level, then the owners and operators of such sources and units in each group of one or more sources and units having a common designated represent ative (as of the allowance transfer deadline for such control period) where the common designated representative’s share of such NOX emissions during such control period exceeds the common designated representative’s assurance level for the State and such control period shall hold, in the assurance account established for the owners and operators of such group , TR NOX Annual allowances available for deduction for such control period under §97.425(a) in an amount equal to the product (rounded to the nearest whole number), as determined by the Administrator in accordance with §97.425(b), of multiplying

— (A) The quotient of the amount by which the common designated representative’s share of such NOX emissions exceeds the common designated representative’s assu rance level divided by the sum of the amounts, determined for all common designated representatives for such sources and units in the State for such*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 807 of 1339 control period , by which each common designated representative’s share of such NOX emissions exceeds the re spective common designated representative’s assurance level; and (B) Two times the amount by which total NO X emissions from all TR NOX Annual units at TR NOX Annual sources in the State for such control period exceed the State assurance level. (ii) The owner s and operators shall hold the TR NO X Annual allowances required under paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section, as of midnight of November 1 (if it is a business day), or midnight of the first business day thereafter (if November 1 is not a business day), immediately after such control period. (iii) Total NOX emissions from all TR NO X Annual units at TR NOX Annual sources in a State during a control period in a given year exceed the State assurance level if such total NOX emissions exceed the sum, for such control period, of the State NO X Annual trading budget under §97.410( a ) and the State’s one - year variability limit under §97.410(b) . (iv) It shall not be a violation of this subpart or of the Clean Air Act if total NOX emissions from all TR NO X Annual uni ts at TR NOX Annual sources in a State during a control period exceed the State assurance level or if a common designated representative’s share of total NOX emissions from the TR NO X Annual units at TR*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 808 of 1339 NOX Annual sources in a State during a control period exceeds the common designated representative’s assurance level. (v) To the extent the owners and operators fail to hold TR NOX Annual allowances for a control period in a given year in accordance with paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section, (A) The owner s and operators shall pay any fine, penalty, or assessment or comply with any other remedy imposed under the Clean Air Act; and (B) Each TR NOX Annual allowance that the owner s and operators fail to hold for such control period in accordance with paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section and each day of such control period shall constitute a separate violation of this subpart and the Clean Air Act. (3) Compliance periods. A TR NOX Annual unit shall be subject to the requirements unde r paragraph s (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section for the control period starting on the later of January 1, 2012 or the deadline for meeting the unit's monitor certification requirements under §97.430(b) and for each control period thereafter.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 809 of 1339 (4) Vintage of deducted allowances. A TR NO X Annual allowance shall not be deducted, for compliance with the requirements under paragraphs (c)(1) (i) and (2) (i) through (iii) of this section, for a control period in a calendar year before the year for which the TR NOX Annual allowance was allocated. (5) Allowance Management System requirements. Each TR NO X Annual allowance shall be held in, deducted from, or transferred into, out of, or between Allowance Management System accounts in accordance with this subpart. (6) Limi ted authorization. A TR NO X Annual allowance is a limited authorization to emit one ton of NO X during the control period in one year. Such authorization is limited in its use and duration as follows: (i) Such authorization shall only be used in accordance with the TR NOX Annual Trading Program ; and (ii) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subpart, the Administrator has the authority to terminate or limit the use and duration of such authorization to the extent the Administrator determines is neces sary or appropriate to implement any provision of the Clean Air Act.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 810 of 1339 (7) Property right. A TR NO X Annual allowance does not constitute a property right. (d) Title V p ermit requirements . (1) No title V permit revision shall be required for any allocation , holding, deduction, or transfer of TR NOX Annual allowances in accordance with this subpart. (2) A description of whether a unit is required to monitor and report NOX emissions using a continuous emission monitoring system (under subpart H of part 75 of this chapter), an excepted monitoring system (under appendices D and E to part 75 of this chapter), a low mass emissions excepted monitoring methodology (under §75.19 of this chapter), or an alternative monitoring system (under subpart E of part 75 of this chapter) in accordance with §§97.430 through 97.435 may be added to, or changed in, a title V permit using minor permit modification procedures in accordance with §§70.7(e)(2) and 71.7(e)(1) of this chapter, provided that the requirements applicable to th e described monitoring and reporting (as added or changed, respectively) are already incorporated in such permit. This paragraph explicitly provides that the addition of, or change to, a unit’s description as described in the prior sentence is eligible for minor permit modification procedures in accordance with §§70.7(e)(2)(i)(B) and 71.7(e)(1)(i)(B) of this chapter.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 811 of 1339 (e) Additional r ecordkeeping and reporting requirements . (1) Unless otherwise provided, the owners and operators of each TR NOX Annual sour ce and each TR NOX Annual unit at the source shall keep on site at the source each of the following documents (in hardcopy or electronic format) for a period of 5 years from the date the document is created. This period may be extended for cause, at any time before the end of 5 years, in writing by the Administrator. (i) The certificate of representation under §97.416 for the designated representative for the source and each TR NO X Annual unit at the source and all documents that demonstrate the truth of the statements in the certificate of representation; provided that the certificate and documents shall be retained on site at the source beyond such 5 - year period until such certificate of representation and documents are superseded because of the submissio n of a new certificate of representation under §97.416 changing the designated representative. (ii) All emissions monitoring information, in accordance with this subpart. (iii) Copies of all reports, compliance certifications, and other submissions and all records made or required under, or to*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 812 of 1339 demonstrate compliance with the requirements of, the TR NO X Annual Trading Program. (2) The designated representative of a TR NO X Annual source and each TR NOX Annual unit at the source shall make all submissions requ ired under the TR NOX Annual Trading Program. This requirement does not change, create an exemption from, or or otherwise affect the responsible official submission requirements under a title V operating permit program in parts 70 and 71 of this chapter. (f) Liability . (1) Any provision of the TR NO X Annual Trading Program that applies to a TR NO X Annual source or the designated representative of a TR NO X Annual source shall also apply to the owners and operators of such source and of the TR NO X Annual units at the source. (2) Any provision of the TR NO X Annual Trading Program that applies to a TR NOX Annual unit or the designated representative of a TR NOX Annual unit shall also apply to the owners and operators of such unit. (g) Effect on other authorit ies . No provision of the TR NO X Annual Trading Program or exemption under §97.405 shall be construed as exempting or excluding the owners and operators, and the designated representative, of a TR NO X Annual source or TR NOX Annual unit from compliance wit h any other provision of*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 813 of 1339 the applicable, approved State implementation plan, a federally enforceable permit, or the Clean Air Act. § 97.407 Computation of time. (a) Unless otherwise stated, any time period scheduled, under the TR NOX Annual Trading Program, to begin on the occurrence of an act or event shall begin on the day the act or event occurs. (b) Unless otherwise stated, any time period scheduled, under the TR NOX Annual Trading Program, to begin before the occurrence of an act or event shall be computed so that the period ends the day before the act or event occurs. (c) Unless otherwise stated, if the final day of any time period, under the TR NO X Annual Trading Program, is not a business day , the time period shall be extended to the next business day. § 97.408 Administrative appeal procedures. The administrative appeal procedures for decisions of the Administrator under the TR NO X Annual Trading Program are set forth in part 78 of this chapter. § 97.409 [Reserved]*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 814 of 1339 § 97.410 State NOX Annual trading budgets, new unit set- asides, Indian country new unit set- aside, and variability limits. (a) The State NOX Annual trading budgets , new unit set - asides , and Indian country new unit set - asides for allocations of TR NO X Annual allowances for the control p eriods in 2012 and thereafter are as follows:

State NOX Annual trading

budget (tons)* for 2012 and 2013 New unit set aside (tons) for 2012 and 2013 Indian country new

unit set - aside (tons) for 2012 and 2013 Alabama 72,691 1,454 --- Georgia 62,010 1, 240 --- Illinois 47,872 3,830 --- Indiana 109,726 3,292 --- Iowa 38,335 728 38 Kansas 30,714 584 31 Kentucky 85,086 3,403 --- Maryland 16,633 333 --- Michigan 60,193 1,144 60 Minnesota 29,572 562 30 Missouri 52,374 1,571 --- Nebraska 26,440 1,824 26 New Jersey 7,266 145 --- New York 17,543 509 18 North Carolina 50,587 2,985 51 Ohio 92,703 1,854 --- Pennsylvania 119,986 2,400 --- South Carolina 32,498 617 32 Tennessee 35,703 714 --- Texas 133,595 3,874 134 Virginia 33,242 1,662 --- West Virginia 59,472 2,974 ---*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 815 of 1339 Wisconsin 31,628 1,866 32

State NOX Annual trading

budget (tons)* for 2014 and thereafter New unit set aside (tons) for 2014 and thereafter Indian country

new unit set aside (tons) for 2014 and thereafter Alabama 71,962 1, 439 --- Georgia 40,540 811 --- Illinois 47,872 3,830 --- Indiana 108,424 3,253 --- Iowa 37,498 712 37 Kansas 25,560 486 26 Kentucky 77,238 3,090 --- Maryland 16,574 331 --- Michigan 57,812 1,098 58 Minnesota 29,572 562 30 Missouri 48,717 1,462 -- - Nebraska 26,440 1,824 26 New Jersey 7,266 145 --- New York 17,543 509 18 North Carolina 41,553 2,452 42 Ohio 87,493 1,750 --- Pennsylvania 119,194 2,384 --- South Carolina 32,498 617 32 Tennessee 19,337 387 --- Texas 133,595 3,874 134 Virginia 33,242 1,662 --- West Virginia 54,582 2,729 --- Wisconsin 30,398 1,793 30 * Each trading budget includes the new unit set - aside and, where applicable, the Indian country new unit set - aside and does not include the variability limit.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 816 of 1339 (b) The States’ one - year variability limits for the State NO X Annual trading budgets for the control periods in 201 2 and thereafter are as follows:

State One - year variability limits for 2012 and 2013 One - year variability limits for 2014 and thereafter Alabama 7,269 7,19 6 Georgia 6,201 4,054 Illinois 4,787 4,787 Indiana 10,973 10,842 Iowa 3,834 3,750 Kansas 3,071 2,556 Kentucky 8,509 7,724 Maryland 1,663 1,657 Michigan 6,019 5,781 Minnesota 2,957 2,957 Missouri 5,237 4,872 Nebraska 2,644 2,644 New Jersey 727 7 27 New York 2,631 2,631 North Carolina 5,059 4,155 Ohio 9,270 8,749 Pennsylvania 11,999 11,919 South Carolina 3,250 3,250 Tennessee 3,570 1,934 Texas 13,360 13,360 Virginia 3,324 3,324 West Virginia 5,947 5,458 Wisconsin 3,163 3,040 § 97.411 Timing requirements for TR NOX Annual allowance allocations. (a) Existing units . (1) TR NOX Annual allowances are allocated, for the control periods in 2012 and each year thereafter, as*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 817 of 1339 provided in a notice of data availability issued by the Administrator . Providing an allocation for a unit in such notice does not constitute a determination that the unit is a TR NO X Annual unit, and not providing an allocation for a unit in such notice does not constitute a determination that the unit is not a TR NOX Annual unit. (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (a)(1) of this section, if a unit provided an allocation in the notice of data availability issued under paragraph (a)(1) of this section does not operate, starting after 2011, during the control period in two consecuti ve years, such unit will not be allocated the TR NO X Annual allowances provided in such notice for the unit for the control periods in the fifth year after the first such year and in each year after that fifth year. All TR NOX Annual allowances that would otherwise have been allocated to such unit will be allocated to the new unit set - aside for the State where such unit is located and for the respective years involved. If such unit resumes operation, the Administrator will allocate TR NO X Annual allowance s to the unit in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section. (b) New units . (1) New unit set - asides. (i) By June 1, 2012 and June 1 of each year thereafter, the Administrator will calculate the TR NOX Annual allowance allocation for each TR NO X*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 818 of 1339 Annua l unit, in accordance with §97.412 (a)(1) through (8) , for the control period in the year of the applicable calculation deadline under this paragraph and will promulgate a notice of data availability of the results of the calculations. ( ii ) For each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(1) (i) of this section, the Administrator will provide an opportunity for submission of objections to the calculations referenced in such notice. ( A ) Objections shall be submitted by the deadline specified in each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(1) (i) of this section and shall be limited to addressing whether the calculations are in accordance with §97.412 (a)(1) through (8) and §§97.406(b)(2) and 97.430 through 97.435. ( B ) The Administra tor will adjust the calculations to the extent necessary to ensure that they are in accordance with the provisions referenced in paragraph (b)( 1 )(i i ) (A) of this section. By August 1 immediately after the promulgation of each notice of data availability re quired in paragraph (b)(1) (i) of this section, the Administrator will promulgate a notice of data availability of any adjustments that the Administrator determines to be necessary with regard to allocations under §97.412 (a)(1) through (8) and the reasons f or accepting or*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 819 of 1339 rejecting any objections submitted in accordance with paragraph (b)( 1 )(i i ) (A) of this section . (iii) If the new unit set - aside for such control period contains any TR NOX Annual allowances that have not been allocated in the applicable no tice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(1) (ii) of this section , the Administrator will promulgate, by December 15 immediately after such notice, a notice of data availability that identifies any TR NOX Annual units that commenced commercial ope ration during the period starting January 1 of the year before the year of such control period and ending November 30 of year of such control period . ( iv ) For each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(1) (iii) of this section, the Administr ator will provide an opportunity for submission of objections to the identification of TR NOX annual units in such notice. (A) Objections shall be submitted by the deadline specified in each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(1) (iii) of this section and shall be limited to addressing whether the identification of TR NO X annual units in such notice is in accordance with paragraph (b)(1) (iii) of this section . (B) The Administrator will adjust the identification of TR NO X Annual units in the each notice of data availability required in*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 820 of 1339 paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section to the extent necessary to ensure that it is in accordance with paragraph (b)(1) (iii) of this section and will calculate the TR NO X Annual allowance allocation for each TR NOX Annual unit in accordance with §97.412 (a)(9) and (10) and §§97.406(b)(2) and 97.430 through 97.435 . By February 15 immediately after the promulgation of each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section , the Adminis trator will promulgate a notice of data availability of any adjustments of the identification of TR NO X Annual units that the Administrator determines to be necessary , the reasons for accepting or rejecting any objections submitted in accordance with parag raph (b)( 1 )(i v ) (A) of this section , and the results of such calculations. ( 2 ) Indian country new unit set - asides. (i) By June 1, 2012 and June 1 of each year thereafter, the Administrator will calculate the TR NOX Annual allowance allocation for each TR NOX Annual unit, in accordance with §97.412 (b)(1) through (8) , for the control period in the year of the applicable calculation deadline under this paragraph and will promulgate a notice of data availability of the results of the calculations. ( ii ) For each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)( 2 ) (i) of this section, the Administrator will provide an*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 821 of 1339 opportunity for submission of objections to the calculations referenced in such notice. ( A ) Objections shall be submitted by the deadline spe cified in each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)( 2 ) (i) of this section and shall be limited to addressing whether the calculations are in accordance with §97.412 (b)(1) through (8) and §§97.406(b)(2) and 97.430 through 97.435. ( B ) The Administrator will adjust the calculations to the extent necessary to ensure that they are in accordance with the provisions referenced in paragraph (b)( 2 )(i i ) (A) of this section. By August 1 immediately after the promulgation of each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)( 2 ) (i) of this section, the Administrator will promulgate a notice of data availability of any adjustments that the Administrator determines to be necessary with regard to allocations under §97.412 (b)(1) through (8) and the reasons for accepting or rejecting any objections submitted in accordance with paragraph (b)( 2 )(i i ) (A) of this section . (iii) If the Indian country new unit set - aside for such control period contains any TR NO X Annual allowances that have not been alloca ted in the applicable notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)( 2 ) (ii) of this section , the Administrator will*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 822 of 1339 promulgate, by December 15 immediately after such notice, a notice of data availability that identifies any TR NOX Annual units that commenced commercial operation during the period starting January 1 of the year before the year of such control period and ending November 30 of year of such control period . ( iv ) For each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)( 2 ) (iii) of thi s section, the Administrator will provide an opportunity for submission of objections to the identification of TR NOX annual units in such notice. (A) Objections shall be submitted by the deadline specified in each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)( 2 ) (iii) of this section and shall be limited to addressing whether the identification of TR NO X annual units in such notice is in accordance with paragraph (b)( 2 ) (iii) of this section . (B) The Administrator will adjust the identification of TR NOX Annual units in the each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section to the extent necessary to ensure that it is in accordance with paragraph (b)( 2 ) (iii) of this section and will calculate the TR NO X Annual allowance allocation for each TR NO X Annual unit in accordance with §97.412 (b)(9) and (10) and §§97.406(b)(2) and 97.430 through 97.435 . By February 15 immediately after the promulgation of*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 823 of 1339 each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section , the Administrator will promulgate a notice of data availability of any adjustments of the identification of TR NO X Annual units that the Administrator determines to be necessary , the reasons for accepting or rejecting any objections submitted in accordance with paragraph (b)( 2 )(i v ) (A) of this section , and the results of such calculations. (c) Units incorrectly allocated TR NOX Annual allowances . (1) For each control period in 2012 and thereafter, if the Administrator determines that TR NO X Annual allowances were allocated under paragraph (a) of this section , or under a provision of a SIP revision approved under § 52.37(a)(3), (4), or (5) of this chapter, where such control period and the recipient are covered by the provisions of paragraph (c) (1)(i) of this section or were allocated under paragraph (b) of this section and §97.412 , or under a provision of a SIP revision approved under § 52.37(a)(3), (4), or (5) of this chapter, where such control period and the recipient are covered by the provis ions of paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section , then the Administrator will notify the designated representative and will act in accordance with the procedures set forth in paragraphs (c)(2) through (5) of this section :*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 824 of 1339 (i)(A) The recipient is not actually a TR NOX Annual unit under §97.404 as of January 1, 2012 and is allocated TR NO X Annual allowances for such control period or, in the case of an allocation under a provision of a SIP revision approved under § 52.37(a)(3), (4), or (5) of this chapter, the rec ipient is not actually a TR NOX Annual unit as of January 1, 2012 and is allocated TR NOX Annual allowances for such control period that the SIP revision provides should be allocated only to recipients that are TR NOX Annual units as of January 1, 2012; or (B) The recipient is not located as of January 1 of the control period in the State from whose TR NOX Annual trading budget the TR NOX Annual allowances allocated under paragraph (a) of this section, or under a provision of a SIP revision approved under § 52.37(a)(3), (4), or (5) of this chapter, were allocated for such control period. (ii) The recipient is not actually a TR NO X Annual unit under §97.404 as of January 1 of such control period and is allocated TR NOX Annual allowances for such control perio d or, in the case of an allocation under a provision of a SIP revision approved under § 52.37(a)(3), (4), or (5) of this chapter, the recipient is not actually a TR NOX Annual unit as of January 1 of such control period and is allocated TR NO X Annual allowances for such control period that the SIP revision provides should be*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 825 of 1339 allocated only to recipients that are TR NO X Annual units as of January 1 of such control period . ( 2 ) Except as provided in paragraph (c)( 3 ) or ( 4 ) of this section, the Administrator wi ll not record such TR NO X Annual allowances under §97.421. ( 3 ) If the Administrator already recorded such TR NO X Annual allowances under §97.421 and if the Administrator makes the determination under paragraph (c)(1) of this section before making deduction s for the source that includes such recipient under §97.424(b) for such control period, then the Administrator will deduct from the account in which such TR NO X Annual allowances were recorded an amount of TR NO X Annual allowances allocated for the same or a prior control period equal to the amount of such already recorded TR NO X Annual allowances. The authorized account representative shall ensure that there are sufficient TR NOX Annual allowances in such account for completion of the deduction. ( 4 ) If the Administrator already recorded such TR NO X Annual allowances under §97.421 and if the Administrator makes the determination under paragraph (c)(1) of this section after making deductions for the source that includes such recipient under §97.424(b) for such control period, then the Administrator*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 826 of 1339 will not make any deduction to take account of such already recorded TR NOX Annual allowances. ( 5 ) The Administrator will transfer the TR NO X Annual allowances that are not recorded, or that are deducted, in acco rdance with paragraphs (c)( 2 ) and ( 3 ) of this section to , for a recipient under paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section, the new unit set aside for the State from whose NOX Annual trading budget the TR NOX Annual allowances were allocated , or, for a recipient under paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this paragraph, to the State’s new unit set - aside or Indian country new unit set - aside from which the TR NOX Annual allowances were allocated, for the control period in the year of such transfer. § 97.412 TR NOX Annual allowance allocations for new units. (a) For each control period in 2012 and thereafter and for the TR NOX Annual units in each State other than those located in Indian county , the Administrator will allocate TR NO X Annual allowances to the TR NOX Annual units described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section and in accordance with paragraphs (a)(2) through (9) of this section: (1) The TR NOX Annual allowances will be allocated to the following TR NOX Annual units , except as provided in paragraph (a)(10) of this sec tion:*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 827 of 1339 (i) TR NOX Annual units that are not allocated an amount (whether zero or greater) of TR NOX Annual allowances in the notice of data availability issued under §97.411 (a)(1); (ii) TR NOX Annual units whose allocation of an amount (whether zero or gre ater) of TR NOX Annual allowances for such control period in the notice of data availability issued under §97.411 (a)(1) is covered by §97.411(c)( 2 ) or ( 3 ) ; (iii) TR NO X Annual units that are allocated an amount (whether zero or greater) of TR NOX Annual al lowances for such control period in the notice of data availability issued under §97.411 (a)(1), which allocation is terminated for such control period pursuant to §97.411(a)(2) , and that operate during the control period immediately preceding such control period ; or (iv) TR NO X Annual units under §97.411 (c)(1)(ii) whose allocation of an amount (whether zero or greater) of TR NOX Annual allowances for such control period in the notice of data availability issued under §97.41 1(b)(1)(ii)(B) is covered by §97.4 11(c)( 2 ) or ( 3 ) . ( 2 ) The Administrator will establish a separate new unit set aside for the State for each such control period. Each such new unit set - aside will be allocated TR NO X Annual allowances in an amount equal to the applicable amount of tons of NOX emissions as*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 828 of 1339 set forth in §97.410(a) and will be allocated additional TR NO X Annual allowances (if any) in accordance with §§97.411(a)(2) and (c)( 5 ) and paragraph (b)(10) of this section . ( 3 ) The Administrator will determine, for each TR NOX Annual uni t described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, an allocation of TR NOX Annual allowances for the later of the following control periods and for each subsequent control period: (i) The control period in 2012 ; (ii) The first control period after the contr ol period in which the TR NOX Annual unit commences commercial operation ; (iii) For a unit described in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, the first control period in which the TR NO X Annual unit operates in the non - Indian country portion of the State after operating in another jurisdiction and for which the unit is not already allocated one or more TR NOX Annual allowances ; and (iv) For a unit described in paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section, the first control period after the control period in which the unit resumes operation . (4)(i) The allocation for each TR NO X annual unit described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section and for each control period described in paragraph (a)(3) of this section will be an amount*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 829 of 1339 equal to the unit’s total tons of NO X emissions during the immediately preceding control period . (ii) The Administrator will adjust the allocation amount in paragraph (a)(4)(i) in accordance with paragraphs (a)(5) through (9) of this section. (5) The Administrator will calculate the sum of the TR NOX Annual allowances determined for all such TR NOX Annual unit s under paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this section in the State for such control period. (6) If the amount of TR NO X Annual allowances in the new unit set - aside for the State for such control per iod is greater than or equal to the sum under paragraph (a)( 5 ) of this section, then the Administrator will allocate the amount of TR NO X Annual allowances determined for each such TR NOX Annual unit under paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this section . (7) If the amount of TR NOX Annual allowances in the new unit set - aside for the State for such control period is less than the sum under paragraph (a)( 5 ) of this section, then the Administrator will allocate to each such TR NOX Annual unit the amount of the TR NOX Annu al allowances determined under paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this section for the unit , multiplied by the amount of TR NOX Annual allowances in the new unit set - aside for such*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 830 of 1339 control period, divided by the sum under paragraph (a)( 5 ) of this section, and rounded to the nearest allowance. (8) The Administrator will notify the public , through the promulgation of the notices of data availability described in §97.411(b) (1)(i) and (ii) , of the amount of TR NO X Annual allowances allocated under paragraphs (a)(1) through (8) for such control period to each TR NOX Annual unit eligible for such allocation . (9) If, after completion of the procedures under paragraph s (a) (5) through (8) of this section for such control period, any unallocated TR NOX Annual allowances remain in the new unit set aside for the State for such control period, the Administrator will allocate such TR NOX Annual allowances as follows -- (i) The Administrator will determine, for each unit described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section that commenced comme rcial operation during the period starting January 1 of the year before the year of such control period and ending November 30 of year of such control period, the positive difference (if any) between the unit’s emissions during such control period and the amount of TR NOX Annual allowances described in the notice of data availability required under §97.411 (b)(1)(ii) for the unit for such control period;*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 831 of 1339 (ii) The Administrator will determine the sum of the positive differences determined under paragraph (a)( 9)(i) of this section; (iii) If the amount of unallocated TR NOX Annual allowances remaining in the new unit set - aside for the State for such control period is greater than or equal to the sum determined under paragraph (a)( 9 ) (ii) of this section, then the Administrator will allocate the amount of TR NO X Annual allowances determined for each such TR NOX Annual unit under paragraph (a)(9)(i) of this section . (iv) If the amount of unallocated TR NOX Annual allowances remaining in the new unit set - aside for the State for such control period is less than the sum under paragraph (a)( 9)(ii) of this section, then the Administrator will allocate for each such TR NOX Annual unit the amount of the TR NO X Annual allowances determined under paragraph (a)(9)(i) of this s ection for the unit , multiplied by the amount of unallocated TR NOX Annual allowances remaining in the new unit set - aside for such control period, divided by the sum under paragraph (a)( 9)(ii) of this section, and rounded to the nearest allowance. (10) If, after completion of the procedures under paragraph (a) (9) of this section for such control period, any unallocated*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 832 of 1339 TR NOX Annual allowances remain in the new unit set - aside for the State for such control period, the Administrator will allocate to each TR NOX Annual unit that is in the State, is allocated an amount of TR NOX Annual allowances in the notice of data availability issued under §97.411 (a)(1) , and continues to be allocated TR NOX Annual allowances for such control period in accordance with §97.41 1(a)(2), an amount of TR NO X Annual allowances equal to the following: the total amount of such remaining unallocated TR NO X Annual allowances in such new unit set - aside, multiplied by the unit's allocation under §97.411(a) for such control period, divided by the remainder of the amount of tons in the applicable State NO X Annual trading budget minus the sum of the amount s of tons in such new unit set - aside and the Indian country new unit set - aside for the State for such control period , and rounded to the ne arest allowance. (11) The Administrator will notify the public , through the promulgation of the notices of data availability described in §97.411(b) (1)(iii) and (iv) , of the amount of TR NO X Annual allowances allocated for such control period to each TR NOX Annual unit eligible for such allocation. ( b ) For each control period in 2012 and thereafter and for the TR NOX Annual units located in Indian country in each State , the Administrator will allocate TR NO X Annual allowances to the TR*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 833 of 1339 NOX Annual units des cribed in paragraph (b)(1) of this section and in accordance with paragraphs (b)(2) through (9) of this section: (1) The TR NOX Annual allowances will be allocated to the following TR NOX Annual units , except as provided in paragraph (b)(10) of this sectio n: (i) TR NOX Annual units that are not allocated an amount (whether zero or greater) of TR NOX Annual allowances in the notice of data availability issued under §97.411 (a)(1); or (ii) TR NO X Annual units under §97.411 (c)(1)(ii) whose allocation of an amount (whether zero or greater) of TR NOX Annual allowances for such control period in the notice of data availability issued under §97.41 1(b)(2)(ii)(B) is covered by §97.411(c)( 2 ) or ( 3 ) . (2 ) The Administrator will establish a separate Indian country new un it set - aside for the State for each such control period. Each such Indian country new unit set - aside will be allocated TR NOX Annual allowances in an amount equal to the applicable amount of tons of NOX emissions as set forth in §97.410(a) and will be allo cated additional TR NO X Annual allowances (if any) in accordance with §97.411(c)( 5 ).*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 834 of 1339 ( 3 ) The Administrator will determine, for each TR NOX Annual unit described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, an allocation of TR NOX Annual allowances for the later of the following control periods and for each subsequent control period: (i) The control period in 2012 ; and (ii) The first control period after the control period in which the TR NOX Annual unit commences commercial operation . (4)(i) The allocation for each TR NOX annual unit described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section and for each control period described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section will be an amount equal to the unit’s total tons of NO X emissions during the immediately preceding control period . (ii) The Administrator will adjust the allocation amount in paragraph (b)(4)(i) in accordance with paragraphs ( b )(5) through (9) of this section. (5) The Administrator will calculate the sum of the TR NO X Annual allowances determined for all such TR NOX Annual unit s under paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section in the State for such control period. (6) If the amount of TR NO X Annual allowances in the Indian country new unit set - aside for the State for such control period*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 835 of 1339 is greater than or equal to the sum under paragraph ( b )( 5 ) of this section, then the Administrator will allocate the amount of TR NOX Annual allowances determined for each such TR NOX Annual unit under paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section . (7) If the amount of TR NO X Annual allowances in the Indian country new unit set - aside for the State for such control period is less than the sum under paragraph ( b )( 5 ) of this section, then the Administrator will allocate to each such TR NOX Annual unit the amount of the TR NO X Annual allowances determined under paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section for the unit , multiplied by the amount of TR NOX Annual allowances in the Indian country new unit set - aside for such control period, divided by the sum under paragraph ( b )( 5 ) of this section, and rounded to the neares t allowance. (8) The Administrator will notify the public , through the promulgation of the notices of data availability described in §97.411(b) (2)(i) and (ii) , of the amount of TR NO X Annual allowances allocated under paragraphs (b)(1) through (8) for such control period to each TR NOX Annual unit eligible for such allocation . (9) If, after completion of the procedures under paragraph s ( b ) (5) through (8) of this section for such control period, any*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 836 of 1339 unallocated TR NOX Annual allowances remain in the Indian c ountry new unit set - aside for the State for such control period, the Administrator will allocate such TR NOX Annual allowances as follows -- (i) The Administrator will determine, for each unit described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section that commenced commercial operation during the period starting January 1 of the year before the year of such control period and ending November 30 of year of such control period, the positive difference (if any) between the unit’s emissions during such control period and th e amount of TR NOX Annual allowances described in the notice of data availability required under §97.411 (b)(2)(ii) for the unit for such control period; (ii) The Administrator will determine the sum of the positive differences determined under paragraph (b )(9)(i) of this section; (iii) If the amount of unallocated TR NOX Annual allowances remaining in the Indian country new unit set - aside for the State for such control period is greater than or equal to the sum determined under paragraph ( b )( 9 ) (ii) of this section, then the Administrator will allocate the amount of TR NO X Annual*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 837 of 1339 allowances determined for each such TR NOX Annual unit under paragraph (b)(9)(i) of this section . (iv) If the amount of unallocated TR NOX Annual allowances remaining in the Indian c ountry new unit set - aside for the State for such control period is less than the sum under paragraph ( b )( 9)(ii) of this section, then the Administrator will allocate for each such TR NOX Annual unit the amount of the TR NO X Annual allowances determined under paragraph (b)(9)(i) of this section for the unit , multiplied by the amount of unallocated TR NOX Annual allowances remaining in the Indian country new unit set aside for such control period, divided by the sum under paragraph ( b )( 9)(ii) of this section, and rounded to the nearest allowance. (10) If, after completion of the procedures under paragraph ( b ) (9) of this section for such control period, any unallocated TR NOX Annual allowances remain in the Indian country new unit set - aside for the State for su ch control period, the Administrator will : (i) Allocate such unallocated TR NOX Annual allowances to the new unit set - aside for the State for such control period; or (ii) If the State has a SIP revision approved under § 52.37(a)(4) or (5), include such un allocated TR NOX Annual allowances in the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 838 of 1339 portion of the State TR NO X Annual trading budget that may be allocated for such control period in accordance with such SIP revision. (11) The Administrator will notify the public , through the promulgation of the notices of data availability described in §97.411(b) (2)(iii) and (iv) , of the amount of TR NO X Annual allowances allocated for such control period to each TR NOX Annual unit eligible for such allocation. § 97.413 Authorization of designated representative and alternate designated representative. (a) Except as provided under §97.415, each TR NO X Annual source, including all TR NOX Annual units at the source, shall have one and only one designated representative, with regard to all matters under the TR NO X Annual Trading Program. (1) The designated representative shall be selected by an agreement binding on the owners and operators of the source and all TR NOX Annual units at the source and shall act in accordance with the certification statement in §97.416( a)(4)(iii). (2) Upon and after receipt by the Administrator of a complete certificate of representation under §97.416:*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 839 of 1339 (i) The designated representative shall be authorized and shall represent and, by his or her representations, actions, inactions, or submissions, legally bind each owner and operator of the source and each TR NO X Annual unit at the source in all matters pertaining to the TR NO X Annual Trading Program, notwithstanding any agreement between the designated representative and such owners and op erators; and (ii) The owners and operators of the source and each TR NO X Annual unit at the source shall be bound by any decision or order issued to the designated representative by the Administrator regarding the source or any such unit. (b) Except as provided under §97.415, each TR NO X Annual source may have one and only one alternate designated representative, who may act on behalf of the designated representative. The agreement by which the alternate designated representative is selected shall include a procedure for authorizing the alternate designated representative to act in lieu of the designated representative. (1) The alternate designated representative shall be selected by an agreement binding on the owners and operators of the source and all TR NOX Annual units at the source and shall act in*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 840 of 1339 accordance with the certification statement in §97.416(a)(4)(iii). (2) Upon and after receipt by the Administrator of a complete certificate of representation under §97.416, (i) The alternate designated repre sentative shall be authorized; (ii) Any representation, action, inaction, or submission by the alternate designated representative shall be deemed to be a representation, action, inaction, or submission by the designated representative; and (iii) The own ers and operators of the source and each TR NO X Annual unit at the source shall be bound by any decision or order issued to the alternate designated representative by the Administrator regarding the source or any such unit. (c) Except in this section, §97. 402, and §§97.414 through 97.418, whenever the term “designated representative” (as distinguished from theterm “common designated representative”) is used in this subpart, the term shall be construed to include the designated representative or any alternat e designated representative. § 97.414 Responsibilities of designated representative and alternate designated representative.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 841 of 1339 (a) Except as provided under §97.418 concerning delegation of authority to make submissions, each submission under the TR NO X Annu al Trading Program shall be made, signed, and certified by the designated representative or alternate designated representative for each TR NO X Annual source and TR NO X Annual unit for which the submission is made. Each such submission shall include the fo llowing certification statement by the designated representative or alternate designated representative: “I am authorized to make this submission on behalf of the owners and operators of the source or units for which the submission is made. I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined, and am familiar with, the statements and information submitted in this document and all its attachments. Based on my inquiry of those individuals with primary responsibility for obtaining the information, I certify that the statements and information are to the best of my knowledge and belief true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false statements and information or omitting required statements and informa tion, including the possibility of fine or imprisonment.” (b) The Administrator will accept or act on a submission made for a TR NOX Annual source or a TR NO X Annual unit only if the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 842 of 1339 submission has been made, signed, and certified in accordance with paragr aph (a) of this section and §97.418. § 97.415 Changing designated representative and alternate designated representative; changes in owners and operators ; changes in units at the source . (a) Changing designated representative . The designated representati ve may be changed at any time upon receipt by the Administrator of a superseding complete certificate of representation under §97.416. Notwithstanding any such change, all representations, actions, inactions, and submissions by the previous designated rep resentative before the time and date when the Administrator receives the superseding certificate of representation shall be binding on the new designated representative and the owners and operators of the TR NO X Annual source and the TR NO X Annual units at the source. (b) Changing alternate designated representative . The alternate designated representative may be changed at any time upon receipt by the Administrator of a superseding complete certificate of representation under §97.416. Notwithstanding any such change, all representations, actions, inactions, and submissions by the previous alternate designated representative before the time and date when the Administrator receives the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 843 of 1339 superseding certificate of representation shall be binding on the new al ternate designated representative, the designated representative, and the owners and operators of the TR NO X Annual source and the TR NO X Annual units at the source. (c) Changes in owners and operators . (1) In the event an owner or operator of a TR NO X Annual source or a TR NO X Annual unit at the source is not included in the list of owners and operators in the certificate of representation under §97.416, such owner or operator shall be deemed to be subject to and bound by the certificate of representation , the representations, actions, inactions, and submissions of the designated representative and any alternate designated representative of the source or unit, and the decisions and orders of the Administrator, as if the owner or operator were included in s uch list. (2) Within 30 days after any change in the owners and operators of a TR NOX Annual source or a TR NO X Annual unit at the source , including the addition or removal of an owner or operator, the designated representative or any alternate designated representative shall submit a revision to the certificate of representation under §97.416 amending the list of owners and operators to reflect the change.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 844 of 1339 ( d ) Changes in units at the source . Within 30 days of any change in which units are located at a TR NOX Annual source (including the addition or removal of a unit), the designated representative or any alternate designated representative shall submit a certificate of representation under §97.416 amending the list of units to reflect the change. (1) If the change is the addition of a unit that operated (other than for purposes of testing by the manufacturer before initial installation) before being located at the source, then the certificate of representation shall identify, in a format prescribed by the Administrator, the entity from whom the unit was purchased or otherwise obtained (including name, address, telephone number, and facsimile number (if any)), the date on which the unit was purchased or otherwise obtained, and the date on which the unit bec ame located at the source. (2) If the change is the removal of a unit, then the certificate of representation shall identify, in a format prescribed by the Administrator, the entity to which the unit was sold or that otherwise obtained the unit (including name, address, telephone number, and facsimile number (if any)), the date on which the unit was sold or otherwise obtained, and the date on which the unit became no longer located at the source. § 97.416 Certificate of representation.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 845 of 1339 (a) A complete cert ificate of representation for a designated representative or an alternate designated representative shall include the following elements in a format prescribed by the Administrator: (1) Identification of the TR NO X Annual source, and each TR NO X Annual uni t at the source, for which the certificate of representation is submitted, including source name, source category and NAICS code (or, in the absence of a NAICS code, an equivalent code), State, plant code, county, latitude and longitude, unit identificati on number and type, identification number and nameplate capacity (in MWe , rounded to the nearest tenth) of each generator served by each such unit, and actual or projected date of commencement of commercial operation and including a statement of whether su ch source is located in Indian Country . If a projected date of commencement of commercial operation is provided, the actual date of commencement of commercial operation shall be provided when such information becomes available. (2) The name, address, e -ma il address (if any), telephone number, and facsimile transmission number (if any) of the designated representative and any alternate designated representative.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 846 of 1339 (3) A list of the owners and operators of the TR NO X Annual source and of each TR NO X Annual uni t at the source. (4) The following certification statements by the designated representative and any alternate designated representative

— (i) “I certify that I was selected as the designated representative or alternate designated representative, as applicable, by an agreement binding on the owners and operators of the source and each TR NO X Annual unit at the source.” (ii) “I certify that I have all the necessary authority to carry out my duties and responsibilities under the TR NO X Annual Trading Program o n behalf of the owners and operators of the source and of each TR NO X Annual unit at the source and that each such owner and operator shall be fully bound by my representations, actions, inactions, or submissions and by any decision or order issued to me b y the Administrator regarding the source or unit.” (iii) “Where there are multiple holders of a legal or equitable title to, or a leasehold interest in, a TR NO X Annual unit, or where a utility or industrial customer purchases power from a TR NOX Annual unit under a life - of - the - unit, firm power contractual arrangement, I certify that: I have given a written notice of my selection as the ‘designated representative’ or ‘alternate*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 847 of 1339 designated representative’, as applicable, and of the agreement by which I was selected to each owner and operator of the source and of each TR NOX Annual unit at the source; and TR NO X Annual allowances and proceeds of transactions involving TR NO X Annual allowances will be deemed to be held or distributed in proportion to each holder's legal, equitable, leasehold, or contractual reservation or entitlement, except that, if such multiple holders have expressly provided for a different distribution of TR NO X Annual allowances by contract, TR NO X Annual allowances and proceeds of transa ctions involving TR NO X Annual allowances will be deemed to be held or distributed in accordance with the contract.” (5) The signature of the designated representative and any alternate designated representative and the dates signed. (b) Unless otherwise r equired by the Administrator, documents of agreement referred to in the certificate of representation shall not be submitted to the Administrator. The Administrator shall not be under any obligation to review or evaluate the sufficiency of such documents, if submitted. § 97.417 Objections concerning designated representative and alternate designated representative.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 848 of 1339 (a) Once a complete certificate of representation under §97.416 has been submitted and received, the Administrator will rely on the certificate of representation unless and until a superseding complete certificate of representation under §97.416 is received by the Administrator. (b) Except as provided in paragraph (a) of this section , no objection or other communication submitted to the Administr ator concerning the authorization, or any representation, action, inaction, or submission, of a designated representative or alternate designated representative shall affect any representation, action, inaction, or submission of the designated representati ve or alternate designated representative or the finality of any decision or order by the Administrator under the TR NOX Annual Trading Program. (c) The Administrator will not adjudicate any private legal dispute concerning the authorization or any represe ntation, action, inaction, or submission of any designated representative or alternate designated representative, including private legal disputes concerning the proceeds of TR NO X Annual allowance transfers. § 97.418 Delegation by designated representative and alternate designated representative.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 849 of 1 339 (a) A designated representative may delegate, to one or more natural persons, his or her authority to make an electronic submission to the Administrator provided for or required under this subpart. (b) An alterna te designated representative may delegate, to one or more natural persons, his or her authority to make an electronic submission to the Administrator provided for or required under this subpart. (c) In order to delegate authority to make an electronic submission to the Administrator in accordance with paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, the designated representative or alternate designated representative, as appropriate, must submit to the Administrator a notice of delegation, in a format prescribed by the Administrator, that includes the following elements: (1) The name, address, e -mail address, telephone number, and facsimile transmission number (if any) of such designated representative or alternate designated representative; (2) The name, address, e -ma il address, telephone number, and facsimile transmission number (if any) of each such natural person (referred to in this section as an “agent”);*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 850 of 1339 (3) For each such natural person, a list of the type or types of electronic submissions under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section for which authority is delegated to him or her; and (4) The following certification statements by such designated representative or alternate designated representative: (i) “I agree that any electronic submission to the Administrator that is made by an agent identified in this notice of delegation and of a type listed for such agent in this notice of delegation and that is made when I am a designated representative or alternate designated representative, as appropriate, and before this notice of delegation is superseded by another notice of delegation under 40 CFR 97.418(d) shall be deemed to be an electronic submission by me.” (ii) “Until this notice of delegation is superseded by another notice of delegation under 40 CFR 97.418(d), I a gree to maintain an e -mail account and to notify the Administrator immediately of any change in my e -mail address unless all delegation of authority by me under 40 CFR 97.418 is terminated.”. (d) A notice of delegation submitted under paragraph (c) of this section shall be effective, with regard to the designated representative or alternate designated representative identified in such notice, upon receipt of such notice by the Administrator*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 851 of 1339 and until receipt by the Administrator of a superseding notice of delegation submitted by such designated representative or alternate designated representative, as appropriate. The superseding notice of delegation may replace any previously identified agent, add a new agent, or eliminate entirely any delegation of authori ty. (e) Any electronic submission covered by the certification in paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this section and made in accordance with a notice of delegation effective under paragraph (d) of this section shall be deemed to be an electronic submission by the des ignated representative or alternate designated representative submitting such notice of delegation. § 97.419 [Reserved] § 97.420 Establishment of compliance accounts, assurance accounts, and general accounts . (a) Compliance accounts . Upon receipt of a complete certificate of representation under §97.416, the Administrator will establish a compliance account for the TR NO X Annual source for which the certificate of representation was submitted, unless the source already has a compliance account. The des ignated representative and any alternate designated representative of the source shall be the authorized account representative and*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 852 of 1339 the alternate authorized account representative respectively of the compliance account. (b) Assurance accounts. As provided in §97.4 25(b)(3), the Administrator will establish assurance account s for the owners and operators and States specified in the notice required under §97.4 25(b)(2)(iii)(B). ( c ) General accounts . (1) Application for general account . (i) Any person may apply to open a general account, for the purpose of holding and transferring TR NO X Annual allowances, by submitting to the Administrator a complete application for a general account. Such application shall designate one and only one authorized account rep resentative and may designate one and only one alternate authorized account representative who may act on behalf of the authorized account representative. (A) The authorized account representative and alternate authorized account representative shall be s elected by an agreement binding on the persons who have an ownership interest with respect to TR NO X Annual allowances held in the general account. (B) The agreement by which the alternate authorized account representative is selected shall include a proc edure for*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 853 of 1339 authorizing the alternate authorized account representative to act in lieu of the authorized account representative. (ii) A complete application for a general account shall include the following elements in a format prescribed by the Administrato r: (A) Name, mailing address, e -mail address (if any), telephone number, and facsimile transmission number (if any) of the authorized account representative and any alternate authorized account representative; (B) An identifying name for the general accoun t; (C) A list of all persons subject to a binding agreement for the authorized account representative and any alternate authorized account representative to represent their ownership interest with respect to the TR NO X Annual allowances held in the general account; (D) The following certification statement by the authorized account representative and any alternate authorized account representative: “I certify that I was selected as the authorized account representative or the alternate authorized account representative, as applicable, by an agreement that is binding on all persons who have an ownership interest with respect to TR*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 854 of 1339 NOX Annual allowances held in the general account. I certify that I have all the necessary authority to carry out my duties and re sponsibilities under the TR NO X Annual Trading Program on behalf of such persons and that each such person shall be fully bound by my representations, actions, inactions, or submissions and by any decision or order issued to me by the Administrator regardi ng the general account.” (E) The signature of the authorized account representative and any alternate authorized account representative and the dates signed. (iii) Unless otherwise required by the Administrator, documents of agreement referred to in the application for a general account shall not be submitted to the Administrator. The Administrator shall not be under any obligation to review or evaluate the sufficiency of such documents, if submitted. (2) Authorization of authorized account representative a nd alternate authorized account representative . (i) Upon receipt by the Administrator of a complete application for a general account under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the Administrator will establish a general account for the person or persons for whom the application is submitted, and upon and after such receipt by the Administrator:*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 855 of 1339 (A) The authorized account representative of the general account shall be authorized and shall represent and, by his or her representations, actions, inactions, or s ubmissions, legally bind each person who has an ownership interest with respect to TR NOX Annual allowances held in the general account in all matters pertaining to the TR NO X Annual Trading Program, notwithstanding any agreement between the authorized acc ount representative and such person. (B) Any alternate authorized account representative shall be authorized, and any representation, action, inaction, or submission by any alternate authorized account representative shall be deemed to be a representation , action, inaction, or submission by the authorized account representative. (C) Each person who has an ownership interest with respect to TR NOX Annual allowances held in the general account shall be bound by any decision or order issued to the authorized account representative or alternate authorized account representative by the Administrator regarding the general account. (ii) Except as provided in paragraph ( c )(5) of this section concerning delegation of authority to make submissions, each submission c oncerning the general account shall be made, signed, and certified by the authorized account representative or any*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 856 of 1339 alternate authorized account representative for the persons having an ownership interest with respect to TR NO X Annual allowances held in the general account. Each such submission shall include the following certification statement by the authorized account representative or any alternate authorized account representative: “I am authorized to make this submission on behalf of the persons havin g an ownership interest with respect to the TR NO X Annual allowances held in the general account. I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined, and am familiar with, the statements and information submitted in this document and all its at tachments. Based on my inquiry of those individuals with primary responsibility for obtaining the information, I certify that the statements and information are to the best of my knowledge and belief true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there ar e significant penalties for submitting false statements and information or omitting required statements and information, including the possibility of fine or imprisonment.” (iii) Except in this section, whenever the term “authorized account representative” is used in this subpart, the term shall be construed to include the authorized account representative or any alternate authorized account representative.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 857 of 1339 (3) Changing authorized account representative and alternate authorized account representative; changes in persons with ownership interest . (i) The authorized account representative of a general account may be changed at any time upon receipt by the Administrator of a superseding complete application for a general account under paragraph ( c )(1) of this s ection. Notwithstanding any such change, all representations, actions, inactions, and submissions by the previous authorized account representative before the time and date when the Administrator receives the superseding application for a general account shall be binding on the new authorized account representative and the persons with an ownership interest with respect to the TR NO X Annual allowances in the general account. (ii) The alternate authorized account representative of a general account may be changed at any time upon receipt by the Administrator of a superseding complete application for a general account under paragraph ( c )(1) of this section. Notwithstanding any such change, all representations, actions, inactions, and submissions by the previ ous alternate authorized account representative before the time and date when the Administrator receives the superseding application for a general account shall be binding on the new alternate authorized account representative, the authorized account repre sentative, and the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 858 of 1339 persons with an ownership interest with respect to the TR NO X Annual allowances in the general account. (iii)(A) In the event a person having an ownership interest with respect to TR NOX Annual allowances in the general account is not in cluded in the list of such persons in the application for a general account, such person shall be deemed to be subject to and bound by the application for a general account, the representation, actions, inactions, and submissions of the authorized account representative and any alternate authorized account representative of the account, and the decisions and orders of the Administrator, as if the person were included in such list. (B) Within 30 days after any change in the persons having an ownership intere st with respect to NO X Annual allowances in the general account, including the addition or removal of a person, the authorized account representative or any alternate authorized account representative shall submit a revision to the application for a genera l account amending the list of persons having an ownership interest with respect to the TR NO X Annual allowances in the general account to include the change. (4) Objections concerning authorized account representative and alternate authorized account repr esentative . (i) Once a*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 859 of 1339 complete application for a general account under paragraph ( c )(1) of this section has been submitted and received, the Administrator will rely on the application unless and until a superseding complete application for a general acco unt under paragraph (b)(1) of this section is received by the Administrator. (ii) Except as provided in paragraph ( c )( 4 ) (i) of this section, no objection or other communication submitted to the Administrator concerning the authorization, or any representat ion, action, inaction, or submission of the authorized account representative or any alternate authorized account representative of a general account shall affect any representation, action, inaction, or submission of the authorized account representative or any alternate authorized account representative or the finality of any decision or order by the Administrator under the TR NO X Annual Trading Program. (iii) The Administrator will not adjudicate any private legal dispute concerning the authorization or any representation, action, inaction, or submission of the authorized account representative or any alternate authorized account representative of a general account, including private legal disputes concerning the proceeds of TR NO X Annual allowance transf ers.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 860 of 1339 (5) Delegation by authorized account representative and alternate authorized account representative . (i) An authorized account representative of a general account may delegate, to one or more natural persons, his or her authority to make an electroni c submission to the Administrator provided for or required under this subpart. (ii) An alternate authorized account representative of a general account may delegate, to one or more natural persons, his or her authority to make an electronic submission to t he Administrator provided for or required under this subpart. (iii) In order to delegate authority to make an electronic submission to the Administrator in accordance with paragraph ( c )(5)(i) or (ii) of this section, the authorized account representative o r alternate authorized account representative, as appropriate, must submit to the Administrator a notice of delegation, in a format prescribed by the Administrator, that includes the following elements: (A) The name, address, e -mail address, telephone numb er, and facsimile transmission number (if any) of such authorized account representative or alternate authorized account representative;*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 861 of 1339 (B) The name, address, e -mail address, telephone number, and facsimile transmission number (if any) of each such natura l person (referred to in this section as an “agent”); (C) For each such natural person, a list of the type or types of electronic submissions under paragraph ( c )(5)(i) or (ii) of this section for which authority is delegated to him or her; (D) The followin g certification statement by such authorized account representative or alternate authorized account representative: “I agree that any electronic submission to the Administrator that is made by an agent identified in this notice of delegation and of a type listed for such agent in this notice of delegation and that is made when I am an authorized account representative or alternate authorized representative, as appropriate, and before this notice of delegation is superseded by another notice of delegation under 40 CFR 97.420( c )(5)(iv) shall be deemed to be an electronic submission by me.”; and (E) The following certification statement by such authorized account representative or alternate authorized account representative: “Until this notice of delegation is superseded by another notice of delegation under 40 CFR 97.420( c )(5)(iv), I agree to maintain an e -mail account and to notify the Administrator immediately of any change in my e -mail address*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 862 of 1339 unless all delegation of authority by me under 40 CFR 97.420( c )( 5) is terminated.”. (iv) A notice of delegation submitted under paragraph ( c )(5)(iii) of this section shall be effective, with regard to the authorized account representative or alternate authorized account representative identified in such notice, upon re ceipt of such notice by the Administrator and until receipt by the Administrator of a superseding notice of delegation submitted by such authorized account representative or alternate authorized account representative, as appropriate. The superseding noti ce of delegation may replace any previously identified agent, add a new agent, or eliminate entirely any delegation of authority. (v) Any electronic submission covered by the certification in paragraph ( c )(5)(iii)(D) of this section and made in accordance with a notice of delegation effective under paragraph ( c )(5)(iv) of this section shall be deemed to be an electronic submission by the designated representative or alternate designated representative submitting such notice of delegation. (6)(i) The authori zed account representative or alternate authorized account representative of a general account may submit to the Administrator a request to close the account. Such request shall include a correctly submitted TR NO X Annual*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 863 of 1339 allowance transfer under §97.422 for any TR NOX Annual allowances in the account to one or more other Allowance Management System accounts. (ii) If a general account has no TR NO X Annual allowance transfers to or from the account for a 12 -month period or longer and does not contain any TR NOX Annual allowances, the Administrator may notify the authorized account representative for the account that the account will be closed after 30 days after the notice is sent. The account will be closed after the 30 - day period unless, before the end of the 30 - day period, the Administrator receives a correctly submitted TR NO X Annual allowance transfer under §97.422 to the account or a statement submitted by the authorized account representative or alternate authorized account representative demonstratin g to the satisfaction of the Administrator good cause as to why the account should not be closed. ( d ) Account identification . The Administrator will assign a unique identifying number to each account established under paragraph (a) , (b) , or (c) of this se ction. (d) Responsibilities of authorized account representative and alternate authorized account representative . After the establishment of a compliance account or general account , the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 864 of 1339 Administrator will accept or act on a submission pertaining to the ac count, including, but not limited to, submissions concerning the deduction or transfer of TR NO X Annual allowances in the account, only if the submission has been made, signed, and certified in accordance with §§97.414(a) and 97.418 or paragraphs ( c )(2)(ii ) and ( c )(5) of this section. § 97.421 Recordation of TR NOX Annual allowance allocations and auction results . (a) By [INSERT DATE 90 DAYS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] , the Administrator will record in each TR NO X Annual source's compliance account the TR NO X Annual allowances allocated to the TR NOX Annual units at the source in accordance with §97.411(a) for the control period in 2012 . ( b ) By [INSERT DATE 90 DAYS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] , the Administrator w ill record in each TR NO X Annual source's compliance account the TR NO X Annual allowances allocated to the TR NOX Annual units at the source in accordance with §97.411(a) for the control period in 2013, unless the State in which the source is located notif ies the Administrator in writing by [INSERT DATE 70 DAYS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] of the State’s intent to submit to the Administrator a complete SIP revision by April 1, 2012 meeting*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 865 of 1339 the requirements of § 52.37(a)(3)(i) through (iv ) of this chapter . (1) If, by April 1, 2012, the State does not submit to the Administrator such complete SIP revision, the Administrator will record by April 15, 2012 in each TR NOX Annual source's compliance account the TR NO X Annual allowances allocated to the TR NOX Annual units at the source in accordance with §97.411(a) for the control period in 2013. (2) If the State submits to the Administrator by April 1, 2012, and the Administrator approves by October 1, 2012, such complete SIP revision, the Admin istrator will record by October 1, 2012 in each TR NOX Annual source's compliance account the TR NO X Annual allowances allocated to the TR NOX Annual units at the source as provided in such approved, complete SIP revision for the control period in 2013. (3 ) If the State submits to the Administrator by April 1, 2012, and the Administrator does not approve by October 1, 2012, such complete SIP revision, the Administrator will record by October 1, 2012 in each TR NOX Annual source's compliance account the TR NOX Annual allowances allocated to the TR NOX Annual units at the source in accordance with §97.411(a) for the control period in 2013.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 866 of 1339 ( c ) By July 1, 201 3, , the Administrator will record in each TR NOX Annual source's compliance account the TR NO X Annual allowances allocated for the TR NO X Annual units at the source in accordance with §97.411(a) , or with a SIP revision approved under § 52.37(a)(4) or (5) of this chapter, for the control period in 2014 and 2015. ( d ) By July 1, 201 4 , the Administrator will re cord in each TR NOX Annual source's compliance account the TR NO X Annual allowances allocated for the TR NO X Annual units at the source in accordance with §97.411(a) , or with a SIP revision approved under § 52.37(a)(4) or (5) of this chapter, for the contro l period in 2016 and 2017. ( e ) By July 1, 201 5 , the Administrator will record in each TR NO X Annual source's compliance account the TR NO X Annual allowances allocated for the TR NO X Annual units at the source in accordance with §97.411(a) , or with a SIP revision approved under § 52.37(a)(4) or (5) of this chapter, for the control period in 2018 and 2019. ( f ) By July 1, 201 6 and July 1 of each year thereafter , the Administrator will record in each TR NO X Annual source's compliance account the TR NO X Annual al lowances allocated for the TR NOX Annual units at the source in accordance with §97.411(a) ,*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 867 of 1339 or with a SIP revision approved under § 52.37(a)(4) or (5) of this chapter, for the control period in the fourth year after the year of the applicable recordation de adline under this paragraph. ( g ) By August 1, 2012 and August 1 of each year thereafter, the Administrator will record in each TR NO X Annual source's compliance account the TR NO X Annual allowances allocated for the TR NOX Annual units at the source in acc ordance with §97.412 (a), or with a SIP revision approved under § 52.37(a)(4) or (5) of this chapter, for the control period in the year of the applicable recordation deadline under this paragraph. ( h ) By August 1, 2012 and August 1 of each year thereafter, the Administrator will record in each TR NO X Annual source's compliance account the TR NO X Annual allowances allocated for the TR NOX Annual units at the source in accordance with §97.412 (b) for the control period in the year of the applicable recordation deadline under this paragraph. (i) By the date on which any allocation, other than an allocation described in paragraphs (a) through (h) of this section, of TR NOX Annual allowances to a recipient is made by or submitted to the Administrator in accordance with § 97.411 or § 97.412 or with a SIP revision approved under § 52.37(a)(4) or*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 868 of 1339 (5) of this chapter, the Administrator will record such allocation in the appropriate Allowance Management System account. (j) To the extent a SIP revision approved under § 52.37 (a)(4) or (5) of this chapter provides for one or more auctions, in lieu of allocation, of TR NOX Annual allowances for a control period in a given year, the Administrator will record in the appropriate Allowance Management System account under such SIP revision the amount of TR NOX Annual allowances purchased at such auctions by the deadline, specified in paragraphs (a) through (h) of this section, for recordation of an allocation for the control period in such year. ( k ) When recording the allocation or auction of TR NOX Annual allowances for a TR NO X Annual unit in an Allowance Management System account, the Administrator will assign each TR NO X Annual allowance a unique identification number that will include digits identifying the year of the control pe riod for which the TR NOX Annual allowance is allocated. § 97.422 Submission of TR NOX Annual allowance transfers. (a) An authorized account representative seeking recordation of a TR NOX Annual allowance transfer shall submit the transfer to the Administ rator.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 869 of 1339 (b) A TR NOX Annual allowance transfer shall be correctly submitted if: (1) The transfer includes the following elements, in a format prescribed by the Administrator: (i) The account numbers established by the Administrator for both the transferor and transferee accounts; (ii) The serial number of each TR NO X Annual allowance that is in the transferor account and is to be transferred; and (iii) The name and signature of the authorized account representative of the transferor account and the date si gned; and (2) When the Administrator attempts to record the transfer, the transferor account includes each TR NO X Annual allowance identified by serial number in the transfer. § 97.423 Recordation of TR NOX Annual allowance transfers. (a) Within 5 busine ss days (except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section) of receiving a TR NO X Annual allowance transfer that is correctly submitted under §97.422, the Administrator will record a TR NOX Annual allowance transfer by moving each TR*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 870 of 1339 NOX Annual allowance from the transferor account to the transferee account as specified in the transfer . (b) A TR NOX Annual allowance transfer to or from a compliance account that is submitted for recordation after the allowance transfer deadline for a control period and t hat includes any TR NOX Annual allowances allocated for any control period before such allowance transfer deadline will not be recorded until after the Administrator completes the deductions from such compliance account under §97.424 for the control period immediately before such allowance transfer deadline.

(c) Where a TR NOX Annual allowance transfer is not correctly submitted under §97.422, the Administrator will not record such transfer. (d) Within 5 business days of recordation of a TR NO X Annual all owance transfer under paragraphs (a) and (b) of the section, the Administrator will notify the authorized account representatives of both the transferor and transferee accounts. (e) Within 10 business days of receipt of a TR NO X Annual allowance transfer t hat is not correctly submitted under*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 871 of 1339 §97.422, the Administrator will notify the authorized account representatives of both accounts subject to the transfer of: (1) A decision not to record the transfer, and (2) The reasons for such non - recordation. § 97.42 4 Compliance with TR NOX Annual emissions limitation. (a) Availability for deduction for compliance . TR NOX Annual allowances are available to be deducted for compliance with a source's TR NOX Annual emissions limitation for a control period in a given year only if the TR NO X Annual allowances: (1) Were allocated for such control period or a control period in a prior year; and (2) Are held in the source’s compliance account as of the allowance transfer deadline for such control period. (b) Deductions f or compliance . After the recordation, in accordance with §97.423, of TR NO X Annual allowance transfers submitted by the allowance transfer deadline for a control period in a given year , the Administrator will deduct from each source’s compliance account T R NOX Annual allowances available under paragraph (a) of this section in order to determine*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 872 of 1339 whether the source meets the TR NO X Annual emissions limitation for such control period, as follows: (1) Until the amount of TR NO X Annual allowances deducted equal s the number of tons of total NO X emissions from all TR NO X Annual units at the source for such control period; or (2) If there are insufficient TR NO X Annual allowances to complete the deductions in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, until no more TR NOX Annual allowances available under paragraph (a) of this section remain in the compliance account. (c)(1) Identification of TR NOX Annual allowances by serial number . The authorized account representative for a source's compliance account may request that s pecific TR NOX Annual allowances, identified by serial number, in the compliance account be deducted for emissions or excess emissions for a control period in a given year in accordance with paragraph (b) or (d) of this section. In order to be complete, s uch request shall be submitted to the Administrator by the allowance transfer deadline for such control period and include, in a format prescribed by the Administrator, the identification of the TR NOX Annual source and the appropriate serial numbers. (2) First - in, first - out . The Administrator will deduct TR NO X Annual allowances under paragraph (b) or (d) of this section*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 873 of 1339 from the source's compliance account in accordance with a complete request under paragraph (c)(1) of this section or, in the absence of such request or in the case of identification of an insufficient amount of TR NO X Annual allowances in such request, on a first - in, first - out accounting basis in the following order: (i) Any TR NOX Annual allowances that were allocated to the units at the source and not transferred out of the compliance account, in the order of recordation; and then (ii) Any TR NOX Annual allowances that were allocated to any unit and transferred to and recorded in the compliance account pursuant to this subpart, in the order of recordation. (d) Deductions for excess emissions . After making the deductions for compliance under paragraph (b) of this section for a control period in a year in which the TR NO X Annual source has excess emissions, the Administrator will deduct from the source's compliance account an amount of TR NO X Annual allowances, allocated for the control period in the immediately following year, equal to two times the number of tons of the source's excess emissions.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 874 of 1339 (e) Recordation of deductions . The Adminis trator will record in the appropriate compliance account all deductions from such an account under paragraphs (b) and (d) of this section. § 97.425 Compliance with TR NOX Annual assurance provisions. (a) Availability for deduction . TR NOX Annual allowanc es are available to be deducted for compliance with the TR NO X Annual assurance provisions for a control period in a given year by the owners and operators of a group of one or more TR NOX Annual sources and units in a State only if the TR NO X Annual allowances: (1) Were allocated for such control period or a control period in a prior year; and (2) Are held in the assurance account, established by the Administrator for such owners and operators of such group of TR NOX Annual sources and units in such Stat e under paragraph (b) (3) of this section, as of the deadline established in paragraph (b)(5) of this section. (b) Deductions for compliance . The Administrator will deduct TR NOX Annual allowances available under paragraph (a) of this section for compli ance with the TR NOX Annual assurance*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 875 of 1339 provisions for a State for a control period in a given year in accordance with the following procedures: (1) By June 1, 201 3 and June 1 of each year thereafter, the Administrator will: (i) Calculate, separately for each State, the total NO X emissions from all TR NOX Annual units at TR NOX Annual sources in the State during the control period in the year before the year of this calculation deadline and the amount, if any, by which such total NOX emissions exceed the Stat e assurance level as described in §97.406(c)(2)(iii); and (ii) Promulgate a notice of data availability of the results of the calculations required in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section, including separate calculations of the NO X emissions from each TR NOX Annual source . ( 2 ) For each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)( 1 )(ii) of this section and for any State identified in such notice as having TR NO X Annual units with total NOX emissions exceeding the State assurance level for a contro l period in a given year , as described in §97.406(c)(2)(iii): (i) By July 1 immediately after the promulgation of such notice, the designated representative of each TR NO X Annual source in*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 876 of 1339 each such State shall submit a statement, in a format prescribed by the Administrator , providing for each TR NOX Annual unit (if any) at the source that operates during, but is not allocated an amount of TR NOX Annual allowances for, such control period, the unit’s allowable NOX emission rate for such control period and, if such rate is expressed in lb per mmBtu, the unit’s heat rate . (ii) By August 1 immediately after the promulgation of such notice, the Administrator will calculate, for each such State and each common designated representative (authorized as of the al lowance transfer deadline for such control period) for a group of one or more TR NO X Annual sources and units in the State and for such control period, the common designated representative’s share of the total NO X emissions from all TR NO X Annual units at TR NOX Annual sources in the State, the common designated representative’s assurance level, and the amount (if any) of TR NOX Annual allowances that the owners and operators of such group of sources and units must hold in accordance with the calculation fo rmula in §97.406(c)(2)(i) and will promulgate a notice of data availability of the results of these calculations. (iii) The Administrator will provide an opportunity for submission of objections to the calculations referenced by the notice of data ava ilability required in paragraph (b)( 2 )(ii) of*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 877 of 1339 this section and the calculations referenced by the relevant notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section . (A) Objections shall be submitted by the deadline specified in such no tice and shall be limited to addressing whether the calculations referenced in the relevant notice required under paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section and referenced in the notice required under paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section are in accordance with § 97.406(c)(2)(iii) , §§97.406(b) and 97.430 through 97.435 , the definitions of “common designated representative”, “ common designated representative’s assurance level”, and “ common designated representative’s share” in §97.402, and the calculation formula in §97.406(c)(2)(i). (B) The Administrator will adjust the calculations to the extent necessary to ensure that they are in accordance with the provisions referenced in paragraph (b)( 2 )(iii)(A) of this section. By October 1 immediately after the promulgation of such notice, the Administrator will promulgate a notice of data availability of any adjustments that the Administrator determines to be necessary and the reasons for accepting or rejecting any objections submitted in accordance with paragraph (b)( 2 )(ii i)(A) of this section.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 878 of 1339 (3) For any State identified in each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)( 2 )(ii i ) (B) of this section as having TR NOX Annual units with total NOX emissions exceeding the State assurance level for a control period in a given year, the Administrator will establish one assurance account for each set of owners and operators identified, in the notice of data availability required under paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) of this section, as all of the owners and operators of a group of TR NOX Annual sources and units in the State having a common designated representative (as of the allowance transfer deadline for such control period) and as being required to hold TR NO X Annual allowances . ( 4 )(i) As of midnight of November 1 immediately after the promulgation of each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)( 2 )(iii)(B) of this section, the owners and operators described in paragraph (b)( 3) of this section shall hold in the assurance account established for the them and for the appropriate TR NOX Annual sources, TR NOX Annual units, and State under paragraph (b)( 3) of this section a total amount of TR NOX Annual allowances, available for deduction under paragraph (a) of this section, equal to the amount such owners and op erators are required to hold with regard to such sources,*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 879 of 1339 units and State as calculated by the Administrator and referenced in such notice. (ii) Notwithstanding the allowance - holding deadline specified in paragraph (b)( 4 )(i) of this section, if November 1 is not a business day, then such allowance - holding deadline shall be midnight of the first business day thereafter. ( 5 ) After November 1 (or the date described in paragraph (b)( 4) (ii) of this section) immediately after the promulgation of each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)( 2 )(iii)(B) of this section and after the recordation, in accordance with §97.423, of TR NO X Annual allowance transfers submitted by midnight of such date, the Administrator will determine whether the owners and operators described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section hold, in the assurance account for the appropriate TR NOX Annual sources, TR NOX Annual units, and State established under paragraph (b)( 3) of this section, the amount of TR NOX Annual allowances avail able under paragraph (a) of this section that the owners and operators are required to hold with regard to such sources, units, and States as calculated by the Administrator and referenced in the notice required in paragraph (b)( 2 )(iii)(B) of this section.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 880 of 1339 ( 6 ) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subpart and any revision, made by or submitted to the Administrator after the promulgation of the notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)( 2 )(iii)(B) of this section for a control period in a gi ven year , of any data used in making the calculations referenced in such notice, the amount s of TR NOX Annual allowances that the owners and operators are required to hold in accordance with §97.406(c)(2)(i) for such control period shall continue to be such amount s as calculated by the Administrator and referenced in such notice required in paragraph (b)( 2 )(iii)(B) of this section, except as follows: (i) If any such data are revised by the Administrator as a result of a decision in or settlement of litigati on concerning such data on appeal under part 78 of this chapter of such notice, or on appeal under section 307 of the Clean Air Act of a decision rendered under part 78 of this chapter on appeal of such notice, then the Administrator will use the data as s o revised to recalculate the amounts of TR NO X Annual allowances that owners and operators are required to hold in accordance with the calculation formula in §97.406(c)(2)(i) for such control period with regard to the TR NOX Annual sources, TR NOX Annual units, and State involved, provided that such litigation under part 78 of this chapter, or the proceeding under part 78*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 881 of 1339 of this chapter that resulted in the decision appealed in such litigation under section 307 of the Clean Air Act, was initiated no later than 30 days after promulgation of such notice required in paragraph (b)(2) (iii)(B) of this section . (ii) If any such data are revised by the owners and operators of a TR NOX Annual source and TR NOX Annual unit whose designated representative submitted s uch data under paragraph (b)( 2 )(i) of this section, as a result of a decision in or settlement of litigation concerning such submission, then the Administrator will use the data as so revised to recalculate the amounts of TR NOX Annual allowances that owne rs and operators are required to hold in accordance with the calculation formula in §97.406(c)(2)(i) for such control period with regard to the TR NOX Annual sources, TR NOX Annual units, and State involved, provided that such litigation was initiated no l ater than 30 days after promulgation of such notice required in paragraph (b)( 2 )(iii)(B) of this section. (iii) If the revised data are used to recalculate, in accordance with paragraphs (b)( 6 )(i) and (b)( 6 )(ii) of this section, the amount of TR NOX Annual allowances that the owners and operators are required to hold for such control period with regard to the TR NOX Annual sources, TR NOX Annual units, and State involved

—*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 882 of 1339 (A) Where the amount of TR NO X Annual allowances that the owners and operators are re quired to hold increases as a result of the use of all such revised data, the Administrator will establish a new, reasonable deadline on which the owner s and operators shall hold the additional amount of TR NO X Annual allowances in the assurance account es tablished by the Administrator for the appropriate TR NOX Annual sources, TR NOX Annual units, and State under paragraph ( b)( 3) of this section. The owner s’ and operaters ’ failure to hold such additional amount, as required, before the new deadline shall not be a violation of the Clean Air Act. The owner s ’ and operators’ failure to hold such additional amount, as required, as of the new deadline shall be a violation of the Clean Air Act. Each TR NO X Annual allowance that the owner s and operators fail to hold as required as of the new deadline, and each day in such control period , shall be a separate violation of the Clean Air Act. (B) For the owners and operators for which the amount of TR NO X Annual allowances required to be held decreases as a result of the use of all such revised data, the Administrator will record, in all accounts from which TR NOX Annual allowances were transferred by such owners and operators for such control period to the assurance account established by the Administrator for the appropriate at TR NOX Annual sources, TR NOX Annual units,*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 883 of 1339 and State under paragraph (b) (3) of this section, a total amount of TR NOX Annual allowances equal to the amount of the decrease. If TR NOX Annual allowances were transferred to such assurance acc ount from more than one account, the amount of TR NOX Annual allowances recorded in each such transferor account will be in proportion to the percentage of the total amount of TR NOX Annual allowances transferred to such assurance account for such control period from such transferor account. (C) Each TR NOX Annual allowance held under paragraph (b)( 6 )(iii)(A) of this section, or recorded under paragraph (b)( 6 )(iii)(B) of this section, as a result of recalculation of requirements under the TR NO X Annual as surance provisions for such control period must be a TR NO X Annual allowance allocated for such control period or a control period in a prior year. § 97.426 Banking. (a) A TR NOX Annual allowance may be banked for future use or transfer in a compliance account or a general account in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section. (b) Any TR NOX Annual allowance that is held in a compliance account or a general account will remain in such account unless and until the TR NOX Annual allowance is deducte d or transferred under §97.411(c), §97.423, §97.424, §97.425, 97.427, or 97.428.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 884 of 1339 § 97.427 Account error. The Administrator may, at his or her sole discretion and on his or her own motion, correct any error in any Allowance Management System account. Within 10 business days of making such correction, the Administrator will notify the authorized account representative for the account. § 97.428 Administrator’s action on submissions. (a) The Administrator may review and conduct independent audits concerning any submission under the TR NO X Annual Trading Program and make appropriate adjustments of the information in the submission. (b) The Administrator may deduct TR NO X Annual allowances from or transfer TR NOX Annual allowances to a compliance account or an assurance account, based on the information in a submission, as adjusted under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, and record such deductions and transfers. § 97.429 [RESERVED] § 97.430 General monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 885 of 1339 The owners and operators, and to the extent applicable, the designated representative, of a TR NO X Annual unit, shall comply with the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements as provided in this subpart and subpart H of part 75 of this chapter. For purposes of applying such requirements, the definitions in §97.402 and in §72.2 of this chapter shall apply, the terms “affected unit,” “designated representative,” and “continuous emission monitoring system” (or “CEMS”) in part 75 of this chapter shall b e deemed to refer to the terms “TR NO X Annual unit,“ “designated representative,” and “continuous emission monitoring system” (or “CEMS”) respectively as defined in §97.402, and the term “newly affected unit” shall be deemed to mean “newly affected TR NO X Annual unit”. The owner or operator of a unit that is not a TR NO X Annual unit but that is monitored under §75.72(b)(2)(ii) of this chapter shall comply with the same monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements as a TR NO X Annual unit. (a) Requi rements for installation, certification, and data accounting . The owner or operator of each TR NO X Annual unit shall: (1) Install all monitoring systems required under this subpart for monitoring NOX mass emissions and individual unit heat input (includin g all systems required to monitor NO X emission rate, NOX*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 8 86 of 1339 concentration, stack gas moisture content, stack gas flow rate, CO 2 or O 2 concentration, and fuel flow rate, as applicable, in accordance with §§75.71 and 75.72 of this chapter); (2) Successfully complete all certification tests required under §97.431 and meet all other requirements of this subpart and part 75 of this chapter applicable to the monitoring systems under paragraph (a)(1) of this section; and (3) Record, report, and quality - assure the dat a from the monitoring systems under paragraph (a)(1) of this section. (b) Compliance deadlines . Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, the owner or operator shall meet the monitoring system certification and other requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section on or before the following dates and shall record, report, and quality - assure the data from the monitoring systems under paragraph (a)(1) of this section on and after the following dates. (1) For the owner or operator of a TR NOX Annual unit that commences commercial operation before July 1, 2011, January 1, 2012;*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 887 of 1339 (2) For the owner or operator of a TR NO X Annual unit that commences commercial operation on or after July 1, 2011, the later of the following: (i) January 1, 2012; or (ii) 180 calendar days after the date on which the unit commences commercial operation; (3) The owner or operator of a TR NO X Annual unit for which construction of a new stack or flue or installation of add- on NOX emission controls is completed after the applicable deadline under paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section shall meet the requirements of §§75. 4(e)(1) through (e)(4) of this chapter, except that: (i) Such requirements shall apply to the monitoring systems required under § 97.430 through § 97.43 5, rather than the monitoring systems required under part 75 of this chapter; (ii) NOX emission rate, NOX concentration, stack gas moisture content, stack gas volumetric flow rate, and O 2 or CO 2 concentration data shall be determined and reported, rather t han the data listed in §75. 4(e)(2) of this chapter; and*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 888 of 1339 (iii) Any petition for another procedure under §75. 4(e)(2) of this chapter shall be submitted under § 97.435, rather than §75 .66. (c) Reporting data . The owner or operator of a TR NO X Annual unit that does not meet the applicable compliance date set forth in paragraph (b) of this section for any monitoring system under paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall, for each such monitoring system, determine, record, and report maximum potential (or, as approp riate, minimum potential) values for NO X concentration, NOX emission rate, stack gas flow rate, stack gas moisture content, fuel flow rate, and any other parameters required to determine NOX mass emissions and heat input in accordance with §75.31(b)(2) or (c)(3) of this chapter, section 2.4 of appendix D to part 75 of this chapter, or section 2.5 of appendix E to part 75 of this chapter, as applicable. (d) Prohibitions . (1) No owner or operator of a TR NO X Annual unit shall use any alternative monitoring s ystem, alternative reference method, or any other alternative to any requirement of this subpart without having obtained prior written approval in accordance with §97.435. (2) No owner or operator of a TR NO X Annual unit shall operate the unit so as to dis charge, or allow to be discharged, NO X to*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 889 of 1339 the atmosphere without accounting for all such NOX in accordance with the applicable provisions of this subpart and part 75 of this chapter. (3) No owner or operator of a TR NO X Annual unit shall disrupt the continuous emission monitoring system, any portion thereof, or any other approved emission monitoring method, and thereby avoid monitoring and recording NO X mass discharged into the atmosphere or heat input, except for periods of recertification or periods when calibration, quality assurance testing, or maintenance is performed in accordance with the applicable provisions of this subpart and part 75 of this chapter. (4) No owner or operator of a TR NO X Annual unit shall retire or permanently discontinue use of the continuous emission monitoring system, any component thereof, or any other approved monitoring system under this subpart, except under any one of the following circumstances: (i) During the period that the unit is covered by an exemption under §97.405 th at is in effect; (ii) The owner or operator is monitoring emissions from the unit with another certified monitoring system approved, in accordance with the applicable provisions of this subpart and part 75 of this chapter, by the Administrator for use at t hat unit that*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 890 of 1339 provides emission data for the same pollutant or parameter as the retired or discontinued monitoring system; or (iii) The designated representative submits notification of the date of certification testing of a replacement monitoring system f or the retired or discontinued monitoring system in accordance with §97.431(d)(3)(i). (e) Long - term cold storage . The owner or operator of a TR NO X Annual unit is subject to the applicable provisions of §75.4(d) of this chapter concerning units in long - te rm cold storage. § 97.431 Initial monitoring system certification and recertification procedures. (a) The owner or operator of a TR NO X Annual unit shall be exempt from the initial certification requirements of this section for a monitoring system under § 97.430(a)(1) if the following conditions are met: (1) The monitoring system has been previously certified in accordance with part 75 of this chapter; and (2) The applicable quality - assurance and quality - control requirements of §75.21 of this chapter and appendices B, D, and E to part 75 of this chapter are fully met for the certified monitoring system described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 891 of 1339 (b) The recertification provisions of this section shall apply to a monitoring system under §97.430(a)(1) that is exempt from initial certification requirements under paragraph (a) of this section. (c) If the Administrator has previously approved a petition under §75.17(a) or (b) of this chapter for apportioning the NO X emission rate measured in a common stack or a petition under §75.66 of this chapter for an alternative to a requirement in §75.12 or §75.17 of this chapter, the designated representative shall resubmit the petition to the Administrator under §97.435 to determine whether the approval applies under the TR NOX Annual Trading Program. (d) Except as provided in paragraph (a) of this section, the owner or operator of a TR NO X Annual unit shall comply with the following initial certification and recertification procedures for a continuous monitoring system ( i.e., a continuous emission monitoring system and an excepted monitoring system under appendices D and E to part 75 of this chapter) under §97.430(a)(1). The owner or operator of a unit that qualifies to use the low mass emissions excepted monitoring meth odology under §75.19 of this chapter or that qualifies to use an alternative monitoring system under subpart E of part 75 of this*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 892 of 1339 chapter shall comply with the procedures in paragraph (e) or (f) of this section respectively. (1) Requirements for initial ce rtification. The owner or operator shall ensure that each continuous monitoring system under §97.430(a)(1) (including the automated data acquisition and handling system) successfully completes all of the initial certification testing required under §75.20 of this chapter by the applicable deadline in §97.430(b). In addition, whenever the owner or operator installs a monitoring system to meet the requirements of this subpart in a location where no such monitoring system was previously installed, initial ce rtification in accordance with §75.20 of this chapter is required. (2) Requirements for recertification. Whenever the owner or operator makes a replacement, modification, or change in any certified continuous emission monitoring system under §97.430(a)(1) that may significantly affect the ability of the system to accurately measure or record NO X mass emissions or heat input rate or to meet the quality - assurance and quality - control requirements of §75.21 of this chapter or appendix B to part 75 of this chap ter, the owner or operator shall recertify the monitoring system in accordance with §75.20(b) of this chapter. Furthermore, whenever the owner or operator makes a replacement,*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 893 of 1339 modification, or change to the flue gas handling system or the unit's operation that may significantly change the stack flow or concentration profile, the owner or operator shall recertify each continuous emission monitoring system whose accuracy is potentially affected by the change, in accordance with §75.20(b) of this chapter. Examples of changes to a continuous emission monitoring system that require recertification include replacement of the analyzer, complete replacement of an existing continuous emission monitoring system, or change in location or orientation of the sampling pr obe or site. Any fuel flowmeter system, and any excepted NO X monitoring system under appendix E to part 75 of this chapter, under §97.430(a)(1) are subject to the recertification requirements in §75.20(g)(6) of this chapter. (3) Approval process for initi al certification and recertification. For initial certification of a continuous monitoring system under §97.430(a)(1), paragraphs (d)(3)(i) through (v) of this section apply. For recertifications of such monitoring systems, paragraphs (d)(3)(i) through ( iv) of this section and the procedures in §§75.20(b)(5) and (g)(7) of this chapter (in lieu of the procedures in paragraph (d)(3)(v) of this section) apply, provided that in applying paragraphs (d)(3)(i) through (iv) of this section, the words*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 894 of 1339 “certificati on” and “initial certification” are replaced by the word “recertification” and the word “certified” is replaced by with the word “recertified”. (i) Notification of certification. The designated representative shall submit to the appropriate EPA Regional Office and the Administrator written notice of the dates of certification testing, in accordance with §97.433. (ii) Certification application. The designated representative shall submit to the Administrator a certification application for each monitoring system. A complete certification application shall include the information specified in §75.63 of this chapter. (iii) Provisional certification date. The provisional certification date for a monitoring system shall be determined in accordance with §75.20 (a)(3) of this chapter. A provisionally certified monitoring system may be used under the TR NOX Annual Trading Program for a period not to exceed 120 days after receipt by the Administrator of the complete certification application for the monitoring sys tem under paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of this section. Data measured and recorded by the provisionally certified monitoring system, in accordance with the requirements of part 75 of this chapter, will be considered*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 895 of 1339 valid quality - assured data (retroactive to the date and time of provisional certification), provided that the Administrator does not invalidate the provisional certification by issuing a notice of disapproval within 120 days of the date of receipt of the complete certification application by the Admini strator. (iv) Certification application approval process. The Administrator will issue a written notice of approval or disapproval of the certification application to the owner or operator within 120 days of receipt of the complete certification applicati on under paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of this section. In the event the Administrator does not issue such a notice within such 120 - day period, each monitoring system that meets the applicable performance requirements of part 75 of this chapter and is included in t he certification application will be deemed certified for use under the TR NO X Annual Trading Program. (A) Approval notice. If the certification application is complete and shows that each monitoring system meets the applicable performance requirements of part 75 of this chapter, then the Administrator will issue a written notice of approval of the certification application within 120 days of receipt. (B) Incomplete application notice. If the certification application is not complete, then the Administrat or will issue a*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 896 of 1339 written notice of incompleteness that sets a reasonable date by which the designated representative must submit the additional information required to complete the certification application. If the designated representative does not comply with the notice of incompleteness by the specified date, then the Administrator may issue a notice of disapproval under paragraph (d)(3)(iv)(C) of this section. (C) Disapproval notice. If the certification application shows that any monitoring system does not meet the performance requirements of part 75 of this chapter or if the certification application is incomplete and the requirement for disapproval under paragraph (d)(3)(iv)(B) of this section is met, then the Administrator will issue a written not ice of disapproval of the certification application. Upon issuance of such notice of disapproval, the provisional certification is invalidated by the Administrator and the data measured and recorded by each uncertified monitoring system shall not be considered valid quality - assured data beginning with the date and hour of provisional certification (as defined under §75.20(a)(3) of this chapter). (D) Audit decertification. The Administrator may issue a notice of disapproval of the certification status of a monitor in accordance with §97.432(b).*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 897 of 1339 (v) Procedures for loss of certification. If the Administrator issues a notice of disapproval of a certification application under paragraph (d)(3)(iv)(C) of this section or a notice of disapproval of certification status under paragraph (d)(3)(iv)(D) of this section, then: (A) The owner or operator shall substitute the following values, for each disapproved monitoring system, for each hour of unit operation during the period of invalid data specified under §75.20(a) (4)(iii), §75.20(g)(7), or §75.21(e) of this chapter and continuing until the applicable date and hour specified under §75.20(a)(5)(i) or (g)(7) of this chapter: ( 1 ) For a disapproved NO X emission rate (i.e., NO X- diluent) system, the maximum potential NO X emission rate, as defined in §72.2 of this chapter. ( 2 ) For a disapproved NO X pollutant concentration monitor and disapproved flow monitor, respectively, the maximum potential concentration of NOX and the maximum potential flow rate, as defined in sections 2.1.2.1 and 2.1.4.1 of appendix A to part 75 of this chapter. ( 3 ) For a disapproved moisture monitoring system and disapproved diluent gas monitoring system, respectively, the minimum potential moisture percentage and either the maximum potential*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 898 of 1339 CO 2 conc entration or the minimum potential O 2 concentration (as applicable), as defined in sections 2.1.5, 2.1.3.1, and 2.1.3.2 of appendix A to part 75 of this chapter. ( 4 ) For a disapproved fuel flowmeter system, the maximum potential fuel flow rate, as defined in section 2.4.2.1 of appendix D to part 75 of this chapter. ( 5 ) For a disapproved excepted NO X monitoring system under appendix E to part 75 of this chapter, the fuel - specific maximum potential NOX emission rate, as defined in §72.2 of this chapter. (B) The designated representative shall submit a notification of certification retest dates and a new certification application in accordance with paragraphs (d)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section. (C) The owner or operator shall repeat all certification tests or o ther requirements that were failed by the monitoring system, as indicated in the Administrator's notice of disapproval, no later than 30 unit operating days after the date of issuance of the notice of disapproval. (e) The owner or operator of a unit qualif ied to use the low mass emissions (LME) excepted methodology under §75.19 of this chapter shall meet the applicable certification and*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 899 of 1339 recertification requirements in §§75.19(a)(2) and 75.20(h) of this chapter. If the owner or operator of such a unit elects to certify a fuel flowmeter system for heat input determination, the owner or operator shall also meet the certification and recertification requirements in §75.20(g) of this chapter. (f) The designated representative of each unit for which the owner or operator intends to use an alternative monitoring system approved by the Administrator under subpart E of part 75 of this chapter shall comply with the applicable notification and application procedures of §75.20(f) of this chapter. § 97.432 Monitoring sys tem out- of - control periods. (a) General provisions . Whenever any monitoring system fails to meet the quality - assurance and quality - control requirements or data validation requirements of part 75 of this chapter, data shall be substituted using the applicable missing data procedures in subpart D or subpart H of, or appendix D or appendix E to, part 75 of this chapter. (b) Audit decertification . Whenever both an audit of a monitoring system and a review of the initial certification or recertification applic ation reveal that any monitoring system should not have been certified or recertified because it did not meet a particular performance specification or other requirement*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 900 of 1339 under §97.431 or the applicable provisions of part 75 of this chapter, both at the time of the initial certification or recertification application submission and at the time of the audit, the Administrator will issue a notice of disapproval of the certification status of such monitoring system. For the purposes of this paragraph, an audit shall be either a field audit or an audit of any information submitted to the Administrator or any State or permitting authority. By issuing the notice of disapproval, the Administrator revokes prospectively the certification status of the monitoring system. The data measured and recorded by the monitoring system shall not be considered valid quality - assured data from the date of issuance of the notification of the revoked certification status until the date and time that the owner or operator completes subsequently approved initial certification or recertification tests for the monitoring system. The owner or operator shall follow the applicable initial certification or recertification procedures in §97.431 for each disapproved monitoring system. § 97.433 Notifications concerning monitoring. The designated representative of a TR NO X Annual unit shall submit written notice to the Administrator in accordance with §75.61 of this chapter.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 901 of 1339 § 97.434 Recordkeeping and reporting. (a) General provisions . The des ignated representative shall comply with all recordkeeping and reporting requirements in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section, the applicable recordkeeping and reporting requirements under §75.73 of this chapter, and the requirements of §97.414(a). ( b) Monitoring plans . The owner or operator of a TR NO X Annual unit shall comply with requirements of §75.73(c) and (e) of this chapter. (c) Certification applications . The designated representative shall submit an application to the Administrator within 45 days after completing all initial certification or recertification tests required under §97.431, including the information required under §75.63 of this chapter. (d) Quarterly reports . The designated representative shall submit quarterly reports, as fo llows: (1) The designated representative shall report the NO X mass emissions data and heat input data for the TR NO X Annual unit, in an electronic quarterly report in a format prescribed by the Administrator, for each calendar quarter beginning with:*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 902 of 1339 (i) For a unit that commences commercial operation before July 1, 2011, the calendar quarter covering January 1, 2012 through March 31, 2012; (ii) For a unit that commences commercial operation on or after July 1, 2011, the calendar quarter corresponding to th e earlier of the date of provisional certification or the applicable deadline for initial certification under §97.430(b) , unless that quarter is the third or fourth quarter of 2011, in which case reporting shall commence in the quarter covering January 1, 2012 through March 31, 2012; (2) The designated representative shall submit each quarterly report to the Administrator within 30 days after the end of the calendar quarter covered by the report. Quarterly reports shall be submitted in the manner specified in §75.73(f) of this chapter. (3) For TR NOX Annual units that are also subject to the Acid Rain Program, TR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program, TR SO 2 Group 1 Trading Program, or TR SO 2 Group 2 Trading Program, quarterly reports shall include the applicable data and information required by subparts F through H of part 75 of this chapter as applicable, in addition to the NO X mass emission data, heat input data, and other information required by this subpart.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 903 of 1339 (4) The Administrator may review and conduct indepe ndent audits of any quarterly report in order to determine whether the quarterly report meets the requirements of this subpart and part 75 of this chapter, including the requirement to use substitute data. (i) The Administrator will notify the designated representative of any determination that the quarterly report fails to meet any such requirements and specify in such notification any corrections that the Administrator believes are necessary to make through resubmission of the quarterly report and a rea sonable time period within which the designated representative must respond. Upon request by the designated representative, the Administrator may specify reasonable extensions of such time period. Within the time period (including any such extensions) sp ecified by the Administrator, the designated representative shall resubmit the quarterly report with the corrections specified by the Administrator, except to the extent the designated representative provides information demonstrating that a specified corr ection is not necessary because the quarterly report already meets the requirements of this subpart and part 75 of this chapter that are relevant to the specified correction.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 904 of 1339 (ii) Any resubmission of a quarterly report shall meet the requirements applicabl e to the submission of a quarterly report under this subpart and part 75 of this chapter, except for the deadline set forth in paragraph (d)(2) of this section. (e) Compliance certification . The designated representative shall submit to the Administrator a compliance certification (in a format prescribed by the Administrator) in support of each quarterly report based on reasonable inquiry of those persons with primary responsibility for ensuring that all of the unit's emissions are correctly and fully moni tored. The certification shall state that: (1) The monitoring data submitted were recorded in accordance with the applicable requirements of this subpart and part 75 of this chapter, including the quality assurance procedures and specifications; and (2) Fo r a unit with add- on NOX emission controls and for all hours where NOX data are substituted in accordance with §75.34(a)(1) of this chapter, the add- on emission controls were operating within the range of parameters listed in the quality assurance/quality control program under appendix B to part 75 of this chapter and the substitute data values do not systematically underestimate NO X emissions.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 905 of 1339 § 97.435 Petitions for alternatives to monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting requirements. (a) The designated r epresentative of a TR NO X Annual unit may submit a petition under §75.66 of this chapter to the Administrator, requesting approval to apply an alternative to any requirement of §§97.430 through 97.434. (b) A petition submitted under paragraph (a) of this section shall include sufficient information for the evaluation of the petition, including, at a minimum, the following information: (i) Identification of each unit and source covered by the petition; (ii) A detailed explanation of why the proposed altern ative is being suggested in lieu of the requirement; (iii) A description and diagram of any equipment and procedures used in the proposed alternative; (iv) A demonstration that the proposed alternative is consistent with the purposes of the requirement for which the alternative is proposed and with the purposes of this subpart and part 75 of this chapter and that any adverse effect of approving the alternative will be de minimis ; and*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 906 of 1339 (v) Any other relevant information that the Administrator may require. ( c) Use of an alternative to any requirement referenced in paragraph (a) of this section is in accordance with this subpart only to the extent that the petition is approved in writing by the Administrator and that such use is in accordance with such approva l.

75 . Part 97 is amended by adding subpart BBBBB to read as follows: Subpart BBBBB

—TR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program 97.5 01 Purpose. 97.5 02 Definitions. 97.5 03 Measurements, abbreviations, and acronyms. 97.5 04 Applicability . 97.5 05 Retired unit exemption. 97.5 06 Standard requirements. 97.5 07 Computation of time. 97.5 08 Administrative appeal procedures.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 907 of 1339 97.5 09 [Reserved] 97.5 10 State NOX Ozone Season trading budgets, new unit set asides, Indian country new unit set - asides and variability limits. 97.5 11 Timing requirements for TR NO X Ozone Season allowance allocations. 97.5 12 TR NOX Ozone Season allowance allocations for new units. 97.5 13 Authorization of designated representative and alternate designated r epresentative. 97.5 14 Responsibilities of designated representative and alternate designated representative. 97.5 15 Changing designated representative and alternate designated representative; changes in owners and operators. 97.5 16 Certificate of repres entation. 97.5 17 Objections concerning designated representative and alternate designated representative. 97.5 18 Delegation by designated representative and alternate designated representative. 97.5 19 [Reserved]*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 908 of 1339 97.5 20 Establishment of compliance acco unts and general accounts . 97.5 21 Recordation of TR NO X Ozone Season allowance allocations. 97.5 22 Submission of TR NOX Ozone Season allowance transfers. 97.5 23 Recordation of TR NO X Ozone Season allowance transfers. 97.5 24 Compliance with TR NO X Ozone Season emissions limitation. 97.5 25 Compliance with TR NO X Ozone Season assurance provisions. 97.5 26 Banking. 97.5 27 Account error. 97.5 28 Administrator’s action on submissions. 97.5 29 [RESERVED] 97.5 30 General monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporti ng requirements. 97.5 31 Initial monitoring system certification and recertification procedures. 97.5 32 Monitoring system out - of - control periods. 97.5 33 Notifications concerning monitoring. 97.5 34 Recordkeeping and reporting.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 909 of 1339 97.5 35 Petitions for alternatives to monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting requirements. Subpart AAAAA

—TR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program § 97.5 01 Purpose. This subpart sets forth the general, designated representative, allowance, and monitoring provisi ons for the Transport Rule (TR) NOX Ozone Season Trading Program, under section 110 of the Clean Air Act and §52.37 of this chapter, as a means of mitigating interstate transport of fine particulates and nitrogen oxides. § 97.5 02 Definitions. The terms u sed in this subpart shall have the meanings set forth in this section as follows: Acid Rain Program means a multi - state SO 2 and NOX air pollution control and emission reduction program established by the Administrator under title IV of the Clean Air Act an d parts 72 through 78 of this chapter. Administrator means the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency or the Director of the Clean Air Markets Division (or its successor) of the United States*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 910 of 1339 Environmental Protection Agency, the Administrator's duly authorized representative under this subpart. Allocate or allocation means, with regard to TR NO X Ozone Season allowances, the determination by the Administrator , State, or permitting authority, in accordance with this subpart and any SIP revision submitted by the State and approved by the Administrator under § 52.37(b)(3), (4), or (5) of this chapter, of the amount of such TR NO X Ozone Season allowances to be initially credited , at no cost to the recipient, to : (1) A TR NOX Ozone Seaso n unit; (2) A new unit set - aside ; (3) An Indian country new unit set - aside; or (4) An entity not listed in paragraphs (1) through (3) of this definition; (5) Provided that, if the Administrator, State, or permitting authority initially credits, to a TR NO X Ozone Season unit qualifying for an initial credit, a credit in the amount of zero TR NOX Ozone Season allowances, the TR NO X Ozone Season unit will be treated as being allocated an amount (i.e., zero) of TR NO X Ozone Season allowances.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 911 of 1339 Allowable NOX emission rate means, with regard to a unit, the most stringent State or federal NOX emission rate limit (in lb/MWhr or, if in lb/mmBtu, converted to lb/MWhr by multiplying it by the unit’s heat rate in mmBtu/MWhr) that is applicable to the unit and covers t he longest averaging period not exceeding one year. Allowance Management System means the system by which the Administrator records allocations, deductions, and transfers of TR NOX Ozone Season allowances under the TR NO X Ozone Season Trading Program. S uch allowances are allocated, recorded, held, deducted, or transferred only as whole allowances. Allowance Management System account means an account in the Allowance Management System established by the Administrator for purposes of recording the alloca tion, holding, transfer, or deduction of TR NOX Ozone Season allowances. Allowance transfer deadline means, for a control period in a given year , midnight of December 1 (if it is a business day), or midnight of the first business day thereafter (if Decembe r 1 is not a business day), immediately after such control period and is the deadline by which a TR NO X Ozone Season allowance transfer must be submitted for recordation in a TR NO X Ozone Season source's compliance account in order to be available for use in*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 912 of 1339 complying with the source's TR NO X Ozone Season emissions limitation for such control period in accordance with §§ 97.506 and 97.5 24. Alternate designated representative means, with regard to a TR NOX Ozone Season source and each TR NO X Ozone Season uni t at the source, the natural person who is authorized by the owners and operators of the source and all such units at the source, in accordance with this subpart, to act on behalf of the designated representative in matters pertaining to the TR NO X Ozone S eason Trading Program. If the TR NO X Ozone Season source is also subject to the Acid Rain Program, TR NO X Annual Trading Program, TR SO 2 Group 1 Trading Program, or TR SO 2 Group 2 Trading Program, then this natural person shall be the same natural person as the alternate designated representative , as defined in the respective program . Assurance account means an Allowance Management System account, established by the Administrator under § 97.5 25 (b)(3) for certain owners and operators of a group of one or mo re TR NOX Ozone Season source s and units in a given State , in which are held TR NOX Ozone Season allowances available for use for a control period in a given year in complying with the TR NO X Ozone Season assurance provisions in accordance with §§ 97.506 and 97.5 25.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 913 of 1339 Authorized account representative means, with regard to a general account, the natural person who is authorized, in accordance with this subpart, to transfer and otherwise dispose of TR NOX Ozone Season allowances held in the general account an d, with regard to a TR NO X Ozone Season source’s compliance account, the designated representative of the source. Automated data acquisition and handling system or DAHS means the component of the continuous emission monitoring system, or other emissions mo nitoring system approved for use under this subpart, designed to interpret and convert individual output signals from pollutant concentration monitors, flow monitors, diluent gas monitors, and other component parts of the monitoring system to produce a con tinuous record of the measured parameters in the measurement units required by this subpart. Biomass means— (1) Any organic material grown for the purpose of being converted to energy; (2) Any organic byproduct of agriculture that can be converted into en ergy; or (3) Any material that can be converted into energy and is nonmerchantable for other purposes, that is segregated from*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 914 of 1339 other material that is nonmerchantable for other purposes, and that is; (i) A forest - related organic resource, including mill res idues, precommercial thinnings, slash, brush, or byproduct from conversion of trees to merchantable material; or (ii) A wood material, including pallets, crates, dunnage, manufacturing and construction materials (other than pressure treated, chemically - tre ated, or painted wood products), and landscape or right - of - way tree trimmings. Boiler means an enclosed fossil - or other - fuel - fired combustion device used to produce heat and to transfer heat to recirculating water, steam, or other medium. Bottoming - cycle unit means a unit in which the energy input to the unit is first used to produce useful thermal energy, where at least some of the reject heat from the useful thermal energy application or process is then used for electricity production. Business day means a day that does not fall on a weekend or a federal holiday. Certifying official means a natural person who is:*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 915 of 1339 (1) For a corporation, a president, secretary, treasurer, or vice -president or the corporation in charge of a principal business function or any other person who performs similar policy - or decision -making functions for the corporation; (2) For a partnership or sole proprietorship, a general partner or the proprietor respectively; or (3) For a local government entity or State, federal, or other public agency, a principal executive officer or ranking elected official. Clean Air Act means the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. Coal means “coal” as defined in § 72.2 of this chapter . Coal - derived fuel means any fuel (whether in a solid, liquid, or gaseous state) produced by the mechanical, thermal, or chemical processing of coal. Cogeneration system means an integrated group, at a source, of equipment (including a boiler, or combustion turbine, and a steam turbine generator) designed to produce useful thermal energy for industrial, commercial, heating, or cooling purposes and electricity through the sequential use of energy.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 916 of 1339 Cogeneration unit means a stationary, fossil - fuel - fired boiler or stationary, fossil - fuel - fired combustion turbine

— (1) Operat ing as part of a cogeneration system; and (2) Producing on an Ozone Season average basis during the later of 2005 or the 12 -month period starting on the date that the unit first produces electricity and during each calendar year after the later of 2005 or the calendar year in which the unit first produces electricity

— (i) For a topping - cycle unit, (A) Useful thermal energy not less than 5 percent of total energy output; and (B) Useful power that, when added to one - half of useful thermal energy produced, is not less th an 42.5 percent of total energy input, if useful thermal energy produced is 15 percent or more of total energy output, or not less than 45 percent of total energy input, if useful thermal energy produced is less than 15 percent of total energy output. (ii) For a bottoming - cycle unit, useful power not less than 45 percent of total energy input;*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 917 of 1339 (3) Provided that the requirements in paragraph (2) of this definition shall not apply to a calendar year referenced in paragraph (2) of this definition during which the unit did not operate at all; ( 4 ) Provided that the total energy input under paragraphs (2)(i)(B) and (2)(ii) of this definition shall equal the unit's total energy input from all fuel, except biomass if the unit is a boiler; and ( 5 ) Provide d that, if , throughout its operation during the 12 - month period or a calendar year referenced in paragraph (2) of this definition, a unit is operated as part of a cogeneration system and the cogeneration system meets on a system- wide basis the requirement in paragraph (2)(i)(B) or (2)(ii) of this definition, the unit shall be deemed to meet such requirement during that 12 -month period or calendar year. Combustion turbine means an enclosed device comprising: (1) If the device is simple cycle, a compressor, a combustor, and a turbine and in which the flue gas resulting from the combustion of fuel in the combustor passes through the turbine, rotating the turbine; and*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 918 of 1339 (2) If the device is combined cycle, the equipment described in paragraph (1) of this definiti on and any associated duct burner, heat recovery steam generator, and steam turbine. Commence commercial operation means, with regard to a unit: (1) To have begun to produce steam, gas, or other heated medium used to generate electricity for sale or use, i ncluding test generation, except as provided in § 97.5 05. (i) For a unit that is a TR NO X Ozone Season unit under § 97.5 04 on the later of January 1, 2005 or the date the unit commences commercial operation as defined in the introductory text of paragraph (1 ) of this definition and that subsequently undergoes a physical change or is moved to a new location or source , such date shall remain the date of commencement of commercial operation of the unit, which shall continue to be treated as the same unit. (ii) For a unit that is a TR NO X Ozone Season unit under § 97.5 04 on the later of January 1, 2005 or the date the unit commences commercial operation as defined in the introductory text of paragraph (1) of this definition and that is subsequently replaced by a un it at the same or a different source, such date shall remain the replaced unit's date of commencement of commercial operation, and the replacement unit shall be treated*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 919 of 1339 as a separate unit with a separate date for commencement of commercial operation as def ined in paragraph (1) or (2) of this definition as appropriate. (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) of this definition and except as provided in § 97.5 05, for a unit that is not a TR NO X Ozone Season unit under § 97.5 04 on the later of January 1, 2005 or the date the unit commences commercial operation as defined in introductory text of paragraph (1) of this definition, the unit's date for commencement of commercial operation shall be the date on which the unit becomes a TR NO X Ozone Season unit under § 97.5 04. (i) For a unit with a date for commencement of commercial operation as defined in the introductory text of paragraph (2) of this definition and that subsequently undergoes a physical change) or is moved to a different location or source , such date shall remain the date of commencement of commercial operation of the unit, which shall continue to be treated as the same unit. (ii) For a unit with a date for commencement of commercial operation as defined in the introductory text of paragraph (2) of this defini tion and that is subsequently replaced by a unit at the same or a different source, such date shall remain the replaced unit's date of commencement of commercial operation,*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 920 of 1339 and the replacement unit shall be treated as a separate unit with a separate date f or commencement of commercial operation as defined in paragraph (1) or (2) of this definition as appropriate. Common designated representative means a designated representative where the same natural person is authorized under §§ 97.513(a) and 97.515(a) as the designated representative for a group of one or more TR NO X Ozone Season sources and units located in a State. Common designated representative’s assurance level means , with regard to a specific common designated representative and a State and control period in a given year for which the State assurance level is exceeded as described in § 97.5 06(c)(2)(iii), the common designated representative’s share of the State NO X Ozone Season trading budget with the one - year variability limit for the State for such control period. Common designated representative’s share means , with regard to a specific common designated representative : (1) With regard to a total amount of NO X emissions from all TR NOX Ozone Season units in a State during a control period in a gi ven year , the total tonnage of NO X emissions during such control period from a group of one or more TR NOX Ozone Season*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 921 of 1339 units located in the State and having the common designated representative as of the allowance transfer deadline for such control period ; (2) With regard to a State NO X Ozone Season trading budget for a control period in a given year , the amount (rounded to the nearest allowance) equal to the sum of the total amount of TR NOX Ozone Season allowances allocated for such control period to a group of one or more TR NOX Ozone Season units located in the State and having the common designated representative as of the allowance transfer deadline for such control period and of the total amount of TR NOX Ozone Season allowances purchased by an owne r or operator of such TR NOX Ozone Season units in an auction for such control period and submitted to the Administrator for recordation in the compliance account s for such TR NOX Ozone Season units in accordance with the TR NOX Ozone Season allowance auct ion provisions in a SIP revision approved by the Administrator under § 52.37(b)(4) or (5) of this chapter, multiplied by the sum of the State NO X Ozone Season trading budget under § 97.5 10(a) and the State’s one - year variability limit under § 97.5 10(b) for su ch control period and divided by such State NOX Ozone Season trading budget; (3) Provided that, in the case of a unit that operates during, but has no amount of TR NO X Ozone Season allowances allocated*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 922 of 13 39 under §§ 97.5 11 and 97.5 12 for, a control period in a given year , the unit shall be treated, solely for purposes of this definition, as being allocated an amount (rounded to the nearest allowance) of TR NOX Ozone Season allowances for such control period equal to the unit’s allowable NO X emission rate applicable to such control period, multiplied by a capacity factor of 0.8 9 (if the unit is a boiler combusting any amount of coal or coal derived fuel during such control period) , 0. 22 (if the unit is a simple combustion turbine during such control period ), 0. 73 (if the unit is a combined cycle turbine during such control period), 0.55 (if the unit is a boiler combusting only fuel oil or natural gas during such control period), or 0.75 (for any other unit) , multiplied by the unit’s maximum hourly load as reported in accordance with this subpart and by 3,672 hours/control period, and divided by 2,000 lb/ton . Common stack means a single flue through which emissions from 2 or more units are exhausted. Compliance account means an Allowance Management System account, established by the Administrator for a TR NO X Ozone Season source under this subpart, in which any TR NO X Ozone Season allowance allocations for the TR NO X Ozone Season units at the source are recorded and in which are held any TR NO X Ozone Season allowanc es available for use for a control period in a given year in*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 923 of 1339 complying with the source's TR NO X Ozone Season emissions limitation in accordance with §§ 97.506 and 97.5 24. Continuous emission monitoring system or CEMS means the equipment required under this subpart to sample, analyze, measure, and provide, by means of readings recorded at least once every 15 minutes and using an automated data acquisition and handling system (DAHS), a permanent record of NO X emissions, stack gas volumetric flow rate, stack gas moisture content, and O 2 or CO 2 concentration (as applicable), in a manner consistent with part 75 of this chapter and §§ 97.5 30 through 97.5 35. The following systems are the principal types of continuous emission monitoring systems: (1) A flow monitorin g system, consisting of a stack flow rate monitor and an automated data acquisition and handling system and providing a permanent, continuous record of stack gas volumetric flow rate, in standard cubic feet per hour (scfh); (2) A NOX concentration monitori ng system, consisting of a NO X pollutant concentration monitor and an automated data acquisition and handling system and providing a permanent, continuous record of NO X emissions, in parts per million (ppm); (3) A NOX emission rate (or NO X- diluent) monitor ing system, consisting of a NOX pollutant concentration monitor, a diluent*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 924 of 1339 gas (CO 2 or O 2 ) monitor, and an automated data acquisition and handling system and providing a permanent, continuous record of NOX concentration, in parts per million (ppm), diluent gas concentration, in percent CO 2 or O 2 , and NOX emission rate, in pounds per million British thermal units (lb/mmBtu); (4) A moisture monitoring system, as defined in §75.11(b)(2) of this chapter and providing a permanent, continuous record of the stack gas moisture content, in percent H 2 O; (5) A CO 2 monitoring system, consisting of a CO 2 pollutant concentration monitor (or an O 2 monitor plus suitable mathematical equations from which the CO 2 concentration is derived) and an automated data acquisition and handling system and providing a permanent, continuous record of CO 2 emissions, in percent CO 2 ; and (6) An O 2 monitoring system, consisting of an O 2 concentration monitor and an automated data acquisition and handling system and providing a permanent, cont inuous record of O 2 , in percent O 2 . Control period means the period starting May 1 of a calendar year, except as provided in § 97.5 06(c)(3), and ending on September 3 0 of the same year, inclusive.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 925 of 1339 Designated representative means, with regard to a TR NOX Ozo ne Season source and each TR NO X Ozone Season unit at the source, the natural person who is authorized by the owners and operators of the source and all such units at the source, in accordance with this subpart, to represent and legally bind each owner and operator in matters pertaining to the TR NO X Ozone Season Trading Program. If the TR NOX Ozone Season source is also subject to the Acid Rain Program, TR NO X Annual Trading Program, TR SO 2 Group 1 Trading Program, or TR SO 2 Group 2 Trading Program, then this natural person shall be the same natural person as the designated representative, as defined in the respective program . Emissions means air pollutants exhausted from a unit or source into the atmosphere, as measured, recorded, and reported to the Administrator by the designated representative , and as modified by the Administrator : (1 ) In accordance with this subpart ; and (2) With regard to a period before the unit or source is required to measure, record, and report such air pollutants in accordance w ith this subpart, in accordance with part 75 of this chapter . Excess emissions means any ton of emissions from the TR NOX Ozone Season units at a TR NOX Ozone Season source during a control*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 926 of 1339 period in a given year that exceeds the TR NO X Ozone Season emissi ons limitation for the source for such control period . Fossil fuel means— (1) Natural gas, petroleum, coal, or any form of solid, liquid, or gaseous fuel derived from such material; or (2) For purposes of applying the limitation on “average Ozone Season fu el consumption of fossil fuel” in §§ 97.5 04(b)(2)(i)(B) and (ii), natural gas, petroleum, coal, or any form of solid, liquid, or gaseous fuel derived from such material for the purpose of creating useful heat. Fossil - fuel - fired means, with regard to a unit, combusting any amount of fossil fuel in 2005 or any calendar year thereafter. Fuel oil means “fuel oil” as defined in § 72.2 of this chapter . General account means an Allowance Management System account, established under this subpart, that is not a compli ance account or an assurance account . Generator means a device that produces electricity. Gross electrical output means, for a unit, electricity made available for use, including any such electricity used in the power production process (which process incl udes, but is not*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 927 of 1339 limited to, any on - site processing or treatment of fuel combusted at the unit and any on - site emission controls). Heat input means, for a unit for a specified period of time, the product (in mmBtu/time) of the gross calorific value of the fuel (in mmBtu/lb) fed into the unit multiplied by the fuel feed rate (in lb of fuel/time), as measured, recorded, and reported to the Administrator by the designated representative and as modified by the Administrator in accordance with this subpart and e xcluding the heat derived from preheated combustion air, recirculated flue gases, or exhaust.
Heat input rate means , for a unit, the amount of heat input (in mmBtu) divided by unit operating time (in hr) or, with regard to a specific fuel, the amount of he at input attributed to the fuel (in mmBtu) divided by the unit operating time (in hr) during which the unit combusts the fuel.
Heat rate means , for a unit, the unit’s maximum design heat input (in Btu/hr), divided by the product of 1,000 ,000 Btu / mmBtu and the unit’s maximum hourly load. Indian country means, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151: (1) All land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States Government,*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 928 of 1339 notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and, including rights - of - way running through the reservation; (2) All dependent Indian communities within the borders of the United States whether within the original or subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or without the limits of a state; and (3 ) All Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights - of - way running through the same. Life 

### - of - the - unit, firm power contractual arrangement means a unit participation power sales agreement under which a utility or industrial customer reserves, or is entitled to receive, a specified amount or percentage of nameplate capacity and associated energy generated by any specified unit and pays its proportional amount of such unit's total costs, pursuant to a contract: (1) For the life of the unit; (2) For a cumulative term of no less than 30 years, including contracts that permit an election for early termination; or (3) For a period no less than 25 years or 70 percent of the economic useful life of the unit determined as o f the time the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 929 of 1339 unit is built, with option rights to purchase or release some portion of the nameplate capacity and associated energy generated by the unit at the end of the period. Maximum design heat input means , for a unit, the maximum amount of fuel per hour (in Btu/hr) that the unit is capable of combusting on a steady state basis as of the initial installation of the unit as specified by the manufacturer of the unit. Monitoring system means any monitoring system that meets the requirements of this subp art, including a continuous emission monitoring system, an alternative monitoring system, or an excepted monitoring system under part 75 of this chapter. Nameplate capacity means, starting from the initial installation of a generator, the maximum electrica l generating output (in MWe , rounded to the nearest tenth ) that the generator is capable of producing on a steady state basis and during continuous operation (when not restricted by seasonal or other deratings) as of such installation as specified by the manufacturer of the generator or, starting from the completion of any subsequent physical change in the generator resulting in an increase in the maximum electrical generating output that the generator is capable of producing on a steady state basis and dur ing*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 930 of 1339 continuous operation (when not restricted by seasonal or other deratings), such increased maximum amount (in MWe , rounded to the nearest tenth ) as of such completion as specified by the person conducting the physical change. Natural gas means “natural gas” as defined in § 72.2 of this chapter. Newly affected TR NO X Ozone Season unit means a unit that was not a TR NOX Ozone Season unit when it began operating but that thereafter becomes a TR NO X Ozone Season unit. Operate or operation means, with regard to a unit, to combust fuel. Operator means , with regard to a TR NOX Ozone Season source or a TR NOX Ozone Season unit at a source respectively , any person who operates, controls, or supervises a TR NO X Ozone Season unit at the source or the TR NOX Ozone Se ason unit and shall include, but not be limited to, any holding company, utility system, or plant manager of such source or unit.
Owner means , with regard to a TR NO X Ozone Season source or a TR NOX Ozone Season unit at a source respectively, any of the fo llowing persons:*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 931 of 1339 (1) Any holder of any portion of the legal or equitable title in a TR NOX Ozone Season unit at the source or the TR NO X Ozone Season unit; (2) Any holder of a leasehold interest in a TR NO X Ozone Season unit at the source or the TR NO X Ozo ne Season unit, provided that, unless expressly provided for in a leasehold agreement, “owner” shall not include a passive lessor, or a person who has an equitable interest through such lessor, whose rental payments are not based (either directly or indire ctly) on the revenues or income from such TR NO X Ozone Season unit; and (3) Any purchaser of power from a TR NO X Ozone Season unit at the source or the TR NOX Ozone Season unit under a life - of - the - unit, firm power contractual arrangement. Permanently ret ired means, with regard to a unit, a unit that is unavailable for service and that the unit’s owners and operators do not expect to return to service in the future. Permitting authority means “permitting authority” as defined in §§70.2 and 71.2 of this ch apter. Potential electrical output capacity means , for a unit, 33 percent of the unit's maximum design heat input, divided by*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 932 of 1339 3,413 Btu/kWh, divided by 1,000 kWh/MWh, and multiplied by 8,760 hr/yr. Receive or receipt of means, when referring to the Adminis trator, to come into possession of a document, information, or correspondence (whether sent in hard copy or by authorized electronic transmission), as indicated in an official log, or by a notation made on the document, information, or correspondence, by t he Administrator in the regular course of business. Recordation, record, or recorded means, with regard to TR NO X Ozone Season allowances, the moving of TR NO X Ozone Season allowances by the Administrator into, out of, or between Allowance Management System accounts, for purposes of allocation, auction, transfer, or deduction. Reference method means any direct test method of sampling and analyzing for an air pollutant as specified in §75.22 of this chapter. Replacement, replace, or replaced means, with rega rd to a unit, the demolishing of a unit, or the permanent retirement and permanent disabling of a unit, and the construction of another unit (the replacement unit) to be used instead of the demolished or retired unit (the replaced unit).*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 933 of 1339 Sequential use of energy means: (1) For a topping - cycle unit, the use of reject heat from electricity production in a useful thermal energy application or process; or (2) For a bottoming - cycle unit, the use of reject heat from useful thermal energy application or process in electricity production. Serial number means, for a TR NOX Ozone Season allowance, the unique identification number assigned to each TR NO X Ozone Season allowance by the Administrator. Solid waste incineration unit means a stationary, fossil - fuel fired boi ler or stationary, fossil - fuel - fired combustion turbine that is a “solid waste incineration unit” as defined in section 129(g)(1) of the Clean Air Act.
Source means all buildings, structures, or installations located in one or more contiguous or adjacent p roperties under common control of the same person or persons. This definition does not change or otherwise affect the definition of “major source”, “stationary source”, or “source” as set forth and implemented in a title V operating permit program or any other program under the Clean Air Act.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 934 of 1339 State means one of the States that is subject to the TR NO X Ozone Season Trading Program pursuant to §52.37( b ) of this chapter and, when used to refer to a geographic area, includes Indian country located within the borders of such State . Submit or serve means to send or transmit a document, information, or correspondence to the person specified in accordance with the applicable regulation: (1) In person; (2) By United States Postal Service; or (3) By other means of dispatch or transmission and delivery; (4) Provided that compliance with any “submission” or “service” deadline shall be determined by the date of dispatch, transmission, or mailing and not the date of receipt. Topping - cycle unit means a unit in which the energy input to the unit is first used to produce useful power, including electricity, where at least some of the reject heat from the electricity production is then used to provide useful thermal energy. Total energy input means , for a unit, total energy of all forms supplied to the unit, excluding energy produced by the unit.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 935 of 1339 Each form of energy supplied shall be measured by the lower heating value of that form of energy calculated as follows:
LHV = HHV − 10.55(W + 9H) Where: LHV = lower heating value of the form of energy in Btu/lb, HHV = higher heating value of the form of energy in Btu/lb, W = weight % of moisture in the form of energy, and H = weight % of hydrogen in the form of energy. Total energy output means , for a unit, the sum of useful power and useful thermal energy produced by the unit.
TR NOX Annual Trading Program means a multi - state NOX air pollution control and emission reduction program established in accordance with subpart AAAAA of this part and § 52.37(a) of this chapter (including such a program that is revised in a SIP revision approved by the Administrator under §52.37(a)(3) or (4) of this chapter) or with a SIP revision approved by the Administrator under §52.37(a)(5) of this chapter , as a means of mitigating interstate transport of f ine particulates and NO X .*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 936 of 1339 TR NOX Ozone Season allowance means a limited authorization issued and allocated or auctioned by the Administrator under this subpart , or by a State or permitting authority under a SIP revision approved by the Administrator under §52.37(b)(3), (4), or (5) of this chapter, to emit one ton of NO X during a control period of the specified calendar year for which the authorization is allocated or auctioned or of any calendar year thereafter under the TR NO X Ozone Season Trading Program.
TR NOX Ozone Season allowance deduction or deduct TR NOX Ozone Season allowances means the permanent withdrawal of TR NO X Ozone Season allowances by the Administrator from a compliance account ( e.g., in order to account for compliance with the TR NO X Ozo ne Season emissions limitation ) or from an assurance account (e.g., in order to account for compliance with the assurance provisions ) . TR NOX Ozone Season allowances held or hold TR NOX Ozone Season allowances means the TR NOX Ozone Season allowances tre ated as included in an Allowance Management System account as of a specified point in time because at that time they: (1) Have been recorded by the Administrator in the account or transferred into the account by a correctly submitted, but not*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 937 of 1339 yet recorded, TR NOX Ozone Season allowance transfer in accordance with this subpart; and (2) Have not been transferred out of the account by a correctly submitted, but not yet recorded, TR NO X Ozone Season allowance transfer in accordance with this subpart.
TR NOX Ozo ne Season emissions limitation means, for a TR NOX Ozone Season source, the tonnage of NO X emissions authorized in a control period in a given year by the TR NOX Ozone Season allowances available for deduction for the source under § 97.5 24(a) for such contr ol period.
TR NOX Ozone Season source means a source that includes one or more TR NOX Ozone Season units.
TR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program means a multi - state NOX air pollution control and emission reduction program established in accordance with this s ubpart and § 52.37(b) of this chapter (including such a program that is revised by a State in a SIP revision approved by the Administrator under §52.37(b)(3) or (4) of this chapter) or with a SIP revision approved by the Administrator under §52.37(b)(5) of this chapter , as a means of mitigating interstate transport of ozone and NO X .*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 938 of 1339 TR NOX Ozone Season unit means a unit that is subject to the TR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program.
TR SO 2 Group 1 Trading Program means a multi - state SO 2 air pollution control and emission reduction program established in accordance with subpart CCCCC of this part and 52.38(b) of this chapter (including such a program that is revised by a State in a SIP revision approved by the Administrator under §52.38(d) or (e) of this chapter) or with a SIP revision approved by the Administrator under §52.38(f) of this chapter , as a means of mitigating interstate transport of fine particulates and SO 2 . TR SO 2 Group 2 Trading Program means a multi - state SO 2 air pollution control and emission redu ction program established in accordance with subpart DDDDD of this part and 52.38(c) of this chapter (including such a program that is revised by a State in a SIP revision approved by the Administrator under §52.38(g) or (h) of this chapter) or with a SIP revision approved by the Administrator under §52.38(i) of this chapter , as a means of mitigating interstate transport of fine particulates and SO 2 . Unit means a stationary, fossil - fuel - fired boiler, stationary, fossil - fuel - fired combustion turbine, or othe r stationary, fossil - fuel - fired combustion device. A unit that undergoes a physical change or is moved to a different location or source*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 939 of 1339 shall continue to be treated as the same unit. A unit (the replaced unit) that is replaced by another unit (the repla cement unit) at the same or a different source shall continue to be treated as the same unit, and the replacement unit shall be treated as a separate unit . Unit operating day means , with regard to a unit, a calendar day in which the unit combusts any fuel. Unit operating hour or hour of unit operation means , with regard to a unit, an hour in which the unit combusts any fuel. Useful power means , with regard to a unit, electricity or mechanical energy that the unit makes available for use, excluding any such energy used in the power production process (which process includes, but is not limited to, any on - site processing or treatment of fuel combusted at the unit and any on - site emission controls). Useful thermal energy means thermal energy that is: (1) Made available to an industrial or commercial process (not a power production process), excluding any heat contained in condensate return or makeup water; (2) Used in a heating application ( e.g., space heating or domestic hot water heating); or*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 940 of 1339 (3) Used in a spa ce cooling application ( i.e., in an absorption chiller). Utility power distribution system means the portion of an electricity grid owned or operated by a utility and dedicated to delivering electricity to customers. § 97.5 03 Measurements, abbreviations, and acronyms. Measurements, abbreviations, and acronyms used in this subpart are defined as follows:
Btu
—British thermal unit
CO 2—carbon dioxide
H 2 O
—water hr
—hour kW
—kilowatt electrical kWh
—kilowatt hour lb
—pound
mmBtu
—million Btu
MWe
—megawatt electrical*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 941 of 1339 MWh
—megawatt hour NOX—nitrogen oxides
O 2—oxygen ppm—parts per million scfh
—standard cubic feet per hour
SO 2—sulfur dioxide
yr—year § 97.5 04 Applicability. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section: (1) The following units in a State (includin g Indian country located within the borders of such State) shall be TR NOX Ozone Season units, and any source that includes one or more such units shall be a TR NO X Ozone Season source, subject to the requirements of this subpart: any stationary, fossil - fu el - fired boiler or stationary, fossil - fuel - fired combustion turbine serving at any time, on or after January 1, 2005 , a generator with nameplate capacity of more than 25 MWe producing electricity for sale.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 942 of 1339 (2) If a stationary boiler or stationary combustio n turbine that, under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, is not a TR NO X Ozone Season unit begins to combust fossil fuel or to serve a generator with nameplate capacity of more than 25 MWe producing electricity for sale, the unit shall become a TR NO X Ozone Season unit as provided in paragraph (a)(1) of this section on the first date on which it both combusts fossil fuel and serves such generator. (b) Any unit in a State (including Indian country located within the borders of such State) that otherwise is a TR NOX Ozone Season unit under paragraph (a) of this section and that meets the requirements set forth in paragraph (b)(1)(i), (b)(2)(i), or (b)(2)(ii) of this section shall not be a TR NO X Ozone Season unit: (1)(i) Any unit: (A) Qualifying as a cogenerati on unit throughout the later of 2005 or the 12 -month period starting on the date the unit first produces electricity and continuing to qualify as a cogeneration unit; and (B) Not supplying in 2005 or any calendar year thereafter more than one - third of the unit's potential electric output capacity*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 943 of 1339 or 219,000 MWh, whichever is greater, to any utility power distribution system for sale. (ii) If a unit qualifies as a cogeneration unit throughout the later of 2005 or the 12 -month period starting on the date the unit first produces electricity and meets the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1)(i) of this section for at least one calendar year, but subsequently no longer meets such qualification and requirements, the unit shall become a TR NO X Ozone Season unit start ing on the earlier of January 1 after the first calendar year during which the unit first no longer qualifies as a cogeneration unit or January 1 after the first calendar year during which the unit no longer meets the requirements of paragraph (b)(1)(i)(B) of this section. (2)(i) Any unit: (A) Qualifying as a solid waste incineration unit throughout the later of 2005 or the 12 -month period starting on the date the unit first produces electricity and continuing to qualify as a solid waste incineration unit; and (B) With an average Ozone Season fuel consumption of fossil fuel for the first 3 consecutive calendar years of operation starting no earlier than 2005 of less than 20 percent (on a Btu basis) and an average Ozone Season fuel consumption of fossil fuel for*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 944 of 1339 any 3 consecutive calendar years thereafter of less than 20 percent (on a Btu basis). (ii) If a unit qualifies as a solid waste incineration unit throughout the later of 2005 or the 12 -month period starting on the date the unit first produces electrici ty and meets the requirements of paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section for at least 3 consecutive calendar years, but subsequently no longer meets such qualification and requirements, the unit shall become a TR NOX Ozone Season unit starting on the earlier o f January 1 after the first calendar year during which the unit first no longer qualifies as a solid waste incineration unit or January 1 after the first 3 consecutive calendar years after 2005 for which the unit has an average Ozone Season fuel consumptio n of fossil fuel of 20 percent or more. (c) A certifying official of an owner or operator of any unit or other equipment may submit a petition (including any supporting documents) to the Administrator at any time for a determination concerning the applicab ility, under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, of the TR NO X Ozone Season Trading Program to the unit or other equipment. (1) Petition content. The petition shall be in writing and include the identification of the unit or other equipment and*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 945 of 1339 the rel evant facts about the unit or other equipment. The petition and any other documents provided to the Administrator in connection with the petition shall include the following certification statement, signed by the certifying official: “I am authorized to ma ke this submission on behalf of the owners and operators of the unit or other equipment for which the submission is made. I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined, and am familiar with, the statements and information submitted in this document and all its attachments. Based on my inquiry of those individuals with primary responsibility for obtaining the information, I certify that the statements and information are to the best of my knowledge and belief true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false statements and information or omitting required statements and information, including the possibility of fine or imprisonment.” (2) Response. The Administrator will issue a written response to the petition and may request supplemental information determined by the Administrator to be relevant to such petition. The Administrator's determination concerning the applicability, under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, of the TR NO X Ozone Sea son Trading Program to the unit or other equipment shall be binding on any State or permitting authority unless the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 946 of 1339 Administrator determines that the petition or other documents or information provided in connection with the petition contained significant, relevant errors or omissions. § 97.5 05 Retired unit exemption. (a)(1) Any TR NOX Ozone Season unit that is permanently retired shall be exempt from § 97.5 06(b) and (c)(1), § 97.5 24, and §§ 97.5 30 through 97.5 35. (2) The exemption under paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall become effective the day on which the TR NO X Ozone Season unit is permanently retired. Within 30 days of the unit's permanent retirement, the designated representative shall submit a statement to the Administrator. The statement shall s tate, in a format prescribed by the Administrator, that the unit was permanently retired on a specified date and will comply with the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section. (b) Special provisions. (1) A unit exempt under paragraph (a) of this secti on shall not emit any NO X , starting on the date that the exemption takes effect. (2) For a period of 5 years from the date the records are created, the owners and operators of a unit exempt under paragraph (a) of this section shall retain, at the source th at*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 947 of 1339 includes the unit, records demonstrating that the unit is permanently retired. The 5 - year period for keeping records may be extended for cause, at any time before the end of the period, in writing by the Administrator. The owners and operators bear the burden of proof that the unit is permanently retired. (3) The owners and operators and, to the extent applicable, the designated representative of a unit exempt under paragraph (a) of this section shall comply with the requirements of the TR NO X Ozone Seas on Trading Program concerning all periods for which the exemption is not in effect, even if such requirements arise, or must be complied with, after the exemption takes effect. (4) A unit exempt under paragraph (a) of this section shall lose its exemption on the first date on which the unit resumes operation. Such unit shall be treated, for purposes of applying allocation, monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements under this subpart, as a unit that commences commercial operation on the first dat e on which the unit resumes operation. § 97.5 06 Standard requirements. (a) Designated representative requirements . The owners and operators shall comply with the requirement to have a designated*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 948 of 1339 representative, and may have an alternate designated repres entative, in accordance with §§ 97.5 13 through 97.5 18. (b) Emissions monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements . (1) The owners and operators, and the designated representative, of each TR NO X Ozone Season source and each TR NOX Ozone Season uni t at the source shall comply with the monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements of §§ 97.5 30 through 97.5 35. (2) The emissions data determined in accordance with §§ 97.5 30 through 97.5 35 shall be used to calculate allocations of TR NO X Ozone Seas on allowances under §§ 97.5 11(a)(2) and (b) and 97.5 12 and to determine compliance with the TR NO X Ozone Season emissions limitation and assurance provisions under paragraph (c) of this section, provided that, for each monitoring location from which mass emissions are reported, the mass emissions amount used in calculating such allocations and determining such compliance shall be the mass emissions amount for the monitoring location determined in accordance with §§ 97.5 30 through 97.5 35 and rounded to the nea rest ton, with any fraction of a ton less than 0.50 being deemed to be zero. (c) NOX emissions requirements . (1) TR NOX Ozone Season emissions limitation. (i) As of the allowance transfer deadline*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 949 of 1339 for a control period in a given year , the owners and opera tors of each TR NOX Ozone Season source and each TR NO X Ozone Season unit at the source shall hold, in the source's compliance account, TR NOX Ozone Season allowances available for deduction for such control period under § 97.5 24(a) in an amount not less th an the tons of total NO X emissions for such control period from all TR NOX Ozone Season units at the source. (ii) If total NOX emissions during a control period in a given year from the TR NOX Ozone Season units at a TR NOX Ozone Season source are in exces s of the TR NOX Ozone Season emissions limitation set forth in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section, then: (A) The owners and operators of the source and each TR NO X Ozone Season unit at the source shall hold the TR NO X Ozone Season allowances required for deduction under § 97.5 24(d) ; and (B) The owners and operators of the source and each TR NOX Ozone Season unit at the source shall pay any fine, penalty, or assessment or comply with any other remedy imposed, for the same violations, under the Clean Air Ac t , and e ach ton of such excess emissions and each day of such control period shall constitute a separate violation of this subpart and the Clean Air Act.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 950 of 1339 (2) TR NOX Ozone Season assurance provisions. (i) If total NOX emissions during a control period in a given year from all TR NOX Ozone Season units at TR NOX Ozone Season sources in a State exceed the State assurance level, then the owners and operators of such sources and units in each group of one or more sources and units having a common designated representative (as of the allowance transfer deadline for such control period) where the common designated representative’s share of such NOX emissions during such control period exceeds the common designated representative’s assurance level for the State an d such control period shall hold, in the assurance account established for the owners and operators of such group , TR NOX Ozone Season allowances available for deduction for such control period under § 97.5 25(a) in an amount equal to the product (rounded t o the nearest whole number), as determined by the Administrator in accordance with § 97.5 25(b), of multiplying

— (A) The quotient of the amount by which the common designated representative’s share of such NOX emissions exceeds the common designated represen tative’s assurance level divided by the sum of the amounts, determined for all common designated representatives for such sources and units in the State for such control period , by which each common designated representative’s*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 951 of 1339 share of such NOX emissions e xceeds the respective common designated representative’s assurance level; and (B) Two times the amount by which total NO X emissions from all TR NOX Ozone Season units at TR NOX Ozone Season sources in the State for such control period exceed the State assu rance level. (ii) The owner s and operators shall hold the TR NO X Ozone Season allowances required under paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section, as of midnight of November 1 (if it is a business day), or midnight of the first business day thereafter (if November 1 is not a business day), immediately after such control period. (iii) Total NOX emissions from all TR NO X Ozone Season units at TR NOX Ozone Season sources in a State during a control period in a given year exceed the State assurance level if such t otal NOX emissions exceed the sum, for such control period, of the State NOX Ozone Season trading budget under § 97.5 10( a ) and the State’s one - year variability limit under § 97.5 10(b) . (iv) It shall not be a violation of this subpart or of the Clean Air Act if total NOX emissions from all TR NO X Ozone Season units at TR NOX Ozone Season sources in a State during a control period exceed the State assurance level or if a common designated representative’s share of total NOX emissions from the TR NO X Ozone Seaso n units at TR NOX Ozone Season sources in a State*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 952 of 1339 during a control period exceeds the common designated representative’s assurance level. (v) To the extent the owners and operators fail to hold TR NOX Ozone Season allowances for a control period in a given year in accordance with paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section, (A) The owner s and operators shall pay any fine, penalty, or assessment or comply with any other remedy imposed under the Clean Air Act; and (B) Each TR NOX Ozone Season allowance that the owner s and operators fail to hold for such control period in accordance with paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section and each day of such control period shall constitute a separate violation of this subpart and the Clean Air Act. (3 ) Compliance periods. A TR NOX Ozone Season unit shall be subject to the requirements under paragraph s (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section for the control period starting on the later of May 1, 2012 or the deadline for meeting the unit's monitor certificati on requirements under § 97.5 30(b) and for each control period thereafter.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 953 of 1339 (4) Vintage of deducted allowances. A TR NO X Ozone Season allowance shall not be deducted, for compliance with the requirements under paragraphs (c)(1) (i) and (2) (i) through (iii) of this section, for a control period in a calendar year before the year for which the TR NO X Ozone Season allowance was allocated. (5) Allowance Management System requirements. Each TR NO X Ozone Season allowance shall be held in, deducted from, or transferre d into, out of, or between Allowance Management System accounts in accordance with this subpart. (6) Limited authorization. A TR NO X Ozone Season allowance is a limited authorization to emit one ton of NO X during the control period in one year. Such autho rization is limited in its use and duration as follows: (i) Such authorization shall only be used in accordance with the TR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program ; and (ii) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subpart, the Administrator has the authority to terminate or limit the use and duration of such authorization to the extent the Administrator determines is necessary or appropriate to implement any provision of the Clean Air Act.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 954 of 1339 (7) Property right. A TR NO X Ozone Season allowance does not constit ute a property right. (d) Title V p ermit requirements . (1) No title V permit revision shall be required for any allocation, holding, deduction, or transfer of TR NOX Ozone Season allowances in accordance with this subpart. (2) A description of whether a unit is required to monitor and report NOX emissions using a continuous emission monitoring system (under subpart H of part 75 of this chapter), an excepted monitoring system (under appendices D and E to part 75 of this chapter), a low mass emissions except ed monitoring methodology (under §75.19 of this chapter), or an alternative monitoring system (under subpart E of part 75 of this chapter) in accordance with §§ 97.5 30 through 97.5 35 may be added to, or changed in, a title V permit using minor permit modifi cation procedures in accordance with §§70.7(e)(2) and 71.7(e)(1) of this chapter, provided that the requirements applicable to the described monitoring and reporting (as added or changed, respectively) are already incorporated in such permit. This paragraph explicitly provides that the addition of, or change to, a unit’s description as described in the prior sentence is eligible for minor permit modification procedures in accordance with §§70.7(e)(2)(i)(B) and 71.7(e)(1)(i)(B) of this chapter.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 955 of 1339 (e) Additio nal r ecordkeeping and reporting requirements . (1) Unless otherwise provided, the owners and operators of each TR NOX Ozone Season source and each TR NO X Ozone Season unit at the source shall keep on site at the source each of the following documents (in h ardcopy or electronic format) for a period of 5 years from the date the document is created. This period may be extended for cause, at any time before the end of 5 years, in writing by the Administrator. (i) The certificate of representation under § 97.5 16 for the designated representative for the source and each TR NO X Ozone Season unit at the source and all documents that demonstrate the truth of the statements in the certificate of representation; provided that the certificate and documents shall be reta ined on site at the source beyond such 5 - year period until such certificate of representation and documents are superseded because of the submission of a new certificate of representation under § 97.5 16 changing the designated representative. (ii) All emiss ions monitoring information, in accordance with this subpart. (iii) Copies of all reports, compliance certifications, and other submissions and all records made or required under, or to*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 956 of 1339 demonstrate compliance with the requirements of, the TR NO X Ozone Seas on Trading Program. (2) The designated representative of a TR NO X Ozone Season source and each TR NO X Ozone Season unit at the source shall make all submissions required under the TR NO X Ozone Season Trading Program. This requirement does not change, crea te an exemption from, or or otherwise affect the responsible official submission requirements under a title V operating permit program in parts 70 and 71 of this chapter. (f) Liability . (1) Any provision of the TR NO X Ozone Season Trading Program that applies to a TR NOX Ozone Season source or the designated representative of a TR NO X Ozone Season source shall also apply to the owners and operators of such source and of the TR NOX Ozone Season units at the source. (2) Any provision of the TR NO X Ozone Sea son Trading Program that applies to a TR NOX Ozone Season unit or the designated representative of a TR NO X Ozone Season unit shall also apply to the owners and operators of such unit. (g) Effect on other authorities . No provision of the TR NO X Ozone Seas on Trading Program or exemption under § 97.5 05 shall be construed as exempting or excluding the owners and operators, and the designated representative, of a TR NO X Ozone Season source or TR NOX Ozone Season unit from compliance with any other*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 957 of 1339 provision of the applicable, approved State implementation plan, a federally enforceable permit, or the Clean Air Act. § 97.5 07 Computation of time. (a) Unless otherwise stated, any time period scheduled, under the TR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program, to begin on the occurrence of an act or event shall begin on the day the act or event occurs. (b) Unless otherwise stated, any time period scheduled, under the TR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program, to begin before the occurrence of an act or event shall be computed so tha t the period ends the day before the act or event occurs. (c) Unless otherwise stated, if the final day of any time period, under the TR NO X Ozone Season Trading Program, is not a business day , the time period shall be extended to the next business day. § 97.5 08 Administrative appeal procedures. The administrative appeal procedures for decisions of the Administrator under the TR NO X Ozone Season Trading Program are set forth in part 78 of this chapter. § 97.5 09 [Reserved]*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 958 of 1339 § 97.5 10 State NOX Ozone Season trading budgets, new unit setasides, Indian country new unit set- aside, and variability limits. (a) The State NOX Ozone Season trading budgets , new unit set asides , and Indian country new unit set - asides for allocations of TR NOX Ozone Season allowances for the control periods in 2012 and thereafter are as follows:

State NOX Annual trading

budget (tons)* for 2012 and 2013 New unit set aside (tons) for 2012 and 2013 Indian country new

unit set - aside (tons) for 2012 and 2013 Alabama 31,746 635 --- Ar kansas 15,037 301 --- Florida 27,825 529 28 Georgia 27,944 559 --- Illinois 21,208 1,697 --- Indiana 46,876 1,406 --- Kentucky 36,167 1,447 --- Louisiana 13,432 390 13 Maryland 7,179 144 --- Mississippi 10,160 193 10 New Jersey 3,382 68 --- New Y ork 8,331 242 8 North Carolina 22,168 1,308 22 Ohio 40,063 801 --- Pennsylvania 52,201 1,044 --- South Carolina 13,909 264 14 Tennessee 14,908 298 --- Texas 63,043 1,828 63 Virginia 14,452 723 --- West Virginia 25,283 1,264 ---*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 95 9 of 1339 State NOX Ozone Se ason

trading budget (tons)* for 2014 and thereafter New unit set aside (tons) for 2014 and thereafter Indian country

new unit set aside (tons) for 2014 and thereafter Alabama 31,499 630 --- Arkansas 15,037 301 --- Florida 27,825 529 28 Georgia 18, 279 366 --- Illinois 21,208 1,697 --- Indiana 46,175 1,385 --- Kentucky 32,674 1,307 --- Louisiana 13,432 390 13 Maryland 7,179 144 --- Mississippi 10,160 193 10 New Jersey 3,382 68 --- New York 8,331 242 8 North Carolina 18,455 1,089 18 Ohio 37, 792 756 --- Pennsylvania 51,912 1,038 --- South Carolina 13,909 264 14 Tennessee 8,016 160 --- Texas 63,043 1,828 63 Virginia 14,452 723 --- West Virginia 23,291 1,165 --- * Each trading budget includes the new unit set - aside and, where applicable, the Indian country new unit set - aside and does not include the variability limit. (b) The States’ one - year variability limits for the State NO X Ozone Season trading budgets for the control periods in 201 2 and thereafter are as follows:*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 960 of 1339 State One - year vari ability limits for 2012 and 2013 One - year variability limits for 2014 and thereafter Alabama 7,269 7,196 Georgia 6,201 4,054 Illinois 4,787 4,787 Indiana 10,973 10,842 Iowa 3,834 3,750 Kansas 3,071 2,556 Kentucky 8,509 7,724 Maryland 1,663 1,65 7 Michigan 6,019 5,781 Minnesota 2,957 2,957 Missouri 5,237 4,872 Nebraska 2,644 2,644 New Jersey 727 727 New York 2,631 2,631 North Carolina 5,059 4,155 Ohio 9,270 8,749 Pennsylvania 11,999 11,919 South Carolina 3,250 3,250 Tennessee 3,570 1,93 4 Texas 13,360 13,360 Virginia 3,324 3,324 West Virginia 5,947 5,458 Wisconsin 3,163 3,040

§ 97.5 11 Timing requirements for TR NOX Ozone Season allowance allocations. (a) Existing units . (1) TR NOX Ozone Season allowances are allocated, for the con trol periods in 2012 and each year thereafter, as provided in a notice of data availability issued by the Administrator . Providing an allocation for a unit in such*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 961 of 1339 notice does not constitute a determination that the unit is a TR NOX Ozone Season unit, and not providing an allocation for a unit in such notice does not constitute a determination that the unit is not a TR NOX Ozone Season unit. (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (a)(1) of this section, if a unit provided an allocation in the notice of data availab ility issued under paragraph (a)(1) of this section does not operate, starting after 2011, during the control period in two consecutive years, such unit will not be allocated the TR NO X Ozone Season allowances provided in such notice for the unit for the c ontrol periods in the fifth year after the first such year and in each year after that fifth year. All TR NOX Ozone Season allowances that would otherwise have been allocated to such unit will be allocated to the new unit set - aside for the State where such unit is located and for the respective years involved. If such unit resumes operation, the Administrator will allocate TR NOX Ozone Season allowances to the unit in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section. (b) New units . (1) New unit set - asides. (i) By June 1, 2012 and June 1 of each year thereafter, the Administrator will calculate the TR NOX Ozone Season allowance allocation for each TR NOX Ozone Season unit, in accordance with § 97.5 12 (a)(1) through (8) , for the control period in the year of t he*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 962 of 1339 applicable calculation deadline under this paragraph and will promulgate a notice of data availability of the results of the calculations. ( ii ) For each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(1) (i) of this section, the Administrator will provide an opportunity for submission of objections to the calculations referenced in such notice. ( A ) Objections shall be submitted by the deadline specified in each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(1) (i) of this section and shall b e limited to addressing whether the calculations are in accordance with § 97.5 12 (a)(1) through (8) and §§ 97.5 06(b)(2) and 97.5 30 through 97.5 35. ( B ) The Administrator will adjust the calculations to the extent necessary to ensure that they are in accordanc e with the provisions referenced in paragraph (b)( 1 )(i i ) (A) of this section. By August 1 immediately after the promulgation of each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(1) (i) of this section, the Administrator will promulgate a notice of data availability of any adjustments that the Administrator determines to be necessary with regard to allocations under § 97.5 12 (a)(1) through (8) and the reasons for accepting or*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 963 of 1339 rejecting any objections submitted in accordance with paragraph (b)( 1 )(i i ) (A) of this section . (iii) If the new unit set - aside for such control period contains any TR NOX Ozone Season allowances that have not been allocated in the applicable notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(1) (ii) of this section , the Adminis trator will promulgate, by September 15 immediately after such notice, a notice of data availability that identifies any TR NOX Ozone Season units that commenced commercial operation during the period starting May 1 of the year before the year of such cont rol period and ending August 31 of year of such control period . ( iv ) For each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(1) (iii) of this section, the Administrator will provide an opportunity for submission of objections to the identification of TR NOX Ozone Season units in such notice. (A) Objections shall be submitted by the deadline specified in each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(1) (iii) of this section and shall be limited to addressing whether the identification of T R NOX Ozone Season units in such notice is in accordance with paragraph (b)(1) (iii) of this section .*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 964 of 1339 (B) The Administrator will adjust the identification of TR NO X Ozone Season units in the each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(1)(ii i) of this section to the extent necessary to ensure that it is in accordance with paragraph (b)(1) (iii) of this section and will calculate the TR NO X Ozone Season allowance allocation for each TR NO X Ozone Season unit in accordance with § 97.5 12 (a)(9) and (10) and §§ 97.5 06(b)(2) and 97.5 30 through 97.5 35 . By November 15 immediately after the promulgation of each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section , the Administrator will promulgate a notice of data availability of any adjustments of the identification of TR NO X Ozone Season units that the Administrator determines to be necessary , the reasons for accepting or rejecting any objections submitted in accordance with paragraph (b)( 1 )(i v ) (A) of this section , and the result s of such calculations. ( 2 ) Indian country new unit set - asides. (i) By June 1, 2012 and June 1 of each year thereafter, the Administrator will calculate the TR NOX Ozone Season allowance allocation for each TR NO X Ozone Season unit, in accordance with § 9 7.5 12 (b)(1) through (8) , for the control period in the year of the applicable calculation deadline under this paragraph and will promulgate a notice of data availability of the results of the calculations.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 965 of 1339 ( ii ) For each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)( 2 ) (i) of this section, the Administrator will provide an opportunity for submission of objections to the calculations referenced in such notice. ( A ) Objections shall be submitted by the deadline specified in each notice of data availabi lity required in paragraph (b)( 2 ) (i) of this section and shall be limited to addressing whether the calculations are in accordance with § 97.5 12 (b)(1) through (8) and §§ 97.5 06(b)(2) and 97.5 30 through 97.5 35. ( B ) The Administrator will adjust the calculati ons to the extent necessary to ensure that they are in accordance with the provisions referenced in paragraph (b)( 2 )(i i ) (A) of this section. By August 1 immediately after the promulgation of each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)( 2 ) (i) of this section, the Administrator will promulgate a notice of data availability of any adjustments that the Administrator determines to be necessary with regard to allocations under § 97.5 12 (b)(1) through (8) and the reasons for accepting or rejecting any objections submitted in accordance with paragraph (b)( 2 )(i i ) (A) of this section . (iii) If the Indian country new unit set - aside for such control period contains any TR NO X Ozone Season allowances that have not*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 966 of 1339 been allocated in the applicable notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)( 2 ) (ii) of this section , the Administrator will promulgate, by September 15 immediately after such notice, a notice of data availability that identifies any TR NOX Ozone Season units that commenced commercial oper ation during the period starting May 1 of the year before the year of such control period and ending August 31 of year of such control period . ( iv ) For each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)( 2 ) (iii) of this section, the Administrator wi ll provide an opportunity for submission of objections to the identification of TR NOX Ozone Season units in such notice. (A) Objections shall be submitted by the deadline specified in each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)( 2 ) (iii) of this section and shall be limited to addressing whether the identification of TR NO X Ozone Season units in such notice is in accordance with paragraph (b)( 2 ) (iii) of this section . (B) The Administrator will adjust the identification of TR NO X Ozone Seaso n units in the each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section to the extent necessary to ensure that it is in accordance with paragraph*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 967 of 1339 (b)( 2 ) (iii) of this section and will calculate the TR NO X Ozone Season allowance all ocation for each TR NO X Ozone Season unit in accordance with § 97.5 12 (b)(9) and (10) and §§ 97.5 06(b)(2) and 97.5 30 through 97.5 35 . By November 15 immediately after the promulgation of each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of th is section , the Administrator will promulgate a notice of data availability of any adjustments of the identification of TR NO X Ozone Season units that the Administrator determines to be necessary , the reasons for accepting or rejecting any objections submi tted in accordance with paragraph (b)( 2 )(i v ) (A) of this section , and the results of such calculations. (c) Units incorrectly allocated TR NOX Ozone Season allowances . (1) For each control period in 2012 and thereafter, if the Administrator determines th at TR NOX Ozone Season allowances were allocated under paragraph (a) of this section , or under a provision of a SIP revision approved under § 52.37(b)(3), (4), or (5) of this chapter, where such control period and the recipient are covered by the provisions of paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section or were allocated under paragraph (b) of this section and § 97.5 12 , or under a provision of a SIP revision approved under § 52.37(b)(3), (4), or (5) of this chapter, where such control period and the recipient are cove red by the provisions*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 968 of 1339 of paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section , then the Administrator will notify the designated representative and will act in accordance with the procedures set forth in paragraphs (c)(2) through (5) of this section : (i)(A) The recipient is not actually a TR NOX Ozone Season unit under § 97.5 04 as of May 1, 2012 and is allocated TR NO X Ozone Season allowances for such control period or, in the case of an allocation under a provision of a SIP revision approved under § 52.37(b)(3), (4), or (5) of this chapter, the recipient is not actually a TR NOX Ozone Season unit as of May 1, 2012 and is allocated TR NOX Ozone Season allowances for such control period that the SIP revision provides should be allocated only to recipients that are TR NO X Ozone Season units as of May 1, 2012; or (B) The recipient is not located as of May 1 of the control period in the State from whose TR NOX Ozone Season trading budget the TR NOX Ozone Season allowances allocated under paragraph (a) of this section, or under a p rovision of a SIP revision approved under § 52.37(b)(3), (4), or (5) of this chapter, were allocated for such control period. (ii) The recipient is not actually a TR NO X Ozone Season unit under § 97.5 04 as of May 1 of such control period and is*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 969 of 1339 allocated TR NOX Ozone Season allowances for such control period or, in the case of an allocation under a provision of a SIP revision approved under § 52.37(b)(3), (4), or (5) of this chapter, the recipient is not actually a TR NOX Ozone Season unit as of January 1 of such control period and is allocated TR NO X Ozone Season allowances for such control period that the SIP revision provides should be allocated only to recipients that are TR NOX Ozone Season units as of May 1 of such control period . ( 2 ) Except as provided in paragraph (c)( 3 ) or ( 4 ) of this section, the Administrator will not record such TR NO X Ozone Season allowances under § 97.5 21. ( 3 ) If the Administrator already recorded such TR NO X Ozone Season allowances under § 97.5 21 and if the Administrator makes the determination under paragraph (c)(1) of this section before making deductions for the source that includes such recipient under § 97.5 24(b) for such control period, then the Administrator will deduct from the account in which such TR NO X Ozone Season allowances were recorded an amount of TR NO X Ozone Season allowances allocated for the same or a prior control period equal to the amount of such already recorded TR NO X Ozone Season allowances. The authorized account representative shall ensure that there are sufficient TR NOX Ozone Season allowances in such account for completion of the deduction.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 970 of 1339 ( 4 ) If the Administrator already recorded such TR NO X Ozone Season allowances under § 97.5 21 and if the Administrator makes the determination under paragraph (c)(1) o f this section after making deductions for the source that includes such recipient under § 97.5 24(b) for such control period, then the Administrator will not make any deduction to take account of such already recorded TR NOX Ozone Season allowances. ( 5 ) The Administrator will transfer the TR NO X Ozone Season allowances that are not recorded, or that are deducted, in accordance with paragraphs (c)( 2 ) and ( 3 ) of this section to , for a recipient under paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section, the new unit set - asi de for the State from whose NOX Ozone Season trading budget the TR NO X Ozone Season allowances were allocated , or, for a recipient under paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this paragraph, to the State’s new unit set - aside or Indian country new unit set - aside from whi ch the TR NOX Ozone Season allowances were allocated, for the control period in the year of such transfer. § 97.5 12 TR NOX Ozone Season allowance allocations for new units. (a) For each control period in 2012 and thereafter and for the TR NOX Ozone Seaso n units in each State other than those located*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 971 of 1339 in Indian county , the Administrator will allocate TR NO X Ozone Season allowances to the TR NOX Ozone Season units described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section and in accordance with paragraphs (a)(2) through (9) of this section: (1) The TR NOX Ozone Season allowances will be allocated to the following TR NOX Ozone Season units , except as provided in paragraph (a)(10) of this section: (i) TR NOX Ozone Season units that are not allocated an amount (whether zero or greater) of TR NOX Ozone Season allowances in the notice of data availability issued under § 97.5 11 (a)(1); (ii) TR NOX Ozone Season units whose allocation of an amount (whether zero or greater) of TR NOX Ozone Season allowances for such control period i n the notice of data availability issued under § 97.5 11 (a)(1) is covered by § 97.5 11(c)( 2 ) or ( 3 ) ; (iii) TR NO X Ozone Season units that are allocated an amount (whether zero or greater) of TR NOX Ozone Season allowances for such control period in the notice of data availability issued under § 97.5 11 (a)(1), which allocation is terminated for such control period pursuant to § 97.5 11(a)(2) , and that operate during the control period immediately preceding such control period ; or*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 972 of 1339 (iv) TR NO X Ozone Season units under § 97.5 11 (c)(1)(ii) whose allocation of an amount (whether zero or greater) of TR NOX Ozone Season allowances for such control period in the notice of data availability issued under § 97.5 1 1(b)(1)(ii)(B) is covered by § 97.5 11(c)( 2 ) or ( 3 ) . ( 2 ) The Administr ator will establish a separate new unit set aside for the State for each such control period. Each such new unit set - aside will be allocated TR NO X Ozone Season allowances in an amount equal to the applicable amount of tons of NO X emissions as set forth in § 97.5 10(a) and will be allocated additional TR NOX Ozone Season allowances (if any) in accordance with §§ 97.5 11(a)(2) and (c)( 5 ) and paragraph (b)(10) of this section . ( 3 ) The Administrator will determine, for each TR NOX Ozone Season unit described in pa ragraph (a)(1) of this section, an allocation of TR NOX Ozone Season allowances for the later of the following control periods and for each subsequent control period: (i) The control period in 2012 ; (ii) The first control period after the control period i n which the TR NOX Ozone Season unit commences commercial operation ;*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 973 of 1339 (iii) For a unit described in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, the first control period in which the TR NO X Ozone Season unit operates in the non - Indian country portion of the State after operating in another jurisdiction and for which the unit is not already allocated one or more TR NOX Ozone Season allowances ; and (iv) For a unit described in paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section, the first control period after the control period i n which the unit resumes operation . (4)(i) The allocation for each TR NO X Ozone Season unit described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section and for each control period described in paragraph (a)(3) of this section will be an amount equal to the unit’s total tons of NOX emissions during the immediately preceding control period . (ii) The Administrator will adjust the allocation amount in paragraph (a)(4)(i) in accordance with paragraphs (a)(5) through (9) of this section. (5) The Administrator will calculate the sum of the TR NOX Ozone Season allowances determined for all such TR NOX Ozone Season unit s under paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this section in the State for such control period.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 974 of 1339 (6) If the amount of TR NO X Ozone Season allowances in the new unit set - aside for the State for such control period is greater than or equal to the sum under paragraph (a)( 5 ) of this section, then the Administrator will allocate the amount of TR NO X Ozone Season allowances determined for each such TR NOX Ozone Season unit under paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this section . (7) If the amount of TR NO X Ozone Season allowances in the new unit set - aside for the State for such control period is less than the sum under paragraph (a)( 5 ) of this section, then the Administrator will allocate to each such TR NOX Ozone Season unit the amount of the TR NO X Ozone Season allowances determined under paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this section for the unit , multiplied by the amount of TR NOX Ozone Season allowances in the new unit set aside for such control period, divi ded by the sum under paragraph (a)( 5 ) of this section, and rounded to the nearest allowance. (8) The Administrator will notify the public , through the promulgation of the notices of data availability described in § 97.5 11(b) (1)(i) and (ii) , of the amount of TR NOX Ozone Season allowances allocated under paragraphs (a)(1) through (8) for such control period to each TR NOX Ozone Season unit eligible for such allocation .*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 975 of 1339 (9) If, after completion of the procedures under paragraph s (a) (5) through (8) of this sect ion for such control period, any unallocated TR NOX Ozone Season allowances remain in the new unit set - aside for the State for such control period, the Administrator will allocate such TR NOX Ozone Season allowances as follows -- (i) The Administrator will determine, for each unit described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section that commenced commercial operation during the period starting May 1 of the year before the year of such control period and ending August 31 of year of such control period, the positive difference (if any) between the unit’s emissions during such control period and the amount of TR NOX Ozone Season allowances described in the notice of data availability required under § 97.5 11 (b)(1)(ii) for the unit for such control period; (ii) The Admin istrator will determine the sum of the positive differences determined under paragraph (a)(9)(i) of this section; (iii) If the amount of unallocated TR NOX Ozone Season allowances remaining in the new unit set - aside for the State for such control period is greater than or equal to the sum determined under paragraph (a)( 9 ) (ii) of this section, then the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 976 of 1339 Administrator will allocate the amount of TR NO X Ozone Season allowances determined for each such TR NOX Ozone Season unit under paragraph (a)(9)(i) of this s ection . (iv) If the amount of unallocated TR NOX Ozone Season allowances remaining in the new unit set - aside for the State for such control period is less than the sum under paragraph (a)( 9)(ii) of this section, then the Administrator will allocate for each such TR NOX Ozone Season unit the amount of the TR NO X Ozone Season allowances determined under paragraph (a)(9)(i) of this section for the unit , multiplied by the amount of unallocated TR NOX Ozone Season allowances remaining in the new unit set - aside f or such control period, divided by the sum under paragraph (a)( 9)(ii) of this section, and rounded to the nearest allowance. (10) If, after completion of the procedures under paragraph (a) (9) of this section for such control period, any unallocated TR NOX Ozone Season allowances remain in the new unit set - aside for the State for such control period, the Administrator will allocate to each TR NOX Ozone Season unit that is in the State, is allocated an amount of TR NOX Ozone Season allowances in the notice of data availability issued under § 97.5 11 (a)(1) , and continues to be allocated TR NO X Ozone Season allowances for such control period in accordance with § 97.5 11(a)(2), an amount of TR*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 977 of 1339 NOX Ozone Season allowances equal to the following: the total amount of su ch remaining unallocated TR NO X Ozone Season allowances in such new unit set - aside, multiplied by the unit's allocation under § 97.5 11(a) for such control period, divided by the remainder of the amount of tons in the applicable State NO X Ozone Season tradin g budget minus the sum of the amount s of tons in such new unit set - aside and the Indian country new unit set aside for the State for such control period , and rounded to the nearest allowance. (11) The Administrator will notify the public , through the promu lgation of the notices of data availability described in § 97.5 11(b) (1)(iii) and (iv) , of the amount of TR NO X Ozone Season allowances allocated for such control period to each TR NOX Ozone Season unit eligible for such allocation. ( b ) For each control peri od in 2012 and thereafter and for the TR NOX Ozone Season units located in Indian country in each State , the Administrator will allocate TR NO X Ozone Season allowances to the TR NOX Ozone Season units described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section and in a ccordance with paragraphs (b)(2) through (9) of this section:*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 978 of 1339 (1) The TR NOX Ozone Season allowances will be allocated to the following TR NOX Ozone Season units , except as provided in paragraph (b)(10) of this section: (i) TR NOX Ozone Season units that a re not allocated an amount (whether zero or greater) of TR NOX Ozone Season allowances in the notice of data availability issued under § 97.5 11 (a)(1); or (ii) TR NO X Ozone Season units under § 97.5 11 (c)(1)(ii) whose allocation of an amount (whether zero or g reater) of TR NOX Ozone Season allowances for such control period in the notice of data availability issued under § 97.5 1 1(b)(2)(ii)(B) is covered by § 97.5 11(c)( 2 ) or ( 3 ) . (2 ) The Administrator will establish a separate Indian country new unit set - aside fo r the State for each such control period. Each such Indian country new unit set - aside will be allocated TR NOX Ozone Season allowances in an amount equal to the applicable amount of tons of NO X emissions as set forth in § 97.5 10(a) and will be allocated additional TR NOX Ozone Season allowances (if any) in accordance with § 97.5 11 (c)( 5 ). ( 3 ) The Administrator will determine, for each TR NOX Ozone Season unit described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, an allocation of TR NOX Ozone Season allowances for the later of the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 979 of 1339 following control periods and for each subsequent control period: (i) The control period in 2012 ; and (ii) The first control period after the control period in which the TR NOX Ozone Season unit commences commercial operation . (4)(i) The al location for each TR NO X Ozone Season unit described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section and for each control period described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section will be an amount equal to the unit’s total tons of NO X emissions during the immediately prec eding control period . (ii) The Administrator will adjust the allocation amount in paragraph (b)(4)(i) in accordance with paragraphs ( b )(5) through (9) of this section. (5) The Administrator will calculate the sum of the TR NO X Ozone Season allowances dete rmined for all such TR NOX Ozone Season unit s under paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section in the State for such control period. (6) If the amount of TR NO X Ozone Season allowances in the Indian country new unit set - aside for the State for such control period is greater than or equal to the sum under paragraph ( b )( 5 ) of this section, then the Administrator will allocate the amount of*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 980 of 1339 TR NOX Ozone Season allowances determined for each such TR NOX Ozone Season unit under paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section . (7) If the amount of TR NO X Ozone Season allowances in the Indian country new unit set - aside for the State for such control period is less than the sum under paragraph ( b )( 5 ) of this section, then the Administrator will allocate to each such TR NOX Ozone Seaso n unit the amount of the TR NO X Ozone Season allowances determined under paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section for the unit , multiplied by the amount of TR NO X Ozone Season allowances in the Indian country new unit set - aside for such control period, divided by the sum under paragraph ( b )( 5 ) of this section, and rounded to the nearest allowance. (8) The Administrator will notify the public , through the promulgation of the notices of data availability described in § 97.5 11(b) (2)(i) and (ii) , of the amount of TR NOX Ozone Season allowances allocated under paragraphs (b)(1) through (8) for such control period to each TR NOX Ozone Season unit eligible for such allocation . (9) If, after completion of the procedures under paragraph s ( b ) (5) through (8) of this section for such control period, any unallocated TR NOX Ozone Season allowances remain in the Indian country new unit set - aside for the State for such control*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 981 of 1339 period, the Administrator will allocate such TR NOX Ozone Season allowances as follows -- (i) The Adminis trator will determine, for each unit described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section that commenced commercial operation during the period starting May 1 of the year before the year of such control period and ending August 31 of year of such control period, the positive difference (if any) between the unit’s emissions during such control period and the amount of TR NOX Ozone Season allowances described in the notice of data availability required under § 97.5 11 (b)(2)(ii) for the unit for such control period; (i i) The Administrator will determine the sum of the positive differences determined under paragraph (b)(9)(i) of this section; (iii) If the amount of unallocated TR NOX Ozone Season allowances remaining in the Indian country new unit set - aside for the State for such control period is greater than or equal to the sum determined under paragraph ( b )( 9 ) (ii) of this section, then the Administrator will allocate the amount of TR NO X Ozone Season allowances determined for each such TR NOX Ozone Season unit under pa ragraph (b)(9)(i) of this section .*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 982 of 1339 (iv) If the amount of unallocated TR NOX Ozone Season allowances remaining in the Indian country new unit set - aside for the State for such control period is less than the sum under paragraph ( b )( 9)(ii) of this section, then the Administrator will allocate for each such TR NOX Ozone Season unit the amount of the TR NO X Ozone Season allowances determined under paragraph (b)(9)(i) of this section for the unit , multiplied by the amount of unallocated TR NOX Ozone Season allowances remaining in the Indian country new unit set - aside for such control period, divided by the sum under paragraph ( b )( 9)(ii) of this section, and rounded to the nearest allowance. (10) If, after completion of the procedures under paragraph ( b ) (9) of this section for such control period, any unallocated TR NOX Ozone Season allowances remain in the Indian country new unit set - aside for the State for such control period, the Administrator will : (i) Allocate such unallocated TR NOX Ozone Season allowances to the new unit set - aside for the State for such control period; or (ii) If the State has a SIP revision approved under § 52.37(b)(4) or (5), include such unallocated TR NO X Ozone Season allowances in the portion of the State TR NO X Ozone Season trading budget*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 983 of 1339 that may be allocated for such control period in accordance with such SIP revision. (11) The Administrator will notify the public , through the promulgation of the notices of data availability described in § 97.5 11(b) (2)(iii) and (iv) , of the amount of TR NOX Ozone Season allowances allocated for such control period to each TR NOX Ozone Season unit eligible for such allocation. § 97.5 13 Authorization of designated representative and alternate designated representative. (a) Except as provided under § 97.5 15, each TR NOX Ozone Season source, including all TR NO X Ozone Season units at the source, shall have one and only one designated representative, with regard to all matters under the TR NO X Ozone Season Trading Program. (1) The designated representative s hall be selected by an agreement binding on the owners and operators of the source and all TR NOX Ozone Season units at the source and shall act in accordance with the certification statement in § 97.5 16(a)(4)(iii). (2) Upon and after receipt by the Adminis trator of a complete certificate of representation under § 97.5 16:*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 984 of 1339 (i) The designated representative shall be authorized and shall represent and, by his or her representations, actions, inactions, or submissions, legally bind each owner and operator of the source and each TR NO X Ozone Season unit at the source in all matters pertaining to the TR NO X Ozone Season Trading Program, notwithstanding any agreement between the designated representative and such owners and operators; and (ii) The owners and operator s of the source and each TR NO X Ozone Season unit at the source shall be bound by any decision or order issued to the designated representative by the Administrator regarding the source or any such unit. (b) Except as provided under § 97.5 15, each TR NOX Oz one Season source may have one and only one alternate designated representative, who may act on behalf of the designated representative. The agreement by which the alternate designated representative is selected shall include a procedure for authorizing the alternate designated representative to act in lieu of the designated representative. (1) The alternate designated representative shall be selected by an agreement binding on the owners and operators of the source and all TR NOX Ozone Season units at the source and shall act in*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 985 of 1339 accordance with the certification statement in § 97.5 16(a)(4)(iii). (2) Upon and after receipt by the Administrator of a complete certificate of representation under § 97.5 16, (i) The alternate designated representative shall be auth orized; (ii) Any representation, action, inaction, or submission by the alternate designated representative shall be deemed to be a representation, action, inaction, or submission by the designated representative; and (iii) The owners and operators of the source and each TR NO X Ozone Season unit at the source shall be bound by any decision or order issued to the alternate designated representative by the Administrator regarding the source or any such unit. (c) Except in this section, § 97.5 02, and §§ 97.5 14 through 97.5 18, whenever the term “designated representative” (as distinguished from theterm “common designated representative”) is used in this subpart, the term shall be construed to include the designated representative or any alternate designated repr esentative. § 97.5 14 Responsibilities of designated representative and alternate designated representative.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 986 of 1339 (a) Except as provided under § 97.5 18 concerning delegation of authority to make submissions, each submission under the TR NO X Ozone Season Trading Program shall be made, signed, and certified by the designated representative or alternate designated representative for each TR NO X Ozone Season source and TR NOX Ozone Season unit for which the submission is made. Each such submission shall include the f ollowing certification statement by the designated representative or alternate designated representative: “I am authorized to make this submission on behalf of the owners and operators of the source or units for which the submission is made. I certify unde r penalty of law that I have personally examined, and am familiar with, the statements and information submitted in this document and all its attachments. Based on my inquiry of those individuals with primary responsibility for obtaining the information, I certify that the statements and information are to the best of my knowledge and belief true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false statements and information or omitting required statements and information, including the possibility of fine or imprisonment.” (b) The Administrator will accept or act on a submission made for a TR NOX Ozone Season source or a TR NOX Ozone Season unit*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 987 of 1339 only if the submission has been made, signed, and certified in accordanc e with paragraph (a) of this section and § 97.5 18. § 97.5 15 Changing designated representative and alternate designated representative; changes in owners and operators ; changes in units at the source . (a) Changing designated representative . The designated representative may be changed at any time upon receipt by the Administrator of a superseding complete certificate of representation under § 97.5 16. Notwithstanding any such change, all representations, actions, inactions, and submissions by the previous designated representative before the time and date when the Administrator receives the superseding certificate of representation shall be binding on the new designated representative and the owners and operators of the TR NO X Ozone Season source and the TR NOX Ozone Season units at the source. (b) Changing alternate designated representative . The alternate designated representative may be changed at any time upon receipt by the Administrator of a superseding complete certificate of representation under § 97. 5 16. Notwithstanding any such change, all representations, actions, inactions, and submissions by the previous alternate designated representative before the time and date when the Administrator receives the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 988 of 1339 superseding certificate of representation shall be binding on the new alternate designated representative, the designated representative, and the owners and operators of the TR NO X Ozone Season source and the TR NO X Ozone Season units at the source. (c) Changes in owners and operators . (1) In the even t an owner or operator of a TR NO X Ozone Season source or a TR NOX Ozone Season unit at the source is not included in the list of owners and operators in the certificate of representation under § 97.5 16, such owner or operator shall be deemed to be subject to and bound by the certificate of representation, the representations, actions, inactions, and submissions of the designated representative and any alternate designated representative of the source or unit, and the decisions and orders of the Administrato r, as if the owner or operator were included in such list. (2) Within 30 days after any change in the owners and operators of a TR NOX Ozone Season source or a TR NOX Ozone Season unit at the source , including the addition or removal of an owner or operato r, the designated representative or any alternate designated representative shall submit a revision to the certificate of representation under § 97.5 16 amending the list of owners and operators to reflect the change.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 989 of 1339 ( d ) Changes in units at the source . Within 30 days of any change in which units are located at a TR NOX Ozone Season source (including the addition or removal of a unit), the designated representative or any alternate designated representative shall submit a certificate of representation under § 97.5 16 amending the list of units to reflect the change. (1) If the change is the addition of a unit that operated (other than for purposes of testing by the manufacturer before initial installation) before being located at the source, then the certific ate of representation shall identify, in a format prescribed by the Administrator, the entity from whom the unit was purchased or otherwise obtained (including name, address, telephone number, and facsimile number (if any)), the date on which the unit was purchased or otherwise obtained, and the date on which the unit became located at the source. (2) If the change is the removal of a unit, then the certificate of representation shall identify, in a format prescribed by the Administrator, the entity to which the unit was sold or that otherwise obtained the unit (including name, address, telephone number, and facsimile number (if any)), the date on which the unit was sold or otherwise obtained, and the date on which the unit became no longer located at the so urce. § 97.5 16 Certificate of representation.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 990 of 1339 (a) A complete certificate of representation for a designated representative or an alternate designated representative shall include the following elements in a format prescribed by the Administrator: (1) Ide ntification of the TR NO X Ozone Season source, and each TR NOX Ozone Season unit at the source, for which the certificate of representation is submitted, including source name, source category and NAICS code (or, in the absence of a NAICS code, an equival ent code), State, plant code, county, latitude and longitude, unit identification number and type, identification number and nameplate capacity (in MWe , rounded to the nearest tenth) of each generator served by each such unit, and actual or projected date of commencement of commercial operation and including a statement of whether such source is located in Indian Country . If a projected date of commencement of commercial operation is provided, the actual date of commencement of commercial operation shall b e provided when such information becomes available. (2) The name, address, e -mail address (if any), telephone number, and facsimile transmission number (if any) of the designated representative and any alternate designated representative.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 991 of 1339 (3) A list of the owners and operators of the TR NO X Ozone Season source and of each TR NO X Ozone Season unit at the source. (4) The following certification statements by the designated representative and any alternate designated representative

— (i) “I certify that I was s elected as the designated representative or alternate designated representative, as applicable, by an agreement binding on the owners and operators of the source and each TR NO X Ozone Season unit at the source.” (ii) “I certify that I have all the necessar y authority to carry out my duties and responsibilities under the TR NO X Ozone Season Trading Program on behalf of the owners and operators of the source and of each TR NO X Ozone Season unit at the source and that each such owner and operator shall be full y bound by my representations, actions, inactions, or submissions and by any decision or order issued to me by the Administrator regarding the source or unit.” (iii) “Where there are multiple holders of a legal or equitable title to, or a leasehold interes t in, a TR NOX Ozone Season unit, or where a utility or industrial customer purchases power from a TR NOX Ozone Season unit under a life - of - the - unit, firm power contractual arrangement, I certify that: I have given a written notice of my selection as the ‘designated*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 992 of 1339 representative’ or ‘alternate designated representative’, as applicable, and of the agreement by which I was selected to each owner and operator of the source and of each TR NO X Ozone Season unit at the source; and TR NO X Ozone Season allowance s and proceeds of transactions involving TR NO X Ozone Season allowances will be deemed to be held or distributed in proportion to each holder's legal, equitable, leasehold, or contractual reservation or entitlement, except that, if such multiple holders have expressly provided for a different distribution of TR NO X Ozone Season allowances by contract, TR NO X Ozone Season allowances and proceeds of transactions involving TR NO X Ozone Season allowances will be deemed to be held or distributed in accordance wi th the contract.” (5) The signature of the designated representative and any alternate designated representative and the dates signed. (b) Unless otherwise required by the Administrator, documents of agreement referred to in the certificate of representati on shall not be submitted to the Administrator. The Administrator shall not be under any obligation to review or evaluate the sufficiency of such documents, if submitted. § 97.5 17 Objections concerning designated representative and alternate designated representative.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 993 of 1339 (a) Once a complete certificate of representation under § 97.5 16 has been submitted and received, the Administrator will rely on the certificate of representation unless and until a superseding complete certificate of representation under § 97. 5 16 is received by the Administrator. (b) Except as provided in paragraph (a) of this section , no objection or other communication submitted to the Administrator concerning the authorization, or any representation, action, inaction, or submission, of a des ignated representative or alternate designated representative shall affect any representation, action, inaction, or submission of the designated representative or alternate designated representative or the finality of any decision or order by the Administr ator under the TR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program. (c) The Administrator will not adjudicate any private legal dispute concerning the authorization or any representation, action, inaction, or submission of any designated representative or alternate design ated representative, including private legal disputes concerning the proceeds of TR NO X Ozone Season allowance transfers. § 97.5 18 Delegation by designated representative and alternate designated representative.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 994 of 1339 (a) A designated representative may delegat e, to one or more natural persons, his or her authority to make an electronic submission to the Administrator provided for or required under this subpart. (b) An alternate designated representative may delegate, to one or more natural persons, his or her authority to make an electronic submission to the Administrator provided for or required under this subpart. (c) In order to delegate authority to make an electronic submission to the Administrator in accordance with paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, the designated representative or alternate designated representative, as appropriate, must submit to the Administrator a notice of delegation, in a format prescribed by the Administrator, that includes the following elements: (1) The name, address, e -mail address, telephone number, and facsimile transmission number (if any) of such designated representative or alternate designated representative; (2) The name, address, e -mail address, telephone number, and facsimile transmission number (if any) of each such n atural person (referred to in this section as an “agent”);*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 995 of 133 9 (3) For each such natural person, a list of the type or types of electronic submissions under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section for which authority is delegated to him or her; and (4) The follow ing certification statements by such designated representative or alternate designated representative: (i) “I agree that any electronic submission to the Administrator that is made by an agent identified in this notice of delegation and of a type listed fo r such agent in this notice of delegation and that is made when I am a designated representative or alternate designated representative, as appropriate, and before this notice of delegation is superseded by another notice of delegation under 40 CFR 97.5 18( d) shall be deemed to be an electronic submission by me.” (ii) “Until this notice of delegation is superseded by another notice of delegation under 40 CFR 97.5 18(d), I agree to maintain an e -mail account and to notify the Administrator immediately of any change in my e -mail address unless all delegation of authority by me under 40 CFR 97.5 18 is terminated.”. (d) A notice of delegation submitted under paragraph (c) of this section shall be effective, with regard to the designated representative or alternate designated representative identified in such notice, upon receipt of such notice by the Administrator*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 996 of 1339 and until receipt by the Administrator of a superseding notice of delegation submitted by such designated representative or alternate designated represent ative, as appropriate. The superseding notice of delegation may replace any previously identified agent, add a new agent, or eliminate entirely any delegation of authority. (e) Any electronic submission covered by the certification in paragraph (c)(4)(i) o f this section and made in accordance with a notice of delegation effective under paragraph (d) of this section shall be deemed to be an electronic submission by the designated representative or alternate designated representative submitting such notice of delegation. § 97.5 19 [Reserved] § 97.5 20 Establishment of compliance accounts, assurance accounts, and general accounts . (a) Compliance accounts . Upon receipt of a complete certificate of representation under § 97.5 16, the Administrator will establish a compliance account for the TR NO X Ozone Season source for which the certificate of representation was submitted, unless the source already has a compliance account. The designated representative and any alternate designated representative of the source shall be the authorized account*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 997 of 1339 representative and the alternate authorized account representative respectively of the compliance account. (b) Assurance accounts. As provided in § 97.525(b)(3), the Administrator will establish assurance account s for the owners and operators and States specified in the notice required under § 97.525(b)(2)(iii)(B). ( c ) General accounts . (1) Application for general account . (i) Any person may apply to open a general account, for the purpose of holding and transferring TR NO X Ozone Season allowances, by submitting to the Administrator a complete application for a general account. Such application shall designate one and only one authorized account representative and may designate one and only one alternate authorized account representative who may act on behalf of the authorized account representative. (A) The authorized account representative and alternate authorized account representative shall be selected by an agreement binding on the persons who have an ownership intere st with respect to TR NO X Ozone Season allowances held in the general account. (B) The agreement by which the alternate authorized account representative is selected shall include a procedure for*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 998 of 1339 authorizing the alternate authorized account representative to act in lieu of the authorized account representative. (ii) A complete application for a general account shall include the following elements in a format prescribed by the Administrator: (A) Name, mailing address, e -mail address (if any), telephone numb er, and facsimile transmission number (if any) of the authorized account representative and any alternate authorized account representative; (B) An identifying name for the general account; (C) A list of all persons subject to a binding agreement for the authorized account representative and any alternate authorized account representative to represent their ownership interest with respect to the TR NO X Ozone Season allowances held in the general account; (D) The following certification statement by the auth orized account representative and any alternate authorized account representative: “I certify that I was selected as the authorized account representative or the alternate authorized account representative, as applicable, by an agreement that is binding on all persons who have an ownership interest with respect to TR*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 999 of 1339 NOX Ozone Season allowances held in the general account. I certify that I have all the necessary authority to carry out my duties and responsibilities under the TR NO X Ozone Season Trading Prog ram on behalf of such persons and that each such person shall be fully bound by my representations, actions, inactions, or submissions and by any decision or order issued to me by the Administrator regarding the general account.” (E) The signature of the authorized account representative and any alternate authorized account representative and the dates signed. (iii) Unless otherwise required by the Administrator, documents of agreement referred to in the application for a general account shall not be submit ted to the Administrator. The Administrator shall not be under any obligation to review or evaluate the sufficiency of such documents, if submitted. (2) Authorization of authorized account representative and alternate authorized account representative . (i ) Upon receipt by the Administrator of a complete application for a general account under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the Administrator will establish a general account for the person or persons for whom the application is submitted, and upon and af ter such receipt by the Administrator:*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1000 of 1339 (A) The authorized account representative of the general account shall be authorized and shall represent and, by his or her representations, actions, inactions, or submissions, legally bind each person who has an own ership interest with respect to TR NOX Ozone Season allowances held in the general account in all matters pertaining to the TR NO X Ozone Season Trading Program, notwithstanding any agreement between the authorized account representative and such person. ( B) Any alternate authorized account representative shall be authorized, and any representation, action, inaction, or submission by any alternate authorized account representative shall be deemed to be a representation, action, inaction, or submission by the authorized account representative. (C) Each person who has an ownership interest with respect to TR NOX Ozone Season allowances held in the general account shall be bound by any decision or order issued to the authorized account representative or alterna te authorized account representative by the Administrator regarding the general account. (ii) Except as provided in paragraph ( c )(5) of this section concerning delegation of authority to make submissions, each submission concerning the general account sha ll be made, signed, and certified by the authorized account representative or any*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1001 of 1339 alternate authorized account representative for the persons having an ownership interest with respect to TR NO X Ozone Season allowances held in the general account. Each such submission shall include the following certification statement by the authorized account representative or any alternate authorized account representative: “I am authorized to make this submission on behalf of the persons having an ownership interest wit h respect to the TR NO X Ozone Season allowances held in the general account. I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined, and am familiar with, the statements and information submitted in this document and all its attachments. Based on my inquiry of those individuals with primary responsibility for obtaining the information, I certify that the statements and information are to the best of my knowledge and belief true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalti es for submitting false statements and information or omitting required statements and information, including the possibility of fine or imprisonment.” (iii) Except in this section, whenever the term “authorized account representative” is used in this subp art, the term shall be construed to include the authorized account representative or any alternate authorized account representative.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1002 of 1339 (3) Changing authorized account representative and alternate authorized account representative; changes in persons with ownership interest . (i) The authorized account representative of a general account may be changed at any time upon receipt by the Administrator of a superseding complete application for a general account under paragraph ( c )(1) of this section. Notwithstanding any such change, all representations, actions, inactions, and submissions by the previous authorized account representative before the time and date when the Administrator receives the superseding application for a general account shall be binding on the new authorized account representative and the persons with an ownership interest with respect to the TR NO X Ozone Season allowances in the general account. (ii) The alternate authorized account representative of a general account may be changed at any t ime upon receipt by the Administrator of a superseding complete application for a general account under paragraph ( c )(1) of this section. Notwithstanding any such change, all representations, actions, inactions, and submissions by the previous alternate authorized account representative before the time and date when the Administrator receives the superseding application for a general account shall be binding on the new alternate authorized account representative, the authorized account representative, and the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1003 of 1339 persons with an ownership interest with respect to the TR NO X Ozone Season allowances in the general account. (iii)(A) In the event a person having an ownership interest with respect to TR NOX Ozone Season allowances in the general account is not inclu ded in the list of such persons in the application for a general account, such person shall be deemed to be subject to and bound by the application for a general account, the representation, actions, inactions, and submissions of the authorized account rep resentative and any alternate authorized account representative of the account, and the decisions and orders of the Administrator, as if the person were included in such list. (B) Within 30 days after any change in the persons having an ownership interest with respect to NOX Ozone Season allowances in the general account, including the addition or removal of a person, the authorized account representative or any alternate authorized account representative shall submit a revision to the application for a gen eral account amending the list of persons having an ownership interest with respect to the TR NO X Ozone Season allowances in the general account to include the change. (4) Objections concerning authorized account representative and alternate authorized acc ount representative . (i) Once a*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1004 of 1339 complete application for a general account under paragraph ( c )(1) of this section has been submitted and received, the Administrator will rely on the application unless and until a superseding complete application for a gen eral account under paragraph (b)(1) of this section is received by the Administrator. (ii) Except as provided in paragraph ( c )( 4 ) (i) of this section, no objection or other communication submitted to the Administrator concerning the authorization, or any representation, action, inaction, or submission of the authorized account representative or any alternate authorized account representative of a general account shall affect any representation, action, inaction, or submission of the authorized account repres entative or any alternate authorized account representative or the finality of any decision or order by the Administrator under the TR NO X Ozone Season Trading Program. (iii) The Administrator will not adjudicate any private legal dispute concerning the au thorization or any representation, action, inaction, or submission of the authorized account representative or any alternate authorized account representative of a general account, including private legal*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1005 of 1339 disputes concerning the proceeds of TR NO X Ozone Se ason allowance transfers. (5) Delegation by authorized account representative and alternate authorized account representative . (i) An authorized account representative of a general account may delegate, to one or more natural persons, his or her authority to make an electronic submission to the Administrator provided for or required under this subpart. (ii) An alternate authorized account representative of a general account may delegate, to one or more natural persons, his or her authority to make an elect ronic submission to the Administrator provided for or required under this subpart. (iii) In order to delegate authority to make an electronic submission to the Administrator in accordance with paragraph ( c )(5)(i) or (ii) of this section, the authorized acc ount representative or alternate authorized account representative, as appropriate, must submit to the Administrator a notice of delegation, in a format prescribed by the Administrator, that includes the following elements: (A) The name, address, e -mail address, telephone number, and facsimile transmission number (if any) of such authorized*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1006 of 1339 account representative or alternate authorized account representative; (B) The name, address, e -mail address, telephone number, and facsimile transmission number (if any ) of each such natural person (referred to in this section as an “agent”); (C) For each such natural person, a list of the type or types of electronic submissions under paragraph ( c )(5)(i) or (ii) of this section for which authority is delegated to him or her; (D) The following certification statement by such authorized account representative or alternate authorized account representative: “I agree that any electronic submission to the Administrator that is made by an agent identified in this notice of del egation and of a type listed for such agent in this notice of delegation and that is made when I am an authorized account representative or alternate authorized representative, as appropriate, and before this notice of delegation is superseded by another n otice of delegation under 40 CFR 97.5 20( c )(5)(iv) shall be deemed to be an electronic submission by me.”; and (E) The following certification statement by such authorized account representative or alternate authorized account representative: “Until this no tice of delegation is superseded by another notice of delegation under 40 CFR 97.5 20( c )(5)(iv), I*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1007 of 1339 agree to maintain an e -mail account and to notify the Administrator immediately of any change in my e -mail address unless all delegation of authority by me un der 40 CFR 97.5 20( c )(5) is terminated.”. (iv) A notice of delegation submitted under paragraph ( c )(5)(iii) of this section shall be effective, with regard to the authorized account representative or alternate authorized account representative identified in such notice, upon receipt of such notice by the Administrator and until receipt by the Administrator of a superseding notice of delegation submitted by such authorized account representative or alternate authorized account representative, as appropriate. The superseding notice of delegation may replace any previously identified agent, add a new agent, or eliminate entirely any delegation of authority. (v) Any electronic submission covered by the certification in paragraph ( c )(5)(iii)(D) of this section an d made in accordance with a notice of delegation effective under paragraph ( c )(5)(iv) of this section shall be deemed to be an electronic submission by the designated representative or alternate designated representative submitting such notice of delegatio n. (6)(i) The authorized account representative or alternate authorized account representative of a general account may*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1008 of 1339 submit to the Administrator a request to close the account. Such request shall include a correctly submitted TR NO X Ozone Season allowance transfer under § 97.5 22 for any TR NOX Ozone Season allowances in the account to one or more other Allowance Management System accounts. (ii) If a general account has no TR NO X Ozone Season allowance transfers to or from the account for a 12 -month perio d or longer and does not contain any TR NO X Ozone Season allowances, the Administrator may notify the authorized account representative for the account that the account will be closed after 30 days after the notice is sent. The account will be closed afte r the 30 - day period unless, before the end of the 30 - day period, the Administrator receives a correctly submitted TR NO X Ozone Season allowance transfer under § 97.5 22 to the account or a statement submitted by the authorized account representative or alternate authorized account representative demonstrating to the satisfaction of the Administrator good cause as to why the account should not be closed. ( d ) Account identification . The Administrator will assign a unique identifying number to each account established under paragraph (a) , (b) , or (c) of this section.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1009 of 1339 (d) Responsibilities of authorized account representative and alternate authorized account representative . After the establishment of a compliance account or general account , the Administrator will accept or act on a submission pertaining to the account, including, but not limited to, submissions concerning the deduction or transfer of TR NO X Ozone Season allowances in the account, only if the submission has been made, signed, and certified in accor dance with §§ 97.5 14(a) and 97.5 18 or paragraphs ( c )(2)(ii) and ( c )(5) of this section. § 97.5 21 Recordation of TR NOX Ozone Season allowance allocations and auction results . (a) By [INSERT DATE 90 DAYS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] , the Administrator will record in each TR NO X Ozone Season source's compliance account the TR NO X Ozone Season allowances allocated to the TR NOX Ozone Season units at the source in accordance with § 97.5 11(a) for the control period in 2012 . ( b ) By [INSERT DATE 90 DAYS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] , the Administrator will record in each TR NO X Ozone Season source's compliance account the TR NO X Ozone Season allowances allocated to the TR NOX Ozone Season units at the source in accordance wi th § 97.5 11(a) for the control period in*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1010 of 1339 2013, unless the State in which the source is located notifies the Administrator in writing by [INSERT DATE 70 DAYS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] of the State’s intent to submit to the Administrat or a complete SIP revision by April 1, 2012 meeting the requirements of § 52.37(b)(3)(i) through (iv) of this chapter . (1) If, by April 1, 2012, the State does not submit to the Administrator such complete SIP revision, the Administrator will record by Apri l 15, 2012 in each TR NOX Ozone Season source's compliance account the TR NO X Ozone Season allowances allocated to the TR NOX Ozone Season units at the source in accordance with § 97.5 11(a) for the control period in 2013. (2) If the State submits to the Administrator by April 1, 2012, and the Administrator approves by October 1, 2012, such complete SIP revision, the Administrator will record by October 1, 2012 in each TR NOX Ozone Season source's compliance account the TR NOX Ozone Season allowances allocate d to the TR NOX Ozone Season units at the source as provided in such approved, complete SIP revision for the control period in 2013. (3) If the State submits to the Administrator by April 1, 2012, and the Administrator does not approve by October 1, 2012, such complete SIP revision, the Administrator will record by October*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1011 of 1339 1, 2012 in each TR NOX Ozone Season source's compliance account the TR NOX Ozone Season allowances allocated to the TR NOX Ozone Season units at the source in accordance with § 97.5 11(a) f or the control period in 2013. ( c ) By July 1, 201 3, the Administrator will record in each TR NO X Ozone Season source's compliance account the TR NO X Ozone Season allowances allocated for the TR NO X Ozone Season units at the source in accordance with § 97.5 11(a) , or with a SIP revision approved under § 52.37(b)(4) or (5) of this chapter, for the control period in 2014 and 2015. ( d ) By July 1, 201 4 , the Administrator will record in each TR NO X Ozone Season source's compliance account the TR NO X Ozone Season al lowances allocated for the TR NO X Ozone Season units at the source in accordance with § 97.5 11(a) , or with a SIP revision approved under § 52.37(b)(4) or (5) of this chapter, for the control period in 2016 and 2017. ( e ) By July 1, 201 5 , the Administrator wil l record in each TR NO X Ozone Season source's compliance account the TR NO X Ozone Season allowances allocated for the TR NO X Ozone Season units at the source in accordance with § 97.5 11(a) , or with a SIP revision approved under § 52.37(b)(4) or (5) of this chapter, for the control period in 2018 and 2019.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1012 of 1339 ( f ) By July 1, 201 6 and July 1 of each year thereafter , the Administrator will record in each TR NO X Ozone Season source's compliance account the TR NO X Ozone Season allowances allocated for the TR NOX Ozone Season units at the source in accordance with § 97.5 11(a) , or with a SIP revision approved under § 52.37(b)(4) or (5) of this chapter, for the control period in the fourth year after the year of the applicable recordation deadline under this paragraph. ( g ) By August 1, 2012 and August 1 of each year thereafter, the Administrator will record in each TR NO X Ozone Season source's compliance account the TR NO X Ozone Season allowances allocated for the TR NOX Ozone Season units at the source in accordance with § 9 7.5 12 (a), or with a SIP revision approved under § 52.37(b)(4) or (5) of this chapter, for the control period in the year of the applicable recordation deadline under this paragraph. ( h ) By August 1, 2012 and August 1 of each year thereafter, the Administrat or will record in each TR NO X Ozone Season source's compliance account the TR NO X Ozone Season allowances allocated for the TR NOX Ozone Season units at the source in accordance with § 97.5 12 (b) for the control period in the year of the applicable recordati on deadline under this paragraph.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1013 of 1339 (i) By the date on which any allocation, other than an allocation described in paragraphs (a) through (h) of this section, of TR NOX Ozone Season allowances to a recipient is made by or submitted to the Administrator in ac cordance with § 97.511 or § 97.512 or with a SIP revision approved under § 52.37(b)(4) or (5) of this chapter, the Administrator will record such allocation in the appropriate Allowance Management System account. (j) To the extent a SIP revision approved under § 52.37(b)(4) or (5) of this chapter provides for one or more auctions, in lieu of allocation, of TR NOX Ozone Season allowances for a control period in a given year, the Administrator will record in the appropriate Allowance Management System account un der such SIP revision the amount of TR NOX Ozone Season allowances purchased at such auctions by the deadline, specified in paragraphs (a) through (h) of this section, for recordation of an allocation for the control period in such year. ( k ) When recordin g the allocation or auction of TR NOX Ozone Season allowances for a TR NO X Ozone Season unit in an Allowance Management System account, the Administrator will assign each TR NOX Ozone Season allowance a unique identification number that will include digits identifying the year of the control period for which the TR NOX Ozone Season allowance is allocated.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1014 of 1339 § 97.5 22 Submission of TR NOX Ozone Season allowance transfers. (a) An authorized account representative seeking recordation of a TR NOX Ozone Season all owance transfer shall submit the transfer to the Administrator. (b) A TR NOX Ozone Season allowance transfer shall be correctly submitted if: (1) The transfer includes the following elements, in a format prescribed by the Administrator: (i) The account numbers established by the Administrator for both the transferor and transferee accounts; (ii) The serial number of each TR NO X Ozone Season allowance that is in the transferor account and is to be transferred; and (iii) The name and signature of the author ized account representative of the transferor account and the date signed; and (2) When the Administrator attempts to record the transfer, the transferor account includes each TR NO X Ozone Season allowance identified by serial number in the transfer. § 97 .5 23 Recordation of TR NOX Ozone Season allowance transfers.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1015 of 1339 (a) Within 5 business days (except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section) of receiving a TR NO X Ozone Season allowance transfer that is correctly submitted under § 97.5 22, the Administrato r will record a TR NO X Ozone Season allowance transfer by moving each TR NO X Ozone Season allowance from the transferor account to the transferee account as specified in the transfer . (b) A TR NOX Ozone Season allowance transfer to or from a compliance a ccount that is submitted for recordation after the allowance transfer deadline for a control period and that includes any TR NOX Ozone Season allowances allocated for any control period before such allowance transfer deadline will not be recorded until aft er the Administrator completes the deductions from such compliance account under § 97.5 24 for the control period immediately before such allowance transfer deadline. (c) Where a TR NOX Ozone Season allowance transfer is not correctly submitted under § 97.5 22 , the Administrator will not record such transfer. (d) Within 5 business days of recordation of a TR NO X Ozone Season allowance transfer under paragraphs (a) and (b) of the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1016 of 1339 section, the Administrator will notify the authorized account representatives of bo th the transferor and transferee accounts. (e) Within 10 business days of receipt of a TR NO X Ozone Season allowance transfer that is not correctly submitted under § 97.5 22, the Administrator will notify the authorized account representatives of both accoun ts subject to the transfer of: (1) A decision not to record the transfer, and (2) The reasons for such non - recordation. § 97.5 24 Compliance with TR NOX Ozone Season emissions limitation. (a) Availability for deduction for compliance . TR NOX Ozone Season allowances are available to be deducted for compliance with a source's TR NO X Ozone Season emissions limitation for a control period in a given year only if the TR NO X Ozone Season allowances: (1) Were allocated for such control period or a control period in a prior year; and (2) Are held in the source’s compliance account as of the allowance transfer deadline for such control period.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1017 of 1339 (b) Deductions for compliance . After the recordation, in accordance with § 97.5 23, of TR NOX Ozone Season allowance trans fers submitted by the allowance transfer deadline for a control period in a given year , the Administrator will deduct from each source’s compliance account TR NO X Ozone Season allowances available under paragraph (a) of this section in order to determine whether the source meets the TR NO X Ozone Season emissions limitation for such control period, as follows: (1) Until the amount of TR NO X Ozone Season allowances deducted equals the number of tons of total NO X emissions from all TR NO X Ozone Season units at the source for such control period; or (2) If there are insufficient TR NO X Ozone Season allowances to complete the deductions in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, until no more TR NOX Ozone Season allowances available under paragraph (a) of this section remain in the compliance account. (c)(1) Identification of TR NOX Ozone Season allowances by serial number . The authorized account representative for a source's compliance account may request that specific TR NO X Ozone Season allowances, identified by ser ial number, in the compliance account be deducted for emissions or excess emissions for a control period in a given year in accordance with paragraph (b) or (d) of this section. In order to be complete, such request*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1018 of 1339 shall be submitted to the Administrator by the allowance transfer deadline for such control period and include, in a format prescribed by the Administrator, the identification of the TR NOX Ozone Season source and the appropriate serial numbers. (2) First - in, first - out . The Administrator will deduct TR NOX Ozone Season allowances under paragraph (b) or (d) of this section from the source's compliance account in accordance with a complete request under paragraph (c)(1) of this section or, in the absence of such request or in the case of identifi cation of an insufficient amount of TR NO X Ozone Season allowances in such request, on a first - in, first - out accounting basis in the following order: (i) Any TR NOX Ozone Season allowances that were allocated to the units at the source and not transferred out of the compliance account, in the order of recordation; and then (ii) Any TR NOX Ozone Season allowances that were allocated to any unit and transferred to and recorded in the compliance account pursuant to this subpart, in the order of recordation. (d ) Deductions for excess emissions . After making the deductions for compliance under paragraph (b) of this section for a control period in a year in which the TR NO X Ozone Season*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1019 of 1339 source has excess emissions, the Administrator will deduct from the source's compliance account an amount of TR NO X Ozone Season allowances, allocated for the control period in the immediately following year, equal to two times the number of tons of the source's excess emissions. (e) Recordation of deductions . The Administrator wi ll record in the appropriate compliance account all deductions from such an account under paragraphs (b) and (d) of this section. § 97.5 25 Compliance with TR NOX Ozone Season assurance provisions. (a) Availability for deduction . TR NOX Ozone Season allowances are available to be deducted for compliance with the TR NO X Ozone Season assurance provisions for a control period in a given year by the owners and operators of a group of one or more TR NOX Ozone Season sources and units in a State only if the TR NOX Ozone Season allowances: (1) Were allocated for such control period or a control period in a prior year; and (2) Are held in the assurance account, established by the Administrator for such owners and operators of such group of TR NOX Ozone Season sou rces and units in such State under paragraph*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1020 of 1339 (b) (3) of this section, as of the deadline established in paragraph (b)(5) of this section. (b) Deductions for compliance . The Administrator will deduct TR NOX Ozone Season allowances available under paragraph (a) of this section for compliance with the TR NO X Ozone Season assurance provisions for a State for a control period in a given year in accordance with the following procedures: (1) By June 1, 201 3 and June 1 of each year thereafter, the Administrator will: (i) Calculate, separately for each State, the total NO X emissions from all TR NOX Ozone Season units at TR NOX Ozone Season sources in the State during the control period in the year before the year of this calculation deadline and the amount, if any , by which such total NOX emissions exceed the State assurance level as described in § 97.5 06(c)(2)(iii); and (ii) Promulgate a notice of data availability of the results of the calculations required in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section, including separat e calculations of the NO X emissions from each TR NOX Ozone Season source . ( 2 ) For each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)( 1 )(ii) of this section and for any State identified in such*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1021 of 1339 notice as having TR NO X Ozone Season units with total NOX emissions exceeding the State assurance level for a control period in a given year , as described in § 97.5 06(c)(2)(iii): (i) By July 1 immediately after the promulgation of such notice, the designated representative of each TR NO X Ozone Season source i n each such State shall submit a statement, in a format prescribed by the Administrator , providing for each TR NOX Ozone Season unit (if any) at the source that operates during, but is not allocated an amount of TR NOX Ozone Season allowances for, such co ntrol period, the unit’s allowable NO X emission rate for such control period and, if such rate is expressed in lb per mmBtu, the unit’s heat rate . (ii) By August 1 immediately after the promulgation of such notice, the Administrator will calculate, for e ach such State and each common designated representative (authorized as of the allowance transfer deadline for such control period) for a group of one or more TR NO X Ozone Season sources and units in the State and for such control period, the common design ated representative’s share of the total NO X emissions from all TR NO X Ozone Season units at TR NOX Ozone Season sources in the State, the common designated representative’s assurance level, and the amount (if any) of TR NO X Ozone Season allowances that the owners and operators of such group of sources and units must hold in*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1022 of 1339 accordance with the calculation formula in § 97.5 06(c)(2)(i) and will promulgate a notice of data availability of the results of these calculations. (iii) The Administrator will provide an opportunity for submission of objections to the calculations referenced by the notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)( 2 )(ii) of this section and the calculations referenced by the relevant notice of data availability required in para graph (b)(1)(i) of this section . (A) Objections shall be submitted by the deadline specified in such notice and shall be limited to addressing whether the calculations referenced in the relevant notice required under paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section and referenced in the notice required under paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section are in accordance with § 97.5 06(c)(2)(iii) , §§ 97.5 06(b) and 97.5 30 through 97.5 35 , the definitions of “common designated representative”, “ common designated representative’s as surance level”, and “ common designated representative’s share” in § 97.5 02, and the calculation formula in § 97.5 06(c)(2)(i). (B) The Administrator will adjust the calculations to the extent necessary to ensure that they are in accordance with the provisions referenced in paragraph (b)( 2 )(iii)(A) of this*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1023 of 1339 section. By October 1 immediately after the promulgation of such notice, the Administrator will promulgate a notice of data availability of any adjustments that the Administrator determines to be necessary and the reasons for accepting or rejecting any objections submitted in accordance with paragraph (b)( 2 )(iii)(A) of this section. (3) For any State identified in each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)( 2 )(ii i ) (B) of this section as having TR NOX Ozone Season units with total NOX emissions exceeding the State assurance level for a control period in a given year, the Administrator will establish one assurance account for each set of owners and operators identified, in the notice of data avail ability required under paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) of this section, as all of the owners and operators of a group of TR NO X Ozone Season sources and units in the State having a common designated representative (as of the allowance transfer deadline for such c ontrol period) and as being required to hold TR NO X Ozone Season allowances . ( 4 )(i) As of midnight of November 1 immediately after the promulgation of each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)( 2 )(iii)(B) of this section, the owners an d operators described in paragraph (b)( 3) of this section shall hold in the assurance account established for the them and for*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1024 of 1339 the appropriate TR NOX Ozone Season sources, TR NOX Ozone Season units, and State under paragraph (b)( 3) of this section a total amount of TR NOX Ozone Season allowances, available for deduction under paragraph (a) of this section, equal to the amount such owners and operators are required to hold with regard to such sources, units and State as calculated by the Administrator and re ferenced in such notice. (ii) Notwithstanding the allowance - holding deadline specified in paragraph (b)( 4 )(i) of this section, if November 1 is not a business day, then such allowance - holding deadline shall be midnight of the first business day thereafte r. ( 5 ) After November 1 (or the date described in paragraph (b)( 4) (ii) of this section) immediately after the promulgation of each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)( 2 )(iii)(B) of this section and after the recordation, in accordance with § 97.5 23, of TR NOX Ozone Season allowance transfers submitted by midnight of such date, the Administrator will determine whether the owners and operators described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section hold, in the assurance account for the appropriate TR NOX Ozone Season sources, TR NOX Ozone Season units, and State established under paragraph (b)( 3) of this section, the amount of TR NOX Ozone Season allowances available under paragraph (a) of this section that the owners*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1025 of 1339 and operators are required to hold with regard to such sources, units, and States as calculated by the Administrator and referenced in the notice required in paragraph (b)( 2 )(iii)(B) of this section. ( 6 ) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subpart and any revision, made by or submi tted to the Administrator after the promulgation of the notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)( 2 )(iii)(B) of this section for a control period in a given year , of any data used in making the calculations referenced in such notice, the amount s of TR NOX Ozone Season allowances that the owners and operators are required to hold in accordance with § 97.5 06(c)(2)(i) for such control period shall continue to be such amount s as calculated by the Administrator and referenced in such notice required i n paragraph (b)( 2 )(iii)(B) of this section, except as follows: (i) If any such data are revised by the Administrator as a result of a decision in or settlement of litigation concerning such data on appeal under part 78 of this chapter of such notice, or on appeal under section 307 of the Clean Air Act of a decision rendered under part 78 of this chapter on appeal of such notice, then the Administrator will use the data as so revised to recalculate the amounts of TR NO X Ozone Season allowances that owners an d operators are required to hold in*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1026 of 1339 accordance with the calculation formula in § 97.5 06(c)(2)(i) for such control period with regard to the TR NOX Ozone Season sources, TR NOX Ozone Season units, and State involved, provided that such litigation under part 78 of this chapter, or the proceeding under part 78 of this chapter that resulted in the decision appealed in such litigation under section 307 of the Clean Air Act, was initiated no later than 30 days after promulgation of such notice required in paragraph (b)(2) (iii)(B) of this section . (ii) If any such data are revised by the owners and operators of a TR NOX Ozone Season source and TR NOX Ozone Season unit whose designated representative submitted such data under paragraph (b)( 2 )(i) of this section, as a result of a decision in or settlement of litigation concerning such submission, then the Administrator will use the data as so revised to recalculate the amounts of TR NO X Ozone Season allowances that owners and operators are required to hold in accordan ce with the calculation formula in § 97.5 06(c)(2)(i) for such control period with regard to the TR NOX Ozone Season sources, TR NOX Ozone Season units, and State involved, provided that such litigation was initiated no later than 30 days after promulgation of such notice required in paragraph (b)( 2 )(iii)(B) of this section.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1027 of 1339 (iii) If the revised data are used to recalculate, in accordance with paragraphs (b)( 6 )(i) and (b)( 6 )(ii) of this section, the amount of TR NOX Ozone Season allowances that the owners and operators are required to hold for such control period with regard to the TR NOX Ozone Season sources, TR NOX Ozone Season units, and State involved

— (A) Where the amount of TR NO X Ozone Season allowances that the owners and operators are required to hol d increases as a result of the use of all such revised data, the Administrator will establish a new, reasonable deadline on which the owner s and operators shall hold the additional amount of TR NO X Ozone Season allowances in the assurance account established by the Administrator for the appropriate TR NOX Ozone Season sources, TR NOX Ozone Season units, and State under paragraph ( b)( 3) of this section. The owner s’ and operaters ’ failure to hold such additional amount, as required, before the new deadline s hall not be a violation of the Clean Air Act. The owner s ’ and operators’ failure to hold such additional amount, as required, as of the new deadline shall be a violation of the Clean Air Act. Each TR NOX Ozone Season allowance that the owner s and operato rs fail to hold as required as of the new deadline, and each day in such control period , shall be a separate violation of the Clean Air Act.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 102 8 of 1339 (B) For the owners and operators for which the amount of TR NO X Ozone Season allowances required to be held decr eases as a result of the use of all such revised data, the Administrator will record, in all accounts from which TR NOX Ozone Season allowances were transferred by such owners and operators for such control period to the assurance account established by the Administrator for the appropriate at TR NOX Ozone Season sources, TR NOX Ozone Season units, and State under paragraph (b) (3) of this section, a total amount of TR NOX Ozone Season allowances equal to the amount of the decrease. If TR NOX Ozone Season al lowances were transferred to such assurance account from more than one account, the amount of TR NOX Ozone Season allowances recorded in each such transferor account will be in proportion to the percentage of the total amount of TR NOX Ozone Season allowan ces transferred to such assurance account for such control period from such transferor account. (C) Each TR NOX Ozone Season allowance held under paragraph (b)( 6 )(iii)(A) of this section, or recorded under paragraph (b)( 6 )(iii)(B) of this section, as a r esult of recalculation of requirements under the TR NO X Ozone Season assurance provisions for such control period must be a TR NO X Ozone Season allowance allocated for such control period or a control period in a prior year.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1029 of 1339 § 97.5 26 Banking. (a) A TR NOX Ozone Season allowance may be banked for future use or transfer in a compliance account or a general account in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section. (b) Any TR NOX Ozone Season allowance that is held in a compliance account or a general ac count will remain in such account unless and until the TR NO X Ozone Season allowance is deducted or transferred under § 97.5 11(c), § 97.5 23, § 97.5 24, § 97.5 25, 97.5 27, or 97.5 28. § 97.5 27 Account error. The Administrator may, at his or her sole discretion a nd on his or her own motion, correct any error in any Allowance Management System account. Within 10 business days of making such correction, the Administrator will notify the authorized account representative for the account. § 97.5 28 Administrator’s action on submissions. (a) The Administrator may review and conduct independent audits concerning any submission under the TR NO X Ozone Season Trading Program and make appropriate adjustments of the information in the submission.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1030 of 1339 (b) The Administrator may de duct TR NOX Ozone Season allowances from or transfer TR NO X Ozone Season allowances to a compliance account or an assurance account, based on the information in a submission, as adjusted under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, and record such deductions an d transfers. § 97.5 29 [RESERVED] § 97.530 General monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. The owners and operators, and to the extent applicable, the designated representative, of a TR NO X Ozone Season unit, shall comply with the monitorin g, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements as provided in this subpart and subpart H of part 75 of this chapter. For purposes of applying such requirements, the definitions in §97.502 and in §72.2 of this chapter shall apply, the terms “affected unit,” “ designated representative,” and “continuous emission monitoring system” (or “CEMS”) in part 75 of this chapter shall be deemed to refer to the terms “TR NO X Ozone Season unit,“ “designated representative,” and “continuous emission monitoring system” (or “CEMS”) respectively as defined in §97.502, and the term “newly affected unit” shall be deemed to mean “newly affected TR NO X Ozone Season unit”. The owner or operator of a unit that is not a TR NO X Ozone Season unit but*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1031 of 1339 that is monitored under §75.72(b)(2) (ii) of this chapter shall comply with the same monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements as a TR NO X Ozone Season unit. (a) Requirements for installation, certification, and data accounting . The owner or operator of each TR NO X Ozone Season unit shall: (1) Install all monitoring systems required under this subpart for monitoring NO X mass emissions and individual unit heat input (including all systems required to monitor NO X emission rate, NO X concentration, stack gas moisture content, stack gas flow rate, CO 2 or O 2 concentration, and fuel flow rate, as applicable, in accordance with §§75.71 and 75.72 of this chapter); (2) Successfully complete all certification tests required under §97.531 and meet all other requirements of this subpart and p art 75 of this chapter applicable to the monitoring systems under paragraph (a)(1) of this section; and (3) Record, report, and quality - assure the data from the monitoring systems under paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(b) Compliance deadlines . Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, the owner or operator shall meet the monitoring system certification and other requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section on or before the following dates. The owner or operator*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1032 of 1339 shall record, rep ort, and quality - assure the data from the monitoring systems under paragraph (a)(1) of this section on and after the following dates. (1) For the owner or operator of a TR NO X Ozone Season unit that commences commercial operation before July 1, 2011, by May 1, 2012. (2) For the owner or operator of a TR NO X Ozone Season unit that commences commercial operation on or after July 1, 2011 and that reports on an annual basis under §97.534(d), by the later of the following dates: (i) 180 calendar days after the date on which the unit commences commercial operation; or (ii) May 1, 2012. (3) For the owner or operator of a TR NO X Ozone Season unit that commences commercial operation on or after July 1, 2011 and that reports on a control period basis under §97.53 4(d)(2)(ii), by the following date: (i) 180 calendar days after the date on which the unit commences commercial operation; or (ii) If the compliance date under paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1033 of 1339 is not during a control period, May 1 immediately after the compliance date under paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section.
(4) The owner or operator of a TR NO X Ozone Season unit for which construction of a new stack or flue or installation of add- on NOX emission controls is completed after the applicable deadline under paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section shall meet the requirements of §§75. 4(e)(1) through (e)(4) of this chapter, except that: (i) Such requirements shall apply to the monitoring systems required under § 97.530 through § 97.535, rather than the monito ring systems required under part 75 of this chapter; (ii) NOX emission rate, NOX concentration, stack gas moisture content, stack gas volumetric flow rate, and O 2 or CO 2 concentration data shall be determined and reported, rather than the data listed in §7 5. 4(e)(2) of this chapter; and (iii) Any petition for another procedure under §75. 4(e)(2) of this chapter shall be submitted under § 97.535, rather than §75 .66. (c) Reporting data . The owner or operator of a TR NO X Ozone Season unit that does not meet the applicable compliance date set forth in paragraph (b) of this section for any monitoring*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1034 of 1339 system under paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall, for each such monitoring system, determine, record, and report maximum potential (or, as appropriate, minimum pote ntial) values for NO X concentration, NOX emission rate, stack gas flow rate, stack gas moisture content, fuel flow rate, and any other parameters required to determine NO X mass emissions and heat input in accordance with § 75.31(b)(2) or (c)(3) of this chapter, section 2.4 of appendix D to part 75 of this chapter, or section 2.5 of appendix E to part 75 of this chapter, as applicable.
(d) Prohibitions . (1) No owner or operator of a TR NO X Ozone Season unit shall use any alternative monitoring system, alte rnative reference method, or any other alternative to any requirement of this subpart without having obtained prior written approval in accordance with §97.535. (2) No owner or operator of a TR NO X Ozone Season unit shall operate the unit so as to dischar ge, or allow to be discharged, NOX emissions to the atmosphere without accounting for all such emissions in accordance with the applicable provisions of this subpart and part 75 of this chapter. (3) No owner or operator of a TR NO X Ozone Season unit shall disrupt the continuous emission monitoring system, any portion*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1035 of 1339 thereof, or any other approved emission monitoring method, and thereby avoid monitoring and recording NO X mass emissions discharged into the atmosphere or heat input, except for periods of rec ertification or periods when calibration, quality assurance testing, or maintenance is performed in accordance with the applicable provisions of this subpart and part 75 of this chapter. (4) No owner or operator of a TR NO X Ozone Season unit shall retire or permanently discontinue use of the continuous emission monitoring system, any component thereof, or any other approved monitoring system under this subpart, except under any one of the following circumstances: (i) During the period that the unit is covered by an exemption under §97.505 that is in effect; (ii) The owner or operator is monitoring emissions from the unit with another certified monitoring system approved, in accordance with the applicable provisions of this subpart and part 75 of this chap ter, by the Administrator for use at that unit that provides emission data for the same pollutant or parameter as the retired or discontinued monitoring system; or*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1036 of 1339 (iii) The designated representative submits notification of the date of certification testi ng of a replacement monitoring system for the retired or discontinued monitoring system in accordance with §97.531(d)(3)(i).
(e) Long - term cold storage . The owner or operator of a TR NO X Ozone Season unit is subject to the applicable provisions of §75.4(d ) of this chapter concerning units in long - term cold storage. § 97.531 Initial monitoring system certification and recertification procedures . (a) The owner or operator of a TR NO X Ozone Season unit shall be exempt from the initial certification requirements of this section for a monitoring system under §97.530(a)(1) if the following conditions are met: (1) The monitoring system has been previously certified in accordance with part 75 of this chapter; and (2) The applicable quality - assurance and quality - control requirements of §75.21 of this chapter and appendices B, D, and E to part 75 of this chapter are fully met for the certified monitoring system described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1037 of 1339 (b) The recertification provisions of this section shall apply to a monitoring system under §97.530(a)(1) exempt from initial certification requirements under paragraph (a) of this section. (c) If the Administrator has previously approved a petition under §75.17(a) or (b) of this chapter for apportioning the NOX emission rate measured in a common stack or a petition under §75.66 of this chapter for an alternative to a requirement in §75.12 or §75.17 of this chapter, the designated representative shall resubmit the petition to the Administrator under §97.535 to determine whether the approval applies under the TR NO X Ozone Season Trading Program. (d) Except as provided in paragraph (a) of this section, the owner or operator of a TR NO X Ozone Season unit shall comply with the following initial certification and re certification procedures for a continuous monitoring system (i.e., a continuous emission monitoring system and an excepted monitoring system under appendices D and E to part 75 of this chapter) under §97.530(a)(1). The owner or operator of a unit that qual ifies to use the low mass emissions excepted monitoring methodology under §75.19 of this chapter or that qualifies to use an alternative monitoring system under subpart E of part 75*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1038 of 1339 of this chapter shall comply with the procedures in paragraph (e) or (f) o f this section respectively. (1) Requirements for initial certification. The owner or operator shall ensure that each continuous monitoring system under § 97.530(a)(1) (including the automated data acquisition and handling system) successfully completes a ll of the initial certification testing required under §75.20 of this chapter by the applicable deadline in § 97.530(b). In addition, whenever the owner or operator installs a monitoring system to meet the requirements of this subpart in a location where n o such monitoring system was previously installed, initial certification in accordance with §75.20 of this chapter is required. (2) Requirements for recertification. Whenever the owner or operator makes a replacement, modification, or change in any certif ied continuous emission monitoring system under § 97.530(a)(1) that may significantly affect the ability of the system to accurately measure or record NO X mass emissions or heat input rate or to meet the quality - assurance and quality - control requirements o f §75.21 of this chapter or appendix B to part 75 of this chapter, the owner or operator shall recertify the monitoring system in accordance with §75.20(b) of this chapter.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1039 of 1339 Furthermore, whenever the owner or operator makes a replacement, modification, or change to the flue gas handling system or the unit's operation that may significantly change the stack flow or concentration profile, the owner or operator shall recertify each continuous emission monitoring system whose accuracy is potentially affected by the change, in accordance with §75.20(b) of this chapter. Examples of changes to a continuous emission monitoring system that require recertification include: replacement of the analyzer, complete replacement of an existing continuous emission monitoring s ystem, or change in location or orientation of the sampling probe or site. Any fuel flowmeter systems, and any excepted NO X monitoring system under appendix E to part 75 of this chapter, under §97.530(a)(1) are subject to the recertification requirements i n §75.20(g)(6) of this chapter. (3) Approval process for initial certification and recertification. For initial certification of a continuous monitoring system under §97.530(a)(1), paragraphs (d)(3)(i) through (v) of this section apply. For recertificati ons of such monitoring systems, paragraphs (d)(3)(i) through (iv) of this section and the procedures in §§75.20(b)(5) and (g)(7) of this chapter (in lieu of the procedures in paragraph (d)(3)(v) of this section) apply, provided that in applying paragraphs*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1040 of 1339 (d)(3)(i) through (iv) of this section, the words “certification” and “initial certification” are replaced by the word “recertification” and the word “certified” is replaced by with the word “recertified”. (i) Notification of certification. The designa ted representative shall submit to the appropriate EPA Regional Office and the Administrator written notice of the dates of certification testing, in accordance with §97.533. (ii) Certification application. The designated representative shall submit to the Administrator a certification application for each monitoring system. A complete certification application shall include the information specified in §75.63 of this chapter. (iii) Provisional certification date. The provisional certification date for a monitoring system shall be determined in accordance with §75.20(a)(3) of this chapter. A provisionally certified monitoring system may be used under the TR NO X Ozone Season Trading Program for a period not to exceed 120 days after receipt by the Administra tor of the complete certification application for the monitoring system under paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of this section. Data measured and recorded by the provisionally*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1041 of 1339 certified monitoring system, in accordance with the requirements of part 75 of this chapter, will be considered valid quality assured data (retroactive to the date and time of provisional certification), provided that the Administrator does not invalidate the provisional certification by issuing a notice of disapproval within 120 days of the date of receipt of the complete certification application by the Administrator. (iv) Certification application approval process. The Administrator will issue a written notice of approval or disapproval of the certification application to the owner or operator within 120 days of receipt of the complete certification application under paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of this section. In the event the Administrator does not issue such a notice within such 120 - day period, each monitoring system that meets the applicable perfo rmance requirements of part 75 of this chapter and is included in the certification application will be deemed certified for use under the TR NO X Ozone Season Trading Program. (A) Approval notice. If the certification application is complete and shows tha t each monitoring system meets the applicable performance requirements of part 75 of this chapter, then the Administrator will issue a written notice of approval*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1042 of 1339 of the certification application within 120 days of receipt. (B) Incomplete application notic e. If the certification application is not complete, then the Administrator will issue a written notice of incompleteness that sets a reasonable date by which the designated representative must submit the additional information required to complete the cer tification application. If the designated representative does not comply with the notice of incompleteness by the specified date, then the Administrator may issue a notice of disapproval under paragraph (d)(3)(iv)(C) of this section. The 120 - day review per iod specified in paragraph (d)(3) of this section shall not begin before receipt of a complete certification application. (C) Disapproval notice. If the certification application shows that any monitoring system does not meet the performance requirements of part 75 of this chapter or if the certification application is incomplete and the requirement for disapproval under paragraph (d)(3)(iv)(B) of this section is met, then the Administrator will issue a written notice of disapproval of the certification application. Upon issuance of such notice of disapproval, the provisional certification is invalidated by the Administrator and the data measured and recorded by each uncertified monitoring system shall not be considered valid*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1043 of 1339 quality - assured data beginning with the date and hour of provisional certification (as defined under § 75.20(a)(3) of this chapter). (D) Audit decertification. The Administrator may issue a notice of disapproval of the certification status of a monitor in accordance with § 97.532(b).
(v) Procedures for loss of certification. If the Administrator issues a notice of disapproval of a certification application under paragraph (d)(3)(iv)(C) of this section or a notice of disapproval of certification status under paragraph (d)(3)(iv)(D) of this section, then: (A) The owner or operator shall substitute the following values, for each disapproved monitoring system, for each hour of unit operation during the period of invalid data specified under §75.20(a)(4)(iii), § 75.20(g)(7), or § 75.21(e) o f this chapter and continuing until the applicable date and hour specified under §75.20(a)(5)(i) or (g)(7) of this chapter: (1) For a disapproved NO X emission rate (i.e., NO X- diluent) system, the maximum potential NO X emission rate, as defined in §72.2 of this chapter.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1044 of 1339 (2) For a disapproved NO X pollutant concentration monitor and disapproved flow monitor, respectively, the maximum potential concentration of NOX and the maximum potential flow rate, as defined in sections 2.1.2.1 and 2.1.4.1 of appendix A t o part 75 of this chapter. (3) For a disapproved moisture monitoring system and disapproved diluent gas monitoring system, respectively, the minimum potential moisture percentage and either the maximum potential CO 2 concentration or the minimum potential O 2 concentration (as applicable), as defined in sections 2.1.5, 2.1.3.1, and 2.1.3.2 of appendix A to part 75 of this chapter. (4) For a disapproved fuel flowmeter system, the maximum potential fuel flow rate, as defined in section 2.4.2.1 of appendix D t o part 75 of this chapter. (5) For a disapproved excepted NO X monitoring system under appendix E to part 75 of this chapter, the fuel - specific maximum potential NOX emission rate, as defined in §72.2 of this chapter. (B) The designated representative sha ll submit a notification of certification retest dates and a new certification application*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1045 of 1339 in accordance with paragraphs (d)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section. (C) The owner or operator shall repeat all certification tests or other requirements that were fai led by the monitoring system, as indicated in the Administrator's notice of disapproval, no later than 30 unit operating days after the date of issuance of the notice of disapproval. (e) The owner or operator of a unit qualified to use the low mass emissi ons (LME) excepted methodology under §75.19 of this chapter shall meet the applicable certification and recertification requirements in §§75.19(a)(2) and 75.20(h) of this chapter. If the owner or operator of such a unit elects to certify a fuel flowmeter s ystem for heat input determination, the owner or operator shall also meet the certification and recertification requirements in §75.20(g) of this chapter. (f) The designated representative of each unit for which the owner or operator intends to use an alt ernative monitoring system approved by the Administrator under subpart E of part 75 of this chapter shall comply with the applicable notification and application procedures of §75.20(f) of this chapter.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1046 of 1339 § 97.532 Monitoring system out- of - control periods. (a) General provisions . Whenever any monitoring system fails to meet the quality - assurance and quality - control requirements or data validation requirements of part 75 of this chapter, data shall be substituted using the applicable missing data procedures in subpart D or subpart H of, or appendix D or appendix E to, part 75 of this chapter.
(b) Audit decertification . Whenever both an audit of a monitoring system and a review of the initial certification or recertification application reveal that any monito ring system should not have been certified or recertified because it did not meet a particular performance specification or other requirement under §97.531 or the applicable provisions of part 75 of this chapter, both at the time of the initial certificati on or recertification application submission and at the time of the audit, the Administrator will issue a notice of disapproval of the certification status of such monitoring system. For the purposes of this paragraph, an audit shall be either a field audi t or an audit of any information submitted to the Administrator or any State or permitting authority. By issuing the notice of disapproval, the Administrator revokes prospectively the certification status of the monitoring system.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1047 of 1339 The data measured and rec orded by the monitoring system shall not be considered valid quality - assured data from the date of issuance of the notification of the revoked certification status until the date and time that the owner or operator completes subsequently approved initial c ertification or recertification tests for the monitoring system. The owner or operator shall follow the applicable initial certification or recertification procedures in §97.531 for each disapproved monitoring system. § 97.533 Notifications concerning monitoring. The designated representative of a TR NO X Ozone Season unit shall submit written notice to the Administrator in accordance with §75.61 of this chapter. § 97.534 Recordkeeping and reporting. (a) General provisions . The designated representative s hall comply with all recordkeeping and reporting requirements in this section, the applicable recordkeeping and reporting requirements under §75.73 of this chapter, and the requirements of §97.514(a).
(b) Monitoring plans . The owner or operator of a TR NOX Ozone Season unit shall comply with requirements of §75.73 (c) and (e) of this chapter.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1048 of 1339 (c) Certification applications . The designated representative shall submit an application to the Administrator within 45 days after completing all initial certif ication or recertification tests required under §97.531, including the information required under §75.63 of this chapter.
(d) Quarterly reports . The designated representative shall submit quarterly reports, as follows:
(1) If the TR NOX Ozone Season uni t is subject to the Acid Rain Program or a TR NOX Annual emissions limitation or if the owner or operator of such unit chooses to report on an annual basis under this subpart, the designated representative shall meet the requirements of subpart H of part 7 5 of this chapter (concerning monitoring of NOX mass emissions) for such unit for the entire year and shall report the NO X mass emissions data and heat input data for such unit, in an electronic quarterly report in a format prescribed by the Administrator, for each calendar quarter beginning with: (i) For a unit that commences commercial operation before July 1, 2011, the calendar quarter covering May 1, 2012 through June 30, 2012;*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1049 of 1339 (ii) For a unit that commences commercial operation on or after July 1, 20 11, the calendar quarter corresponding to the earlier of the date of provisional certification or the applicable deadline for initial certification under §97.530(b), unless that quarter is the third or fourth quarter of 2011 or the first quarter of 2012, i n which case reporting shall commence in the quarter covering May 1, 2012 through June 30, 2012;
(2) If the TR NOX Ozone Season unit is not subject to the Acid Rain Program or a TR NO X Annual emissions limitation, then the designated representative shall either: (i) Meet the requirements of subpart H of part 75 (concerning monitoring of NOX mass emissions) for such unit for the entire year and report the NO X mass emissions data and heat input data for such unit in accordance with paragraph (d)(1) of this section; or (ii) Meet the requirements of subpart H of part 75 for the control period (including the requirements in §75.74(c) of this chapter) and report NO X mass emissions data and heat input data (including the data described in §75.74(c)(6) of this ch apter) for such unit only for the control period of each year and report, in an electronic quarterly report in a format prescribed*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1050 of 1339 by the Administrator, for each calendar quarter beginning with: (A) For a unit that commences commercial operation before Ju ly 1, 2011, the calendar quarter covering May 1, 2012 through June 30, 2012; (B) For a unit that commences commercial operation on or after July 1, 2011, the calendar quarter corresponding to the earlier of the date of provisional certification or the app licable deadline for initial certification under §97.530(b), unless that date is not during a control period, in which case reporting shall commence in the quarter that includes May 1 through June 30 of the first control period after such date;

( 3 ) The designated representative shall submit each quarterly report to the Administrator within 30 days after the end of the calendar quarter covered by the report. Quarterly reports shall be submitted in the manner specified in §75.73(f) of this chapter.
( 4 ) For TR NOX Ozone Season units that are also subject to the Acid Rain Program, TR NO X Annual Trading Program, TR SO 2 Group 1 Trading Program, or TR SO 2 Group 1 Trading Program, quarterly*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1051 of 1339 reports shall include the applicable data and information required by subparts F through H of part 75 of this chapter as applicable, in addition to the NO X mass emission data, heat input data, and other information required by this subpart.

( 5 ) The Administrator may review and conduct independent audits of any quarterly report in order to determine whether the quarterly report meets the requirements of this subpart and part 75 of this chapter, including the requirement to use substitute data. (i) The Administrator will notify the designated representative of any determination that the quarterly report fails to meet any such requirements and specify in such notification any corrections that the Administrator believes are necessary to make through resubmission of the quarterly report and a reasonable time period within which the designated representative must respond. Upon request by the designated representative, the Administrator may specify reasonable extensions of such time period. Within the time period (including any such extensions) specified by the Administrator, the de signated representative shall resubmit the quarterly report with the corrections specified by the Administrator, except to the extent the designated representative provides*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1052 of 1339 information demonstrating that a specified correction is not necessary because the quarterly report already meets the requirements of this subpart and part 75 of this chapter that are relevant to the specified correction. ( 6 ) Any resubmission of a quarterly report shall meet the requirements applicable to the submission of a quarterly report under this subpart and part 75 of this chapter, except for the deadline set forth in paragraph (d)( 3 ) of this section. (e) Compliance certification . The designated representative shall submit to the Administrator a compliance certification (in a format prescribed by the Administrator) in support of each quarterly report based on reasonable inquiry of those persons with primary responsibility for ensuring that all of the unit's emissions are correctly and fully monitored. The certification shall state that: (1) The monitoring data submitted were recorded in accordance with the applicable requirements of this subpart and part 75 of this chapter, including the quality assurance procedures and specifications;
(2) For a unit with add- on NOX emission cont rols and for all hours where NOX data are substituted in accordance with*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1053 of 1339 §75.34(a)(1) of this chapter, the add- on emission controls were operating within the range of parameters listed in the quality assurance/quality control program under appendix B to pa rt 75 of this chapter and the substitute data values do not systematically underestimate NO X emissions; and (3) For a unit that is reporting on a control period basis under paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of this section, the NO X emission rate and NOX concentration values substituted for missing data under subpart D of part 75 of this chapter are calculated using only values from a control period and do not systematically underestimate NOX emissions. § 97.535 Petitions for alternatives to monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting requirements. (a) The designated representative of a TR NO X Ozone Season unit may submit a petition under §75.66 of this chapter to the Administrator, requesting approval to apply an alternative to any requirement of §§97.530 through 97.534 or paragraph (5)(i) or (ii) of the definition of “owner’s share” in §97.502. (b) A petition submitted under paragraph (a) of this section shall include sufficient information for the evaluation of the petition, including, at a minimum, the following information:*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1054 of 1339 (i) Identification of each unit and source covered by the petition; (ii) A detailed explanation of why the proposed alternative is being suggested in lieu of the requirement; (iii) A description and diagram of any equipment and procedures used in the proposed alternative; (iv) A demonstration that the proposed alternative is consistent with the purposes of the requirement for which the alternative is proposed and with the purposes of this subpart and part 75 of this chapter and that any adverse effec t of approving the alternative will be de minimis ; and (v) Any other relevant information that the Administrator may require. (c) Use of an alternative to any requirement referenced in paragraph (a) of this section is in accordance with this subpart only to the extent that the petition is approved in writing by the Administrator and that such use is in accordance with such approval.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1055 of 1339 7 6 . Part 97 is amended by adding subpart CCCCC to read as follows: Subpart CCCCC—TR SO2 Group 1 Trading Program 97.6 01 Purpose. 97.6 02 Definitions. 97.6 03 Measurements, abbreviations, and acronyms. 97.6 04 Applicability. 97.6 05 Retired unit exemption. 97.6 06 Standard requirements. 97.6 07 Computation of time. 97.6 08 Administrative appeal procedu res. 97.6 09 [Reserved] 97.6 10 State SO 2 Group 1 trading budgets, new unit set asides, Indian country new unit set - asides and variability limits. 97.6 11 Timing requirements for TR SO 2 Group 1 allowance allocations. 97.6 12 TR SO 2 Group 1 allowance allocations for new units.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1056 of 1339 97.6 13 Authorization of designated representative and alternate designated representative. 97.6 14 Responsibilities of designated representative and alternate designated representative. 97.6 15 Changing designated represen tative and alternate designated representative; changes in owners and operators. 97.6 16 Certificate of representation. 97.6 17 Objections concerning designated representative and alternate designated representative. 97.6 18 Delegation by designated repres entative and alternate designated representative. 97.6 19 [Reserved] 97.6 20 Establishment of compliance accounts and general accounts. 97.6 21 Recordation of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowance allocations. 97.6 22 Submission of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowance transfers. 97.6 23 Recordation of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowance transfers. 97.6 24 Compliance with TR SO 2 Group 1 emissions limitation. 97.6 25 Compliance with TR SO 2 Group 1 assurance provisions.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1057 of 1339 97.6 26 Banking. 97.6 27 Account error. 97.6 28 Administrator’s action on s ubmissions. 97.6 29 [RESERVED] 97.6 30 General monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. 97.6 31 Initial monitoring system certification and recertification procedures. 97.6 32 Monitoring system out - of - control periods. 97.6 33 Notifications co ncerning monitoring. 97.6 34 Recordkeeping and reporting. 97.6 35 Petitions for alternatives to monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting requirements. Subpart DDDDD—TR SO2 Group 1 Trading Program § 97.6 01 Purpose. This subpart sets forth the general, designated representative, allowance, and monitoring provisions for the Transport Rule (TR) SO 2 Group 1 Trading Program, under section 110 of the Clean Air*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1058 of 1339 Act and §52.38 of this chapter, as a means of mitigating interstate transport o f fine particulates and nitrogen oxides. § 97.6 02 Definitions. The terms used in this subpart shall have the meanings set forth in this section as follows: Acid Rain Program means a multi - state SO 2 and NOX air pollution control and emission reduction prog ram established by the Administrator under title IV of the Clean Air Act and parts 72 through 78 of this chapter. Administrator means the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency or the Director of the Clean Air Markets Division ( or its successor) of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the Administrator's duly authorized representative under this subpart. Allocate or allocation means, with regard to TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances, the determination by the Administrator , S tate, or permitting authority , in accordance with this subpart and any SIP revision submitted by the State and approved by the Administrator under §52.3 8 ( d) (e), or (f) of this chapter, of the amount of such TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances to be initially credit ed, at no cost to the recipient, to:*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1059 of 1339 (1) A TR SO 2 Group 1 unit; (2) A new unit set - aside; (3) An Indian country new unit set - aside; or (4) An entity not listed in paragraphs (1) through (3) of this definition; (5) Provided that, if the Administrator , State , or permitting authority initially credits, to a TR SO 2 Group 1 unit qualifying for an initial credit, a credit in the amount of zero TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances, the TR SO 2 Group 1 unit will be treated as being allocated an amount (i.e., zero) of TR SO 2 Gr oup 1 allowances. Allowable SO 2 emission rate means, with regard to a unit, the most stringent State or federal SO 2 emission rate limit (in lb/MWhr or, if in lb/mmBtu, converted to lb/MWhr by multiplying it by the unit’s heat rate in mmBtu/MWhr) that is applicable to the unit and covers the longest averaging period not exceeding one year. Allowance Management System means the system by which the Administrator records allocations, deductions, and transfers of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances under the TR SO 2 G roup 1 Trading*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 106 0 of 1339 Program. Such allowances are allocated, recorded, held, deducted, or transferred only as whole allowances. Allowance Management System account means an account in the Allowance Management System established by the Administrator for purpos es of recording the allocation, holding, transfer, or deduction of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances. Allowance transfer deadline means, for a control period in a given year, midnight of March 1 (if it is a business day), or midnight of the first business day ther eafter (if March 1 is not a business day), immediately after such control period and is the deadline by which a TR SO 2 Group 1 allowance transfer must be submitted for recordation in a TR SO 2 Group 1 source's compliance account in order to be available for use in complying with the source's TR SO 2 Group 1 emissions limitation for such control period in accordance with §§ 97.6 06 and 97.6 24. Alternate designated representative means, with regard to a TR SO 2 Group 1 source and each TR SO 2 Group 1 unit at the s ource, the natural person who is authorized by the owners and operators of the source and all such units at the source, in accordance with this subpart, to act on behalf of the designated representative in matters pertaining to the TR SO 2 Group 1 Trading P rogram. If the TR SO 2 Group 1 source is also subject to*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1061 of 1339 the Acid Rain Program, TR NO X Annual Trading Program, or TR NO X Ozone Season Trading Program, then this natural person shall be the same natural person as the alternate designated representative, as defined in the respective program.
Assurance account means an Allowance Management System account, established by the Administrator under § 97.6 25(b)(3) for certain owners and operators of a group of one or more TR SO 2 Group 1 sources and units in a given State, in which are held TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances available for use for a control period in a given year in complying with the TR SO 2 Group 1 assurance provisions in accordance with §§ 97.6 06 and 97.6 25. Authorized account representative means, with rega rd to a general account, the natural person who is authorized, in accordance with this subpart, to transfer and otherwise dispose of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances held in the general account and, with regard to a TR SO 2 Group 1 source’s compliance account, the designated representative of the source. Automated data acquisition and handling system or DAHS means the component of the continuous emission monitoring system, or other emissions monitoring system approved for use under this subpart, designed to interpr et and convert individual output signals from pollutant concentration monitors, flow monitors, diluent gas*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1062 of 1339 monitors, and other component parts of the monitoring system to produce a continuous record of the measured parameters in the measurement units requi red by this subpart. Biomass means— (1) Any organic material grown for the purpose of being converted to energy; (2) Any organic byproduct of agriculture that can be converted into energy; or (3) Any material that can be converted into energy and is nonme rchantable for other purposes, that is segregated from other material that is nonmerchantable for other purposes, and that is; (i) A forest - related organic resource, including mill residues, precommercial thinnings, slash, brush, or byproduct from conversi on of trees to merchantable material; or (ii) A wood material, including pallets, crates, dunnage, manufacturing and construction materials (other than pressure treated, chemically - treated, or painted wood products), and landscape or right - of - way tree trimmings.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1063 of 1339 Boiler means an enclosed fossil - or other - fuel - fired combustion device used to produce heat and to transfer heat to recirculating water, steam, or other medium. Bottoming - cycle unit means a unit in which the energy input to the unit is first used to produce useful thermal energy, where at least some of the reject heat from the useful thermal energy application or process is then used for electricity production. Business day means a day that does not fall on a weekend or a federal holiday. Certifying official means a natural person who is: (1) For a corporation, a president, secretary, treasurer, or vice -president or the corporation in charge of a principal business function or any other person who performs similar policy - or decision -making functions for the corporation; (2) For a partnership or sole proprietorship, a general partner or the proprietor respectively; or (3) For a local government entity or State, federal, or other public agency, a principal executive officer or ranking elected official. Clean Air Act means the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1064 of 1339 Coal means “coal” as defined in §72.2 of this chapter. Coal - derived fuel means any fuel (whether in a solid, liquid, or gaseous state) produced by the mechanical, thermal, or chemical processi ng of coal. Cogeneration system means an integrated group, at a source, of equipment (including a boiler, or combustion turbine, and a steam turbine generator) designed to produce useful thermal energy for industrial, commercial, heating, or cooling purpos es and electricity through the sequential use of energy. Cogeneration unit means a stationary, fossil - fuel - fired boiler or stationary, fossil - fuel - fired combustion turbine

— (1) Operating as part of a cogeneration system; and (2) Producing on an annual ave rage basis during the later of 2005 or the 12 -month period starting on the date that the unit first produces electricity and during each calendar year after the later of 2005 or the calendar year in which the unit first produces electricity

— (i) For a topp ing - cycle unit, (A) Useful thermal energy not less than 5 percent of total energy output; and*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1065 of 1339 (B) Useful power that, when added to one - half of useful thermal energy produced, is not less than 42.5 percent of total energy input, if useful thermal energy pr oduced is 15 percent or more of total energy output, or not less than 45 percent of total energy input, if useful thermal energy produced is less than 15 percent of total energy output. (ii) For a bottoming - cycle unit, useful power not less than 45 percent of total energy input; (3) Provided that the requirements in paragraph (2) of this definition shall not apply to a calendar year referenced in paragraph (2) of this definition during which the unit did not operate at all; (4) Provided that the total energy input under paragraphs (2)(i)(B) and (2)(ii) of this definition shall equal the unit's total energy input from all fuel, except biomass if the unit is a boiler; and (5) Provided that, if, throughout its operation during the 12 - month period or a calendar year referenced in paragraph (2) of this definition, a unit is operated as part of a cogeneration system and the cogeneration system meets on a system- wide basis the requirement in paragraph (2)(i)(B) or (2)(ii) of this*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1066 of 1339 definition, the unit shall be deemed to meet such requirement during that 12 -month period or calendar year. Combustion turbine means an enclosed device comprising: (1) If the device is simple cycle, a compressor, a combustor, and a turbine and in which the flue gas resulting from the combus tion of fuel in the combustor passes through the turbine, rotating the turbine; and (2) If the device is combined cycle, the equipment described in paragraph (1) of this definition and any associated duct burner, heat recovery steam generator, and steam tu rbine. Commence commercial operation means, with regard to a unit: (1) To have begun to produce steam, gas, or other heated medium used to generate electricity for sale or use, including test generation, except as provided in § 97.6 05. (i) For a unit that i s a TR SO 2 Group 1 unit under § 97.6 04 on the later of January 1, 2005 or the date the unit commences commercial operation as defined in the introductory text of paragraph (1) of this definition and that subsequently undergoes a physical change or is moved to a new location or source, such date shall remain the date of commencement of commercial*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1067 of 1339 operation of the unit, which shall continue to be treated as the same unit. (ii) For a unit that is a TR SO 2 Group 1 unit under § 97.6 04 on the later of January 1, 20 05 or the date the unit commences commercial operation as defined in the introductory text of paragraph (1) of this definition and that is subsequently replaced by a unit at the same or a different source, such date shall remain the replaced unit's date of commencement of commercial operation, and the replacement unit shall be treated as a separate unit with a separate date for commencement of commercial operation as defined in paragraph (1) or (2) of this definition as appropriate. (2) Notwithstanding para graph (1) of this definition and except as provided in § 97.6 05, for a unit that is not a TR SO 2 Group 1 unit under § 97.6 04 on the later of January 1, 2005 or the date the unit commences commercial operation as defined in introductory text of paragraph (1) of this definition, the unit's date for commencement of commercial operation shall be the date on which the unit becomes a TR SO 2 Group 1 unit under § 97.6 04. (i) For a unit with a date for commencement of commercial operation as defined in the introductory text of paragraph (2)*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1068 of 1339 of this definition and that subsequently undergoes a physical change) or is moved to a different location or source, such date shall remain the date of commencement of commercial operation of the unit, which shall continue to be trea ted as the same unit. (ii) For a unit with a date for commencement of commercial operation as defined in the introductory text of paragraph (2) of this definition and that is subsequently replaced by a unit at the same or a different source, such date shal l remain the replaced unit's date of commencement of commercial operation, and the replacement unit shall be treated as a separate unit with a separate date for commencement of commercial operation as defined in paragraph (1) or (2) of this definition as appropriate. Common designated representative means a designated representative where the same natural person is authorized under §§ 97.6 13(a) and 97.6 15(a) as the designated representative for a group of one or more TR SO 2 Group 1 sources and units located in a State. Common designated representative’s assurance level means, with regard to a specific common designated representative and a State and control period in a given year for which the State assurance level is exceeded as described in § 97.6 06(c)(2)(i ii),*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1069 of 1339 the common designated representative’s share of the State SO 2 Group 1 trading budget with the one - year variability limit for the State for such control period. Common designated representative’s share means, with regard to a specific common designa ted representative: (1) With regard to a total amount of SO 2 emissions from all TR SO 2 Group 1 units in a State during a control period in a given year, the total tonnage of SO 2 emissions during such control period from a group of one or more TR SO 2 Group 1 units located in the State and having the common designated representative as of the allowance transfer deadline for such control period; (2) With regard to a State SO 2 Group 1 trading budget for a control period in a given year, the amount (rounded to the nearest allowance) equal to the sum of the total amount of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances allocated for such control period to a group of one or more TR SO 2 Group 1 units located in the State and having the common designated representative as of the allowan ce transfer deadline for such control period and of the total amount of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances purchased by an owner or operator of such TR SO 2 Group 1 units in an auction for such control period and submitted to the Administrator for recordation in the compliance accounts for such TR SO 2 Group 1*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1070 of 1339 units in accordance with the TR SO 2 Group 1 allowance auction provisions in a SIP revision approved by the Administrator under §52.3 8(e) or (f) of this chapter, multiplied by the sum of the State SO 2 Group 1 tra ding budget under § 97.6 10(a) and the State’s one - year variability limit under § 97.6 10(b) for such control period and divided by such State SO 2 Group 1 trading budget; (3) Provided that, in the case of a unit that operates during, but has no amount of TR S O 2 Group 1 allowances allocated under §§ 97.6 11 and 97.6 12 for, a control period in a given year, the unit shall be treated, solely for purposes of this definition, as being allocated an amount (rounded to the nearest allowance) of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances for such control period equal to the unit’s allowable SO 2 emission rate applicable to such control period, multiplied by a capacity factor of 0.87 (if the unit is a boiler combusting any amount of coal or coal - derived fuel during such control period), 0. 14 (if the unit is a simple combustion turbine during such control period), 0.70 (if the unit is a combined cycle turbine during such control period), 0.46 (if the unit is a boiler combusting only fuel oil or natural gas during such control period), or 0. 71 (for any other unit), multiplied by the unit’s maximum hourly load as reported in accordance with this subpart and by 8,760 hours/control period, and divided by 2,000 lb/ton .*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1071 of 1339 Common stack means a single flue through which emissions from 2 or more units are exhausted. Compliance account means an Allowance Management System account, established by the Administrator for a TR SO 2 Group 1 source under this subpart, in which any TR SO 2 Group 1 allowance allocations for the TR SO 2 Group 1 units at the source a re recorded and in which are held any TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances available for use for a control period in a given year in complying with the source's TR SO 2 Group 1 emissions limitation in accordance with §§ 97.6 06 and 97.6 24. Continuous emission monitorin g system or CEMS means the equipment required under this subpart to sample, analyze, measure, and provide, by means of readings recorded at least once every 15 minutes and using an automated data acquisition and handling system (DAHS), a permanent record o f SO 2 emissions, stack gas volumetric flow rate, stack gas moisture content, and O 2 or CO 2 concentration (as applicable), in a manner consistent with part 75 of this chapter and §§ 97.6 30 through 97.6 35. The following systems are the principal types of con tinuous emission monitoring systems: (1) A flow monitoring system, consisting of a stack flow rate monitor and an automated data acquisition and handling system*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1072 of 1339 and providing a permanent, continuous record of stack gas volumetric flow rate, in standard cub ic feet per hour (scfh); (2) A SO 2 monitoring system, consisting of a SO 2 pollutant concentration monitor and an automated data acquisition and handling system and providing a permanent, continuous record of SO 2 emissions, in parts per million (ppm); (3) A moisture monitoring system, as defined in §75.11(b)(2) of this chapter and providing a permanent, continuous record of the stack gas moisture content, in percent H 2 O; (4) A CO 2 monitoring system, consisting of a CO 2 pollutant concentration monitor (or an O 2 monitor plus suitable mathematical equations from which the CO 2 concentration is derived) and an automated data acquisition and handling system and providing a permanent, continuous record of CO 2 emissions, in percent CO 2 ; and (5) An O 2 monitoring system, consisting of an O 2 concentration monitor and an automated data acquisition and handling system and providing a permanent, continuous record of O 2 , in percent O 2 .*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1073 of 1339 Control period means the period starting January 1 of a calendar year, except as provided in § 97.6 06(c)(3), and ending on December 31 of the same year, inclusive. Designated representative means, with regard to a TR SO 2 Group 1 source and each TR SO 2 Group 1 unit at the source, the natural person who is authorized by the owners and operators of the source and all such units at the source, in accordance with this subpart, to represent and legally bind each owner and operator in matters pertaining to the TR SO 2 Group 1 Trading Program. If the TR SO 2 Group 1 source is also subject to the Acid Rain Program, TR NOX Annual Trading Program, or TR NO X Ozone Season Trading Program, then this natural person shall be the same natural person as the designated representative, as defined in the respective program. Emissions means air pollutants exhausted from a unit or source into the atmosphere, as measured, recorded, and reported to the Administrator by the designated representative, and as modified by the Administrator: (1) In accordance with this subpart; and (2) With regard to a period before the unit or source is required to measure, record, and report such air pollutants in*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1074 of 1339 accordance with this subpart, in accordance with part 75 of this chapter. Excess emissions means any ton of emissions from the TR SO 2 Group 1 units at a TR SO 2 Group 1 source during a control period in a given year that exceeds the TR SO 2 Group 1 emissions limitation for the source for such control period. Fossil fuel means— (1) Natural gas, petroleum, coal, or any form of solid, liquid, or gaseous fuel derived from such material; or (2) For purposes of applying the limitation on “average annual fuel consumption of fossil fuel” in §§ 97.6 04(b)(2)(i)(B) and (ii), natural gas, petroleum, coal, or any form of solid, liquid, or gaseous fuel derived from such material for the purpose of crea ting useful heat. Fossil - fuel - fired means, with regard to a unit, combusting any amount of fossil fuel in 2005 or any calendar year thereafter. Fuel oil means “fuel oil” as defined in §72.2 of this chapter. General account means an Allowance Management Sys tem account, established under this subpart, that is not a compliance account or an assurance account.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1075 of 1339 Generator means a device that produces electricity. Gross electrical output means, for a unit, electricity made available for use, including any such ele ctricity used in the power production process (which process includes, but is not limited to, any on - site processing or treatment of fuel combusted at the unit and any on - site emission controls). Heat input means, for a unit for a specified period of time, the product (in mmBtu/time) of the gross calorific value of the fuel (in mmBtu/lb) fed into the unit multiplied by the fuel feed rate (in lb of fuel/time), as measured, recorded, and reported to the Administrator by the designated representative and as mo dified by the Administrator in accordance with this subpart and excluding the heat derived from preheated combustion air, recirculated flue gases, or exhaust. Heat input rate means, for a unit, the amount of heat input (in mmBtu) divided by unit operating time (in hr) or, with regard to a specific fuel, the amount of heat input attributed to the fuel (in mmBtu) divided by the unit operating time (in hr) during which the unit combusts the fuel.
Heat rate means, for a unit, the unit’s maximum design heat inpu t (in Btu/hr), divided by the product of 1,000,000 Btu/mmBtu and the unit’s maximum hourly load.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1076 of 1339 Indian country means, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151: (1) All land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and, including rights - of - way running through the reservation; (2) All dependent Indian communities within the borders of the United States whether within the original or subsequently acquired territory ther eof, and whether within or without the limits of a state; and (3) All Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights - of - way running through the same. Life 

### - of - the - unit, firm power contractual arrangement means a unit participation power sales agreement under which a utility or industrial customer reserves, or is entitled to receive, a specified amount or percentage of nameplate capacity and associated energy generated by any specified unit and pays its proportiona l amount of such unit's total costs, pursuant to a contract: (1) For the life of the unit;*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1077 of 1339 (2) For a cumulative term of no less than 30 years, including contracts that permit an election for early termination; or (3) For a period no less than 25 years or 7 0 percent of the economic useful life of the unit determined as of the time the unit is built, with option rights to purchase or release some portion of the nameplate capacity and associated energy generated by the unit at the end of the period. Maximum de sign heat input means, for a unit, the maximum amount of fuel per hour (in Btu/hr) that the unit is capable of combusting on a steady state basis as of the initial installation of the unit as specified by the manufacturer of the unit. Monitoring system means any monitoring system that meets the requirements of this subpart, including a continuous emission monitoring system, an alternative monitoring system, or an excepted monitoring system under part 75 of this chapter. Nameplate capacity means, starting fr om the initial installation of a generator, the maximum electrical generating output (in MWe, rounded to the nearest tenth) that the generator is capable of producing on a steady state basis and during continuous operation (when not restricted by seasonal or other deratings) as of such installation as specified by the manufacturer of the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1078 of 1339 generator or, starting from the completion of any subsequent physical change in the generator resulting in an increase in the maximum electrical generating output that the generator is capable of producing on a steady state basis and during continuous operation (when not restricted by seasonal or other deratings), such increased maximum amount (in MWe, rounded to the nearest tenth) as of such completion as specified by the p erson conducting the physical change. Natural gas means “natural gas” as defined in §72.2 of this chapter. Newly affected TR SO 2 Group 1 unit means a unit that was not a TR SO 2 Group 1 unit when it began operating but that thereafter becomes a TR SO 2 Group 1 unit. Operate or operation means, with regard to a unit, to combust fuel. Operator means, with regard to a TR SO 2 Group 1 source or a TR SO 2 Group 1 unit at a source respectively, any person who operates, controls, or supervises a TR SO 2 Group 1 unit a t the source or the TR SO 2 Group 1 unit and shall include, but not be limited to, any holding company, utility system, or plant manager of such source or unit.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1079 of 1339 Owner means, with regard to a TR SO 2 Group 1 source or a TR SO 2 Group 1 unit at a source respect ively, any of the following persons: (1) Any holder of any portion of the legal or equitable title in a TR SO 2 Group 1 unit at the source or the TR SO 2 Group 1 unit; (2) Any holder of a leasehold interest in a TR SO 2 Group 1 unit at the source or the TR SO 2 Group 1 unit, provided that, unless expressly provided for in a leasehold agreement, “owner” shall not include a passive lessor, or a person who has an equitable interest through such lessor, whose rental payments are not based (either directly or indire ctly) on the revenues or income from such TR SO 2 Group 1 unit; and ( 3) Any purchaser of power from a TR SO 2 Group 1 unit at the source or the TR SO 2 Group 1 unit under a life - of - the - unit, firm power contractual arrangement. Permanently retired means, with regard to a unit, a unit that is unavailable for service and that the unit’s owners and operators do not expect to return to service in the future. Permitting authority means “permitting authority” as defined in §§70.2 and 71.2 of this chapter.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1080 of 1339 Potentia l electrical output capacity means, for a unit, 33 percent of the unit's maximum design heat input, divided by 3,413 Btu/kWh, divided by 1,000 kWh/MWh, and multiplied by 8,760 hr/yr. Receive or receipt of means, when referring to the Administrator, to come into possession of a document, information, or correspondence (whether sent in hard copy or by authorized electronic transmission), as indicated in an official log, or by a notation made on the document, information, or correspondence, by the Administrato r in the regular course of business. Recordation, record, or recorded means, with regard to TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances, the moving of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances by the Administrator into, out of, or between Allowance Management System accounts, for purposes of allocation, auction, transfer, or deduction. Reference method means any direct test method of sampling and analyzing for an air pollutant as specified in §75.22 of this chapter. Replacement, replace, or replaced means, with regard to a unit, the demolis hing of a unit, or the permanent retirement and permanent disabling of a unit, and the construction of another*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1081 of 1339 unit (the replacement unit) to be used instead of the demolished or retired unit (the replaced unit). Sequential use of energy means: (1) For a t opping - cycle unit, the use of reject heat from electricity production in a useful thermal energy application or process; or (2) For a bottoming - cycle unit, the use of reject heat from useful thermal energy application or process in electricity production. Serial number means, for a TR SO 2 Group 1 allowance, the unique identification number assigned to each TR SO 2 Group 1 allowance by the Administrator. Solid waste incineration unit means a stationary, fossil - fuel fired boiler or stationary, fossil - fuel - fire d combustion turbine that is a “solid waste incineration unit” as defined in section 129(g)(1) of the Clean Air Act.
Source means all buildings, structures, or installations located in one or more contiguous or adjacent properties under common control of the same person or persons. This definition does not change or otherwise affect the definition of “major source”, “stationary*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1082 of 1339 source”, or “source” as set forth and implemented in a title V operating permit program or any other program under the Clean Air Act. State means one of the States that is subject to the TR SO 2 Group 1 Trading Program pursuant to §52.3 8(a),(b), (d), (e), and (f) of this chapter and , when used to refer to a geographic area, includes Indian country located within the borders of such State. Submit or serve means to send or transmit a document, information, or correspondence to the person specified in accordance with the applicable regulation: (1) In person; (2) By United States Postal Service; or (3) By other means of dispatch or transmission and delivery; (4) Provided that compliance with any “submission” or “service” deadline shall be determined by the date of dispatch, transmission, or mailing and not the date of receipt. Topping - cycle unit means a unit in which the energy input to t he unit is first used to produce useful power, including electricity, where at least some of the reject heat from the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1083 of 1339 electricity production is then used to provide useful thermal energy. Total energy input means, for a unit, total energy of all forms supp lied to the unit, excluding energy produced by the unit. Each form of energy supplied shall be measured by the lower heating value of that form of energy calculated as follows:
LHV = HHV − 10.55(W + 9H) Where: LHV = lower heating value of the form of energy in Btu/lb, HHV = higher heating value of the form of energy in Btu/lb, W = weight % of moisture in the form of energy, and H = weight % of hydrogen in the form of energy.
Tota l energy output means, for a unit, the sum of useful power and useful thermal energy produced by the unit.
TR NOX Annual Trading Program means a multi - state NOX air pollution control and emission reduction program established in accordance with subpart AAAAA of this part and § 52.37(a) of this chapter (including such a program that is revised in a SIP revision approved by the Administrator under §52.37(a)(3) or (4)*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1084 of 1339 of this chapter) or with a SIP revision approved by the Administrator under §52.37(a)(5) of th is chapter , as a means of mitigating interstate transport of fine particulates and NO X . TR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program means a multi - state NOX air pollution control and emission reduction program established in accordance with subpart BBBBB of this pa rt and § 52.37(b) of this chapter (including such a program that is revised by a State in a SIP revision approved by the Administrator under §52.37(b)(3) or (4) of this chapter) or with a SIP revision approved by the Administrator under §52.37(b)(5) of this chapter , as a means of mitigating interstate transport of ozone and NO X . TR SO 2 Group 1 allowance means a limited authorization issued and allocated or auctioned by the Administrator under this subpart , or by a State or permitting authority under a SIP revision approved by the Administrator under §52.38(d), (e), or (f) of this chapter, to emit one ton of SO 2 during a control period of the specified calendar year for which the authorization is allocated or auctioned or of any calendar year thereafter under the TR SO 2 Group 1 Trading Program.
TR SO 2 Group 1 allowance deduction or deduct TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances means the permanent withdrawal of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances by the Administrator from a compliance account, e.g. ,*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1085 of 1339 in order to account for compliance with the TR SO 2 Group 1 emissions limitation or assurance provisions.
TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances held or hold TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances means the TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances treated as included in an Allowance Management System account as of a specified po int in time because at that time they: (1) Have been recorded by the Administrator in the account or transferred into the account by a correctly submitted, but not yet recorded, TR SO 2 Group 1 allowance transfer in accordance with this subpart; and (2) Have not been transferred out of the account by a correctly submitted, but not yet recorded, TR SO 2 Group 1 allowance transfer in accordance with this subpart.
TR SO 2 Group 1 emissions limitation means, for a TR SO 2 Group 1 source, the tonnage of SO 2 emission s authorized in a control period by the TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances available for deduction for the source under § 97.6 24(a) for such control period.
TR SO 2 Group 1 source means a source that includes one or more TR SO 2 Group 1 units.
TR SO 2 Group 1 Trading P rogram means a multi - state SO 2 air pollution control and emission reduction program established in*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1086 of 1339 accordance with this subpart and § 52.3 8 (a) and (b) of this chapter (including such a program that is revised by a State in a SIP revision approved by the Admi nistrator under §52.38(d) or (e) of this chapter) or in a SIP revision approved by the Administrator under §52.38(f) of this chapter , as a means of mitigating interstate transport of fine particulates and SO 2 . TR SO 2 Group 1 unit means a unit that is subje ct to the TR SO 2 Group 1 Trading Program under § 97.6 04. Unit means a stationary, fossil - fuel - fired boiler, stationary, fossil - fuel - fired combustion turbine, or other stationary, fossil - fuel - fired combustion device. A unit that undergoes a physical change or is moved to a different location or source shall continue to be treated as the same unit. A unit (the replaced unit) that is replaced by another unit (the replacement unit) at the same or a different source shall continue to be treated as the same unit , and the replacement unit shall be treated as a separate unit. Unit operating day means, with regard to a unit, a calendar day in which the unit combusts any fuel. Unit operating hour or hour of unit operation means, with regard to a unit, an hour in which the unit combusts any fuel.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1087 of 1339 Useful power means, with regard to a unit, electricity or mechanical energy that the unit makes available for use, excluding any such energy used in the power production process (which process includes, but is not limited to, any on - site processing or treatment of fuel combusted at the unit and any on - site emission controls). Useful thermal energy means thermal energy that is: (1) Made available to an industrial or commercial process (not a power production process), excluding any heat contained in condensate return or makeup water; (2) Used in a heating application ( e.g., space heating or domestic hot water heating); or (3) Used in a space cooling application ( i.e., in an absorption chiller). Utility power distribution system means the portion of an electricity grid owned or operated by a utility and dedicated to delivering electricity to customers. § 97.6 03 Measurements, abbreviations, and acronyms. Measurements, abbreviations, and acronyms used in this subpart are defined as follows:*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1088 of 1339 Btu
—British thermal unit
CO 2—carbon dioxide
H 2 O
—water hr
—hour kW
—kilowatt electrical kWh
—kilowatt hour lb
—pound
mmBtu
—million Btu
MWe
—megawatt electrical MWh
—megawatt hour NOX—nitrogen oxides
O 2—oxygen ppm—parts per million scfh
—standard cubic fee t per hour SO 2—sulfur dioxide
yr—year*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1089 of 1339 § 97.6 04 Applicability. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section: (1) The following units in a State (including Indian country located within the borders of such State) shall be TR SO 2 Group 1 units, an d any source that includes one or more such units shall be a TR SO 2 Group 1 source, subject to the requirements of this subpart: any stationary, fossil - fuel - fired boiler or stationary, fossil - fuel - fired combustion turbine serving at any time, on or after January 1, 2005, a generator with nameplate capacity of more than 25 MWe producing electricity for sale. (2) If a stationary boiler or stationary combustion turbine that, under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, is not a TR SO 2 Group 1 unit begins to combust fossil fuel or to serve a generator with nameplate capacity of more than 25 MWe producing electricity for sale, the unit shall become a TR SO 2 Group 1 unit as provided in paragraph (a)(1) of this section on the first date on which it both combusts fossil fuel and serves such generator. (b) Any unit in a State (including Indian country located within the borders of such State) that otherwise is a TR SO 2 Group 1 unit under paragraph (a) of this section and that meets the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1090 of 1339 requirements set forth in paragraph ( b)(1)(i), (b)(2)(i), or (b)(2)(ii) of this section shall not be a TR SO 2 Group 1 unit: (1)(i) Any unit: (A) Qualifying as a cogeneration unit throughout the later of 2005 or the 12 -month period starting on the date the unit first produces electricity and c ontinuing to qualify as a cogeneration unit; and (B) Not supplying in 2005 or any calendar year thereafter more than one - third of the unit's potential electric output capacity or 219,000 MWh, whichever is greater, to any utility power distribution system f or sale. (ii) If a unit qualifies as a cogeneration unit throughout the later of 2005 or the 12 -month period starting on the date the unit first produces electricity and meets the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1)(i) of this section for at least one calendar year, but subsequently no longer meets such qualification and requirements, the unit shall become a TR SO 2 Group 1 unit starting on the earlier of January 1 after the first calendar year during which the unit first no longer qualifies as a cogeneration unit or January 1 after the first calendar year during which the unit no longer meets the requirements of paragraph (b)(1)(i)(B) of this section.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1091 of 1339 (2)(i) Any unit: (A) Qualifying as a solid waste incineration unit throughout the later of 2005 or the 12 -mon th period starting on the date the unit first produces electricity and continuing to qualify as a solid waste incineration unit; and (B) With an average annual fuel consumption of fossil fuel for the first 3 consecutive calendar years of operation starting no earlier than 2005 of less than 20 percent (on a Btu basis) and an average annual fuel consumption of fossil fuel for any 3 consecutive calendar years thereafter of less than 20 percent (on a Btu basis). (ii) If a unit qualifies as a solid waste inciner ation unit throughout the later of 2005 or the 12 -month period starting on the date the unit first produces electricity and meets the requirements of paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section for at least 3 consecutive calendar years, but subsequently no longer meets such qualification and requirements, the unit shall become a TR SO 2 Group 1 unit starting on the earlier of January 1 after the first calendar year during which the unit first no longer qualifies as a solid waste incineration unit or January 1 after the first 3 consecutive calendar years after 2005 for which the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1092 of 1339 unit has an average annual fuel consumption of fossil fuel of 20 percent or more. (c) A certifying official of an owner or operator of any unit or other equipment may submit a petition (including any supporting documents) to the Administrator at any time for a determination concerning the applicability, under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, of the TR SO 2 Group 1 Trading Program to the unit or other equipment. (1) Petition content. The p etition shall be in writing and include the identification of the unit or other equipment and the relevant facts about the unit or other equipment. The petition and any other documents provided to the Administrator in connection with the petition shall inc lude the following certification statement, signed by the certifying official: “I am authorized to make this submission on behalf of the owners and operators of the unit or other equipment for which the submission is made. I certify under penalty of law th at I have personally examined, and am familiar with, the statements and information submitted in this document and all its attachments. Based on my inquiry of those individuals with primary responsibility for obtaining the information, I certify that the s tatements and information are to the best of my knowledge and belief true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1093 of 1339 significant penalties for submitting false statements and information or omitting required statements and information, including the possibility of fine or imprisonment.” (2) Response. The Administrator will issue a written response to the petition and may request supplemental information determined by the Administrator to be relevant to such petition. The Administrator's determinatio n concerning the applicability, under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, of the TR SO 2 Group 1 Trading Program to the unit or other equipment shall be binding on any State or permitting authority unless the Administrator determines that the petition o r other documents or information provided in connection with the petition contained significant, relevant errors or omissions. § 97.6 05 Retired unit exemption. (a)(1) Any TR SO 2 Group 1 unit that is permanently retired shall be exempt from § 97.6 06(b) and (c)(1), § 97.6 24, and §§ 97.6 30 through 97.6 35. (2) The exemption under paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall become effective the day on which the TR SO 2 Group 1 unit is permanently retired. Within 30 days of the unit's permanent retirement, the designat ed representative shall submit a statement to the Administrator. The statement shall state, in a*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1094 of 1339 format prescribed by the Administrator, that the unit was permanently retired on a specified date and will comply with the requirements of paragraph (b) of thi s section. (b) Special provisions. (1) A unit exempt under paragraph (a) of this section shall not emit any SO 2 , starting on the date that the exemption takes effect. (2) For a period of 5 years from the date the records are created, the owners and operato rs of a unit exempt under paragraph (a) of this section shall retain, at the source that includes the unit, records demonstrating that the unit is permanently retired. The 5 - year period for keeping records may be extended for cause, at any time before the end of the period, in writing by the Administrator. The owners and operators bear the burden of proof that the unit is permanently retired. (3) The owners and operators and, to the extent applicable, the designated representative of a unit exempt under par agraph (a) of this section shall comply with the requirements of the TR SO 2 Group 1 Trading Program concerning all periods for which the exemption is not in effect, even if such requirements arise, or must be complied with, after the exemption takes effect . (4) A unit exempt under paragraph (a) of this section shall lose its exemption on the first date on which the unit resumes*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1095 of 1339 operation. Such unit shall be treated, for purposes of applying allocation, monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements under this subpart, as a unit that commences commercial operation on the first date on which the unit resumes operation. § 97.6 06 Standard requirements. (a) Designated representative requirements . The owners and operators shall comply with the requirement to have a designated representative, and may have an alternate designated representative, in accordance with §§ 97.6 13 through 97.6 18. (b) Emissions monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements . (1) The owners and operators, and the designated representative, of each TR SO 2 Group 1 source and each TR SO 2 Group 1 unit at the source shall comply with the monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements of §§ 97.6 30 through 97.6 35. (2) The emissions data determined in accordance with §§ 97.6 30 thr ough 97.6 35 shall be used to calculate allocations of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances under §§ 97.6 11(a)(2) and (b) and 97.6 12 and to determine compliance with the TR SO 2 Group 1 emissions limitation and assurance provisions under paragraph (c) of this section, p rovided that, for each monitoring location from which*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1096 of 1339 mass emissions are reported, the mass emissions amount used in calculating such allocations and determining such compliance shall be the mass emissions amount for the monitoring location determined in a ccordance with §§ 97.6 30 through 97.6 35 and rounded to the nearest ton, with any fraction of a ton less than 0.50 being deemed to be zero. (c) SO 2 emissions requirements . (1) TR SO 2 Group 1 emissions limitation. (i) As of the allowance transfer deadline fo r a control period in a given year, the owners and operators of each TR SO 2 Group 1 source and each TR SO 2 Group 1 unit at the source shall hold, in the source's compliance account, TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances available for deduction for such control period under § 97.6 24(a) in an amount not less than the tons of total SO 2 emissions for such control period from all TR SO 2 Group 1 units at the source. (ii) If total SO 2 emissions during a control period in a given year from the TR SO 2 Group 1 units at a TR SO 2 G roup 1 source are in excess of the TR SO 2 Group 1 emissions limitation set forth in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section, then: (A) The owners and operators of the source and each TR SO 2 Group 1 unit at the source shall hold the TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances r equired for deduction under § 97.6 24(d); and*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1097 of 1339 (B) The owners and operators of the source and each TR SO 2 Group 1 unit at the source shall pay any fine, penalty, or assessment or comply with any other remedy imposed, for the same violations, under the Clean Air Act, and each ton of such excess emissions and each day of such control period shall constitute a separate violation of this subpart and the Clean Air Act. (2) TR SO 2 Group 1 assurance provisions. (i) If total SO 2 emissions during a control period in a given year from all TR SO 2 Group 1 units at TR SO 2 Group 1 sources in a State exceed the State assurance level, then the owners and operators of such sources and units in each group of one or more sources and units having a common designated representat ive (as of the allowance transfer deadline for such control period) where the common designated representative’s share of such SO 2 emissions during such control period exceeds the common designated representative’s assurance level for the State and such co ntrol period shall hold, in the assurance account established for the owners and operators of such group , TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances available for deduction for such control period under § 97.6 25(a) in an amount equal to the product (rounded to the nearest whole number), as determined by the Administrator in accordance with § 97.6 25(b), of multiplying

—*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1098 of 1339 (A) The quotient of the amount by which the common designated representative’s share of such SO 2 emissions exceeds the common designated representative’s assur ance level divided by the sum of the amounts, determined for all common designated representatives for such sources and units in the State for such control period, by which each common designated representative’s share of such SO 2 emissions exceeds the res pective common designated representative’s assurance level; and (B) Two times the amount by which total SO 2 emissions from all TR SO 2 Group 1 units at TR SO 2 Group 1 sources in the State for such control period exceed the State assurance level. (ii) The owners and operators shall hold the TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances required under paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section, as of midnight of November 1 (if it is a business day), or midnight of the first business day thereafter (if November 1 is not a business day), immediately after such control period. (iii) Total SO 2 emissions from all TR SO 2 Group 1 units at TR SO 2 Group 1 sources in a State during a control period in a given year exceed the State assurance level if such total SO 2 emissions exceed the sum, for such control period, of the State SO 2 Group 1 trading budget under § 97.6 10(a) and the State’s one - year variability limit under § 97.6 10(b).*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1099 of 1339 (iv) It shall not be a violation of this subpart or of the Clean Air Act if total SO 2 emissions from all TR SO 2 Group 1 units at TR SO 2 Group 1 sources in a State during a control period exceed the State assurance level or if a common designated representative’s share of total SO 2 emissions from the TR SO 2 Group 1 units at TR SO 2 Group 1 sources in a State during a contr ol period exceeds the common designated representative’s assurance level. (v) To the extent the owners and operators fail to hold TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances for a control period in a given year in accordance with paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section, (A) The owners and operators shall pay any fine, penalty, or assessment or comply with any other remedy imposed under the Clean Air Act; and (B) Each TR SO 2 Group 1 allowance that the owners and operators fail to hold for such control period in accordance with paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section and each day of such control period shall constitute a separate violation of this subpart and the Clean Air Act. (3) Compliance periods. A TR SO 2 Group 1 unit shall be subject to the requi rements under paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1100 of 1339 section for the control period starting on the later of January 1, 2012 or the deadline for meeting the unit's monitor certification requirements under § 97.6 30(b) and for each control period thereafter. (4 ) Vintage of deducted allowances. A TR SO 2 Group 1 allowance shall not be deducted, for compliance with the requirements under paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (2)(i) through (iii) of this section, for a control period in a calendar year before the year for which the TR SO 2 Group 1 allowance was allocated. (5) Allowance Management System requirements. Each TR SO 2 Group 1 allowance shall be held in, deducted from, or transferred into, out of, or between Allowance Management System accounts in accordance with this subpart. (6) Limited authorization. A TR SO 2 Group 1 allowance is a limited authorization to emit one ton of SO 2 during the control period in one year. Such authorization is limited in its use and duration as follows: (i) Such authorization shall only be us ed in accordance with the TR SO 2 Group 1 Trading Program; and (ii) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subpart, the Administrator has the authority to terminate or limit the use*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1101 of 1339 and duration of such authorization to the extent the Administrator de termines is necessary or appropriate to implement any provision of the Clean Air Act. (7) Property right. A TR SO 2 Group 1 allowance does not constitute a property right. (d) Title V permit requirements . (1) No title V permit revision shall be required for any allocation, holding, deduction, or transfer of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances in accordance with this subpart. (2) A description of whether a unit is required to monitor and report SO 2 emissions using a continuous emission monitoring system (under subpa rt H of part 75 of this chapter), an excepted monitoring system (under appendices D and E to part 75 of this chapter), a low mass emissions excepted monitoring methodology (under §75.19 of this chapter), or an alternative monitoring system (under subpart E of part 75 of this chapter) in accordance with §§ 97.6 30 through 97.6 35 may be added to, or changed in, a title V permit using minor permit modification procedures in accordance with §§70.7(e)(2) and 71.7(e)(1) of this chapter, provided that the requiremen ts applicable to the described monitoring and reporting (as added or changed, respectively) are already incorporated in such permit. This*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1102 of 1339 paragraph explicitly provides that the addition of, or change to, a unit’s description as described in the prior sente nce is eligible for minor permit modification procedures in accordance with §§70.7(e)(2)(i)(B) and 71.7(e)(1)(i)(B) of this chapter. (e) Additional r ecordkeeping and reporting requirements . (1) Unless otherwise provided, the owners and operators of each TR SO 2 Group 1 source and each TR SO 2 Group 1 unit at the source shall keep on site at the source each of the following documents (in hardcopy or electronic format) for a period of 5 years from the date the document is created. This period may be extended for cause, at any time before the end of 5 years, in writing by the Administrator. (i) The certificate of representation under § 97.6 16 for the designated representative for the source and each TR SO 2 Group 1 unit at the source and all documents that demo nstrate the truth of the statements in the certificate of representation; provided that the certificate and documents shall be retained on site at the source beyond such 5 - year period until such certificate of representation and documents are superseded be cause of the submission of a new certificate of representation under § 97.6 16 changing the designated representative.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1103 of 1339 (ii) All emissions monitoring information, in accordance with this subpart. (iii) Copies of all reports, compliance certifications, and other submissions and all records made or required under, or to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of, the TR SO 2 Group 1 Trading Program. (2) The designated representative of a TR SO 2 Group 1 source and each TR SO 2 Group 1 unit at the source shall make all submissions required under the TR SO 2 Group 1 Trading Program. This requirement does not change, create an exemption from, or or otherwise affect the responsible official submission requirements under a title V operating permit program in parts 7 0 and 71 of this chapter. (f) Liability . (1) Any provision of the TR SO 2 Group 1 Trading Program that applies to a TR SO 2 Group 1 source or the designated representative of a TR SO 2 Group 1 source shall also apply to the owners and operators of such sour ce and of the TR SO 2 Group 1 units at the source. (2) Any provision of the TR SO 2 Group 1 Trading Program that applies to a TR SO 2 Group 1 unit or the designated representative of a TR SO 2 Group 1 unit shall also apply to the owners and operators of such unit.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1104 of 1339 (g) Effect on other authorities . No provision of the TR SO 2 Group 1 Trading Program or exemption under § 97.6 05 shall be construed as exempting or excluding the owners and operators, and the designated representative, of a TR SO 2 Group 1 source or TR SO 2 Group 1 unit from compliance with any other provision of the applicable, approved State implementation plan, a federally enforceable permit, or the Clean Air Act. § 97.6 07 Computation of time. (a) Unless otherwise stated, any time period scheduled, un der the TR SO2 Group 1 Trading Program, to begin on the occurrence of an act or event shall begin on the day the act or event occurs. (b) Unless otherwise stated, any time period scheduled, under the TR SO 2 Group 1 Trading Program, to begin before the occurrence of an act or event shall be computed so that the period ends the day before the act or event occurs. (c) Unless otherwise stated, if the final day of any time period, under the TR SO 2 Group 1 Trading Program, is not a business day, the time period shall be extended to the next business day. § 97.6 08 Administrative appeal procedures.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1105 of 1339 The administrative appeal procedures for decisions of the Administrator under the TR SO 2 Group 1 Trading Program are set forth in part 78 of this chapter. § 97.6 09 [Re served] § 97.6 10 State SO2 Group 1 trading budgets, new unit set- asides, Indian country new unit set- aside, and variability limits. (a) The State SO 2 Group 1 trading budgets, new unit set - asides, and Indian country new unit set - asides for allocations of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances for the control periods in 2012 and thereafter are as follows:

State SO 2 Annual Group 1

trading budget (tons)* for 2012 and 2013 New unit set aside (tons) for 2012 and 2013 Indian country new

unit set - aside (tons) for 2012 and 201 3 Illinois 234,889 11,744 --- Indiana 285,424 8,563 --- Iowa 107,085 2,035 107 Kentucky 189,335 11,360 --- Maryland 30,120 602 --- Michigan 194,537 3,696 195 Missouri 207,466 4,149 --- New Jersey 5,574 111 --- New York 20,497 389 20 North Ca rolina 136,881 10,814 137 Ohio 310,230 6,205 --- Pennsylvania 278,651 5,573 --- Tennessee 148,150 2,963 --- Virginia 70,820 2,833 ---*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1106 of 1339 West Virginia 146,174 10,232 --- Wisconsin 79,480 3,895 79

State SO 2 Annual Group 1

trading budget (tons)* for 201 4 and thereafter New unit set aside (tons) for 2014 and thereafter Indian country

new unit set aside (tons) for 2014 and thereafter Illinois 124,123 6,206 --- Indiana 161,111 4,833 --- Iowa 75,184 1,428 75 Kentucky 106,284 6,377 --- Maryland 28,2 03 564 --- Michigan 143,995 2,736 144 Missouri 165,941 3,319 --- New Jersey 5,574 111 --- New York 11,823 225 12 North Carolina 57,620 4,552 58 Ohio 137,077 2,742 --- Pennsylvania 112,021 2,240 --- Tennessee 58,833 1,177 --- Virginia 35,057 1,402 --- West Virginia 75,668 5,297 --- Wisconsin 40,126 1,966 40 * Each trading budget includes the new unit set - aside and, where applicable, the Indian country new unit set - aside and does not include the variability limit. (b) The States’ one - year variabi lity limits for the State SO 2 Group 1 trading budgets for the control periods in 2012 and thereafter are as follows:*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1107 of 1339 State One - year variability limits for 2012 and 2013 One - year variability limits for 2014 and thereafter Illinois 23,489 12,412 Indian a 28,542 16,111 Iowa 10,709 7,518 Kentucky 18,934 10,628 Maryland 3,012 2,820 Michigan 19,454 14,400 Missouri 20,747 16,594 New Jersey 1,115 1,115 New York 2,050 1,182 North Carolina 13,688 5,762 Ohio 31,023 13,708 Pennsylvania 27,865 11,202 Tennessee 14,815 5,883 Virginia 7,082 3,506 West Virginia 14,617 7,567 Wisconsin 7,948 4,013

§ 97.6 11 Timing requirements for TR SO2 Group 1 allowance allocations. (a) Existing units . (1) TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances are allocated, for the control periods in 2012 and each year thereafter, as provided in a notice of data availability issued by the Administrator. Providing an allocation for a unit in such notice does not constitute a determination that the unit is a TR SO 2 Group 1 unit, and not providing an allocation for a unit in such notice does not constitute a determination that the unit is not a TR SO 2 Group 1 unit.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1108 of 1339 (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (a)(1) of this section, if a unit provided an allocation in the notice of data availability issued under par agraph (a)(1) of this section does not operate, starting after 2011, during the control period in two consecutive years, such unit will not be allocated the TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances provided in such notice for the unit for the control periods in the fifth year after the first such year and in each year after that fifth year. All TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances that would otherwise have been allocated to such unit will be allocated to the new unit set - aside for the State where such unit is located and for the re spective years involved. If such unit resumes operation, the Administrator will allocate TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances to the unit in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section. (b) New units . (1) New unit set - asides. (i) By June 1, 2012 and June 1 of e ach year thereafter, the Administrator will calculate the TR SO 2 Group 1 allowance allocation for each TR SO 2 Group 1 unit, in accordance with § 97.6 12(a)(1) through (8), for the control period in the year of the applicable calculation deadline under this p aragraph and will promulgate a notice of data availability of the results of the calculations. (ii) For each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section, the Administrator will provide an*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1109 of 1339 opportunity for submission of object ions to the calculations referenced in such notice. (A) Objections shall be submitted by the deadline specified in each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section and shall be limited to addressing whether the calculation s are in accordance with § 97.6 12(a)(1) through (8) and §§ 97.6 06(b)(2) and 97.6 30 through 97.6 35. (B) The Administrator will adjust the calculations to the extent necessary to ensure that they are in accordance with the provisions referenced in paragraph ( b)(1)(ii)(A) of this section. By August 1 immediately after the promulgation of each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section, the Administrator will promulgate a notice of data availability of any adjustments that the Administrator determines to be necessary with regard to allocations under § 97.6 12(a)(1) through (8) and the reasons for accepting or rejecting any objections submitted in accordance with paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) of this section. (iii) If the new unit set - a side for such control period contains any TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances that have not been allocated in the applicable notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section, the Administrator will promulgate,*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1110 of 1339 by December 15 immediately a fter such notice, a notice of data availability that identifies any TR SO 2 Group 1 units that commenced commercial operation during the period starting January 1 of the year before the year of such control period and ending November 30 of year of such cont rol period. (iv) For each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section, the Administrator will provide an opportunity for submission of objections to the identification of TR SO 2 annual units in such notice. (A) Objections shall be submitted by the deadline specified in each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section and shall be limited to addressing whether the identification of TR SO 2 annual units in such notice is in accordance with pa ragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section. (B) The Administrator will adjust the identification of TR SO 2 Group 1 units in the each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section to the extent necessary to ensure that it is in ac cordance with paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section and will calculate the TR SO 2 Group 1 allowance allocation for each TR SO 2 Group 1 unit in accordance with § 97.6 12(a)(9) and (10) and §§ 97.6 06(b)(2) and 97.6 30 through 97.6 35. By February 15 immediately after the promulgation of*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1111 of 1339 each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section, the Administrator will promulgate a notice of data availability of any adjustments of the identification of TR SO 2 Group 1 units that the Administ rator determines to be necessary, the reasons for accepting or rejecting any objections submitted in accordance with paragraph (b)(1)(iv)(A) of this section, and the results of such calculations. ( 2) Indian country new unit set - asides. (i) By June 1, 201 2 and June 1 of each year thereafter, the Administrator will calculate the TR SO 2 Group 1 allowance allocation for each TR SO 2 Group 1 unit, in accordance with § 97.6 12(b)(1) through (8), for the control period in the year of the applicable calculation deadline under this paragraph and will promulgate a notice of data availability of the results of the calculations. (ii) For each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, the Administrator will provide an opportunity for submission of objections to the calculations referenced in such notice. (A) Objections shall be submitted by the deadline specified in each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section and shall be limited to addressing whethe r the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1112 of 1339 calculations are in accordance with § 97.6 12(b)(1) through (8) and §§ 97.6 06(b)(2) and 97.6 30 through 97.6 35. (B) The Administrator will adjust the calculations to the extent necessary to ensure that they are in accordance with the provisions referenc ed in paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A) of this section. By August 1 immediately after the promulgation of each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, the Administrator will promulgate a notice of data availability of any adjus tments that the Administrator determines to be necessary with regard to allocations under § 97.6 12(b)(1) through (8) and the reasons for accepting or rejecting any objections submitted in accordance with paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A) of this section. (iii) If the Indian country new unit set - aside for such control period contains any TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances that have not been allocated in the applicable notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, the Administrator will promulga te, by December 15 immediately after such notice, a notice of data availability that identifies any TR SO 2 Group 1 units that commenced commercial operation during the period starting January 1 of the year before the year of such control period and ending November 30 of year of such control period.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1113 of 1339 (iv) For each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section, the Administrator will provide an opportunity for submission of objections to the identification of TR SO 2 annual units in such notice. (A) Objections shall be submitted by the deadline specified in each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section and shall be limited to addressing whether the identification of TR SO 2 annual units in such notice is in accordance with paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section. (B) The Administrator will adjust the identification of TR SO 2 Group 1 units in the each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section to the extent nece ssary to ensure that it is in accordance with paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section and will calculate the TR SO 2 Group 1 allowance allocation for each TR SO 2 Group 1 unit in accordance with § 97.6 12(b)(9) and (10) and §§ 97.6 06(b)(2) and 97.6 30 through 97.6 35. By February 15 immediately after the promulgation of each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section, the Administrator will promulgate a notice of data availability of any adjustments of the identification of TR SO 2 Group 1 units that the Administrator determines to be necessary, the reasons for accepting or rejecting any objections submitted in accordance with paragraph*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1114 of 1339 (b)(2)(iv)(A) of this section, and the results of such calculations. (c) Units incorrectly allo cated TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances . (1) For each control period in 2012 and thereafter, if the Administrator determines that TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances were allocated under paragraph (a) of this section, or under a provision of a SIP revision approved under § 52.3 8 ( d), (e), or (f) of this chapter, where such control period and the recipient are covered by the provisions of paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section or were allocated under paragraph (b) of this section and § 97.6 12, or under a provision of a SIP revisio n approved under §52.3 8(d), (e), or (f) of this chapter, where such control period and the recipient are covered by the provisions of paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section, then the Administrator will notify the designated representative and will act in acc ordance with the procedures set forth in paragraphs (c)(2) through (5) of this section: (i)(A) The recipient is not actually a TR SO 2 Group 1 unit under § 97.6 04 as of January 1, 2012 and is allocated TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances for such control period or, in the case of an allocation under a provision of a SIP revision approved under §52.3 8(d), (e), or (f) of this chapter, the recipient is not actually a TR SO 2 Group 1 unit as of January 1, 2012 and is*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1115 of 1339 allocated TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances for such control peri od that the SIP revision provides should be allocated only to recipients that are TR SO 2 Group 1 units as of January 1, 2012; or (B) The recipient is not located as of January 1 of the control period in the State from whose TR SO 2 Group 1 trading budget the TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances allocated under paragraph (a) of this section, or under a provision of a SIP revision approved under §52.3 8(d), (e), or (f) of this chapter, were allocated for such control period. (ii) The recipient is not actually a TR SO 2 Gr oup 1 unit under § 97.6 04 as of January 1 of such control period and is allocated TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances for such control period or, in the case of an allocation under a provision of a SIP revision approved under §52.3 8(d), (e), or (f) of this chapter, the recipient is not actually a TR SO 2 Group 1 unit as of January 1 of such control period and is allocated TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances for such control period that the SIP revision provides should be allocated only to recipients that are TR SO 2 Group 1 units as of January 1 of such control period. (2) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(3) or (4) of this section, the Administrator will not record such TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances under § 97.6 21.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1116 of 1339 (3) If the Administrator already recorded such TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances under § 97.6 21 and if the Administrator makes the determination under paragraph (c)(1) of this section before making deductions for the source that includes such recipient under § 97.6 24(b) for such control period, then the Administrator will deduct fr om the account in which such TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances were recorded an amount of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances allocated for the same or a prior control period equal to the amount of such already recorded TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances. The authorized account repr esentative shall ensure that there are sufficient TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances in such account for completion of the deduction. (4) If the Administrator already recorded such TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances under § 97.6 21 and if the Administrator makes the determina tion under paragraph (c)(1) of this section after making deductions for the source that includes such recipient under § 97.6 24(b) for such control period, then the Administrator will not make any deduction to take account of such already recorded TR SO 2 Gro up 1 allowances. (5) The Administrator will transfer the TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances that are not recorded, or that are deducted, in accordance with paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) of this section to, for a recipient under paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section, t he new unit set -*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1117 of 1339 aside for the State from whose SO 2 Group 1 trading budget the TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances were allocated, or, for a recipient under paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this paragraph, to the State’s new unit set - aside or Indian country new unit set - aside from which the TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances were allocated, for the control period in the year of such transfer. § 97.6 12 TR SO2 Group 1 allowance allocations for new units. (a) For each control period in 2012 and thereafter and for the TR SO 2 Group 1 units in each State other than those located in Indian county, the Administrator will allocate TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances to the TR SO 2 Group 1 units described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section and in accordance with paragraphs (a)(2) through (9) of this secti on: (1) The TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances will be allocated to the following TR SO 2 Group 1 units, except as provided in paragraph (a)(10) of this section: (i) TR SO 2 Group 1 units that are not allocated an amount (whether zero or greater) of TR SO 2 Group 1 al lowances in the notice of data availability issued under § 97.6 11(a)(1); (ii) TR SO 2 Group 1 units whose allocation of an amount (whether zero or greater) of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances for such control*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1118 of 1339 period in the notice of data availability issued under § 97.6 11(a)(1) is covered by § 97.6 11(c)(2) or (3); (iii) TR SO 2 Group 1 units that are allocated an amount (whether zero or greater) of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances for such control period in the notice of data availability issued under § 97.6 11(a)(1), which al location is terminated for such control period pursuant to § 97.6 11(a)(2), and that operate during the control period immediately preceding such control period; or (iv) TR SO 2 Group 1 units under § 97.6 11(c)(1)(ii) whose allocation of an amount (whether zero or greater) of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances for such control period in the notice of data availability issued under § 97.6 11(b)(1)(ii)(B) is covered by § 97.6 11(c)(2) or (3). (2) The Administrator will establish a separate new unit set aside for the State for each such control period. Each such new unit set - aside will be allocated TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances in an amount equal to the applicable amount of tons of SO 2 emissions as set forth in § 97.6 10(a) and will be allocated additional TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances ( if any) in accordance with §§ 97.6 11(a)(2) and (c)(5) and paragraph (b)(10) of this section. (3) The Administrator will determine, for each TR SO 2 Group 1 unit described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, an*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1119 of 1339 allocation of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances for the later of the following control periods and for each subsequent control period: (i) The control period in 2012; (ii) The first control period after the control period in which the TR SO 2 Group 1 unit commences commercial operation; (iii) For a unit descr ibed in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, the first control period in which the TR SO 2 Group 1 unit operates in the non - Indian country portion of the State after operating in another jurisdiction and for which the unit is not already allocated one or more TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances; and (iv) For a unit described in paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section, the first control period after the control period in which the unit resumes operation. (4)(i) The allocation for each TR SO 2 annual unit described in pa ragraph (a)(1) of this section and for each control period described in paragraph (a)(3) of this section will be an amount equal to the unit’s total tons of SO 2 emissions during the immediately preceding control period.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1120 of 1339 (ii) The Administrator will adjust t he allocation amount in paragraph (a)(4)(i) in accordance with paragraphs (a)(5) through (9) of this section. (5) The Administrator will calculate the sum of the TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances determined for all such TR SO 2 Group 1 units under paragraph (a)(4)( i) of this section in the State for such control period. (6) If the amount of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances in the new unit set - aside for the State for such control period is greater than or equal to the sum under paragraph (a)(5) of this section, then the Administrator will allocate the amount of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances determined for each such TR SO 2 Group 1 unit under paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this section. (7) If the amount of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances in the new unit set - aside for the State for such control period is less than the sum under paragraph (a)(5) of this section, then the Administrator will allocate to each such TR SO 2 Group 1 unit the amount of the TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances determined under paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this section for the unit, multip lied by the amount of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances in the new unit set - aside for such control period, divided by the sum under paragraph (a)(5) of this section, and rounded to the nearest allowance.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1121 of 1339 (8) The Administrator will notify the public, through the pr omulgation of the notices of data availability described in § 97.6 11(b)(1)(i) and (ii), of the amount of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances allocated under paragraphs (a)(1) through (8) for such control period to each TR SO 2 Group 1 unit eligible for such allocation . (9) If, after completion of the procedures under paragraphs (a)(5) through (8) of this section for such control period, any unallocated TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances remain in the new unit set aside for the State for such control period, the Administrator wi ll allocate such TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances as follows -- (i) The Administrator will determine, for each unit described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section that commenced commercial operation during the period starting January 1 of the year before the year o f such control period and ending November 30 of year of such control period, the positive difference (if any) between the unit’s emissions during such control period and the amount of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances described in the notice of data availability r equired under § 97.6 11(b)(1)(ii) for the unit for such control period;*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1122 of 1339 (ii) The Administrator will determine the sum of the positive differences determined under paragraph (a)(9)(i) of this section; (iii) If the amount of unallocated TR SO 2 Group 1 allowanc es remaining in the new unit set - aside for the State for such control period is greater than or equal to the sum determined under paragraph (a)(9)(ii) of this section, then the Administrator will allocate the amount of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances determined for each such TR SO 2 Group 1 unit under paragraph (a)(9)(i) of this section. (iv) If the amount of unallocated TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances remaining in the new unit set - aside for the State for such control period is less than the sum under paragraph (a)(9)(i i) of this section, then the Administrator will allocate for each such TR SO 2 Group 1 unit the amount of the TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances determined under paragraph (a)(9)(i) of this section for the unit, multiplied by the amount of unallocated TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances remaining in the new unit set - aside for such control period, divided by the sum under paragraph (a)(9)(ii) of this section, and rounded to the nearest allowance. (10) If, after completion of the procedures under paragraph (a)(9) of this section for such control period, any unallocated*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1123 of 1339 TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances remain in the new unit set - aside for the State for such control period, the Administrator will allocate to each TR SO 2 Group 1 unit that is in the State, is allocated an amount of TR SO 2 G roup 1 allowances in the notice of data availability issued under § 97.6 11(a)(1), and continues to be allocated TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances for such control period in accordance with § 97.6 11(a)(2), an amount of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances equal to the following : the total amount of such remaining unallocated TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances in such new unit set - aside, multiplied by the unit's allocation under § 97.6 11(a) for such control period, divided by the remainder of the amount of tons in the applicable State SO 2 Group 1 trading budget minus the sum of the amounts of tons in such new unit set - aside and the Indian country new unit set - aside for the State for such control period, and rounded to the nearest allowance. (11) The Administrator will notify the public, thr ough the promulgation of the notices of data availability described in § 97.6 11(b)(1)(iii) and (iv), of the amount of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances allocated for such control period to each TR SO 2 Group 1 unit eligible for such allocation. (b) For each control period in 2012 and thereafter and for the TR SO 2 Group 1 units located in Indian country in each State, the Administrator will allocate TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances to the TR*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 112 4 of 1339 SO 2 Group 1 units described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section and in accordance w ith paragraphs (b)(2) through (9) of this section: (1) The TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances will be allocated to the following TR SO 2 Group 1 units, except as provided in paragraph (b)(10) of this section: (i) TR SO 2 Group 1 units that are not allocated an amount (whether zero or greater) of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances in the notice of data availability issued under § 97.6 11(a)(1); or (i i ) TR SO 2 Group 1 units under § 97.6 11(c)(1)(ii) whose allocation of an amount (whether zero or greater) of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances for such control period in the notice of data availability issued under § 97.6 11(b)(2)(ii)(B) is covered by § 97.6 11(c)(2) or (3). (2) The Administrator will establish a separate Indian country new unit set - aside for the State for each such control period. Each such Indian country new unit set - aside will be allocated TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances in an amount equal to the applicable amount of tons of SO 2 emissions as set forth in § 97.6 10(a) and will be allocated additional TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances (if any) in accordance with § 97.6 11 (c)(5).*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1125 of 1339 (3) The Administrator will determine, for each TR SO 2 Group 1 unit described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, an allocation of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances for the later of the following control periods and for each subsequ ent control period: (i) The control period in 2012; and (ii) The first control period after the control period in which the TR SO 2 Group 1 unit commences commercial operation . (4)(i) The allocation for each TR SO 2 annual unit described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section and for each control period described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section will be an amount equal to the unit’s total tons of SO 2 emissions during the immediately preceding control period. (ii) The Administrator will adjust the allocation amount in paragraph (b)(4)(i) in accordance with paragraphs (b)(5) through (9) of this section. (5) The Administrator will calculate the sum of the TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances determined for all such TR SO 2 Group 1 units under paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this se ction in the State for such control period.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1126 of 1339 (6) If the amount of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances in the Indian country new unit set - aside for the State for such control period is greater than or equal to the sum under paragraph (b)(5) of this section, then the Administrator will allocate the amount of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances determined for each such TR SO 2 Group 1 unit under paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section. (7) If the amount of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances in the Indian country new unit set - aside for the State for such control period is less than the sum under paragraph (b)(5) of this section, then the Administrator will allocate to each such TR SO 2 Group 1 unit the amount of the TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances determined under paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section for the unit, multiplied by the amount of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances in the Indian country new unit set - aside for such control period, divided by the sum under paragraph (b)(5) of this section, and rounded to the nearest allowance. (8) The Administrator will n otify the public, through the promulgation of the notices of data availability described in § 97.6 11(b)(2)(i) and (ii), of the amount of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances allocated under paragraphs (b)(1) through (8) for such control period to each TR SO 2 Group 1 unit eligible for such allocation.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1127 of 1339 (9) If, after completion of the procedures under paragraphs (b)(5) through (8) of this section for such control period, any unallocated TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances remain in the Indian country new unit set - aside for the Stat e for such control period, the Administrator will allocate such TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances as follows -- (i) The Administrator will determine, for each unit described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section that commenced commercial operation during the period s tarting January 1 of the year before the year of such control period and ending November 30 of year of such control period, the positive difference (if any) between the unit’s emissions during such control period and the amount of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances described in the notice of data availability required under § 97.6 11(b)(2)(ii) for the unit for such control period; (ii) The Administrator will determine the sum of the positive differences determined under paragraph (b)(9)(i) of this section; (iii) If the amount of unallocated TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances remaining in the Indian country new unit set - aside for the State for such control period is greater than or equal to the sum determined under paragraph (b)(9)(ii) of this section, then the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1128 of 1339 Administrator wil l allocate the amount of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances determined for each such TR SO 2 Group 1 unit under paragraph (b)(9)(i) of this section. (iv) If the amount of unallocated TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances remaining in the Indian country new unit set - aside for the State for such control period is less than the sum under paragraph (b)(9)(ii) of this section, then the Administrator will allocate for each such TR SO 2 Group 1 unit the amount of the TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances determined under paragraph (b)(9)(i) of this section for the unit, multiplied by the amount of unallocated TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances remaining in the Indian country new unit set - aside for such control period, divided by the sum under paragraph (b)(9)(ii) of this section, and rounded to the nearest a llowance. (10) If, after completion of the procedures under paragraph (b)(9) of this section for such control period, any unallocated TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances remain in the Indian country new unit set - aside for the State for such control period, the Admin istrator will: (i) Allocate such unallocated TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances to the new unit set - aside for the State for such control period; or*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1129 of 1339 (ii) If the State has a SIP revision approved under §52.3 8(d), (e), or (f) of this chapter , include such unallocate d TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances in the portion of the State TR SO 2 Group 1 trading budget that may be allocated for such control period in accordance with such SIP revision. (11) The Administrator will notify the public, through the promulgation of the notic es of data availability described in § 97.6 11(b)(2)(iii) and (iv), of the amount of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances allocated for such control period to each TR SO 2 Group 1 unit eligible for such allocation. § 97.6 13 Authorization of designated representative and alternate designated representative. (a) Except as provided under § 97.6 15, each TR SO 2 Group 1 source, including all TR SO 2 Group 1 units at the source, shall have one and only one designated representative, with regard to all matters under the TR SO 2 Gr oup 1 Trading Program. (1) The designated representative shall be selected by an agreement binding on the owners and operators of the source and all TR SO 2 Group 1 units at the source and shall act in accordance with the certification statement in § 97.6 16( a)(4)(iii).*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1130 of 1339 (2) Upon and after receipt by the Administrator of a complete certificate of representation under § 97.6 16: (i) The designated representative shall be authorized and shall represent and, by his or her representations, actions, inactions, or submissions, legally bind each owner and operator of the source and each TR SO 2 Group 1 unit at the source in all matters pertaining to the TR SO 2 Group 1 Trading Program, notwithstanding any agreement between the designated representative and such owners and operators; and (ii) The owners and operators of the source and each TR SO 2 Group 1 unit at the source shall be bound by any decision or order issued to the designated representative by the Administrator regarding the source or any such unit. (b) Except as provided under § 97.6 15, each TR SO 2 Group 1 source may have one and only one alternate designated representative, who may act on behalf of the designated representative. The agreement by which the alternate designated representative is selected shall inclu de a procedure for authorizing the alternate designated representative to act in lieu of the designated representative. (1) The alternate designated representative shall be selected by an agreement binding on the owners and operators of the source*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1131 of 1339 and all TR SO 2 Group 1 units at the source and shall act in accordance with the certification statement in § 97.6 16(a)(4)(iii). (2) Upon and after receipt by the Administrator of a complete certificate of representation under § 97.6 16, (i) The alternate designated representative shall be authorized; (ii) Any representation, action, inaction, or submission by the alternate designated representative shall be deemed to be a representation, action, inaction, or submission by the designated representative; and (iii) The owners and operators of the source and each TR SO 2 Group 1 unit at the source shall be bound by any decision or order issued to the alternate designated representative by the Administrator regarding the source or any such unit. (c) Except in this section , § 97.6 02, and §§ 97.6 14 through 97.6 18, whenever the term “designated representative” (as distinguished from the term “common designated representative”) is used in this subpart, the term shall be construed to include the designated representative or any a lternate designated representative.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1132 of 1339 § 97.6 14 Responsibilities of designated representative and alternate designated representative. (a) Except as provided under § 97.6 18 concerning delegation of authority to make submissions, each submission under the TR S O 2 Group 1 Trading Program shall be made, signed, and certified by the designated representative or alternate designated representative for each TR SO 2 Group 1 source and TR SO 2 Group 1 unit for which the submission is made. Each such submission shall incl ude the following certification statement by the designated representative or alternate designated representative: “I am authorized to make this submission on behalf of the owners and operators of the source or units for which the submission is made. I cer tify under penalty of law that I have personally examined, and am familiar with, the statements and information submitted in this document and all its attachments. Based on my inquiry of those individuals with primary responsibility for obtaining the information, I certify that the statements and information are to the best of my knowledge and belief true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false statements and information or omitting required statements a nd information, including the possibility of fine or imprisonment.”*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1133 of 1339 (b) The Administrator will accept or act on a submission made for a TR SO 2 Group 1 source or a TR SO 2 Group 1 unit only if the submission has been made, signed, and certified in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section and § 97.6 18. § 97.6 15 Changing designated representative and alternate designated representative; changes in owners and operators; changes in units at the source. (a) Changing designated representative . The designated representative may be changed at any time upon receipt by the Administrator of a superseding complete certificate of representation under § 97.6 16. Notwithstanding any such change, all representations, actions, inactions, and submissions by the previous de signated representative before the time and date when the Administrator receives the superseding certificate of representation shall be binding on the new designated representative and the owners and operators of the TR SO 2 Group 1 source and the TR SO 2 Gr oup 1 units at the source. (b) Changing alternate designated representative . The alternate designated representative may be changed at any time upon receipt by the Administrator of a superseding complete certificate of representation under § 97.6 16. Notwi thstanding any such change, all representations, actions, inactions, and*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1134 of 1339 submissions by the previous alternate designated representative before the time and date when the Administrator receives the superseding certificate of representation shall be binding on the new alternate designated representative, the designated representative, and the owners and operators of the TR SO 2 Group 1 source and the TR SO 2 Group 1 units at the source. (c) Changes in owners and operators . (1) In the event an owner or operato r of a TR SO 2 Group 1 source or a TR SO 2 Group 1 unit at the source is not included in the list of owners and operators in the certificate of representation under § 97.6 16, such owner or operator shall be deemed to be subject to and bound by the certificate of representation, the representations, actions, inactions, and submissions of the designated representative and any alternate designated representative of the source or unit, and the decisions and orders of the Administrator, as if the owner or operator were included in such list. (2) Within 30 days after any change in the owners and operators of a TR SO 2 Group 1 source or a TR SO 2 Group 1 unit at the source, including the addition or removal of an owner or operator, the designated representative or any a lternate designated representative shall submit a revision to the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1135 of 1339 certificate of representation under § 97.6 16 amending the list of owners and operators to reflect the change. (d) Changes in units at the source . Within 30 days of any change in which units are located at a TR SO 2 Group 1 source (including the addition or removal of a unit), the designated representative or any alternate designated representative shall submit a certificate of representation under § 97.6 16 amending the list of units to reflect the change. (1) If the change is the addition of a unit that operated (other than for purposes of testing by the manufacturer before initial installation) before being located at the source, then the certificate of representation shall identify, in a format prescribed by the Administrator, the entity from whom the unit was purchased or otherwise obtained (including name, address, telephone number, and facsimile number (if any)), the date on which the unit was purchased or otherwise obtained, and the date on which the unit became located at the source. (2) If the change is the removal of a unit, then the certificate of representation shall identify, in a format prescribed by the Administrator, the entity to which the unit was sold or that otherwise obtained the unit (including name, address, telephone number, and facsimile number (if any)), the date on which the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1136 of 1339 unit was sold or otherwise obtained, and the date on which the unit became no longer located at the source. § 97.6 16 Certificate of representation. (a) A complete certificate of representation for a designated representative or an alternate designated representative shall include the following elements in a format prescribed by the Administrator: (1) Identification of the TR SO 2 Group 1 source, and each TR SO 2 Group 1 unit at the source, for which the certificate of representation is submitted, including source name, source category and NAICS code (or, in the absence of a NAICS code, an equivalent code), State, plant code, county, latitude and long itude, unit identification number and type, identification number and nameplate capacity (in MWe, rounded to the nearest tenth) of each generator served by each such unit, and actual or projected date of commencement of commercial operation and including a statement of whether such source is located in Indian Country. If a projected date of commencement of commercial operation is provided, the actual date of commencement of commercial operation shall be provided when such information becomes available.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1137 of 1339 (2) The name, address, e -mail address (if any), telephone number, and facsimile transmission number (if any) of the designated representative and any alternate designated representative. (3) A list of the owners and operators of the TR SO 2 Group 1 source and of each TR SO 2 Group 1 unit at the source. (4) The following certification statements by the designated representative and any alternate designated representative

— (i) “I certify that I was selected as the designated representative or alternate designated representative, as applicable, by an agreement binding on the owners and operators of the source and each TR SO 2 Group 1 unit at the source.” (ii) “I certify that I have all the necessary authority to carry out my duties and responsibilities under the TR S O 2 Group 1 Trading Program on behalf of the owners and operators of the source and of each TR SO 2 Group 1 unit at the source and that each such owner and operator shall be fully bound by my representations, actions, inactions, or submissions and by any dec ision or order issued to me by the Administrator regarding the source or unit.”*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1138 of 1339 (iii) “Where there are multiple holders of a legal or equitable title to, or a leasehold interest in, a TR SO 2 Group 1 unit, or where a utility or industrial customer purchase s power from a TR SO 2 Group 1 unit under a life - of - the - unit, firm power contractual arrangement, I certify that: I have given a written notice of my selection as the ‘designated representative’ or ‘alternate designated representative’, as applicable, and o f the agreement by which I was selected to each owner and operator of the source and of each TR SO 2 Group 1 unit at the source; and TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances and proceeds of transactions involving TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances will be deemed to be held or dist ributed in proportion to each holder's legal, equitable, leasehold, or contractual reservation or entitlement, except that, if such multiple holders have expressly provided for a different distribution of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances by contract, TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances and proceeds of transactions involving TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances will be deemed to be held or distributed in accordance with the contract.” (5) The signature of the designated representative and any alternate designated representative and the dates signed. (b) Unless otherwise required by the Administrator, documents of agreement referred to in the certificate of representation shall not be submitted to the Administrator. The Administrator shall*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1139 of 1339 not be under any obligation to review or evaluat e the sufficiency of such documents, if submitted. § 97.6 17 Objections concerning designated representative and alternate designated representative. (a) Once a complete certificate of representation under § 97.6 16 has been submitted and received, the Admin istrator will rely on the certificate of representation unless and until a superseding complete certificate of representation under § 97.6 16 is received by the Administrator. (b) Except as provided in paragraph (a) of this section, no objection or other communication submitted to the Administrator concerning the authorization, or any representation, action, inaction, or submission, of a designated representative or alternate designated representative shall affect any representation, action, inaction, or submission of the designated representative or alternate designated representative or the finality of any decision or order by the Administrator under the TR SO 2 Group 1 Trading Program. (c) The Administrator will not adjudicate any private legal dispute conce rning the authorization or any representation, action, inaction, or submission of any designated representative or alternate designated representative, including private legal*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1140 of 1339 disputes concerning the proceeds of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowance transfers. § 97.6 18 Delegation by designated representative and alternate designated representative. (a) A designated representative may delegate, to one or more natural persons, his or her authority to make an electronic submission to the Administrator provided for or requ ired under this subpart. (b) An alternate designated representative may delegate, to one or more natural persons, his or her authority to make an electronic submission to the Administrator provided for or required under this subpart. (c) In order to delega te authority to make an electronic submission to the Administrator in accordance with paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, the designated representative or alternate designated representative, as appropriate, must submit to the Administrator a notice of delegation, in a format prescribed by the Administrator, that includes the following elements:*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1141 of 1339 (1) The name, address, e -mail address, telephone number, and facsimile transmission number (if any) of such designated representative or alternate designated repr esentative; (2) The name, address, e -mail address, telephone number, and facsimile transmission number (if any) of each such natural person (referred to in this section as an “agent”); (3) For each such natural person, a list of the type or types of electr onic submissions under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section for which authority is delegated to him or her; and (4) The following certification statements by such designated representative or alternate designated representative: (i) “I agree that any elect ronic submission to the Administrator that is made by an agent identified in this notice of delegation and of a type listed for such agent in this notice of delegation and that is made when I am a designated representative or alternate designated represent ative, as appropriate, and before this notice of delegation is superseded by another notice of delegation under 40 CFR 97.6 18(d) shall be deemed to be an electronic submission by me.” (ii) “Until this notice of delegation is superseded by another notice of delegation under 40 CFR 97.6 18(d), I agree to maintain*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1142 of 1339 an e -mail account and to notify the Administrator immediately of any change in my e -mail address unless all delegation of authority by me under 40 CFR 97.6 18 is terminated.”. (d) A notice of delegatio n submitted under paragraph (c) of this section shall be effective, with regard to the designated representative or alternate designated representative identified in such notice, upon receipt of such notice by the Administrator and until receipt by the Administrator of a superseding notice of delegation submitted by such designated representative or alternate designated representative, as appropriate. The superseding notice of delegation may replace any previously identified agent, add a new agent, or elimi nate entirely any delegation of authority. (e) Any electronic submission covered by the certification in paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this section and made in accordance with a notice of delegation effective under paragraph (d) of this section shall be deemed to be an electronic submission by the designated representative or alternate designated representative submitting such notice of delegation. § 97.6 19 [Reserved] § 97.620 Establishment of compliance accounts, assurance accounts, and general accounts.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1143 of 1339 (a) C ompliance accounts . Upon receipt of a complete certificate of representation under § 97.6 16, the Administrator will establish a compliance account for the TR SO 2 Group 1 source for which the certificate of representation was submitted, unless the source al ready has a compliance account. The designated representative and any alternate designated representative of the source shall be the authorized account representative and the alternate authorized account representative respectively of the compliance account. (b) Assurance accounts. As provided in § 97.6 25(b)(3), the Administrator will establish assurance accounts for the owners and operators and States specified in the notice required under § 97.6 25(b)(2)(iii)(B). (c) General accounts . (1) Application fo r general account . (i) Any person may apply to open a general account, for the purpose of holding and transferring TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances, by submitting to the Administrator a complete application for a general account. Such application shall designat e one and only one authorized account representative and may designate one and only one alternate authorized account representative who may act on behalf of the authorized account representative.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1144 of 1339 (A) The authorized account representative and alternate authorized account representative shall be selected by an agreement binding on the persons who have an ownership interest with respect to TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances held in the general account. (B) The agreement by which the alternate authorized account repre sentative is selected shall include a procedure for authorizing the alternate authorized account representative to act in lieu of the authorized account representative. (ii) A complete application for a general account shall include the following elements in a format prescribed by the Administrator: (A) Name, mailing address, e -mail address (if any), telephone number, and facsimile transmission number (if any) of the authorized account representative and any alternate authorized account representative; (B) An identifying name for the general account; (C) A list of all persons subject to a binding agreement for the authorized account representative and any alternate authorized account representative to represent their ownership interest*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1145 of 1339 with respect to the TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances held in the general account; (D) The following certification statement by the authorized account representative and any alternate authorized account representative: “I certify that I was selected as the authorized account representa tive or the alternate authorized account representative, as applicable, by an agreement that is binding on all persons who have an ownership interest with respect to TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances held in the general account. I certify that I have all the neces sary authority to carry out my duties and responsibilities under the TR SO 2 Group 1 Trading Program on behalf of such persons and that each such person shall be fully bound by my representations, actions, inactions, or submissions and by any decision or or der issued to me by the Administrator regarding the general account.” (E) The signature of the authorized account representative and any alternate authorized account representative and the dates signed. (iii) Unless otherwise required by the Administrator, documents of agreement referred to in the application for a general account shall not be submitted to the Administrator. The*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1146 of 1339 Administrator shall not be under any obligation to review or evaluate the sufficiency of such documents, if submitted. (2) Authori zation of authorized account representative and alternate authorized account representative . (i) Upon receipt by the Administrator of a complete application for a general account under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the Administrator will establish a general account for the person or persons for whom the application is submitted, and upon and after such receipt by the Administrator: (A) The authorized account representative of the general account shall be authorized and shall represent and, by his or her representations, actions, inactions, or submissions, legally bind each person who has an ownership interest with respect to TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances held in the general account in all matters pertaining to the TR SO 2 Group 1 Trading Program, notwithst anding any agreement between the authorized account representative and such person. (B) Any alternate authorized account representative shall be authorized, and any representation, action, inaction, or submission by any alternate authorized account repres entative shall be deemed to be a representation, action, inaction, or submission by the authorized account representative.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1147 of 1339 (C) Each person who has an ownership interest with respect to TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances held in the general account shall be bound by any decision or order issued to the authorized account representative or alternate authorized account representative by the Administrator regarding the general account. (ii) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(5) of this section concerning delegation of authority to make submissions, each submission concerning the general account shall be made, signed, and certified by the authorized account representative or any alternate authorized account representative for the persons having an ownership interest with respect to TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances held in the general account. Each such submission shall include the following certification statement by the authorized account representative or any alternate authorized account representative: “I am authorized to ma ke this submission on behalf of the persons having an ownership interest with respect to the TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances held in the general account. I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined, and am familiar with, the statements and inf ormation submitted in this document and all its attachments. Based on my inquiry of those individuals with primary responsibility for obtaining the information, I certify that the statements and information are to the best of my knowledge and belief true,*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1148 of 1339 accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false statements and information or omitting required statements and information, including the possibility of fine or imprisonment.” (iii) Except in this section, whe never the term “authorized account representative” is used in this subpart, the term shall be construed to include the authorized account representative or any alternate authorized account representative. (3) Changing authorized account representative and alternate authorized account representative; changes in persons with ownership interest . (i) The authorized account representative of a general account may be changed at any time upon receipt by the Administrator of a superseding complete application for a general account under paragraph (c)(1) of this section. Notwithstanding any such change, all representations, actions, inactions, and submissions by the previous authorized account representative before the time and date when the Administrator receives the superseding application for a general account shall be binding on the new authorized account representative and the persons with an ownership interest with respect to the TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances in the general account.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1149 of 1339 (ii) The alternate authorized a ccount representative of a general account may be changed at any time upon receipt by the Administrator of a superseding complete application for a general account under paragraph (c)(1) of this section. Notwithstanding any such change, all representation s, actions, inactions, and submissions by the previous alternate authorized account representative before the time and date when the Administrator receives the superseding application for a general account shall be binding on the new alternate authorized a ccount representative, the authorized account representative, and the persons with an ownership interest with respect to the TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances in the general account. (iii)(A) In the event a person having an ownership interest with respect to TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances in the general account is not included in the list of such persons in the application for a general account, such person shall be deemed to be subject to and bound by the application for a general account, the representation, actions, inactions, and submissions of the authorized account representative and any alternate authorized account representative of the account, and the decisions and orders of the Administrator, as if the person were included in such list.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1150 of 1339 (B) Within 30 days after any change in the persons having an ownership interest with respect to SO 2 Group 1 allowances in the general account, including the addition or removal of a person, the authorized account representative or any alternate authorized account representative s hall submit a revision to the application for a general account amending the list of persons having an ownership interest with respect to the TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances in the general account to include the change. (4) Objections concerning authorized account representative and alternate authorized account representative . (i) Once a complete application for a general account under paragraph (c)(1) of this section has been submitted and received, the Administrator will rely on the application unless and unti l a superseding complete application for a general account under paragraph (b)(1) of this section is received by the Administrator. (ii) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this section, no objection or other communication submitted to the Adminis trator concerning the authorization, or any representation, action, inaction, or submission of the authorized account representative or any alternate authorized account representative of a general account shall affect any representation, action, inaction, or submission of the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1151 of 1339 authorized account representative or any alternate authorized account representative or the finality of any decision or order by the Administrator under the TR SO 2 Group 1 Trading Program. (iii) The Administrator will not adjudicate an y private legal dispute concerning the authorization or any representation, action, inaction, or submission of the authorized account representative or any alternate authorized account representative of a general account, including private legal disputes c oncerning the proceeds of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowance transfers. (5) Delegation by authorized account representative and alternate authorized account representative . (i) An authorized account representative of a general account may delegate, to one or more n atural persons, his or her authority to make an electronic submission to the Administrator provided for or required under this subpart. (ii) An alternate authorized account representative of a general account may delegate, to one or more natural persons, h is or her authority to make an electronic submission to the Administrator provided for or required under this subpart. (iii) In order to delegate authority to make an electronic submission to the Administrator in accordance with paragraph*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1152 of 1339 (c)(5)(i) or (ii) of this section, the authorized account representative or alternate authorized account representative, as appropriate, must submit to the Administrator a notice of delegation, in a format prescribed by the Administrator, that includes the following elemen ts: (A) The name, address, e -mail address, telephone number, and facsimile transmission number (if any) of such authorized account representative or alternate authorized account representative; (B) The name, address, e -mail address, telephone number, and f acsimile transmission number (if any) of each such natural person (referred to in this section as an “agent”); (C) For each such natural person, a list of the type or types of electronic submissions under paragraph (c)(5)(i) or (ii) of this section for whi ch authority is delegated to him or her; (D) The following certification statement by such authorized account representative or alternate authorized account representative: “I agree that any electronic submission to the Administrator that is made by an agent identified in this notice of delegation and of a type listed for such agent in this notice of delegation and that is made when I am an authorized account representative or alternate authorized representative, as*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1153 of 1339 appropriate, and before this notice of delegation is superseded by another notice of delegation under 40 CFR 97.6 20(c)(5)(iv) shall be deemed to be an electronic submission by me.”; and (E) The following certification statement by such authorized account representative or alternate authorized ac count representative: “Until this notice of delegation is superseded by another notice of delegation under 40 CFR 97.6 20(c)(5)(iv), I agree to maintain an e -mail account and to notify the Administrator immediately of any change in my e -mail address unless all delegation of authority by me under 40 CFR 97.6 20(c)(5) is terminated.”. (iv) A notice of delegation submitted under paragraph (c)(5)(iii) of this section shall be effective, with regard to the authorized account representative or alternate authorized account representative identified in such notice, upon receipt of such notice by the Administrator and until receipt by the Administrator of a superseding notice of delegation submitted by such authorized account representative or alternate authorized acco unt representative, as appropriate. The superseding notice of delegation may replace any previously identified agent, add a new agent, or eliminate entirely any delegation of authority.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1154 of 1339 (v) Any electronic submission covered by the certification in paragraph (c)(5)(iii)(D) of this section and made in accordance with a notice of delegation effective under paragraph (c)(5)(iv) of this section shall be deemed to be an electronic submission by the designated representative or alternate designated representative submitting such notice of delegation. (6)(i) The authorized account representative or alternate authorized account representative of a general account may submit to the Administrator a request to close the account. Such request shall include a correctly submitted TR SO 2 Group 1 allowance transfer under § 97.6 22 for any TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances in the account to one or more other Allowance Management System accounts. (ii) If a general account has no TR SO 2 Group 1 allowance transfers to or from the account for a 12 -month period or longer and does not contain any TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances, the Administrator may notify the authorized account representative for the account that the account will be closed after 30 days after the notice is sent. The account wil l be closed after the 30 - day period unless, before the end of the 30 - day period, the Administrator receives a correctly submitted TR SO 2 Group 1 allowance transfer under § 97.6 22 to the account or a statement submitted by the authorized account representati ve or alternate*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1155 of 1339 authorized account representative demonstrating to the satisfaction of the Administrator good cause as to why the account should not be closed. (d) Account identification . The Administrator will assign a unique identifying number to each a ccount established under paragraph (a), (b), or (c) of this section. (d) Responsibilities of authorized account representative and alternate authorized account representative . After the establishment of a compliance account or general account, the Adminis trator will accept or act on a submission pertaining to the account, including, but not limited to, submissions concerning the deduction or transfer of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances in the account, only if the submission has been made, signed, and certified in accordance with §§ 97.6 14(a) and 97.6 18 or paragraphs (c)(2)(ii) and (c)(5) of this section. § 97.621 Recordation of TR SO2 Group 1 allowance allocations and auction results. (a) By [INSERT DATE 90 DAYS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the Administrator will record in each TR SO 2 Group 1 source's compliance account the TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances allocated to the TR SO 2 Group 1 units at the source in accordance with § 97.6 11(a) for the control period in 2012.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 115 6 of 1339 (b) By [INSERT DATE 90 DAYS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the Administrator will record in each TR SO 2 Group 1 source's compliance account the TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances allocated to the TR SO 2 Group 1 units at the source in accordance with § 97.6 11(a) for the control period in 2013, unless the State in which the source is located notifies the Administrator in writing by [INSERT DATE 70 DAYS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] of the State’s intent to submit to the Administrator a complete SIP revision by April 1, 2012 meeting the requirements of §52.3 8(d)(1) through (4) of this chapter. (1) If, by April 1, 2012, the State does not submit to the Administrator such complete SIP revision, the Administrator will record by April 15, 2012 in each TR SO 2 Group 1 source's compliance account the TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances allocated to the TR SO 2 Group 1 units at the source in accordance with § 97.6 11(a) for the control period in 2013. (2) If the State submits to the Administrator by April 1, 2012, and the Administrat or approves by October 1, 2012, such complete SIP revision, the Administrator will record by October 1, 2012 in each TR SO 2 Group 1 source's compliance account the TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances allocated to the TR SO 2 Group 1 units at the source as provided in such approved, complete SIP revision for the control period in 2013.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1157 of 1339 (3) If the State submits to the Administrator by April 1, 2012, and the Administrator does not approve by October 1, 2012, such complete SIP revision, the Administrator will record by Oc tober 1, 2012 in each TR SO 2 Group 1 source's compliance account the TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances allocated to the TR SO 2 Group 1 units at the source in accordance with § 97.6 11(a) for the control period in 2013. (c) By July 1, 2013, the Administrator will re cord in each TR SO 2 Group 1 source's compliance account the TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances allocated for the TR SO 2 Group 1 units at the source in accordance with § 97.6 11(a), or with a SIP revision approved under §52.3 8(e) or (f) of this chapter, for the contro l period in 2014 and 2015. (d) By July 1, 2014, the Administrator will record in each TR SO 2 Group 1 source's compliance account the TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances allocated for the TR SO 2 Group 1 units at the source in accordance with § 97.6 11(a), or with a SIP revision approved under §52.3 8(e) or (f) of this chapter, for the control period in 2016 and 2017. (e) By July 1, 2015, the Administrator will record in each TR SO 2 Group 1 source's compliance account the TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances allocated for the TR SO 2 Group 1 units at the source in*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1158 of 1339 accordance with § 97.6 11(a), or with a SIP revision approved under §52.3 8(e) or (f) of this chapter, for the control period in 2018 and 2019. (f) By July 1, 2016 and July 1 of each year thereafter, the Administrator will reco rd in each TR SO 2 Group 1 source's compliance account the TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances allocated for the TR SO 2 Group 1 units at the source in accordance with § 97.6 11(a), or with a SIP revision approved under §52.3 8(e) and (f) of this chapter, for the control period in the fourth year after the year of the applicable recordation deadline under this paragraph. (g) By August 1, 2012 and August 1 of each year thereafter, the Administrator will record in each TR SO 2 Group 1 source's compliance account the TR SO 2 G roup 1 allowances allocated for the TR SO 2 Group 1 units at the source in accordance with § 97.6 12(a), or with a SIP revision approved under §52.3 8(e) and (f) of this chapter, for the control period in the year of the applicable recordation deadline under t his paragraph. (h) By August 1, 2012 and August 1 of each year thereafter, the Administrator will record in each TR SO 2 Group 1 source's compliance account the TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances allocated for the TR SO 2 Group 1 units at the source in accordance wit h*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1159 of 1339 § 97.6 12(b) for the control period in the year of the applicable recordation deadline under this paragraph. (i) By the date on which any allocation, other than an allocation described in paragraphs (a) through (h) of this section, of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances to a recipient is made by or submitted to the Administrator in accordance with § 97.6 11 or § 97.6 12 or with a SIP revision approved under §52.3 8(e) or (f) of this chapter, the Administrator will record such allocation in the appropriate Allowance Management System account. (j) To the extent a SIP revision approved under §52.3 8(e) or (f) of this chapter provides for one or more auctions, in lieu of allocation, of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances for a control period in a given year, the Administrator will recor d in the appropriate Allowance Management System account under such SIP revision the amount of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances purchased at such auctions by the deadline, specified in paragraphs (a) through (h) of this section, for recordation of an allocation f or the control period in such year. (k) When recording the allocation or auction of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances for a TR SO 2 Group 1 unit in an Allowance Management System account, the Administrator will assign each TR SO 2 Group 1 allowance a unique identif ication number that will include*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1160 of 1339 digits identifying the year of the control period for which the TR SO 2 Group 1 allowance is allocated. § 97.622 Submission of TR SO2 Group 1 allowance transfers. (a) An authorized account representative seeking recordation of a TR SO 2 Group 1 allowance transfer shall submit the transfer to the Administrator. (b) A TR SO 2 Group 1 allowance transfer shall be correctly submitted if: (1) The transfer includes the following elements, in a format prescribed by the Administrator : (i) The account numbers established by the Administrator for both the transferor and transferee accounts; (ii) The serial number of each TR SO 2 Group 1 allowance that is in the transferor account and is to be transferred; and (iii) The name and signature of the authorized account representative of the transferor account and the date signed; and (2) When the Administrator attempts to record the transfer, the transferor account includes each TR SO 2 Group 1 allowance identified by serial number in the transf er.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1161 of 1339 § 97.623 Recordation of TR SO2 Group 1 allowance transfers. (a) Within 5 business days (except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section) of receiving a TR SO 2 Group 1 allowance transfer that is correctly submitted under § 97.6 22, the Administrator will record a TR SO 2 Group 1 allowance transfer by moving each TR SO 2 Group 1 allowance from the transferor account to the transferee account as specified in the transfer. (b) A TR SO 2 Group 1 allowance transfer to or from a compliance account that is s ubmitted for recordation after the allowance transfer deadline for a control period and that includes any TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances allocated for any control period before such allowance transfer deadline will not be recorded until after the Administrator completes the deductions from such compliance account under § 97.6 24 for the control period immediately before such allowance transfer deadline.

(c) Where a TR SO 2 Group 1 allowance transfer is not correctly submitted under § 97.6 22, the Administrator will not record such transfer. (d) Within 5 business days of recordation of a TR SO 2 Group 1 allowance transfer under paragraphs (a) and (b) of the section,*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1162 of 1339 the Administrator will notify the authorized account representatives of both the transferor and transfe ree accounts. (e) Within 10 business days of receipt of a TR SO 2 Group 1 allowance transfer that is not correctly submitted under § 97.6 22, the Administrator will notify the authorized account representatives of both accounts subject to the transfer of: (1) A decision not to record the transfer, and (2) The reasons for such non - recordation. § 97.624 Compliance with TR SO2 Group 1 emissions limitation. (a) Availability for deduction for compliance . TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances are available to be deducted for compliance with a source's TR SO 2 Group 1 emissions limitation for a control period in a given year only if the TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances: (1) Were allocated for such control period or a control period in a prior year; and (2) Are held in the source’s comp liance account as of the allowance transfer deadline for such control period. (b) Deductions for compliance . After the recordation, in accordance with § 97.6 23, of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowance transfers submitted by the allowance transfer deadline for a con trol*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1163 of 1339 period in a given year, the Administrator will deduct from each source’s compliance account TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances available under paragraph (a) of this section in order to determine whether the source meets the TR SO 2 Group 1 emissions limitation for such control period, as follows: (1) Until the amount of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances deducted equals the number of tons of total SO 2 emissions from all TR SO 2 Group 1 units at the source for such control period; or (2) If there are insufficient TR SO 2 Gr oup 1 allowances to complete the deductions in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, until no more TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances available under paragraph (a) of this section remain in the compliance account. (c)(1) Identification of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances by s erial number . The authorized account representative for a source's compliance account may request that specific TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances, identified by serial number, in the compliance account be deducted for emissions or excess emissions for a control p eriod in a given year in accordance with paragraph (b) or (d) of this section. In order to be complete, such request shall be submitted to the Administrator by the allowance transfer deadline for such control period and include, in a*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1164 of 1339 format prescribed by the Administrator, the identification of the TR SO 2 Group 1 source and the appropriate serial numbers. (2) First - in, first - out . The Administrator will deduct TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances under paragraph (b) or (d) of this section from the source's compliance account in accordance with a complete request under paragraph (c)(1) of this section or, in the absence of such request or in the case of identification of an insufficient amount of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances in such request, on a first - in, first - out accounting basis in the following order: (i) Any TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances that were allocated to the units at the source and not transferred out of the compliance account, in the order of recordation; and then (ii) Any TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances that were alloc ated to any unit and transferred to and recorded in the compliance account pursuant to this subpart, in the order of recordation. (d) Deductions for excess emissions . After making the deductions for compliance under paragraph (b) of this section for a con trol period in a year in which the TR SO 2 Group 1 source has excess emissions, the Administrator will deduct from the source's compliance account an amount of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances, allocated for the control period in the immediately*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1165 of 1339 following year, equal to two times the number of tons of the source's excess emissions. (e) Recordation of deductions . The Administrator will record in the appropriate compliance account all deductions from such an account under paragraphs (b) and (d) of this section. § 97 .625 Compliance with TR SO2 Group 1 assurance provisions. (a) Availability for deduction . TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances are available to be deducted for compliance with the TR SO 2 Group 1 assurance provisions for a control period in a given year by the owner s and operators of a group of one or more TR SO 2 Group 1 sources and units in a State only if the TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances: (1) Were allocated for such control period or a control period in a prior year; and (2) Are held in the assurance account, establ ished by the Administrator for such owners and operators of such group of TR SO 2 Group 1 sources and units in such State under paragraph (b)(3) of this section, as of the deadline established in paragraph (b)(5) of this section. (b) Deductions for compl iance . The Administrator will deduct TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances available under paragraph (a) of this*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1166 of 1339 section for compliance with the TR SO 2 Group 1 assurance provisions for a State for a control period in a given year in accordance with the following proc edures: (1) By June 1, 2013 and June 1 of each year thereafter, the Administrator will: (i) Calculate, separately for each State, the total SO 2 emissions from all TR SO 2 Group 1 units at TR SO 2 Group 1 sources in the State during the control period in the year before the year of this calculation deadline and the amount, if any, by which such total SO 2 emissions exceed the State assurance level as described in § 97.6 06(c)(2)(iii); and (ii) Promulgate a notice of data availability of the results of the calcula tions required in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section, including separate calculations of the SO 2 emissions from each TR SO 2 Group 1 source. (2) For each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section and for any State ident ified in such notice as having TR SO 2 Group 1 units with total SO 2 emissions exceeding the State assurance level for a control period in a given year, as described in § 97.6 06(c)(2)(iii):*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1167 of 1339 (i) By July 1 immediately after the promulgation of such notice, the designated representative of each TR SO 2 Group 1 source in each such State shall submit a statement, in a format prescribed by the Administrator, providing for each TR SO 2 Group 1 unit (if any) at the source that operates during, but is not allocated an amount of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances for, such control period, the unit’s allowable SO 2 emission rate for such control period and, if such rate is expressed in lb per mmBtu, the unit’s heat rate. (ii) By August 1 immediately after the promulgation of such notice, the Administrator will calculate, for each such State and each common designated representative (authorized as of the allowance transfer deadline for such control period) for a group of one or more TR SO 2 Group 1 sources and units in the State and for such control period, the common designated representative’s share of the total SO 2 emissions from all TR SO 2 Group 1 units at TR SO 2 Group 1 sources in the State, the common designated representative’s assurance level, and the amount (if any) of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances that the owners and operators of such group of sources and units must hold in accordance with the calculation formula in § 97.6 06(c)(2)(i) and will promulgate a notice of data availability of the results of these calculations.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1168 of 1339 (iii) The Administrator will provide an opportunity for submission of objections to the calculations referenced by the notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section and the calculations referenced by the relevant notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section. (A) Objections shall be submitted by the deadline specified in such notice and shall be limited to addressing whether the calculations referenced in the relevant notice required under paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section and referenced in the notice required under paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section are in accordance with § 97.6 06(c)(2)(iii), §§ 97.6 06(b) and 97.6 30 through 97.6 35, the definitions of “common designated representative”, “common des ignated representative’s assurance level”, and “common designated representative’s share” in § 97.6 02, and the calculation formula in § 97.6 06(c)(2)(i). (B) The Administrator will adjust the calculations to the extent necessary to ensure that they are in acc ordance with the provisions referenced in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(A) of this section. By October 1 immediately after the promulgation of such notice, the Administrator will promulgate a notice of data availability of any adjustments that the Administrator determines to be necessary and the reasons for accepting or*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1169 of 1339 rejecting any objections submitted in accordance with paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(A) of this section. (3) For any State identified in each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) of this section as having TR SO 2 Group 1 units with total SO 2 emissions exceeding the State assurance level for a control period in a given year, the Administrator will establish one assurance account for each set of owners and operators identified, in the notice of data availability required under paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) of this section, as all of the owners and operators of a group of TR SO 2 Group 1 sources and units in the State having a common designated representative (as of the allowance transfer de adline for such control period) and as being required to hold TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances. (4)(i) As of midnight of November 1 immediately after the promulgation of each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) of this section, t he owners and operators described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section shall hold in the assurance account established for the them and for the appropriate TR SO 2 Group 1 sources, TR SO 2 Group 1 units, and State under paragraph (b)(3) of this section a tota l amount of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances, available for deduction under paragraph (a) of this section, equal to the amount such owners*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1170 of 1339 and operators are required to hold with regard to such sources, units and State as calculated by the Administrator and refer enced in such notice. (ii) Notwithstanding the allowance - holding deadline specified in paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section, if November 1 is not a business day, then such allowance - holding deadline shall be midnight of the first business day thereafter. (5) After November 1 (or the date described in paragraph (b)(4)(ii) of this section) immediately after the promulgation of each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) of this section and after the recordation, in accordance with § 97.6 23, of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowance transfers submitted by midnight of such date, the Administrator will determine whether the owners and operators described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section hold, in the assurance account for the appropriate TR SO 2 Group 1 sources, TR SO 2 Group 1 units, and State established under paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the amount of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances available under paragraph (a) of this section that the owners and operators are required to hold with regard to such so urces, units, and States as calculated by the Administrator and referenced in the notice required in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) of this section.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1171 of 1339 (6) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subpart and any revision, made by or submitted to the Administrat or after the promulgation of the notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) of this section for a control period in a given year, of any data used in making the calculations referenced in such notice, the amounts of TR SO 2 Group 1 all owances that the owners and operators are required to hold in accordance with § 97.6 06(c)(2)(i) for such control period shall continue to be such amounts as calculated by the Administrator and referenced in such notice required in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) o f this section, except as follows: (i) If any such data are revised by the Administrator as a result of a decision in or settlement of litigation concerning such data on appeal under part 78 of this chapter of such notice, or on appeal under section 307 of the Clean Air Act of a decision rendered under part 78 of this chapter on appeal of such notice, then the Administrator will use the data as so revised to recalculate the amounts of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances that owners and operators are required to hold in accordance with the calculation formula in § 97.6 06(c)(2)(i) for such control period with regard to the TR SO 2 Group 1 sources, TR SO 2 Group 1 units, and State involved, provided that such litigation under part 78 of this chapter, or the proceeding under part 78*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1172 of 1339 of this chapter that resulted in the decision appealed in such litigation under section 307 of the Clean Air Act, was initiated no later than 30 days after promulgation of such notice required in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) of this section. (ii) If any such data are revised by the owners and operators of a TR SO 2 Group 1 source and TR SO 2 Group 1 unit whose designated representative submitted such data under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, as a result of a decision in or settlement of litigation concerning such submission, then the Administrator will use the data as so revised to recalculate the amounts of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances that owners and operators are required to hold in accordance with the calculation formula in § 97.6 06(c)(2)(i) for such control period with regard to the TR SO 2 Group 1 sources, TR SO 2 Group 1 units, and State involved, provided that such litigation was initiated no later than 30 days after promulgation of such notice required in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) of this section. (iii) If the revised data are used to recalculate, in accordance with paragraphs (b)(6)(i) and (b)(6)(ii) of this section, the amount of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances that the owners and operators are required to hold for such control period with regard to the TR SO 2 Group 1 sources, TR SO 2 Group 1 units, and State involved

—*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1173 of 1339 (A) Where the amount of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances that the owners and operators are required to hold increases as a result of the use of all such revised data, the Administrator will estab lish a new, reasonable deadline on which the owners and operators shall hold the additional amount of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances in the assurance account established by the Administrator for the appropriate TR SO 2 Group 1 sources, TR SO 2 Group 1 units, and State under paragraph (b)(3) of this section. The owners’ and operat o rs’ failure to hold such additional amount, as required, before the new deadline shall not be a violation of the Clean Air Act. The owners’ and operators’ failure to hold such additiona l amount, as required, as of the new deadline shall be a violation of the Clean Air Act. Each TR SO 2 Group 1 allowance that the owners and operators fail to hold as required as of the new deadline, and each day in such control period , shall be a separate violation of the Clean Air Act. (B) For the owners and operators for which the amount of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances required to be held decreases as a result of the use of all such revised data, the Administrator will record, in all accounts from which T R SO 2 Group 1 allowances were transferred by such owners and operators for such control period to the assurance account established by the Administrator for the appropriate at TR SO 2 Group 1 sources, TR SO 2 Group 1 units,*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1174 of 1339 and State under paragraph (b)(3) o f this section, a total amount of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances equal to the amount of the decrease. If TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances were transferred to such assurance account from more than one account, the amount of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances recorded in each su ch transferor account will be in proportion to the percentage of the total amount of TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances transferred to such assurance account for such control period from such transferor account. (C) Each TR SO 2 Group 1 allowance held under paragr aph (b)(6)(iii)(A) of this section, or recorded under paragraph (b)(6)(iii)(B) of this section, as a result of recalculation of requirements under the TR SO 2 Group 1 assurance provisions for such control period must be a TR SO 2 Group 1 allowance allocated for such control period or a control period in a prior year. § 97.626 Banking. (a) A TR SO 2 Group 1 allowance may be banked for future use or transfer in a compliance account or a general account in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section. (b) Any TR SO 2 Group 1 allowance that is held in a compliance account or a general account will remain in such account unless and until the TR SO 2 Group 1 allowance is deducted or transferred under § 97.6 11(c), § 97.6 23, § 97.6 24, § 97.6 25, 97.6 27, or 97.6 28.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1175 of 1339 § 97.627 Account error. The Administrator may, at his or her sole discretion and on his or her own motion, correct any error in any Allowance Management System account. Within 10 business days of making such correction, the Administrator will notify the au thorized account representative for the account. § 97.628 Administrator’s action on submissions. (a) The Administrator may review and conduct independent audits concerning any submission under the TR SO 2 Group 1 Trading Program and make appropriate adjustments of the information in the submission. (b) The Administrator may deduct TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances from or transfer TR SO 2 Group 1 allowances to a compliance account or an assurance account, based on the information in a submission, as adjusted under p aragraph (a)(1) of this section, and record such deductions and transfers. § 97.629 [RESERVED] § 97.6 30 General monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1176 of 1339 The owners and operators, and to the extent applicable, the designated representative, of a TR SO 2 Group 1 unit, shall comply with the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements as provided in this subpart and subparts F and G of part 75 of this chapter. For purposes of applying such requirements, the definitions in § 97.6 02 and in §72.2 of this chapter shall apply, the terms “affected unit,” “designated representative,” and “continuous emission monitoring system” (or “CEMS”) in part 75 of this chapter shall be deemed to refer to the terms “TR SO 2 Group 1 unit,“ “designated represen tative,” and “continuous emission monitoring system” (or “CEMS”) respectively as defined in § 97.6 02, and the term “newly affected unit” shall be deemed to mean “newly affected TR SO 2 Group 1 unit”. The owner or operator of a unit that is not a TR SO 2 Group 1 unit but that is monitored under §75.16(b)(2) of this chapter shall comply with the same monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements as a TR SO 2 Group 1 unit. (a) Requirements for installation, certification, and data accounting . The owner o r operator of each TR SO 2 Group 1 unit shall: (1) Install all monitoring systems required under this subpart for monitoring SO 2 mass emissions and individual unit heat input*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1177 of 1339 (including all systems required to monitor SO 2 concentration, stack gas moisture content, stack gas flow rate, CO 2 or O 2 concentration, and fuel flow rate, as applicable, in accordance with §§75.11 and 75.16 of this chapter); (2) Successfully complete all certification tests required under § 97.6 31 and meet all other requirements of th is subpart and part 75 of this chapter applicable to the monitoring systems under paragraph (a)(1) of this section; and (3) Record, report, and quality - assure the data from the monitoring systems under paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(b) Compliance dea dlines . Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, the owner or operator shall meet the monitoring system certification and other requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section on or before the following dates. The owner or operator s hall record, report, and quality - assure the data from the monitoring systems under paragraph (a)(1) of this section on and after the following dates. (1) For the owner or operator of a TR SO 2 Group 1 unit that commences commercial operation before July 1, 2011, by January 1, 2012.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1178 of 1339 (2) For the owner or operator of a TR SO 2 Group 1 unit that commences commercial operation on or after July 1, 2011, by the later of the following dates: (i) January 1, 2012; or (ii) 180 calendar days after the date on which t he unit commences commercial operation.
(3) The owner or operator of a TR SO 2 Group 1 unit for which construction of a new stack or flue or installation of add- on SO 2 emission controls is completed after the applicable deadline under paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section shall meet the requirements of §§75. 4(e)(1) through (e)(4) of this chapter, except that: (i) Such requirements shall apply to the monitoring systems required under § 97.630 through § 97.635, rather than the monitoring systems required under part 75 of this chapter; (ii) SO 2 concentration, stack gas moisture content, stack gas volumetric flow rate, and O 2 or CO 2 concentration data shall be determined and reported, rather than the data listed in §75. 4(e)(2) of this chapter; and*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1179 of 1339 (iii) Any pet ition for another procedure under §75. 4(e)(2) of this chapter shall be submitted under § 97.635, rather than §75 .66. (c) Reporting data . The owner or operator of a TR SO2 Group 1 unit that does not meet the applicable compliance date set forth in paragraph (b) of this section for any monitoring system under paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall, for each such monitoring system, determine, record, and report maximum potential (or, as appropriate, minimum potential) values for SO2 concentration, stack gas fl ow rate, stack gas moisture content, fuel flow rate, and any other parameters required to determine SO2 mass emissions and heat input in accordance with § 75.31(b)(2) or (c)(3) of this chapter or section 2.4 of appendix D to part 75 of this chapter, as app licable.
(d) Prohibitions . (1) No owner or operator of a TR SO2 Group 1 unit shall use any alternative monitoring system, alternative reference method, or any other alternative to any requirement of this subpart without having obtained prior written approval in accordance with § 97.6 35. (2) No owner or operator of a TR SO2 Group 1 unit shall operate the unit so as to discharge, or allow to be discharged, SO2*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1180 of 1339 emissions to the atmosphere without accounting for all such emissions in accordance with the applic able provisions of this subpart and part 75 of this chapter. (3) No owner or operator of a TR SO2 Group 1 unit shall disrupt the continuous emission monitoring system, any portion thereof, or any other approved emission monitoring method, and thereby avoi d monitoring and recording SO2 mass emissions discharged into the atmosphere or heat input, except for periods of recertification or periods when calibration, quality assurance testing, or maintenance is performed in accordance with the applicable provisio ns of this subpart and part 75 of this chapter. (4) No owner or operator of a TR SO2 Group 1 unit shall retire or permanently discontinue use of the continuous emission monitoring system, any component thereof, or any other approved monitoring system unde r this subpart, except under any one of the following circumstances: (i) During the period that the unit is covered by an exemption under § 97.6 05 that is in effect; (ii) The owner or operator is monitoring emissions from the unit*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1181 of 1339 with another certified monitoring system approved, in accordance with the applicable provisions of this subpart and part 75 of this chapter, by the Administrator for use at that unit that provides emission data for the same pollutant or parameter as the retired or discontinued mo nitoring system; or (iii) The designated representative submits notification of the date of certification testing of a replacement monitoring system for the retired or discontinued monitoring system in accordance with § 97.6 31(d)(3)(i). (e) Long - term cold storage . The owner or operator of a TR SO 2 Group 1 unit is subject to the applicable provisions of §75.4(d) of this chapter concerning units in long - term cold storage. § 97.6 31 Initial monitoring system certification and recertification procedures. (a) The owner or operator of a TR SO 2 Group 1 unit shall be exempt from the initial certification requirements of this section for a monitoring system under § 97.6 30(a)(1) if the following conditions are met: (1) The monitoring system has been previously certi fied in accordance with part 75 of this chapter; and*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1182 of 1339 (2) The applicable quality - assurance and quality - control requirements of § 75.21 of this chapter and appendices B and D to part 75 of this chapter are fully met for the certified monitoring system descr ibed in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. (b) The recertification provisions of this section shall apply to a monitoring system under § 97.6 30(a)(1) exempt from initial certification requirements under paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) [Reserved]
(d) E xcept as provided in paragraph (a) of this section, the owner or operator of a TR SO 2 Group 1 unit shall comply with the following initial certification and recertification procedures, for a continuous monitoring system (i.e., a continuous emission monitor ing system and an excepted monitoring system under appendix D to part 75 of this chapter) under § 97.6 30(a)(1). The owner or operator of a unit that qualifies to use the low mass emissions excepted monitoring methodology under §75.19 of this chapter or tha t qualifies to use an alternative monitoring system under subpart E of part 75 of this chapter shall comply with the procedures in paragraph (e) or (f) of this section respectively.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1183 of 1339 (1) Requirements for initial certification. The owner or operator shall e nsure that each continuous monitoring system under § 97.6 30(a)(1) (including the automated data acquisition and handling system) successfully completes all of the initial certification testing required under §75.20 of this chapter by the applicable deadline in § 97.6 30(b). In addition, whenever the owner or operator installs a monitoring system to meet the requirements of this subpart in a location where no such monitoring system was previously installed, initial certification in accordance with §75.20 of th is chapter is required. (2) Requirements for recertification. Whenever the owner or operator makes a replacement, modification, or change in any certified continuous emission monitoring system under § 97.6 30(a)(1) that may significantly affect the ability of the system to accurately measure or record SO 2 mass emissions or heat input rate or to meet the quality - assurance and quality - control requirements of §75.21 of this chapter or appendix B to part 75 of this chapter, the owner or operator shall recertify the monitoring system in accordance with §75.20(b) of this chapter. Furthermore, whenever the owner or operator makes a replacement, modification, or change to the flue gas handling system or the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1184 of 1339 unit's operation that may significantly change the stack fl ow or concentration profile, the owner or operator shall recertify each continuous emission monitoring system whose accuracy is potentially affected by the change, in accordance with §75.20(b) of this chapter. Examples of changes to a continuous emission monitoring system that require recertification include: replacement of the analyzer, complete replacement of an existing continuous emission monitoring system, or change in location or orientation of the sampling probe or site. Any fuel flowmeter system under § 97.6 30(a)(1) is subject to the recertification requirements in §75.20(g)(6) of this chapter. (3) Approval process for initial certification and recertification. For initial certification of a continuous monitoring system under § 97.6 30(a)(1), paragr aphs (d)(3)(i) through (v) of this section apply. For recertifications of such monitoring systems, paragraphs (d)(3)(i) through (iv) of this section and the procedures in §§75.20(b)(5) and (g)(7) of this chapter (in lieu of the procedures in paragraph (d )(3)(v) of this section) apply, provided that in applying paragraphs (d)(3)(i) through (iv) of this section, the words “certification” and “initial certification” are replaced by the word “recertification” and the word “certified” is replaced by with the word “recertified”.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1185 of 1339 (i) Notification of certification. The designated representative shall submit to the appropriate EPA Regional Office and the Administrator written notice of the dates of certification testing, in accordance with § 97.6 33.
(ii) Certifi cation application. The designated representative shall submit to the Administrator a certification application for each monitoring system. A complete certification application shall include the information specified in §75.63 of this chapter.
(iii) Provisional certification date. The provisional certification date for a monitoring system shall be determined in accordance with §75.20(a)(3) of this chapter. A provisionally certified monitoring system may be used under the TR SO 2 Group 1 Trading Program for a period not to exceed 120 days after receipt by the Administrator of the complete certification application for the monitoring system under paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of this section. Data measured and recorded by the provisionally certified monitoring sys tem, in accordance with the requirements of part 75 of this chapter, will be considered valid quality - assured data (retroactive to the date and time of provisional certification), provided that the Administrator does not invalidate the provisional*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1186 of 1339 certific ation by issuing a notice of disapproval within 120 days of the date of receipt of the complete certification application by the Administrator. (iv) Certification application approval process. The Administrator will issue a written notice of approval or disapproval of the certification application to the owner or operator within 120 days of receipt of the complete certification application under paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of this section. In the event the Administrator does not issue such a notice within such 120 - day period, each monitoring system that meets the applicable performance requirements of part 75 of this chapter and is included in the certification application will be deemed certified for use under the TR SO 2 Group 1 Trading Program. (A) Approval n otice. If the certification application is complete and shows that each monitoring system meets the applicable performance requirements of part 75 of this chapter, then the Administrator will issue a written notice of approval of the certification applica tion within 120 days of receipt. (B) Incomplete application notice. If the certification application is not complete, then the Administrator will issue a*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1187 of 1339 written notice of incompleteness that sets a reasonable date by which the designated representative must submit the additional information required to complete the certification application. If the designated representative does not comply with the notice of incompleteness by the specified date, then the Administrator may issue a notice of disapproval under paragraph (d)(3)(iv)(C) of this section. The 120 - day review period specified in paragraph (d)(3) of this section shall not begin before receipt of a complete certification application. (C) Disapproval notice. If the certification application shows that any monitoring system does not meet the performance requirements of part 75 of this chapter or if the certification application is incomplete and the requirement for disapproval under paragraph (d)(3)(iv)(B) of this section is met, then the Administra tor will issue a written notice of disapproval of the certification application. Upon issuance of such notice of disapproval, the provisional certification is invalidated by the Administrator and the data measured and recorded by each uncertified monitori ng system shall not be considered valid quality - assured data beginning with the date and hour of provisional certification (as defined under §75.20(a)(3) of this chapter).*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 118 8 of 1339 (D) Audit decertification. The Administrator may issue a notice of disapproval o f the certification status of a monitor in accordance with § 97.6 32(b).
(v) Procedures for loss of certification. If the Administrator issues a notice of disapproval of a certification application under paragraph (d)(3)(iv)(C) of this section or a notice of disapproval of certification status under paragraph (d)(3)(iv)(D) of this section, then: (A) The owner or operator shall substitute the following values, for each disapproved monitoring system, for each hour of unit operation during the period of inval id data specified under §75.20(a)(4)(iii), §75.20(g)(7), or §75.21(e) of this chapter and continuing until the applicable date and hour specified under §75.20(a)(5)(i) or (g)(7) of this chapter: (1) For a disapproved SO 2 pollutant concentration monitor an d disapproved flow monitor, respectively, the maximum potential concentration of SO 2 and the maximum potential flow rate, as defined in sections 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.4.1 of appendix A to part 75 of this chapter. (2) For a disapproved moisture monitoring system and disapproved*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1189 of 1339 diluent gas monitoring system, respectively, the minimum potential moisture percentage and either the maximum potential CO 2 concentration or the minimum potential O 2 concentration (as applicable), as defined in sections 2.1.5, 2.1.3.1, and 2.1.3.2 of appendix A to part 75 of this chapter. (3) For a disapproved fuel flowmeter system, the maximum potential fuel flow rate, as defined in section 2.4.2.1 of appendix D to part 75 of this chapter. (B) The designated representative shall submit a notification of certification retest dates and a new certification application in accordance with paragraphs (d)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section. (C) The owner or operator shall repeat all certification tests or other requirements that were failed by the monitoring system, as indicated in the Administrator's notice of disapproval, no later than 30 unit operating days after the date of issuance of the notice of disapproval. (e) The owner or operator of a unit qualified to use the low mass emissions (LME) e xcepted methodology under §75.19 of this chapter shall meet the applicable certification and*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1190 of 1339 recertification requirements in §§75.19(a)(2) and 75.20(h) of this chapter. If the owner or operator of such a unit elects to certify a fuel flowmeter system for heat input determination, the owner or operator shall also meet the certification and recertification requirements in §75.20(g) of this chapter. (f) The designated representative of each unit for which the owner or operator intends to use an alternative monitoring system approved by the Administrator under subpart E of part 75 of this chapter shall comply with the applicable notification and application procedures of §75.20(f) of this chapter. § 97.6 32 Monitoring system out- of - control periods. (a) General provisions . Whenever any monitoring system fails to meet the quality - assurance and quality - control requirements or data validation requirements of part 75 of this chapter, data shall be substituted using the applicable missing data procedures in subpart D or appendix D to part 75 of this chapter.
(b) Audit decertification . Whenever both an audit of a monitoring system and a review of the initial certification or recertification application reveal that any monitoring system should not have been certified or recertified because it did not*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1191 of 1339 meet a particular performance specification or other requirement under § 97.6 31 or the applicable provisions of part 75 of this chapter, both at the time of the initial certification or recertification application submissi on and at the time of the audit, the Administrator will issue a notice of disapproval of the certification status of such monitoring system. For the purposes of this paragraph, an audit shall be either a field audit or an audit of any information submitted to the Administrator or any State or permitting authority. By issuing the notice of disapproval, the Administrator revokes prospectively the certification status of the monitoring system. The data measured and recorded by the monitoring system shall not be considered valid quality - assured data from the date of issuance of the notification of the revoked certification status until the date and time that the owner or operator completes subsequently approved initial certification or recertification tests fo r the monitoring system. The owner or operator shall follow the applicable initial certification or recertification procedures in § 97.6 31 for each disapproved monitoring system. § 97.6 33 Notifications concerning monitoring. The designated representative of a TR SO 2 Group 1 unit shall submit written notice to the Administrator in accordance with §75.61 of this chapter.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1192 of 1339 § 97.6 34 Recordkeeping and reporting. (a) General provisions . The designated representative shall comply with all recordkeeping and repor ting requirements in this section, the applicable recordkeeping and reporting requirements in subparts F and G of part 75 of this chapter, and the requirements of § 97.6 14(a).
(b) Monitoring plans . The owner or operator of a TR SO2 Group 1 unit shall comp ly with requirements of §75.62 of this chapter.
(c) Certification applications . The designated representative shall submit an application to the Administrator within 45 days after completing all initial certification or recertification tests required under § 97.6 31, including the information required under §75.63 of this chapter.
(d) Quarterly reports . The designated representative shall submit quarterly reports, as follows: (1) The designated representative shall report the SO2 mass emissions data an d heat input data for the TR SO2 Group 1 unit, in an electronic quarterly report in a format prescribed by the Administrator, for each calendar quarter beginning with:*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1193 of 1339 (i) For a unit that commences commercial operation before July 1, 2011, the calendar qu arter covering January 1, 2012 through March 31, 2012; (ii) For a unit that commences commercial operation on or after July 1, 2011, the calendar quarter corresponding to the earlier of the date of provisional certification or the applicable deadline for initial certification under § 97.6 30(b), unless that quarter is the third or fourth quarter of 2011, in which case reporting shall commence in the quarter covering January 1, 2012 through March 31, 2012 .
(2) The designated representative shall submit each quarterly report to the Administrator within 30 days after the end of the calendar quarter covered by the report. Quarterly reports shall be submitted in the manner specified in §75.64 of this chapter.
(3) For TR SO 2 Group 1 units that are also subject to the Acid Rain Program, TR NOX Annual Trading Program, or TR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program, quarterly reports shall include the applicable data and information required by subparts F through H of part 75 of this chapter as applicable, in addition to the SO2*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1194 of 1339 mass emission data, heat input data, and other information required by this subpart.
(4) The Administrator may review and conduct independent audits of any quarterly report in order to determine whether the quarterly report meets the requirements of this subpart and part 75 of this chapter, including the requirement to use substitute data. (i) The Administrator will notify the designated representative of any determination that the quarterly report fails to meet any such requirements and specify in such notification any corrections that the Administrator believes are necessary to make through resubmission of the quarterly report and a reasonable time period within which the designated representative must respond. Upon request by the designated repre sentative, the Administrator may specify reasonable extensions of such time period. Within the time period (including any such extensions) specified by the Administrator, the designated representative shall resubmit the quarterly report with the correctio ns specified by the Administrator, except to the extent the designated representative provides information demonstrating that a specified correction is not necessary because the quarterly report already meets the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1195 of 1339 requirements of this subpart and part 75 of this chapter that are relevant to the specified correction. (ii) Any resubmission of a quarterly report shall meet the requirements applicable to the submission of a quarterly report under this subpart and part 75 of this chapter, except for the deadline set forth in paragraph (d)(2) of this section. (e) Compliance certification . The designated representative shall submit to the Administrator a compliance certification (in a format prescribed by the Administrator) in support of each quarterly report based on reasonable inquiry of those persons with primary responsibility for ensuring that all of the unit's emissions are correctly and fully monitored. The certification shall state that: (1) The monitoring data submitted were recorded in accordance with the applicable requirements of this subpart and part 75 of this chapter, including the quality assurance procedures and specifications; and
(2) For a unit with add- on SO 2 emission controls and for all hours where SO2 data are substituted in accordance with §75.34(a)(1) of this chapter, the add- on emission controls were operating within the range of parameters listed in the quality*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1196 of 1339 assurance/quality control program under appendix B to part 75 of this chapter and the substitute data values do not systematicall y underestimate SO 2 emissions. § 97.6 35 Petitions for alternatives to monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting requirements. (a) The designated representative of a TR SO 2 Group 1 unit may submit a petition under §75.66 of this chapter to the Administrator, requesting approval to apply an alternative to any requirement of §§ 97.6 30 through 97.6 34 or paragraph (5)(i) or (ii) of the definition of “owner’s share” in § 97.6 02. (b) A petition submitted under paragraph (a) of this section shall include sufficient information for the evaluation of the petition, including, at a minimum, the following information: (i) Identification of each unit and source covered by the petition; (ii) A detailed explanation of why the proposed alternative is being suggested in lieu o f the requirement; (iii) A description and diagram of any equipment and procedures used in the proposed alternative;*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1197 of 1339 (iv) A demonstration that the proposed alternative is consistent with the purposes of the requirement for which the alternative is proposed and with the purposes of this subpart and part 75 of this chapter and that any adverse effect of approving the alternative will be de minimis ; and (v) Any other relevant information that the Administrator may require. (c) Use of an alternative to any re quirement referenced in paragraph (a) of this section is in accordance with this subpart only to the extent that the petition is approved in writing by the Administrator and that such use is in accordance with such approval. 7 7 . Part 97 is amended by addin g subpart DDDDD to read as follows: Subpart DDDDD—TR SO2 Group 2 Trading Program 97.701 Purpose. 97.702 Definitions. 97.703 Measurements, abbreviations, and acronyms. 97.704 Applicability. 97.705 Retired unit exemption.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1198 of 1339 97.706 Standard requirements. 97.707 Computation of time. 97.708 Administrative appeal procedures. 97.709 [Reserved] 97.710 State SO 2 Group 2 trading budgets, new unit set asides, Indian country new unit set - asides and variability limits. 97.711 Timing requirements for TR SO 2 Group 2 allowance allocations. 97.712 TR SO 2 Group 2 allowance allocations for new units. 97.713 Authorization of designated representative and alternate designated representative. 97.714 Responsibilities of designated r epresentative and alternate designated representative. 97.715 Changing designated representative and alternate designated representative; changes in owners and operators. 97.716 Certificate of representation. 97.717 Objections concerning designated repr esentative and alternate designated representative.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1199 of 1339 97.718 Delegation by designated representative and alternate designated representative. 97.719 [Reserved] 97.720 Establishment of compliance accounts and general accounts. 97.721 Recordation of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowance allocations. 97.722 Submission of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowance transfers. 97.723 Recordation of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowance transfers. 97.724 Compliance with TR SO 2 Group 2 emissions limitation. 97.725 Compliance with TR SO 2 Group 2 assurance provisions. 97.726 Banking. 97.727 Account error. 97.728 Administrator’s action on submissions. 97.729 [RESERVED] 97.730 General monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. 97.731 Initial monitoring system certification and recertifica tion procedures.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1200 of 1339 97.732 Monitoring system out - of - control periods. 97.733 Notifications concerning monitoring. 97.734 Recordkeeping and reporting. 97.735 Petitions for alternatives to monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting requirements. Subpart DDDDD—TR SO2 Group 2 Trading Program § 97.701 Purpose. This subpart sets forth the general, designated representative, allowance, and monitoring provisions for the Transport Rule (TR) SO 2 Group 2 Trading Program, under section 110 of the Clean Air Act and §52.38 of this chapter, as a means of mitigating interstate transport of fine particulates and nitrogen oxides. § 97.702 Definitions. The terms used in this subpart shall have the meanings set forth in this section as follows: Acid Rai n Program means a multi - state SO 2 and NOX air pollution control and emission reduction program established by the Administrator under title IV of the Clean Air Act and parts 72 through 78 of this chapter.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1201 of 1339 Administrator means the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency or the Director of the Clean Air Markets Division (or its successor) of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the Administrator's duly authorized representative under this subpart. Allocate or allocation means, with regard to TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances, the determination by the Administrator , State, or permitting authority , in accordance with this subpart and any SIP revision submitted by the State and approved by the Administrator under §52.3 8 ( g ) , (h), or (i) of this chapter, of the amount of such TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances to be initially credited, at no cost to the recipient, to: (1) A TR SO 2 Group 2 unit; (2) A new unit set - aside; (3) An Indian country new unit set - aside; or (4) An entity not listed in p aragraphs (1) through (3) of this definition; (5) Provided that, if the Administrator , State , or permitting authority initially credits, to a TR SO 2 Group 2 unit qualifying for an initial credit, a credit in the amount of zero TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances, the TR SO 2 Group 2 unit will be treated as*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1202 of 1339 being allocated an amount (i.e., zero) of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances. Allowable SO 2 emission rate means, with regard to a unit, the most stringent State or federal SO 2 emission rate limit (in lb/MWhr or, if in lb/ mmBtu, converted to lb/MWhr by multiplying it by the unit’s heat rate in mmBtu/MWhr) that is applicable to the unit and covers the longest averaging period not exceeding one year. Allowance Management System means the system by which the Administrator re cords allocations, deductions, and transfers of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances under the TR SO 2 Group 2 Trading Program. Such allowances are allocated, recorded, held, deducted, or transferred only as whole allowances. Allowance Management System account means an account in the Allowance Management System established by the Administrator for purposes of recording the allocation, holding, transfer, or deduction of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances. Allowance transfer deadline means, for a control period in a given yea r, midnight of March 1 (if it is a business day), or midnight of the first business day thereafter (if March 1 is not a business day), immediately after such control period and is the deadline by which a TR SO 2 Group 2 allowance transfer must be*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1203 of 1339 submitted for recordation in a TR SO 2 Group 2 source's compliance account in order to be available for use in complying with the source's TR SO 2 Group 2 emissions limitation for such control period in accordance with §§97.706 and 97.724. Alternate designated repres entative means, with regard to a TR SO 2 Group 2 source and each TR SO 2 Group 2 unit at the source, the natural person who is authorized by the owners and operators of the source and all such units at the source, in accordance with this subpart, to act on b ehalf of the designated representative in matters pertaining to the TR SO 2 Group 2 Trading Program. If the TR SO 2 Group 2 source is also subject to the Acid Rain Program, TR NO X Annual Trading Program, or TR NO X Ozone Season Trading Program, then this nat ural person shall be the same natural person as the alternate designated representative, as defined in the respective program.
Assurance account means an Allowance Management System account, established by the Administrator under §97.725(b)(3) for certain owners and operators of a group of one or more TR SO 2 Group 2 sources and units in a given State, in which are held TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances available for use for a control period in a given year in complying with the TR SO 2 Group 2 assurance provisions in accordance with §§97.706 and 97.725.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1204 of 1339 Authorized account representative means, with regard to a general account, the natural person who is authorized, in accordance with this subpart, to transfer and otherwise dispose of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances held in the general account and, with regard to a TR SO 2 Group 2 source’s compliance account, the designated representative of the source. Automated data acquisition and handling system or DAHS means the component of the continuous emission monitoring system, o r other emissions monitoring system approved for use under this subpart, designed to interpret and convert individual output signals from pollutant concentration monitors, flow monitors, diluent gas monitors, and other component parts of the monitoring sys tem to produce a continuous record of the measured parameters in the measurement units required by this subpart. Biomass means— (1) Any organic material grown for the purpose of being converted to energy; (2) Any organic byproduct of agriculture that can be converted into energy; or (3) Any material that can be converted into energy and is nonmerchantable for other purposes, that is segregated from*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1205 of 1339 other material that is nonmerchantable for other purposes, and that is; (i) A forest - related organic resource , including mill residues, precommercial thinnings, slash, brush, or byproduct from conversion of trees to merchantable material; or (ii) A wood material, including pallets, crates, dunnage, manufacturing and construction materials (other than pressure tre ated, chemically - treated, or painted wood products), and landscape or right - of - way tree trimmings. Boiler means an enclosed fossil - or other - fuel - fired combustion device used to produce heat and to transfer heat to recirculating water, steam, or other medi um. Bottoming - cycle unit means a unit in which the energy input to the unit is first used to produce useful thermal energy, where at least some of the reject heat from the useful thermal energy application or process is then used for electricity production . Business day means a day that does not fall on a weekend or a federal holiday. Certifying official means a natural person who is:*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1206 of 1339 (1) For a corporation, a president, secretary, treasurer, or vice -president or the corporation in charge of a principal busi ness function or any other person who performs similar policy - or decision -making functions for the corporation; (2) For a partnership or sole proprietorship, a general partner or the proprietor respectively; or (3) For a local government entity or State, federal, or other public agency, a principal executive officer or ranking elected official. Clean Air Act means the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. Coal means “coal” as defined in §72.2 of this chapter. Coal - derived fuel means any fuel (whether in a solid, liquid, or gaseous state) produced by the mechanical, thermal, or chemical processing of coal. Cogeneration system means an integrated group, at a source, of equipment (including a boiler, or combustion turbine, and a steam turbine generator) desi gned to produce useful thermal energy for industrial, commercial, heating, or cooling purposes and electricity through the sequential use of energy.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1207 of 1339 Cogeneration unit means a stationary, fossil - fuel - fired boiler or stationary, fossil - fuel - fired combustion turbine

— (1) Operating as part of a cogeneration system; and (2) Producing on an annual average basis during the later of 2005 or the 12 -month period starting on the date that the unit first produces electricity and during each calendar year after the lat er of 2005 or the calendar year in which the unit first produces electricity

— (i) For a topping - cycle unit, (A) Useful thermal energy not less than 5 percent of total energy output; and (B) Useful power that, when added to one - half of useful thermal energy produced, is not less than 42.5 percent of total energy input, if useful thermal energy produced is 15 percent or more of total energy output, or not less than 45 percent of total energy input, if useful thermal energy produced is less than 15 percent of total energy output. (ii) For a bottoming - cycle unit, useful power not less than 45 percent of total energy input;*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1208 of 1339 (3) Provided that the requirements in paragraph (2) of this definition shall not apply to a calendar year referenced in paragraph (2) of thi s definition during which the unit did not operate at all; (4) Provided that the total energy input under paragraphs (2)(i)(B) and (2)(ii) of this definition shall equal the unit's total energy input from all fuel, except biomass if the unit is a boiler; and (5) Provided that, if, throughout its operation during the 12 - month period or a calendar year referenced in paragraph (2) of this definition, a unit is operated as part of a cogeneration system and the cogeneration system meets on a system- wide basis the requirement in paragraph (2)(i)(B) or (2)(ii) of this definition, the unit shall be deemed to meet such requirement during that 12 -month period or calendar year. Combustion turbine means an enclosed device comprising: (1) If the device is simple cycle, a compressor, a combustor, and a turbine and in which the flue gas resulting from the combustion of fuel in the combustor passes through the turbine, rotating the turbine; and*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1209 of 1339 (2) If the device is combined cycle, the equipment described in paragraph (1) of this definition and any associated duct burner, heat recovery steam generator, and steam turbine. Commence commercial operation means, with regard to a unit: (1) To have begun to produce steam, gas, or other heated medium used to generate electricity for sale or use, including test generation, except as provided in §97.705. (i) For a unit that is a TR SO 2 Group 2 unit under §97.704 on the later of January 1, 2005 or the date the unit commences commercial operation as defined in the introductory text of par agraph (1) of this definition and that subsequently undergoes a physical change or is moved to a new location or source, such date shall remain the date of commencement of commercial operation of the unit, which shall continue to be treated as the same uni t. (ii) For a unit that is a TR SO 2 Group 2 unit under §97.704 on the later of January 1, 2005 or the date the unit commences commercial operation as defined in the introductory text of paragraph (1) of this definition and that is subsequently replaced by a unit at the same or a different source, such date shall remain the replaced unit's date of commencement of commercial operation, and the replacement unit shall be treated*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1210 of 1339 as a separate unit with a separate date for commencement of commercial operation as defined in paragraph (1) or (2) of this definition as appropriate. (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) of this definition and except as provided in §97.705, for a unit that is not a TR SO 2 Group 2 unit under §97.704 on the later of January 1, 2005 or the da te the unit commences commercial operation as defined in introductory text of paragraph (1) of this definition, the unit's date for commencement of commercial operation shall be the date on which the unit becomes a TR SO 2 Group 2 unit under §97.704. (i) Fo r a unit with a date for commencement of commercial operation as defined in the introductory text of paragraph (2) of this definition and that subsequently undergoes a physical change) or is moved to a different location or source, such date shall remain the date of commencement of commercial operation of the unit, which shall continue to be treated as the same unit. (ii) For a unit with a date for commencement of commercial operation as defined in the introductory text of paragraph (2) of this definition and that is subsequently replaced by a unit at the same or a different source, such date shall remain the replaced unit's date of commencement of commercial operation,*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1211 of 1339 and the replacement unit shall be treated as a separate unit with a separate date for commencement of commercial operation as defined in paragraph (1) or (2) of this definition as appropriate. Common designated representative means a designated representative where the same natural person is authorized under §§ 97.713(a) and 97.715(a) as the designated representative for a group of one or more TR SO 2 Group 2 sources and units located in a State. Common designated representative’s assurance level means, with regard to a specific common designated representative and a State and control period in a given year for which the State assurance level is exceeded as described in §97.706(c)(2)(iii), the common designated representative’s share of the State SO 2 Group 2 trading budget with the one - year variability limit for the State for such control period . Common designated representative’s share means, with regard to a specific common designated representative: (1) With regard to a total amount of SO 2 emissions from all TR SO 2 Group 2 units in a State during a control period in a given year, the total t onnage of SO 2 emissions during such control period from a group of one or more TR SO 2 Group 2 units located*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1212 of 1339 in the State and having the common designated representative as of the allowance transfer deadline for such control period; (2) With regard to a St ate SO 2 Group 2 trading budget for a control period in a given year, the amount (rounded to the nearest allowance) equal to the sum of the total amount of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances allocated for such control period to a group of one or more TR SO 2 Group 2 units located in the State and having the common designated representative as of the allowance transfer deadline for such control period and of the total amount of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances purchased by an owner or operator of such TR SO 2 Group 2 units in an auction for such control period and submitted to the Administrator for recordation in the compliance accounts for such TR SO 2 Group 2 units in accordance with the TR SO 2 Group 2 allowance auction provisions in a SIP revision approved by the Administrato r under §52.3 8(h) or (i) of this chapter, multiplied by the sum of the State SO 2 Group 2 trading budget under §97.710(a) and the State’s one - year variability limit under §97.710(b) for such control period and divided by such State SO 2 Group 2 trading budge t; (3) Provided that, in the case of a unit that operates during, but has no amount of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances allocated under §§97.711 and 97.712 for, a control period in a given year, the unit shall be treated, solely for purposes of this definition,*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1213 of 1339 as being allocated an amount (rounded to the nearest allowance) of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances for such control period equal to the unit’s allowable SO 2 emission rate applicable to such control period, multiplied by a capacity factor of 0.87 (if the unit is a boiler combusting any amount of coal or coal - derived fuel during such control period), 0.14 (if the unit is a simple combustion turbine during such control period), 0.70 (if the unit is a combined cycle turbine during such control period), 0.46 (if the unit is a boiler combusting only fuel oil or natural gas during such control period), or 0.71 (for any other unit), multiplied by the unit’s maximum hourly load as reported in accordance with this subpart and by 8,760 hours/control period, and divided by 2,000 lb/ton . Common stack means a single flue through which emissions from 2 or more units are exhausted. Compliance account means an Allowance Management System account, established by the Administrator for a TR SO 2 Group 2 source under this subpart, i n which any TR SO 2 Group 2 allowance allocations for the TR SO 2 Group 2 units at the source are recorded and in which are held any TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances available for use for a control period in a given year in complying with the source's TR SO 2 Group 2 emissions limitation in accordance with §§97.706 and 97.724.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1214 of 1339 Continuous emission monitoring system or CEMS means the equipment required under this subpart to sample, analyze, measure, and provide, by means of readings recorded at least once every 15 minutes and using an automated data acquisition and handling system (DAHS), a permanent record of SO 2 emissions, stack gas volumetric flow rate, stack gas moisture content, and O 2 or CO 2 concentration (as applicable), in a manner consistent with part 75 of th is chapter and §§97.730 through 97.735. The following systems are the principal types of continuous emission monitoring systems: (1) A flow monitoring system, consisting of a stack flow rate monitor and an automated data acquisition and handling system an d providing a permanent, continuous record of stack gas volumetric flow rate, in standard cubic feet per hour (scfh); (2) A SO 2 monitoring system, consisting of a SO 2 pollutant concentration monitor and an automated data acquisition and handling system and providing a permanent, continuous record of SO 2 emissions, in parts per million (ppm); (3) A moisture monitoring system, as defined in §75.11(b)(2) of this chapter and providing a permanent, continuous record of the stack gas moisture content, in percent H 2 O;*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1215 of 1339 (4) A CO 2 monitoring system, consisting of a CO 2 pollutant concentration monitor (or an O 2 monitor plus suitable mathematical equations from which the CO 2 concentration is derived) and an automated data acquisition and handling system and providing a permanent, continuous record of CO 2 emissions, in percent CO 2 ; and (5) An O 2 monitoring system, consisting of an O 2 concentration monitor and an automated data acquisition and handling system and providing a permanent, continuous record of O 2 , in percent O 2 . Control period means the period starting January 1 of a calendar year, except as provided in §97.706(c)(3), and ending on December 31 of the same year, inclusive. Designated representative means, with regard to a TR SO 2 Group 2 source and each TR SO 2 Gr oup 2 unit at the source, the natural person who is authorized by the owners and operators of the source and all such units at the source, in accordance with this subpart, to represent and legally bind each owner and operator in matters pertaining to the T R SO 2 Group 2 Trading Program. If the TR SO 2 Group 2 source is also subject to the Acid Rain Program, TR NOX Annual Trading Program, or TR NO X Ozone Season Trading Program, then this natural person shall be the same*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1216 of 1339 natural person as the designated repres entative, as defined in the respective program. Emissions means air pollutants exhausted from a unit or source into the atmosphere, as measured, recorded, and reported to the Administrator by the designated representative, and as modified by the Administr ator: (1) In accordance with this subpart; and (2) With regard to a period before the unit or source is required to measure, record, and report such air pollutants in accordance with this subpart, in accordance with part 75 of this chapter. Excess emission s means any ton of emissions from the TR SO 2 Group 2 units at a TR SO 2 Group 2 source during a control period in a given year that exceeds the TR SO 2 Group 2 emissions limitation for the source for such control period. Fossil fuel means— (1) Natural gas, p etroleum, coal, or any form of solid, liquid, or gaseous fuel derived from such material; or (2) For purposes of applying the limitation on “average annual fuel consumption of fossil fuel” in §§97.704(b)(2)(i)(B) and*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1217 of 1339 (ii), natural gas, petroleum, coal, or any form of solid, liquid, or gaseous fuel derived from such material for the purpose of creating useful heat. Fossil - fuel - fired means, with regard to a unit, combusting any amount of fossil fuel in 2005 or any calendar year thereafter. Fuel oil means “fue l oil” as defined in §72.2 of this chapter. General account means an Allowance Management System account, established under this subpart, that is not a compliance account or an assurance account. Generator means a device that produces electricity. Gross el ectrical output means, for a unit, electricity made available for use, including any such electricity used in the power production process (which process includes, but is not limited to, any on - site processing or treatment of fuel combusted at the unit and any on - site emission controls). Heat input means, for a unit for a specified period of time, the product (in mmBtu/time) of the gross calorific value of the fuel (in mmBtu/lb) fed into the unit multiplied by the fuel feed rate (in lb of fuel/time), as mea sured, recorded, and reported to the Administrator by the designated representative and as modified by the Administrator in accordance with this subpart and*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1218 of 1339 excluding the heat derived from preheated combustion air, recirculated flue gases, or exhaust.
Heat input rate means, for a unit, the amount of heat input (in mmBtu) divided by unit operating time (in hr) or, with regard to a specific fuel, the amount of heat input attributed to the fuel (in mmBtu) divided by the unit operating time (in hr) during which the unit combusts the fuel.
Heat rate means, for a unit, the unit’s maximum design heat input (in Btu/hr), divided by the product of 1,000,000 Btu/mmBtu and the unit’s maximum hourly load. Indian country means, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151: (1) All land w ithin the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and, including rights - of - way running through the reservation; (2) All dependent Indian communities within the bor ders of the United States whether within the original or subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or without the limits of a state; and*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1219 of 1339 (3) All Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights - o f - way running through the same. Life 

### - of - the - unit, firm power contractual arrangement means a unit participation power sales agreement under which a utility or industrial customer reserves, or is entitled to receive, a specified amount or percentage of nameplate capacity and associated energy generated by any specified unit and pays its proportional amount of such unit's total costs, pursuant to a contract: (1) For the life of the unit; (2) For a cumulative term of no less than 30 years, including contracts that permit an election for early termination; or (3) For a period no less than 25 years or 70 percent of the economic useful life of the unit determined as of the time the unit is built, with option rights to purchase or release some portion of the namepl ate capacity and associated energy generated by the unit at the end of the period. Maximum design heat input means, for a unit, the maximum amount of fuel per hour (in Btu/hr) that the unit is capable of combusting on a steady state basis as of the initial*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 122 0 of 1339 installation of the unit as specified by the manufacturer of the unit. Monitoring system means any monitoring system that meets the requirements of this subpart, including a continuous emission monitoring system, an alternative monitoring system, or an ex cepted monitoring system under part 75 of this chapter. Nameplate capacity means, starting from the initial installation of a generator, the maximum electrical generating output (in MWe, rounded to the nearest tenth) that the generator is capable of produc ing on a steady state basis and during continuous operation (when not restricted by seasonal or other deratings) as of such installation as specified by the manufacturer of the generator or, starting from the completion of any subsequent physical change in the generator resulting in an increase in the maximum electrical generating output that the generator is capable of producing on a steady state basis and during continuous operation (when not restricted by seasonal or other deratings), such increased maximum amount (in MWe, rounded to the nearest tenth) as of such completion as specified by the person conducting the physical change. Natural gas means “natural gas” as defined in §72.2 of this chapter.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1221 of 1339 Newly affected TR SO 2 Group 2 unit means a unit that was not a TR SO 2 Group 2 unit when it began operating but that thereafter becomes a TR SO 2 Group 2 unit. Operate or operation means, with regard to a unit, to combust fuel. Operator means, with regard to a TR SO 2 Group 2 source or a TR SO 2 Group 2 unit at a source respectively, any person who operates, controls, or supervises a TR SO 2 Group 2 unit at the source or the TR SO 2 Group 2 unit and shall include, but not be limited to, any holding company, utility system, or plant manager of such source or unit . Own er means, with regard to a TR SO 2 Group 2 source or a TR SO 2 Group 2 unit at a source respectively, any of the following persons: (1) Any holder of any portion of the legal or equitable title in a TR SO 2 Group 2 unit at the source or the TR SO 2 Group 2 uni t; (2) Any holder of a leasehold interest in a TR SO 2 Group 2 unit at the source or the TR SO 2 Group 2 unit, provided that, unless expressly provided for in a leasehold agreement, “owner” shall not include a passive lessor, or a person who has an equitable interest through such lessor, whose rental payments are not*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1222 of 1339 based (either directly or indirectly) on the revenues or income from such TR SO 2 Group 2 unit; and (3) Any purchaser of power from a TR SO 2 Group 2 unit at the source or the TR SO 2 Group 2 unit under a life - of - the - unit, firm power contractual arrangement. Permanently retired means, with regard to a unit, a unit that is unavailable for service and that the unit’s owners and operators do not expect to return to service in the future. Permitting authority means “permitting authority” as defined in §§70.2 and 71.2 of this chapter. Potential electrical output capacity means, for a unit, 33 percent of the unit's maximum design heat input, divided by 3,413 Btu/kWh, divided by 1,000 kWh/MWh, and multipl ied by 8,760 hr/yr. Receive or receipt of means, when referring to the Administrator, to come into possession of a document, information, or correspondence (whether sent in hard copy or by authorized electronic transmission), as indicated in an official lo g, or by a notation made on the document, information, or correspondence, by the Administrator in the regular course of business.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1223 of 1339 Recordation, record, or recorded means, with regard to TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances, the moving of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances by the Administrator into, out of, or between Allowance Management System accounts, for purposes of allocation, auction, transfer, or deduction. Reference method means any direct test method of sampling and analyzing for an air pollutant as specified in §75.22 of this chapter. Replacement, replace, or replaced means, with regard to a unit, the demolishing of a unit, or the permanent retirement and permanent disabling of a unit, and the construction of another unit (the replacement unit) to be used instead of the demolished or retired unit (the replaced unit). Sequential use of energy means: (1) For a topping - cycle unit, the use of reject heat from electricity production in a useful thermal energy application or process; or (2) For a bottoming - cycle unit, the use of reject heat from useful thermal energy application or process in electricity production.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1224 of 1339 Serial number means, for a TR SO 2 Group 2 allowance, the unique identification number assigned to each TR SO 2 Group 2 allowance by the Administrator. Solid waste i ncineration unit means a stationary, fossil - fuel fired boiler or stationary, fossil - fuel - fired combustion turbine that is a “solid waste incineration unit” as defined in section 129(g)(1) of the Clean Air Act.
Source means all buildings, structures, or ins tallations located in one or more contiguous or adjacent properties under common control of the same person or persons. This definition does not change or otherwise affect the definition of “major source”, “stationary source”, or “source” as set forth and implemented in a title V operating permit program or any other program under the Clean Air Act. State means one of the States that is subject to the TR SO 2 Group 2 Trading Program pursuant to §52.3 8(a),(c), (g), (h), and (i) of this chapter and , when us ed to refer to a geographic area, includes Indian country located within the borders of such State. Submit or serve means to send or transmit a document, information, or correspondence to the person specified in accordance with the applicable regulation: ( 1) In person;*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1225 of 1339 (2) By United States Postal Service; or (3) By other means of dispatch or transmission and delivery; (4) Provided that compliance with any “submission” or “service” deadline shall be determined by the date of dispatch, transmission, or mailin g and not the date of receipt. Topping - cycle unit means a unit in which the energy input to the unit is first used to produce useful power, including electricity, where at least some of the reject heat from the electricity production is then used to provide useful thermal energy. Total energy input means, for a unit, total energy of all forms supplied to the unit, excluding energy produced by the unit. Each form of energy supplied shall be measured by the lower heating value of that form of energy calculate d as follows:
LHV = HHV − 10.55(W + 9H) Where: LHV = lower heating value of the form of energy in Btu/lb, HHV = higher heating value of the form of energy in Btu/lb, W = weight % of moisture in the form of energy, and*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1226 of 1339 H = weight % of hydrogen in the form o f energy. Total energy output means, for a unit, the sum of useful power and useful thermal energy produced by the unit.
TR NOX Annual Trading Program means a multi - state NOX air pollution control and emission reduction program established in accordance wi th subpart AAAAA of this part and § 52.37(a) of this chapter (including such a program that is revised in a SIP revision approved by the Administrator under §52.37(a)(3) or (4) of this chapter) or with a SIP revision approved by the Administrator under §52. 37(a)(5) of this chapter , as a means of mitigating interstate transport of fine particulates and NO X . TR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program means a multi - state NOX air pollution control and emission reduction program established in accordance with subpart BBBBB of this part and § 52.37(b) of this chapter (including such a program that is revised by a State in a SIP revision approved by the Administrator under §52.37(b)(3) or (4) of this chapter) or with a SIP revision approved by the Administrator under §52.37 (b)(5) of this chapter , as a means of mitigating interstate transport of ozone and NO X . TR SO 2 Group 2 allowance means a limited authorization issued and allocated or auctioned by the Administrator under this subpart , or by a State or permitting authority under a SIP revision*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1227 of 1339 approved by the Administrator under §52.38(g), (h), or (i) of this chapter, to emit one ton of SO 2 during a control period of the specified calendar year for which the authorization is allocated or auctioned or of any calendar year the reafter under the TR SO 2 Group 2 Trading Program.
TR SO 2 Group 2 allowance deduction or deduct TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances means the permanent withdrawal of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances by the Administrator from a compliance account, e.g. , in order to account for compliance with the TR SO 2 Group 2 emissions limitation or assurance provisions.
TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances held or hold TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances means the TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances treated as included in an Allowance Management System account as of a specified point in time because at that time they: (1) Have been recorded by the Administrator in the account or transferred into the account by a correctly submitted, but not yet recorded, TR SO 2 Group 2 allowance transfer in accordance with this subpar t; and (2) Have not been transferred out of the account by a correctly submitted, but not yet recorded, TR SO 2 Group 2 allowance transfer in accordance with this subpart.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1228 of 1339 TR SO 2 Group 2 emissions limitation means, for a TR SO 2 Group 2 source, the tonnage o f SO 2 emissions authorized in a control period by the TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances available for deduction for the source under §97.724(a) for such control period.
TR SO 2 Group 2 source means a source that includes one or more TR SO 2 Group 2 units.
TR SO 2 Gro up 2 Trading Program means a multi - state SO 2 air pollution control and emission reduction program established by the Administrator in accordance with this subpart and § 52.3 8 (a) and (c) of this chapter (including such a program that is revised by a State in a SIP revision approved by the Administrator under §52.38(g) or (h) of this chapter) or with a SIP revision approved by the Administrator under §52.38(i) of this chapter , as a means of mitigating interstate transport of fine particulates and SO 2 . TR SO 2 Gr oup 2 unit means a unit that is subject to the TR SO 2 Group 2 Trading Program under §97.704. Unit means a stationary, fossil - fuel - fired boiler, stationary, fossil - fuel - fired combustion turbine, or other stationary, fossil - fuel - fired combustion device. A unit that undergoes a physical change or is moved to a different location or source shall continue to be treated as the same unit. A unit (the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1229 of 1339 replaced unit) that is replaced by another unit (the replacement unit) at the same or a different source shall co ntinue to be treated as the same unit, and the replacement unit shall be treated as a separate unit. Unit operating day means, with regard to a unit, a calendar day in which the unit combusts any fuel. Unit operating hour or hour of unit operation means, w ith regard to a unit, an hour in which the unit combusts any fuel. Useful power means, with regard to a unit, electricity or mechanical energy that the unit makes available for use, excluding any such energy used in the power production process (which proc ess includes, but is not limited to, any on - site processing or treatment of fuel combusted at the unit and any on - site emission controls). Useful thermal energy means thermal energy that is: (1) Made available to an industrial or commercial process (not a power production process), excluding any heat contained in condensate return or makeup water; (2) Used in a heating application ( e.g., space heating or domestic hot water heating); or*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1230 of 1339 (3) Used in a space cooling application ( i.e., in an absorption chiller) . Utility power distribution system means the portion of an electricity grid owned or operated by a utility and dedicated to delivering electricity to customers. § 97.703 Measurements, abbreviations, and acronyms. Measurements, abbreviations, and acronyms used in this subpart are defined as follows:
Btu
—British thermal unit
CO 2—carbon dioxide
H 2 O
—water hr
—hour kW
—kilowatt electrical kWh
—kilowatt hour lb
—pound
mmBtu
—million Btu
MWe
—megawatt electrical*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1231 of 1339 MWh
—megawatt hour NOX—nitrogen oxides
O 2—oxygen ppm—part s per million scfh
—standard cubic feet per hour
SO 2—sulfur dioxide
yr—year § 97.704 Applicability. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section: (1) The following units in a State (including Indian country located within the borders of such Sta te) shall be TR SO 2 Group 2 units, and any source that includes one or more such units shall be a TR SO 2 Group 2 source, subject to the requirements of this subpart: any stationary, fossil - fuel - fired boiler or stationary, fossil - fuel - fired combustion turbi ne serving at any time, on or after January 1, 2005, a generator with nameplate capacity of more than 25 MWe producing electricity for sale. (2) If a stationary boiler or stationary combustion turbine that, under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, is not a TR SO 2*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1232 of 1339 Group 2 unit begins to combust fossil fuel or to serve a generator with nameplate capacity of more than 25 MWe producing electricity for sale, the unit shall become a TR SO 2 Group 2 unit as provided in paragraph (a)(1) of this section on the first date on which it both combusts fossil fuel and serves such generator. (b) Any unit in a State (including Indian country located within the borders of such State) that otherwise is a TR SO 2 Group 2 unit under paragraph (a) of this section and that meets the requirements set forth in paragraph (b)(1)(i), (b)(2)(i), or (b)(2)(ii) of this section shall not be a TR SO 2 Group 2 unit: (1)(i) Any unit: (A) Qualifying as a cogeneration unit throughout the later of 2005 or the 12 -month period starting on the date the unit first produces electricity and continuing to qualify as a cogeneration unit; and (B) Not supplying in 2005 or any calendar year thereafter more than one - third of the unit's potential electric output capacity or 219,000 MWh, whichever is greater, to an y utility power distribution system for sale.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1233 of 1339 (ii) If a unit qualifies as a cogeneration unit throughout the later of 2005 or the 12 -month period starting on the date the unit first produces electricity and meets the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1)(i) of this section for at least one calendar year, but subsequently no longer meets such qualification and requirements, the unit shall become a TR SO 2 Group 2 unit starting on the earlier of January 1 after the first calendar year during which the unit first no longer qualifies as a cogeneration unit or January 1 after the first calendar year during which the unit no longer meets the requirements of paragraph (b)(1)(i)(B) of this section. (2)(i) Any unit: (A) Qualifying as a solid waste incineration unit throu ghout the later of 2005 or the 12 -month period starting on the date the unit first produces electricity and continuing to qualify as a solid waste incineration unit; and (B) With an average annual fuel consumption of fossil fuel for the first 3 consecutive calendar years of operation starting no earlier than 2005 of less than 20 percent (on a Btu basis) and an average annual fuel consumption of fossil fuel for any 3 consecutive calendar years thereafter of less than 20 percent (on a Btu basis).*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1234 of 1339 (ii) If a un it qualifies as a solid waste incineration unit throughout the later of 2005 or the 12 -month period starting on the date the unit first produces electricity and meets the requirements of paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section for at least 3 consecutive calendar years, but subsequently no longer meets such qualification and requirements, the unit shall become a TR SO 2 Group 2 unit starting on the earlier of January 1 after the first calendar year during which the unit first no longer qualifies as a solid waste incineration unit or January 1 after the first 3 consecutive calendar years after 2005 for which the unit has an average annual fuel consumption of fossil fuel of 20 percent or more. (c) A certifying official of an owner or operator of any unit or other equipment may submit a petition (including any supporting documents) to the Administrator at any time for a determination concerning the applicability, under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, of the TR SO 2 Group 2 Trading Program to the unit or other e quipment. (1) Petition content. The petition shall be in writing and include the identification of the unit or other equipment and the relevant facts about the unit or other equipment. The petition and any other documents provided to the Administrator in c onnection with the petition shall include the following*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1235 of 1339 certification statement, signed by the certifying official: “I am authorized to make this submission on behalf of the owners and operators of the unit or other equipment for which the submission is ma de. I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined, and am familiar with, the statements and information submitted in this document and all its attachments. Based on my inquiry of those individuals with primary responsibility for obtaining the information, I certify that the statements and information are to the best of my knowledge and belief true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false statements and information or omitting required sta tements and information, including the possibility of fine or imprisonment.” (2) Response. The Administrator will issue a written response to the petition and may request supplemental information determined by the Administrator to be relevant to such petit ion. The Administrator's determination concerning the applicability, under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, of the TR SO 2 Group 2 Trading Program to the unit or other equipment shall be binding on any State or permitting authority unless the Adminis trator determines that the petition or other documents or information provided in connection with the petition contained significant, relevant errors or omissions.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1236 of 1339 § 97.705 Retired unit exemption. (a)(1) Any TR SO 2 Group 2 unit that is permanently retired shall be exempt from §97.706(b) and (c)(1), §97.724, and §§97.730 through 97.735. (2) The exemption under paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall become effective the day on which the TR SO 2 Group 2 unit is permanently retired. Within 30 days of the unit 's permanent retirement, the designated representative shall submit a statement to the Administrator. The statement shall state, in a format prescribed by the Administrator, that the unit was permanently retired on a specified date and will comply with the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section. (b) Special provisions. (1) A unit exempt under paragraph (a) of this section shall not emit any SO 2 , starting on the date that the exemption takes effect. (2) For a period of 5 years from the date the record s are created, the owners and operators of a unit exempt under paragraph (a) of this section shall retain, at the source that includes the unit, records demonstrating that the unit is permanently retired. The 5 - year period for keeping records may be extended for cause, at any time before the end of the period,*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1237 of 1339 in writing by the Administrator. The owners and operators bear the burden of proof that the unit is permanently retired. (3) The owners and operators and, to the extent applicable, the designated repr esentative of a unit exempt under paragraph (a) of this section shall comply with the requirements of the TR SO 2 Group 2 Trading Program concerning all periods for which the exemption is not in effect, even if such requirements arise, or must be complied w ith, after the exemption takes effect. (4) A unit exempt under paragraph (a) of this section shall lose its exemption on the first date on which the unit resumes operation. Such unit shall be treated, for purposes of applying allocation, monitoring, report ing, and recordkeeping requirements under this subpart, as a unit that commences commercial operation on the first date on which the unit resumes operation. § 97.706 Standard requirements. (a) Designated representative requirements . The owners and operat ors shall comply with the requirement to have a designated representative, and may have an alternate designated representative, in accordance with §§97.713 through 97.718.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1238 of 1339 (b) Emissions monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements . (1) The owners and operators, and the designated representative, of each TR SO 2 Group 2 source and each TR SO 2 Group 2 unit at the source shall comply with the monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements of §§97.730 through 97.735. (2) The emissions data determined in accordance with §§97.730 through 97.735 shall be used to calculate allocations of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances under §§97.711(a)(2) and (b) and 97.712 and to determine compliance with the TR SO 2 Group 2 emissions limitation and assurance provisions under paragraph (c) of this section, provided that, for each monitoring location from which mass emissions are reported, the mass emissions amount used in calculating such allocations and determining such compliance shall be the mass emissions amount for the monitoring location determined in accordance with §§97.730 through 97.735 and rounded to the nearest ton, with any fraction of a ton less than 0.50 being deemed to be zero. (c) SO 2 emissions requirements . (1) TR SO 2 Group 2 emissions limitation. (i) As of the allowance transfer deadline for a control period in a given year, the owners and operators of each TR SO 2 Group 2 source and each TR SO 2 Group 2 unit at the source shall hold, in the source's compliance account, TR SO 2 Group 2*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1239 of 1339 allowances available f or deduction for such control period under §97.724(a) in an amount not less than the tons of total SO 2 emissions for such control period from all TR SO 2 Group 2 units at the source. (ii) If total SO 2 emissions during a control period in a given year from the TR SO 2 Group 2 units at a TR SO 2 Group 2 source are in excess of the TR SO 2 Group 2 emissions limitation set forth in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section, then: (A) The owners and operators of the source and each TR SO 2 Group 2 unit at the source shall hold the TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances required for deduction under §97.724(d); and (B) The owners and operators of the source and each TR SO 2 Group 2 unit at the source shall pay any fine, penalty, or assessment or comply with any other remedy imposed, for the same violations, under the Clean Air Act, and each ton of such excess emissions and each day of such control period shall constitute a separate violation of this subpart and the Clean Air Act. (2) TR SO 2 Group 2 assurance provisions. (i) If total SO 2 emissions during a control period in a given year from all TR SO 2 Group 2 units at TR SO 2 Group 2 sources in a State exceed the State assurance level, then the owners and operators of such sources and units in each group of one or more sources and units*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1240 of 1339 having a common designated representative (as of the allowance transfer deadline for such control period) where the common designated representative’s share of such SO 2 emissions during such control period exceeds the common designated representative’s assu rance level for the State and such control period shall hold, in the assurance account established for the owners and operators of such group , TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances available for deduction for such control period under §97.725(a) in an amount equal to the product (rounded to the nearest whole number), as determined by the Administrator in accordance with §97.725(b), of multiplying

— (A) The quotient of the amount by which the common designated representative’s share of such SO 2 emissions exceeds the common designated representative’s assurance level divided by the sum of the amounts, determined for all common designated representatives for such sources and units in the State for such control period, by which each common designated representative’s share of such SO 2 emissions exceeds the respective common designated representative’s assurance level; and (B) Two times the amount by which total SO 2 emissions from all TR SO 2 Group 2 units at TR SO 2 Group 2 sources in the State for such control period exceed t he State assurance level.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1241 of 1339 (ii) The owners and operators shall hold the TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances required under paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section, as of midnight of November 1 (if it is a business day), or midnight of the first business day thereafter ( if November 1 is not a business day), immediately after such control period. (iii) Total SO 2 emissions from all TR SO 2 Group 2 units at TR SO 2 Group 2 sources in a State during a control period in a given year exceed the State assurance level if such tot al SO 2 emissions exceed the sum, for such control period, of the State SO 2 Group 2 trading budget under §97.710(a) and the State’s one - year variability limit under §97.710(b). (iv) It shall not be a violation of this subpart or of the Clean Air Act if tota l SO 2 emissions from all TR SO 2 Group 2 units at TR SO 2 Group 2 sources in a State during a control period exceed the State assurance level or if a common designated representative’s share of total SO 2 emissions from the TR SO 2 Group 2 units at TR SO 2 Group 2 sources in a State during a control period exceeds the common designated representative’s assurance level. (v) To the extent the owners and operators fail to hold TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances for a control period in a given year in*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1242 of 1339 accordance with parag raphs (c)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section, (A) The owners and operators shall pay any fine, penalty, or assessment or comply with any other remedy imposed under the Clean Air Act; and (B) Each TR SO 2 Group 2 allowance that the owners and operators fai l to hold for such control period in accordance with paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (iii) o f this section and each day of such control period shall constitute a separate violation of this subpart and the Clean Air Act. (3) Compliance periods. A TR SO 2 Group 2 unit shall be subject to the requirements under paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section for the control period starting on the later of January 1, 2012 or the deadline for meeting the unit's monitor certification requirements under §97.730(b) and f or each control period thereafter. (4) Vintage of deducted allowances. A TR SO 2 Group 2 allowance shall not be deducted, for compliance with the requirements under paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (2)(i) through (iii) of this section, for a control period in a cal endar year before the year for which the TR SO 2 Group 2 allowance was allocated.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1243 of 1339 (5) Allowance Management System requirements. Each TR SO 2 Group 2 allowance shall be held in, deducted from, or transferred into, out of, or between Allowance Management System accounts in accordance with this subpart. (6) Limited authorization. A TR SO 2 Group 2 allowance is a limited authorization to emit one ton of SO 2 during the control period in one year. Such authorization is limited in its use and duration as follows: (i ) Such authorization shall only be used in accordance with the TR SO 2 Group 2 Trading Program; and (ii) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subpart, the Administrator has the authority to terminate or limit the use and duration of such authorizati on to the extent the Administrator determines is necessary or appropriate to implement any provision of the Clean Air Act. (7) Property right. A TR SO 2 Group 2 allowance does not constitute a property right. (d) Title V permit requirements . (1) No title V permit revision shall be required for any allocation, holding, deduction, or transfer of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances in accordance with this subpart.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1244 of 1339 (2) A description of whether a unit is required to monitor and report SO 2 emissions using a continuous emission monitoring system (under subpart H of part 75 of this chapter), an excepted monitoring system (under appendices D and E to part 75 of this chapter), a low mass emissions excepted monitoring methodology (under §75.19 of this chapter), or an alternati ve monitoring system (under subpart E of part 75 of this chapter) in accordance with §§97.730 through 97.735 may be added to, or changed in, a title V permit using minor permit modification procedures in accordance with §§70.7(e)(2) and 71.7(e)(1) of this chapter, provided that the requirements applicable to the described monitoring and reporting (as added or changed, respectively) are already incorporated in such permit. This paragraph explicitly provides that the addition of, or change to, a unit’s description as described in the prior sentence is eligible for minor permit modification procedures in accordance with §§70.7(e)(2)(i)(B) and 71.7(e)(1)(i)(B) of this chapter. (e) Additional r ecordkeeping and reporting requirements . (1) Unless otherwise provi ded, the owners and operators of each TR SO 2 Group 2 source and each TR SO 2 Group 2 unit at the source shall keep on site at the source each of the following documents (in hardcopy or electronic format) for a period of 5 years from the date the document is created. This period may be extended*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1245 of 1339 for cause, at any time before the end of 5 years, in writing by the Administrator. (i) The certificate of representation under §97.716 for the designated representative for the source and each TR SO 2 Group 2 unit at the source and all documents that demonstrate the truth of the statements in the certificate of representation; provided that the certificate and documents shall be retained on site at the source beyond such 5 - year period until such certificate of represent ation and documents are superseded because of the submission of a new certificate of representation under §97.716 changing the designated representative. (ii) All emissions monitoring information, in accordance with this subpart. (iii) Copies of all report s, compliance certifications, and other submissions and all records made or required under, or to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of, the TR SO 2 Group 2 Trading Program. (2) The designated representative of a TR SO 2 Group 2 source and each TR SO 2 Group 2 unit at the source shall make all submissions required under the TR SO 2 Group 2 Trading Program. This requirement does not change, create an exemption from, or or otherwise affect the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1246 of 1339 responsible official submission requirements under a title V operating permit program in parts 70 and 71 of this chapter. (f) Liability . (1) Any provision of the TR SO 2 Group 2 Trading Program that applies to a TR SO 2 Group 2 source or the designated representative of a TR SO 2 Group 2 source shall also apply to the owners and operators of such source and of the TR SO 2 Group 2 units at the source. (2) Any provision of the TR SO 2 Group 2 Trading Program that applies to a TR SO 2 Group 2 unit or the designated representative of a TR SO 2 Group 2 unit shall also apply to the owners and operators of such unit. (g) Effect on other authorities . No provision of the TR SO 2 Group 2 Trading Program or exemption under §97.705 shall be construed as exempting or excluding the owners and operators, and the designated representati ve, of a TR SO 2 Group 2 source or TR SO 2 Group 2 unit from compliance with any other provision of the applicable, approved State implementation plan, a federally enforceable permit, or the Clean Air Act. § 97.707 Computation of time. (a) Unless otherwise stated, any time period scheduled, under the TR SO2 Group 2 Trading Program, to begin on the occurrence of an act or event shall begin on the day the act or event occurs.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1247 of 1339 (b) Unless otherwise stated, any time period scheduled, under the TR SO 2 Group 2 Tra ding Program, to begin before the occurrence of an act or event shall be computed so that the period ends the day before the act or event occurs. (c) Unless otherwise stated, if the final day of any time period, under the TR SO 2 Group 2 Trading Program, is not a business day, the time period shall be extended to the next business day. § 97.708 Administrative appeal procedures. The administrative appeal procedures for decisions of the Administrator under the TR SO 2 Group 2 Trading Program are set forth in p art 78 of this chapter. § 97.709 [Reserved] § 97.710 State SO2 Group 2 trading budgets, new unit set- asides, Indian country new unit set- aside, and variability limits. (a) The State SO 2 Group 2 trading budgets, new unit set - asides, and Indian country new unit set - asides for allocations of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances for the control periods in 2012 and thereafter are as follows:
State SO 2 Annual Group 2 New unit set - Indian country new*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1248 of 1339 trading budget (tons)* for 2012 and 2013 aside (tons) for 2012 and 2013 unit set - aside (tons) for 2012 and 2013
Alabama 216,033 4,321 --- Georgia 158,527 3,171 --- Kansas 41,528 789 42 Minnesota 41,981 798 42 Nebraska 65,052 2,537 65 South Carolina 88,620 1,684 89 Texas 243,954 11,954 244

State SO 2 Annual Group 2

trading budget (tons)* for 2014 and thereafter New unit set aside (tons) for 2014 and thereafter Indian country

new unit set aside (tons) for 2014 and thereafter Alabama 213,258 4,265 --- Georgia 95,231 1,905 --- Kansas 41,528 789 42 Minnesota 41, 981 798 42 Nebraska 65,052 2,537 65 South Carolina 88,620 1,684 89 Texas 243,954 11,954 244 * Each trading budget includes the new unit set - aside and, where applicable, the Indian country new unit set - aside and does not include the variability limit. (b) The States’ one - year variability limits for the State SO 2 Group 2 trading budgets for the control periods in 2012 and thereafter are as follows:*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1249 of 1339 State One - year variability limits for 2012 and 2013 One - year variability limits for 2014 and thereafter Alabama 21,603 21,326 Georgia 15,853 9,523 Kansas 4,153 4,153 Minnesota 4,198 4,198 Nebraska 6,505 6,505 South Carolina 8,862 8,862 Texas 24,395 24,395

§ 97.711 Timing requirements for TR SO2 Group 2 allowance allocations. (a) Existing units . ( 1) TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances are allocated, for the control periods in 2012 and each year thereafter, as provided in a notice of data availability issued by the Administrator. Providing an allocation for a unit in such notice does not constitute a determin ation that the unit is a TR SO 2 Group 2 unit, and not providing an allocation for a unit in such notice does not constitute a determination that the unit is not a TR SO 2 Group 2 unit. (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (a)(1) of this section, if a unit provide d an allocation in the notice of data availability issued under paragraph (a)(1) of this section does not operate, starting after 2011, during the control period in two*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1250 of 1339 consecutive years, such unit will not be allocated the TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances provided in such notice for the unit for the control periods in the fifth year after the first such year and in each year after that fifth year. All TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances that would otherwise have been allocated to such unit will be allocated to the new uni t set - aside for the State where such unit is located and for the respective years involved. If such unit resumes operation, the Administrator will allocate TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances to the unit in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section. (b) New un its . (1) New unit set - asides. (i) By June 1, 2012 and June 1 of each year thereafter, the Administrator will calculate the TR SO 2 Group 2 allowance allocation for each TR SO 2 Group 2 unit, in accordance with §97.712(a)(1) through (8), for the control per iod in the year of the applicable calculation deadline under this paragraph and will promulgate a notice of data availability of the results of the calculations. (ii) For each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section, the Administrator will provide an opportunity for submission of objections to the calculations referenced in such notice.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1251 of 1339 (A) Objections shall be submitted by the deadline specified in each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section and shall be limited to addressing whether the calculations are in accordance with §97.712(a)(1) through (8) and §§97.706(b)(2) and 97.730 through 97.735. (B) The Administrator will adjust the calculations to the extent necessary to ensure that t hey are in accordance with the provisions referenced in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) of this section. By August 1 immediately after the promulgation of each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section, the Administrator will promulgate a notice of data availability of any adjustments that the Administrator determines to be necessary with regard to allocations under §97.712(a)(1) through (8) and the reasons for accepting or rejecting any objections submitted in accordance with par agraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) of this section. (iii) If the new unit set - aside for such control period contains any TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances that have not been allocated in the applicable notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this secti on, the Administrator will promulgate, by December 15 immediately after such notice, a notice of data availability that identifies any TR SO 2 Group 2 units that commenced commercial operation during the period starting*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 125 2 of 1339 January 1 of the year before the year of such control period and ending November 30 of year of such control period. (iv) For each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section, the Administrator will provide an opportunity for submission of objections to the identification of TR SO 2 annual units in such notice. (A) Objections shall be submitted by the deadline specified in each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section and shall be limited to addressing whether the identifica tion of TR SO 2 annual units in such notice is in accordance with paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section. (B) The Administrator will adjust the identification of TR SO 2 Group 2 units in the each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section to the extent necessary to ensure that it is in accordance with paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section and will calculate the TR SO 2 Group 2 allowance allocation for each TR SO 2 Group 2 unit in accordance with §97.712(a)(9) and (10) and §§9 7.706(b)(2) and 97.730 through 97.735. By February 15 immediately after the promulgation of each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section, the Administrator will promulgate a notice of data availability of any adjustme nts of the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1253 of 1339 identification of TR SO 2 Group 2 units that the Administrator determines to be necessary, the reasons for accepting or rejecting any objections submitted in accordance with paragraph (b)(1)(iv)(A) of this section, and the results of such calcul ations. (2) Indian country new unit set - asides. (i) By June 1, 2012 and June 1 of each year thereafter, the Administrator will calculate the TR SO 2 Group 2 allowance allocation for each TR SO 2 Group 2 unit, in accordance with §97.712(b)(1) through (8), fo r the control period in the year of the applicable calculation deadline under this paragraph and will promulgate a notice of data availability of the results of the calculations. (ii) For each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, the Administrator will provide an opportunity for submission of objections to the calculations referenced in such notice. (A) Objections shall be submitted by the deadline specified in each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section and shall be limited to addressing whether the calculations are in accordance with §97.712(b)(1) through (8) and §§97.706(b)(2) and 97.730 through 97.735.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1254 of 1339 (B) The Administrator will adjust the calculations to the extent necessary to ensure that they are in accordance with the provisions referenced in paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A) of this section. By August 1 immediately after the promulgation of each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, the Admin istrator will promulgate a notice of data availability of any adjustments that the Administrator determines to be necessary with regard to allocations under §97.712(b)(1) through (8) and the reasons for accepting or rejecting any objections submitted in ac cordance with paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A) of this section. (iii) If the Indian country new unit set - aside for such control period contains any TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances that have not been allocated in the applicable notice of data availability required in pa ragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, the Administrator will promulgate, by December 15 immediately after such notice, a notice of data availability that identifies any TR SO 2 Group 2 units that commenced commercial operation during the period starting Janua ry 1 of the year before the year of such control period and ending November 30 of year of such control period. (iv) For each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section, the Administrator will provide an*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1255 of 1339 opportunity for submission of objections to the identification of TR SO 2 annual units in such notice. (A) Objections shall be submitted by the deadline specified in each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section and shall be limited to a ddressing whether the identification of TR SO 2 annual units in such notice is in accordance with paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section. (B) The Administrator will adjust the identification of TR SO 2 Group 2 units in the each notice of data availability r equired in paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section to the extent necessary to ensure that it is in accordance with paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section and will calculate the TR SO 2 Group 2 allowance allocation for each TR SO 2 Group 2 unit in accordance wit h §97.712(b)(9) and (10) and §§97.706(b)(2) and 97.730 through 97.735. By February 15 immediately after the promulgation of each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section, the Administrator will promulgate a notice of data availability of any adjustments of the identification of TR SO 2 Group 2 units that the Administrator determines to be necessary, the reasons for accepting or rejecting any objections submitted in accordance with paragraph (b)(2)(iv)(A) of this section, and the results of such calculations.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1256 of 1339 (c) Units incorrectly allocated TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances . (1) For each control period in 2012 and thereafter, if the Administrator determines that TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances were allocated under paragraph (a) of th is section, or under a provision of a SIP revision approved §52.3 8 ( g), (h), or (i) of this chapter, where such control period and the recipient are covered by the provisions of paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section or were allocated under paragraph (b) of th is section and §97.712, or under a provision of a SIP revision approved §52.3 8(g), (h), or (i) of this chapter, where such control period and the recipient are covered by the provisions of paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section, then the Administrator will n otify the designated representative and will act in accordance with the procedures set forth in paragraphs (c)(2) through (5) of this section: (i)(A) The recipient is not actually a TR SO 2 Group 2 unit under §97.704 as of January 1, 2012 and is allocated T R SO 2 Group 2 allowances for such control period or, in the case of an allocation under a provision of a SIP revision approved §52.3 8(g), (h), or (i) of this chapter, the recipient is not actually a TR SO 2 Group 2 unit as of January 1, 2012 and is allocate d TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances for such control period that*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1257 of 1339 the SIP revision provides should be allocated only to recipients that are TR SO 2 Group 2 units as of January 1, 2012; or (B) The recipient is not located as of January 1 of the control period in the State from whose TR SO 2 Group 2 trading budget the TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances allocated under paragraph (a) of this section, or under a provision of a SIP revision approved §52.3 8(g), (h), or (i) of this chapter, were allocated for such control period. (ii ) The recipient is not actually a TR SO 2 Group 2 unit under §97.704 as of January 1 of such control period and is allocated TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances for such control period or, in the case of an allocation under a provision of a SIP revision approved §52. 3 8(g), (h), or (i) of this chapter, the recipient is not actually a TR SO 2 Group 2 unit as of January 1 of such control period and is allocated TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances for such control period that the SIP revision provides should be allocated only to rec ipients that are TR SO 2 Group 2 units as of January 1 of such control period. (2) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(3) or (4) of this section, the Administrator will not record such TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances under §97.721.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1258 of 1339 (3) If the Administrator alrea dy recorded such TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances under §97.721 and if the Administrator makes the determination under paragraph (c)(1) of this section before making deductions for the source that includes such recipient under §97.724(b) for such control period, then the Administrator will deduct from the account in which such TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances were recorded an amount of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances allocated for the same or a prior control period equal to the amount of such already recorded TR SO 2 Group 2 al lowances. The authorized account representative shall ensure that there are sufficient TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances in such account for completion of the deduction. (4) If the Administrator already recorded such TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances under §97.721 and if the Administrator makes the determination under paragraph (c)(1) of this section after making deductions for the source that includes such recipient under §97.724(b) for such control period, then the Administrator will not make any deduction to take accoun t of such already recorded TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances. (5) The Administrator will transfer the TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances that are not recorded, or that are deducted, in accordance with paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) of this section to, for a recipient under p aragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section, the new unit set -*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1259 of 1339 aside for the State from whose SO 2 Group 2 trading budget the TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances were allocated, or, for a recipient under paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this paragraph, to the State’s new unit set - aside or Indian country new unit set - aside from which the TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances were allocated, for the control period in the year of such transfer. § 97.712 TR SO2 Group 2 allowance allocations for new units. (a) For each control period in 2012 and therea fter and for the TR SO 2 Group 2 units in each State other than those located in Indian county, the Administrator will allocate TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances to the TR SO 2 Group 2 units described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section and in accordance with paragr aphs (a)(2) through (9) of this section: (1) The TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances will be allocated to the following TR SO 2 Group 2 units, except as provided in paragraph (a)(10) of this section: (i) TR SO 2 Group 2 units that are not allocated an amount (whether zero or greater) of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances in the notice of data availability issued under §97.711(a)(1); (ii) TR SO 2 Group 2 units whose allocation of an amount (whether zero or greater) of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances for such control*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1260 of 1339 period in the noti ce of data availability issued under §97.711(a)(1) is covered by §97.711(c)(2) or (3); (iii) TR SO 2 Group 2 units that are allocated an amount (whether zero or greater) of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances for such control period in the notice of data availability issued under §97.711(a)(1), which allocation is terminated for such control period pursuant to §97.711(a)(2), and that operate during the control period immediately preceding such control period; or (iv) TR SO 2 Group 2 units under §97.711(c)(1)(ii) whose allocation of an amount (whether zero or greater) of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances for such control period in the notice of data availability issued under §97.711(b)(1)(ii)(B) is covered by §97.711(c)(2) or (3). (2) The Administrator will establish a separate new unit set aside for the State for each such control period. Each such new unit set - aside will be allocated TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances in an amount equal to the applicable amount of tons of SO 2 emissions as set forth in §97.710(a) and will be allocated a dditional TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances (if any) in accordance with §§97.711(a)(2) and (c)(5) and paragraph (b)(10) of this section. (3) The Administrator will determine, for each TR SO 2 Group 2 unit described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, an*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1261 of 1339 allocation of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances for the later of the following control periods and for each subsequent control period: (i) The control period in 2012; (ii) The first control period after the control period in which the TR SO 2 Group 2 unit commences commerci al operation; (iii) For a unit described in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, the first control period in which the TR SO 2 Group 2 unit operates in the non - Indian country portion of the State after operating in another jurisdiction and for which the u nit is not already allocated one or more TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances; and (iv) For a unit described in paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section, the first control period after the control period in which the unit resumes operation. (4)(i) The allocation for ea ch TR SO 2 annual unit described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section and for each control period described in paragraph (a)(3) of this section will be an amount equal to the unit’s total tons of SO 2 emissions during the immediately preceding control period.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1262 of 1339 (ii) The Administrator will adjust the allocation amount in paragraph (a)(4)(i) in accordance with paragraphs (a)(5) through (9) of this section. (5) The Administrator will calculate the sum of the TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances determined for all such TR SO 2 Group 2 units under paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this section in the State for such control period. (6) If the amount of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances in the new unit set - aside for the State for such control period is greater than or equal to the sum under paragraph (a)(5) of this section, then the Administrator will allocate the amount of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances determined for each such TR SO 2 Group 2 unit under paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this section. (7) If the amount of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances in the new unit set - aside for the State for such control period is less than the sum under paragraph (a)(5) of this section, then the Administrator will allocate to each such TR SO 2 Group 2 unit the amount of the TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances determined under paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this section for the unit, multiplied by the amount of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances in the new unit set - aside for such control period, divided by the sum under paragraph (a)(5) of this section, and rounded to the nearest allowance.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1263 of 1339 (8) The Administrator w ill notify the public, through the promulgation of the notices of data availability described in §97.711(b)(1)(i) and (ii), of the amount of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances allocated under paragraphs (a)(1) through (8) for such control period to each TR SO 2 Group 2 unit eligible for such allocation. (9) If, after completion of the procedures under paragraphs (a)(5) through (8) of this section for such control period, any unallocated TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances remain in the new unit set aside for the State for such control period, the Administrator will allocate such TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances as follows -- (i) The Administrator will determine, for each unit described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section that commenced commercial operation during the period starting January 1 of the year before the year of such control period and ending November 30 of year of such control period, the positive difference (if any) between the unit’s emissions during such control period and the amount of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances described in the notice of data availability required under §97.711(b)(1)(ii) for the unit for such control period;*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1264 of 1339 (ii) The Administrator will determine the sum of the positive differences determined under paragraph (a)(9)(i) of this section; (iii) If the amount o f unallocated TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances remaining in the new unit set - aside for the State for such control period is greater than or equal to the sum determined under paragraph (a)(9)(ii) of this section, then the Administrator will allocate the amount of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances determined for each such TR SO 2 Group 2 unit under paragraph (a)(9)(i) of this section. (iv) If the amount of unallocated TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances remaining in the new unit set - aside for the State for such control period is less than the sum under paragraph (a)(9)(ii) of this section, then the Administrator will allocate for each such TR SO 2 Group 2 unit the amount of the TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances determined under paragraph (a)(9)(i) of this section for the unit, multiplied by the amount of unallocated TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances remaining in the new unit set - aside for such control period, divided by the sum under paragraph (a)(9)(ii) of this section, and rounded to the nearest allowance. (10) If, after completion of the procedures under paragraph (a)(9) of this section for such control period, any unallocated*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1265 of 1339 TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances remain in the new unit set - aside for the State for such control period, the Administrator will allocate to each TR SO 2 Group 2 unit that is in the Stat e, is allocated an amount of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances in the notice of data availability issued under §97.711(a)(1), and continues to be allocated TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances for such control period in accordance with §97.711(a)(2), an amount of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances equal to the following: the total amount of such remaining unallocated TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances in such new unit set - aside, multiplied by the unit's allocation under §97.711(a) for such control period, divided by the remainder of the amount of tons in the applicable State SO 2 Group 2 trading budget minus the sum of the amounts of tons in such new unit set - aside and the Indian country new unit set - aside for the State for such control period, and rounded to the nearest allowance. (11) The Admi nistrator will notify the public, through the promulgation of the notices of data availability described in §97.711(b)(1)(iii) and (iv), of the amount of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances allocated for such control period to each TR SO 2 Group 2 unit eligible for s uch allocation. (b) For each control period in 2012 and thereafter and for the TR SO 2 Group 2 units located in Indian country in each State, the Administrator will allocate TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances to the TR*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1266 of 1339 SO 2 Group 2 units described in paragraph (b)(1 ) of this section and in accordance with paragraphs (b)(2) through (9) of this section: (1) The TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances will be allocated to the following TR SO 2 Group 2 units, except as provided in paragraph (b)(10) of this section: (i) TR SO 2 Group 2 units that are not allocated an amount (whether zero or greater) of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances in the notice of data availability issued under §97.711(a)(1); or (i i ) TR SO 2 Group 2 units under §97.711(c)(1)(ii) whose allocation of an amount (whether zero or greater) of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances for such control period in the notice of data availability issued under §97.711(b)(2)(ii)(B) is covered by §97.711(c)(2) or (3). (2) The Administrator will establish a separate Indian country new unit set - aside for the State for each such control period. Each such Indian country new unit set - aside will be allocated TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances in an amount equal to the applicable amount of tons of SO 2 emissions as set forth in §97.710(a) and will be allocated additional T R SO 2 Group 2 allowances (if any) in accordance with §97.711 (c)(5).*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1267 of 1339 (3) The Administrator will determine, for each TR SO 2 Group 2 unit described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, an allocation of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances for the later of the following control periods and for each subsequent control period: (i) The control period in 2012; and (ii) The first control period after the control period in which the TR SO 2 Group 2 unit commences commercial operation . (4)(i) The allocation for each TR SO 2 annu al unit described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section and for each control period described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section will be an amount equal to the unit’s total tons of SO 2 emissions during the immediately preceding control period. (ii) The Admi nistrator will adjust the allocation amount in paragraph (b)(4)(i) in accordance with paragraphs (b)(5) through (9) of this section. (5) The Administrator will calculate the sum of the TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances determined for all such TR SO 2 Group 2 units under paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section in the State for such control period.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1268 of 1339 (6) If the amount of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances in the Indian country new unit set - aside for the State for such control period is greater than or equal to the sum under paragraph (b)(5) of this section, then the Administrator will allocate the amount of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances determined for each such TR SO 2 Group 2 unit under paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section. (7) If the amount of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances in the Indian country new unit set - aside for the State for such control period is less than the sum under paragraph (b)(5) of this section, then the Administrator will allocate to each such TR SO 2 Group 2 unit the amount of the TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances determined under pa ragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section for the unit, multiplied by the amount of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances in the Indian country new unit set - aside for such control period, divided by the sum under paragraph (b)(5) of this section, and rounded to the nearest al lowance. (8) The Administrator will notify the public, through the promulgation of the notices of data availability described in §97.711(b)(2)(i) and (ii), of the amount of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances allocated under paragraphs (b)(1) through (8) for such co ntrol period to each TR SO 2 Group 2 unit eligible for such allocation.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1269 of 1339 (9) If, after completion of the procedures under paragraphs (b)(5) through (8) of this section for such control period, any unallocated TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances remain in the Indian co untry new unit set - aside for the State for such control period, the Administrator will allocate such TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances as follows -- (i) The Administrator will determine, for each unit described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section that commenced commercial operation during the period starting January 1 of the year before the year of such control period and ending November 30 of year of such control period, the positive difference (if any) between the unit’s emissions during such control period and th e amount of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances described in the notice of data availability required under §97.711(b)(2)(ii) for the unit for such control period; (ii) The Administrator will determine the sum of the positive differences determined under paragraph ( b)(9)(i) of this section; (iii) If the amount of unallocated TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances remaining in the Indian country new unit set - aside for the State for such control period is greater than or equal to the sum determined under paragraph (b)(9)(ii) of thi s section, then the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1270 of 1339 Administrator will allocate the amount of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances determined for each such TR SO 2 Group 2 unit under paragraph (b)(9)(i) of this section. (iv) If the amount of unallocated TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances remaining in the Indian country new unit set - aside for the State for such control period is less than the sum under paragraph (b)(9)(ii) of this section, then the Administrator will allocate for each such TR SO 2 Group 2 unit the amount of the TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances determi ned under paragraph (b)(9)(i) of this section for the unit, multiplied by the amount of unallocated TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances remaining in the Indian country new unit set - aside for such control period, divided by the sum under paragraph (b)(9)(ii) of this section, and rounded to the nearest allowance. (10) If, after completion of the procedures under paragraph (b)(9) of this section for such control period, any unallocated TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances remain in the Indian country new unit set - aside for the Sta te for such control period, the Administrator will: (i) Allocate such unallocated TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances to the new unit set - aside for the State for such control period; or*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1271 of 1339 (ii) If the State has a SIP revision approved under §52.3 8(g), (h), or (i) of this chapter , include such unallocated TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances in the portion of the State TR SO 2 Group 2 trading budget that may be allocated for such control period in accordance with such SIP revision. (11) The Administrator will notify the public, through the promulgation of the notices of data availability described in §97.711(b)(2)(iii) and (iv), of the amount of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances allocated for such control period to each TR SO 2 Group 2 unit eligible for such allocation. § 97.713 Authoriz ation of designated representative and alternate designated representative. (a) Except as provided under §97.715, each TR SO 2 Group 2 source, including all TR SO 2 Group 2 units at the source, shall have one and only one designated representative, with rega rd to all matters under the TR SO 2 Group 2 Trading Program. (1) The designated representative shall be selected by an agreement binding on the owners and operators of the source and all TR SO 2 Group 2 units at the source and shall act in accordance with the certification statement in §97.716(a)(4)(iii).*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1272 of 1339 (2) Upon and after receipt by the Administrator of a complete certificate of representation under §97.716: (i) The designated representative shall be authorized and shall represent and, by his or her represe ntations, actions, inactions, or submissions, legally bind each owner and operator of the source and each TR SO 2 Group 2 unit at the source in all matters pertaining to the TR SO 2 Group 2 Trading Program, notwithstanding any agreement between the designate d representative and such owners and operators; and (ii) The owners and operators of the source and each TR SO 2 Group 2 unit at the source shall be bound by any decision or order issued to the designated representative by the Administrator regarding the so urce or any such unit. (b) Except as provided under §97.715, each TR SO 2 Group 2 source may have one and only one alternate designated representative, who may act on behalf of the designated representative. The agreement by which the alternate designated r epresentative is selected shall include a procedure for authorizing the alternate designated representative to act in lieu of the designated representative. (1) The alternate designated representative shall be selected by an agreement binding on the owners and operators of the source*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1273 of 1339 and all TR SO 2 Group 2 units at the source and shall act in accordance with the certification statement in §97.716(a)(4)(iii). (2) Upon and after receipt by the Administrator of a complete certificate of representation under §9 7.716, (i) The alternate designated representative shall be authorized; (ii) Any representation, action, inaction, or submission by the alternate designated representative shall be deemed to be a representation, action, inaction, or submission by the de signated representative; and (iii) The owners and operators of the source and each TR SO 2 Group 2 unit at the source shall be bound by any decision or order issued to the alternate designated representative by the Administrator regarding the source or any such unit. (c) Except in this section, §97.702, and §§97.714 through 97.718, whenever the term “designated representative” (as distinguished from the term “common designated representative”) is used in this subpart, the term shall be construed to include the designated representative or any alternate designated representative.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1274 of 1339 § 97.714 Responsibilities of designated representative and alternate designated representative. (a) Except as provided under §97.718 concerning delegation of authority to make submis sions, each submission under the TR SO 2 Group 2 Trading Program shall be made, signed, and certified by the designated representative or alternate designated representative for each TR SO 2 Group 2 source and TR SO 2 Group 2 unit for which the submission is made. Each such submission shall include the following certification statement by the designated representative or alternate designated representative: “I am authorized to make this submission on behalf of the owners and operators of the source or units fo r which the submission is made. I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined, and am familiar with, the statements and information submitted in this document and all its attachments. Based on my inquiry of those individuals with primary r esponsibility for obtaining the information, I certify that the statements and information are to the best of my knowledge and belief true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false statements and informat ion or omitting required statements and information, including the possibility of fine or imprisonment.”*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1275 of 1339 (b) The Administrator will accept or act on a submission made for a TR SO 2 Group 2 source or a TR SO 2 Group 2 unit only if the submission has been made , signed, and certified in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section and §97.718. § 97.715 Changing designated representative and alternate designated representative; changes in owners and operators; changes in units at the source. (a) Changing design ated representative . The designated representative may be changed at any time upon receipt by the Administrator of a superseding complete certificate of representation under §97.716. Notwithstanding any such change, all representations, actions, inaction s, and submissions by the previous designated representative before the time and date when the Administrator receives the superseding certificate of representation shall be binding on the new designated representative and the owners and operators of the TR SO 2 Group 2 source and the TR SO 2 Group 2 units at the source. (b) Changing alternate designated representative . The alternate designated representative may be changed at any time upon receipt by the Administrator of a superseding complete certificate of representation under §97.716. Notwithstanding any such change, all representations, actions, inactions, and*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1276 of 1339 submissions by the previous alternate designated representative before the time and date when the Administrator receives the superseding certifica te of representation shall be binding on the new alternate designated representative, the designated representative, and the owners and operators of the TR SO 2 Group 2 source and the TR SO 2 Group 2 units at the source. (c) Changes in owners and operators . (1) In the event an owner or operator of a TR SO 2 Group 2 source or a TR SO 2 Group 2 unit at the source is not included in the list of owners and operators in the certificate of representation under §97.716, such owner or operator shall be deemed to be subject to and bound by the certificate of representation, the representations, actions, inactions, and submissions of the designated representative and any alternate designated representative of the source or unit, and the decisions and orders of the Admini strator, as if the owner or operator were included in such list. (2) Within 30 days after any change in the owners and operators of a TR SO 2 Group 2 source or a TR SO 2 Group 2 unit at the source, including the addition or removal of an owner or operator, the designated representative or any alternate designated representative shall submit a revision to the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1277 of 1339 certificate of representation under §97.716 amending the list of owners and operators to reflect the change. (d) Changes in units at the source . Within 30 days of any change in which units are located at a TR SO 2 Group 2 source (including the addition or removal of a unit), the designated representative or any alternate designated representative shall submit a certificate of representation under §97.716 amending the list of units to reflect the change. (1) If the change is the addition of a unit that operated (other than for purposes of testing by the manufacturer before initial installation) before being located at the source, then the certificate of representation shall identify, in a format prescribed by the Administrator, the entity from whom the unit was purchased or otherwise obtained (including name, address, telephone number, and facsimile number (if any)), the date on which the unit was purchased or otherwise obtained, and the date on which the unit became located at the source. (2) If the change is the removal of a unit, then the certificate of representation shall identify, in a format prescribed by the Administrator, the entity to which the uni t was sold or that otherwise obtained the unit (including name, address, telephone number, and facsimile number (if any)), the date on which the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1278 of 1339 unit was sold or otherwise obtained, and the date on which the unit became no longer located at the source. § 97.716 Certificate of representation. (a) A complete certificate of representation for a designated representative or an alternate designated representative shall include the following elements in a format prescribed by the Administrator: (1) Identificat ion of the TR SO 2 Group 2 source, and each TR SO 2 Group 2 unit at the source, for which the certificate of representation is submitted, including source name, source category and NAICS code (or, in the absence of a NAICS code, an equivalent code), State, plant code, county, latitude and longitude, unit identification number and type, identification number and nameplate capacity (in MWe, rounded to the nearest tenth) of each generator served by each such unit, and actual or projected date of commencement of commercial operation and including a statement of whether such source is located in Indian Country. If a projected date of commencement of commercial operation is provided, the actual date of commencement of commercial operation shall be provided when su ch information becomes available.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1279 of 1339 (2) The name, address, e -mail address (if any), telephone number, and facsimile transmission number (if any) of the designated representative and any alternate designated representative. (3) A list of the owners and operat ors of the TR SO 2 Group 2 source and of each TR SO 2 Group 2 unit at the source. (4) The following certification statements by the designated representative and any alternate designated representative

— (i) “I certify that I was selected as the designated representative or alternate designated representative, as applicable, by an agreement binding on the owners and operators of the source and each TR SO 2 Group 2 unit at the source.” (ii) “I certify that I have all the necessary authority to carry out my dutie s and responsibilities under the TR SO 2 Group 2 Trading Program on behalf of the owners and operators of the source and of each TR SO 2 Group 2 unit at the source and that each such owner and operator shall be fully bound by my representations, actions, ina ctions, or submissions and by any decision or order issued to me by the Administrator regarding the source or unit.”*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1280 of 1339 (iii) “Where there are multiple holders of a legal or equitable title to, or a leasehold interest in, a TR SO 2 Group 2 unit, or where a ut ility or industrial customer purchases power from a TR SO 2 Group 2 unit under a life - of - the - unit, firm power contractual arrangement, I certify that: I have given a written notice of my selection as the ‘designated representative’ or ‘alternate designated representative’, as applicable, and of the agreement by which I was selected to each owner and operator of the source and of each TR SO 2 Group 2 unit at the source; and TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances and proceeds of transactions involving TR SO 2 Group 2 allowan ces will be deemed to be held or distributed in proportion to each holder's legal, equitable, leasehold, or contractual reservation or entitlement, except that, if such multiple holders have expressly provided for a different distribution of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances by contract, TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances and proceeds of transactions involving TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances will be deemed to be held or distributed in accordance with the contract.” (5) The signature of the designated representative and any altern ate designated representative and the dates signed. (b) Unless otherwise required by the Administrator, documents of agreement referred to in the certificate of representation shall not be submitted to the Administrator. The Administrator shall*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1281 of 1339 not be unde r any obligation to review or evaluate the sufficiency of such documents, if submitted. § 97.717 Objections concerning designated representative and alternate designated representative. (a) Once a complete certificate of representation under §97.716 has b een submitted and received, the Administrator will rely on the certificate of representation unless and until a superseding complete certificate of representation under §97.716 is received by the Administrator. (b) Except as provided in paragraph (a) of th is section, no objection or other communication submitted to the Administrator concerning the authorization, or any representation, action, inaction, or submission, of a designated representative or alternate designated representative shall affect any repr esentation, action, inaction, or submission of the designated representative or alternate designated representative or the finality of any decision or order by the Administrator under the TR SO 2 Group 2 Trading Program. (c) The Administrator will not adjudicate any private legal dispute concerning the authorization or any representation, action, inaction, or submission of any designated representative or alternate designated representative, including private legal*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1282 of 1339 disputes concerning the proceeds of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowance transfers. § 97.718 Delegation by designated representative and alternate designated representative. (a) A designated representative may delegate, to one or more natural persons, his or her authority to make an electronic submission to the Administrator provided for or required under this subpart. (b) An alternate designated representative may delegate, to one or more natural persons, his or her authority to make an electronic submission to the Administrator provided for or required under this subpart. (c) In order to delegate authority to make an electronic submission to the Administrator in accordance with paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, the designated representative or alternate designated representative, as appropriate, must submit to the Administrator a notice of delegation, in a format prescribed by the Administrator, that includes the following elements:*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1283 of 1339 (1) The name, address, e -mail address, telephone number, and facsimile transmission number (if any) of such designated repres entative or alternate designated representative; (2) The name, address, e -mail address, telephone number, and facsimile transmission number (if any) of each such natural person (referred to in this section as an “agent”); (3) For each such natural person, a list of the type or types of electronic submissions under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section for which authority is delegated to him or her; and (4) The following certification statements by such designated representative or alternate designated repres entative: (i) “I agree that any electronic submission to the Administrator that is made by an agent identified in this notice of delegation and of a type listed for such agent in this notice of delegation and that is made when I am a designated representat ive or alternate designated representative, as appropriate, and before this notice of delegation is superseded by another notice of delegation under 40 CFR 97.718(d) shall be deemed to be an electronic submission by me.” (ii) “Until this notice of delegati on is superseded by another notice of delegation under 40 CFR 97.718(d), I agree to maintain*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 128 4 of 1339 an e -mail account and to notify the Administrator immediately of any change in my e -mail address unless all delegation of authority by me under 40 CFR 97.718 is te rminated.”. (d) A notice of delegation submitted under paragraph (c) of this section shall be effective, with regard to the designated representative or alternate designated representative identified in such notice, upon receipt of such notice by the Admin istrator and until receipt by the Administrator of a superseding notice of delegation submitted by such designated representative or alternate designated representative, as appropriate. The superseding notice of delegation may replace any previously identi fied agent, add a new agent, or eliminate entirely any delegation of authority. (e) Any electronic submission covered by the certification in paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this section and made in accordance with a notice of delegation effective under paragraph ( d) of this section shall be deemed to be an electronic submission by the designated representative or alternate designated representative submitting such notice of delegation. § 97.719 [Reserved] § 97.720 Establishment of compliance accounts, assurance accounts, and general accounts.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1285 of 1339 (a) Compliance accounts . Upon receipt of a complete certificate of representation under §97.716, the Administrator will establish a compliance account for the TR SO 2 Group 2 source for which the certificate of representatio n was submitted, unless the source already has a compliance account. The designated representative and any alternate designated representative of the source shall be the authorized account representative and the alternate authorized account representative respectively of the compliance account. (b) Assurance accounts. As provided in §97.725(b)(3), the Administrator will establish assurance accounts for the owners and operators and States specified in the notice required under §97.725(b)(2)(iii)(B). (c) General accounts . (1) Application for general account . (i) Any person may apply to open a general account, for the purpose of holding and transferring TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances, by submitting to the Administrator a complete application for a general acco unt. Such application shall designate one and only one authorized account representative and may designate one and only one alternate authorized account representative who may act on behalf of the authorized account representative.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1286 of 1339 (A) The authorized acc ount representative and alternate authorized account representative shall be selected by an agreement binding on the persons who have an ownership interest with respect to TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances held in the general account. (B) The agreement by which t he alternate authorized account representative is selected shall include a procedure for authorizing the alternate authorized account representative to act in lieu of the authorized account representative. (ii) A complete application for a general account shall include the following elements in a format prescribed by the Administrator: (A) Name, mailing address, e -mail address (if any), telephone number, and facsimile transmission number (if any) of the authorized account representative and any alternate au thorized account representative; (B) An identifying name for the general account; (C) A list of all persons subject to a binding agreement for the authorized account representative and any alternate authorized account representative to represent their owne rship interest*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1287 of 1339 with respect to the TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances held in the general account; (D) The following certification statement by the authorized account representative and any alternate authorized account representative: “I certify that I was selected as the authorized account representative or the alternate authorized account representative, as applicable, by an agreement that is binding on all persons who have an ownership interest with respect to TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances held in the general account . I certify that I have all the necessary authority to carry out my duties and responsibilities under the TR SO 2 Group 2 Trading Program on behalf of such persons and that each such person shall be fully bound by my representations, actions, inactions, or submissions and by any decision or order issued to me by the Administrator regarding the general account.” (E) The signature of the authorized account representative and any alternate authorized account representative and the dates signed. (iii) Unless otherwise required by the Administrator, documents of agreement referred to in the application for a general account shall not be submitted to the Administrator. The*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1288 of 1339 Administrator shall not be under any obligation to review or evaluate the sufficiency of such documents, if submitted. (2) Authorization of authorized account representative and alternate authorized account representative . (i) Upon receipt by the Administrator of a complete application for a general account under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the Administrator will establish a general account for the person or persons for whom the application is submitted, and upon and after such receipt by the Administrator: (A) The authorized account representative of the general account shall be authorize d and shall represent and, by his or her representations, actions, inactions, or submissions, legally bind each person who has an ownership interest with respect to TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances held in the general account in all matters pertaining to the TR S O 2 Group 2 Trading Program, notwithstanding any agreement between the authorized account representative and such person. (B) Any alternate authorized account representative shall be authorized, and any representation, action, inaction, or submission by an y alternate authorized account representative shall be deemed to be a representation, action, inaction, or submission by the authorized account representative.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1289 of 1339 (C) Each person who has an ownership interest with respect to TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances held in the general account shall be bound by any decision or order issued to the authorized account representative or alternate authorized account representative by the Administrator regarding the general account. (ii) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(5) of t his section concerning delegation of authority to make submissions, each submission concerning the general account shall be made, signed, and certified by the authorized account representative or any alternate authorized account representative for the pers ons having an ownership interest with respect to TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances held in the general account. Each such submission shall include the following certification statement by the authorized account representative or any alternate authorized account r epresentative: “I am authorized to make this submission on behalf of the persons having an ownership interest with respect to the TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances held in the general account. I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined, and am familiar with, the statements and information submitted in this document and all its attachments. Based on my inquiry of those individuals with primary responsibility for obtaining the information, I certify that the statements and information are to the best of my knowledge and belief true,*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1290 of 1339 accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false statements and information or omitting required statements and information, including the possibility of fine or imprisonmen t.” (iii) Except in this section, whenever the term “authorized account representative” is used in this subpart, the term shall be construed to include the authorized account representative or any alternate authorized account representative. (3) Changing authorized account representative and alternate authorized account representative; changes in persons with ownership interest . (i) The authorized account representative of a general account may be changed at any time upon receipt by the Administrator of a superseding complete application for a general account under paragraph (c)(1) of this section. Notwithstanding any such change, all representations, actions, inactions, and submissions by the previous authorized account representative before the time and date when the Administrator receives the superseding application for a general account shall be binding on the new authorized account representative and the persons with an ownership interest with respect to the TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances in the general acc ount.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1291 of 1339 (ii) The alternate authorized account representative of a general account may be changed at any time upon receipt by the Administrator of a superseding complete application for a general account under paragraph (c)(1) of this section. Notwithstandin g any such change, all representations, actions, inactions, and submissions by the previous alternate authorized account representative before the time and date when the Administrator receives the superseding application for a general account shall be binding on the new alternate authorized account representative, the authorized account representative, and the persons with an ownership interest with respect to the TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances in the general account. (iii)(A) In the event a person having an own ership interest with respect to TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances in the general account is not included in the list of such persons in the application for a general account, such person shall be deemed to be subject to and bound by the application for a general a ccount, the representation, actions, inactions, and submissions of the authorized account representative and any alternate authorized account representative of the account, and the decisions and orders of the Administrator, as if the person were included i n such list.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1292 of 1339 (B) Within 30 days after any change in the persons having an ownership interest with respect to SO 2 Group 2 allowances in the general account, including the addition or removal of a person, the authorized account representative or any alternat e authorized account representative shall submit a revision to the application for a general account amending the list of persons having an ownership interest with respect to the TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances in the general account to include the change. (4) Objections concerning authorized account representative and alternate authorized account representative . (i) Once a complete application for a general account under paragraph (c)(1) of this section has been submitted and received, the Administrator will re ly on the application unless and until a superseding complete application for a general account under paragraph (b)(1) of this section is received by the Administrator. (ii) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this section, no objection or other c ommunication submitted to the Administrator concerning the authorization, or any representation, action, inaction, or submission of the authorized account representative or any alternate authorized account representative of a general account shall affect a ny representation, action, inaction, or submission of the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1293 of 1339 authorized account representative or any alternate authorized account representative or the finality of any decision or order by the Administrator under the TR SO 2 Group 2 Trading Program. (iii) The Administrator will not adjudicate any private legal dispute concerning the authorization or any representation, action, inaction, or submission of the authorized account representative or any alternate authorized account representative of a general accoun t, including private legal disputes concerning the proceeds of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowance transfers. (5) Delegation by authorized account representative and alternate authorized account representative . (i) An authorized account representative of a general a ccount may delegate, to one or more natural persons, his or her authority to make an electronic submission to the Administrator provided for or required under this subpart. (ii) An alternate authorized account representative of a general account may delega te, to one or more natural persons, his or her authority to make an electronic submission to the Administrator provided for or required under this subpart. (iii) In order to delegate authority to make an electronic submission to the Administrator in accordance with paragraph*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1294 of 1339 (c)(5)(i) or (ii) of this section, the authorized account representative or alternate authorized account representative, as appropriate, must submit to the Administrator a notice of delegation, in a format prescribed by the Administrato r, that includes the following elements: (A) The name, address, e -mail address, telephone number, and facsimile transmission number (if any) of such authorized account representative or alternate authorized account representative; (B) The name, address, e -mail address, telephone number, and facsimile transmission number (if any) of each such natural person (referred to in this section as an “agent”); (C) For each such natural person, a list of the type or types of electronic submissions under paragraph (c)( 5)(i) or (ii) of this section for which authority is delegated to him or her; (D) The following certification statement by such authorized account representative or alternate authorized account representative: “I agree that any electronic submission to th e Administrator that is made by an agent identified in this notice of delegation and of a type listed for such agent in this notice of delegation and that is made when I am an authorized account representative or alternate authorized representative, as*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1295 of 1339 app ropriate, and before this notice of delegation is superseded by another notice of delegation under 40 CFR 97.720(c)(5)(iv) shall be deemed to be an electronic submission by me.”; and (E) The following certification statement by such authorized account repr esentative or alternate authorized account representative: “Until this notice of delegation is superseded by another notice of delegation under 40 CFR 97.720(c)(5)(iv), I agree to maintain an e -mail account and to notify the Administrator immediately of an y change in my e -mail address unless all delegation of authority by me under 40 CFR 97.720(c)(5) is terminated.”. (iv) A notice of delegation submitted under paragraph (c)(5)(iii) of this section shall be effective, with regard to the authorized account representative or alternate authorized account representative identified in such notice, upon receipt of such notice by the Administrator and until receipt by the Administrator of a superseding notice of delegation submitted by such authorized account repres entative or alternate authorized account representative, as appropriate. The superseding notice of delegation may replace any previously identified agent, add a new agent, or eliminate entirely any delegation of authority.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1296 of 1339 (v) Any electronic submission covered by the certification in paragraph (c)(5)(iii)(D) of this section and made in accordance with a notice of delegation effective under paragraph (c)(5)(iv) of this section shall be deemed to be an electronic submission by the designated representative o r alternate designated representative submitting such notice of delegation. (6)(i) The authorized account representative or alternate authorized account representative of a general account may submit to the Administrator a request to close the account. Su ch request shall include a correctly submitted TR SO 2 Group 2 allowance transfer under §97.722 for any TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances in the account to one or more other Allowance Management System accounts. (ii) If a general account has no TR SO 2 Group 2 allowance transfers to or from the account for a 12 -month period or longer and does not contain any TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances, the Administrator may notify the authorized account representative for the account that the account will be closed after 30 days after the notice is sent. The account will be closed after the 30 - day period unless, before the end of the 30 - day period, the Administrator receives a correctly submitted TR SO 2 Group 2 allowance transfer under §97.722 to the account or a statement submitted b y the authorized account representative or alternate*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1297 of 1339 authorized account representative demonstrating to the satisfaction of the Administrator good cause as to why the account should not be closed. (d) Account identification . The Administrator will assign a unique identifying number to each account established under paragraph (a), (b), or (c) of this section. (d) Responsibilities of authorized account representative and alternate authorized account representative . After the establishment of a compliance ac count or general account, the Administrator will accept or act on a submission pertaining to the account, including, but not limited to, submissions concerning the deduction or transfer of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances in the account, only if the submission ha s been made, signed, and certified in accordance with §§97.714(a) and 97.718 or paragraphs (c)(2)(ii) and (c)(5) of this section. § 97.721 Recordation of TR SO2 Group 2 allowance allocations and auction results. (a) By [INSERT DATE 90 DAYS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the Administrator will record in each TR SO 2 Group 2 source's compliance account the TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances allocated to the TR SO 2 Group 2 units at the source in accordance with §97.711(a) for the control period in 2012.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1298 of 1339 (b) By [INSERT DATE 90 DAYS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the Administrator will record in each TR SO 2 Group 2 source's compliance account the TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances allocated to the TR SO 2 Group 2 units at the source in accor dance with §97.711(a) for the control period in 2013, unless the State in which the source is located notifies the Administrator in writing by [INSERT DATE 70 DAYS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] of the State’s intent to submit to the Administrator a complete SIP revision by April 1, 2012 meeting the requirements of §52.3 8(g)(1) through (4) of this chapter. (1) If, by April 1, 2012, the State does not submit to the Administrator such complete SIP revision, the Administrator will record by April 15, 2012 in each TR SO 2 Group 2 source's compliance account the TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances allocated to the TR SO 2 Group 2 units at the source in accordance with §97.711(a) for the control period in 2013. (2) If the State submits to the Administrator by April 1, 2012, and the Administrator approves by October 1, 2012, such complete SIP revision, the Administrator will record by October 1, 2012 in each TR SO 2 Group 2 source's compliance account the TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances allocated to the TR SO 2 Group 2 units at the source as provided in such approved, complete SIP revision for the control period in 2013.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1299 of 1339 (3) If the State submits to the Administrator by April 1, 2012, and the Administrator does not approve by October 1, 2012, such complete SIP revision , the Administrator will record by October 1, 2012 in each TR SO 2 Group 2 source's compliance account the TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances allocated to the TR SO 2 Group 2 units at the source in accordance with §97.711(a) for the control period in 2013. (c) By Ju ly 1, 2013, the Administrator will record in each TR SO 2 Group 2 source's compliance account the TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances allocated for the TR SO 2 Group 2 units at the source in accordance with §97.711(a), or with a SIP revision approved under §52.3 8(h) o r (i) of this chapter, for the control period in 2014 and 2015. (d) By July 1, 2014, the Administrator will record in each TR SO 2 Group 2 source's compliance account the TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances allocated for the TR SO 2 Group 2 units at the source in acco rdance with §97.711(a), or with a SIP revision approved under §52.3 8(h) or (i) of this chapter, for the control period in 2016 and 2017. (e) By July 1, 2015, the Administrator will record in each TR SO 2 Group 2 source's compliance account the TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances allocated for the TR SO 2 Group 2 units at the source in*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1300 of 1339 accordance with §97.711(a), or with a SIP revision approved under §52.3 8(h) or (i) of this chapter, for the control period in 2018 and 2019. (f) By July 1, 2016 and July 1 of each year thereafter, the Administrator will record in each TR SO 2 Group 2 source's compliance account the TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances allocated for the TR SO 2 Group 2 units at the source in accordance with §97.711(a), or with a SIP revision approved under §52.3 8(h) and (i) of this chapter, for the control period in the fourth year after the year of the applicable recordation deadline under this paragraph. (g) By August 1, 2012 and August 1 of each year thereafter, the Administrator will record in each TR SO 2 Group 2 sou rce's compliance account the TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances allocated for the TR SO 2 Group 2 units at the source in accordance with §97.712(a), or with a SIP revision approved under §52.3 8(h) and (i) of this chapter, for the control period in the year of the applicable recordation deadline under this paragraph. (h) By August 1, 2012 and August 1 of each year thereafter, the Administrator will record in each TR SO 2 Group 2 source's compliance account the TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances allocated for the TR SO 2 Group 2 units at the source in accordance with*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1301 of 1339 §97.712(b) for the control period in the year of the applicable recordation deadline under this paragraph. (i) By the date on which any allocation, other than an allocation described in paragraphs (a) through (h) of t his section, of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances to a recipient is made by or submitted to the Administrator in accordance with §97.711 or §97.712 or with a SIP revision approved under §52.3 8(h) or (i) of this chapter, the Administrator will record such allocatio n in the appropriate Allowance Management System account. (j) To the extent a SIP revision approved under §52.3 8(h) or (i) of this chapter provides for one or more auctions, in lieu of allocation, of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances for a control period in a given year, the Administrator will record in the appropriate Allowance Management System account under such SIP revision the amount of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances purchased at such auctions by the deadline, specified in paragraphs (a) through (h) of this sectio n, for recordation of an allocation for the control period in such year. (k) When recording the allocation or auction of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances for a TR SO 2 Group 2 unit in an Allowance Management System account, the Administrator will assign each TR S O 2 Group 2 allowance a unique identification number that will include*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1302 of 1339 digits identifying the year of the control period for which the TR SO 2 Group 2 allowance is allocated. § 97.722 Submission of TR SO2 Group 2 allowance transfers. (a) An authorized account representative seeking recordation of a TR SO 2 Group 2 allowance transfer shall submit the transfer to the Administrator. (b) A TR SO 2 Group 2 allowance transfer shall be correctly submitted if: (1) The transfer includes the following elements, in a f ormat prescribed by the Administrator: (i) The account numbers established by the Administrator for both the transferor and transferee accounts; (ii) The serial number of each TR SO 2 Group 2 allowance that is in the transferor account and is to be transfer red; and (iii) The name and signature of the authorized account representative of the transferor account and the date signed; and (2) When the Administrator attempts to record the transfer, the transferor account includes each TR SO 2 Group 2 allowance iden tified by serial number in the transfer.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1303 of 1339 § 97.723 Recordation of TR SO2 Group 2 allowance transfers. (a) Within 5 business days (except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section) of receiving a TR SO 2 Group 2 allowance transfer that is correctly submi tted under §97.722, the Administrator will record a TR SO 2 Group 2 allowance transfer by moving each TR SO 2 Group 2 allowance from the transferor account to the transferee account as specified in the transfer. (b) A TR SO 2 Group 2 allowance transfer to o r from a compliance account that is submitted for recordation after the allowance transfer deadline for a control period and that includes any TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances allocated for any control period before such allowance transfer deadline will not be re corded until after the Administrator completes the deductions from such compliance account under §97.724 for the control period immediately before such allowance transfer deadline.

(c) Where a TR SO 2 Group 2 allowance transfer is not correctly submitted under §97.722, the Administrator will not record such transfer. (d) Within 5 business days of recordation of a TR SO 2 Group 2 allowance transfer under paragraphs (a) and (b) of the section,*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1304 of 1339 the Administrator will notify the authorized account representatives of both the transferor and transferee accounts. (e) Within 10 business days of receipt of a TR SO 2 Group 2 allowance transfer that is not correctly submitted under §97.722, the Administrator will notify the authorized account representatives of both acc ounts subject to the transfer of: (1) A decision not to record the transfer, and (2) The reasons for such non - recordation. § 97.724 Compliance with TR SO2 Group 2 emissions limitation. (a) Availability for deduction for compliance . TR SO 2 Group 2 allowan ces are available to be deducted for compliance with a source's TR SO 2 Group 2 emissions limitation for a control period in a given year only if the TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances: (1) Were allocated for such control period or a control period in a prior year; and (2) Are held in the source’s compliance account as of the allowance transfer deadline for such control period. (b) Deductions for compliance . After the recordation, in accordance with §97.723, of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowance transfers submitted by the allowance transfer deadline for a control*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1305 of 1339 period in a given year, the Administrator will deduct from each source’s compliance account TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances available under paragraph (a) of this section in order to determine whether the source meets the TR SO 2 Group 2 emissions limitation for such control period, as follows: (1) Until the amount of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances deducted equals the number of tons of total SO 2 emissions from all TR SO 2 Group 2 units at the source for such control period; or (2 ) If there are insufficient TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances to complete the deductions in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, until no more TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances available under paragraph (a) of this section remain in the compliance account. (c)(1) Identificat ion of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances by serial number . The authorized account representative for a source's compliance account may request that specific TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances, identified by serial number, in the compliance account be deducted for emission s or excess emissions for a control period in a given year in accordance with paragraph (b) or (d) of this section. In order to be complete, such request shall be submitted to the Administrator by the allowance transfer deadline for such control period an d include, in a*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1306 of 1339 format prescribed by the Administrator, the identification of the TR SO 2 Group 2 source and the appropriate serial numbers. (2) First - in, first - out . The Administrator will deduct TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances under paragraph (b) or (d) of this section from the source's compliance account in accordance with a complete request under paragraph (c)(1) of this section or, in the absence of such request or in the case of identification of an insufficient amount of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances in such re quest, on a first - in, first - out accounting basis in the following order: (i) Any TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances that were allocated to the units at the source and not transferred out of the compliance account, in the order of recordation; and then (ii) Any TR S O 2 Group 2 allowances that were allocated to any unit and transferred to and recorded in the compliance account pursuant to this subpart, in the order of recordation. (d) Deductions for excess emissions . After making the deductions for compliance under pa ragraph (b) of this section for a control period in a year in which the TR SO 2 Group 2 source has excess emissions, the Administrator will deduct from the source's compliance account an amount of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances, allocated for the control period in the immediately*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1307 of 1339 following year, equal to two times the number of tons of the source's excess emissions. (e) Recordation of deductions . The Administrator will record in the appropriate compliance account all deductions from such an account under paragraphs (b) and (d) of this section. § 97.725 Compliance with TR SO2 Group 2 assurance provisions. (a) Availability for deduction . TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances are available to be deducted for compliance with the TR SO 2 Group 2 assurance provisions for a contro l period in a given year by the owners and operators of a group of one or more TR SO 2 Group 2 sources and units in a State only if the TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances: (1) Were allocated for such control period or a control period in a prior year; and (2) Are held in the assurance account, established by the Administrator for such owners and operators of such group of TR SO 2 Group 2 sources and units in such State under paragraph (b)(3) of this section, as of the deadline established in paragraph (b)(5) of this section. (b) Deductions for compliance . The Administrator will deduct TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances available under paragraph (a) of this*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1308 of 1339 section for compliance with the TR SO 2 Group 2 assurance provisions for a State for a control period in a given year in accordance with the following procedures: (1) By June 1, 2013 and June 1 of each year thereafter, the Administrator will: (i) Calculate, separately for each State, the total SO 2 emissions from all TR SO 2 Group 2 units at TR SO 2 Group 2 sources in the St ate during the control period in the year before the year of this calculation deadline and the amount, if any, by which such total SO 2 emissions exceed the State assurance level as described in §97.706(c)(2)(iii); and (ii) Promulgate a notice of data avail ability of the results of the calculations required in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section, including separate calculations of the SO 2 emissions from each TR SO 2 Group 2 source. (2) For each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section and for any State identified in such notice as having TR SO 2 Group 2 units with total SO 2 emissions exceeding the State assurance level for a control period in a given year, as described in §97.706(c)(2)(iii):*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1309 of 1339 (i) By July 1 immediately after the promulgation of such notice, the designated representative of each TR SO 2 Group 2 source in each such State shall submit a statement, in a format prescribed by the Administrator, providing for each TR SO 2 Group 2 unit (if any) at the source that opera tes during, but is not allocated an amount of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances for, such control period, the unit’s allowable SO 2 emission rate for such control period and, if such rate is expressed in lb per mmBtu, the unit’s heat rate. (ii) By August 1 immedi ately after the promulgation of such notice, the Administrator will calculate, for each such State and each common designated representative (authorized as of the allowance transfer deadline for such control period) for a group of one or more TR SO 2 Group 2 sources and units in the State and for such control period, the common designated representative’s share of the total SO 2 emissions from all TR SO 2 Group 2 units at TR SO 2 Group 2 sources in the State, the common designated representative’s assurance level, and the amount (if any) of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances that the owners and operators of such group of sources and units must hold in accordance with the calculation formula in §97.706(c)(2)(i) and will promulgate a notice of data availability of the resu lts of these calculations.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1310 of 1339 (iii) The Administrator will provide an opportunity for submission of objections to the calculations referenced by the notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section and the calculations referen ced by the relevant notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section. (A) Objections shall be submitted by the deadline specified in such notice and shall be limited to addressing whether the calculations referenced in the relevant notice required under paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section and referenced in the notice required under paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section are in accordance with §97.706(c)(2)(iii), §§97.706(b) and 97.730 through 97.735, the definitions of “common de signated representative”, “common designated representative’s assurance level”, and “common designated representative’s share” in §97.702, and the calculation formula in §97.706(c)(2)(i). (B) The Administrator will adjust the calculations to the extent nec essary to ensure that they are in accordance with the provisions referenced in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(A) of this section. By October 1 immediately after the promulgation of such notice, the Administrator will promulgate a notice of data availability of any adjustments that the Administrator determines to be necessary and the reasons for accepting or*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1311 of 1339 rejecting any objections submitted in accordance with paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(A) of this section. (3) For any State identified in each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) of this section as having TR SO 2 Group 2 units with total SO 2 emissions exceeding the State assurance level for a control period in a given year, the Administrator will establish one assurance account for each set of owners and operators identified, in the notice of data availability required under paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) of this section, as all of the owners and operators of a group of TR SO 2 Group 2 sources and units in the State having a common designated representa tive (as of the allowance transfer deadline for such control period) and as being required to hold TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances. (4)(i) As of midnight of November 1 immediately after the promulgation of each notice of data availability required in paragr aph (b)(2)(iii)(B) of this section, the owners and operators described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section shall hold in the assurance account established for the them and for the appropriate TR SO 2 Group 2 sources, TR SO 2 Group 2 units, and State under pa ragraph (b)(3) of this section a total amount of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances, available for deduction under paragraph (a) of this section, equal to the amount such owners*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1312 of 1339 and operators are required to hold with regard to such sources, units and State as calculated by the Administrator and referenced in such notice. (ii) Notwithstanding the allowance - holding deadline specified in paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section, if November 1 is not a business day, then such allowance - holding deadline shall be midnight o f the first business day thereafter. (5) After November 1 (or the date described in paragraph (b)(4)(ii) of this section) immediately after the promulgation of each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) of this section and after the recordation, in accordance with §97.723, of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowance transfers submitted by midnight of such date, the Administrator will determine whether the owners and operators described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section hold, in the assurance ac count for the appropriate TR SO 2 Group 2 sources, TR SO 2 Group 2 units, and State established under paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the amount of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances available under paragraph (a) of this section that the owners and operators are re quired to hold with regard to such sources, units, and States as calculated by the Administrator and referenced in the notice required in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) of this section.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1313 of 1339 (6) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subpart and any revision, ma de by or submitted to the Administrator after the promulgation of the notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) of this section for a control period in a given year, of any data used in making the calculations referenced in such noti ce, the amounts of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances that the owners and operators are required to hold in accordance with §97.706(c)(2)(i) for such control period shall continue to be such amounts as calculated by the Administrator and referenced in such notice r equired in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) of this section, except as follows: (i) If any such data are revised by the Administrator as a result of a decision in or settlement of litigation concerning such data on appeal under part 78 of this chapter of such noti ce, or on appeal under section 307 of the Clean Air Act of a decision rendered under part 78 of this chapter on appeal of such notice, then the Administrator will use the data as so revised to recalculate the amounts of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances that owner s and operators are required to hold in accordance with the calculation formula in §97.706(c)(2)(i) for such control period with regard to the TR SO 2 Group 2 sources, TR SO 2 Group 2 units, and State involved, provided that such litigation under part 78 of this chapter, or the proceeding under part 78*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1314 of 1339 of this chapter that resulted in the decision appealed in such litigation under section 307 of the Clean Air Act, was initiated no later than 30 days after promulgation of such notice required in paragraph (b)( 2)(iii)(B) of this section. (ii) If any such data are revised by the owners and operators of a TR SO 2 Group 2 source and TR SO 2 Group 2 unit whose designated representative submitted such data under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, as a result of a de cision in or settlement of litigation concerning such submission, then the Administrator will use the data as so revised to recalculate the amounts of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances that owners and operators are required to hold in accordance with the calculati on formula in §97.706(c)(2)(i) for such control period with regard to the TR SO 2 Group 2 sources, TR SO 2 Group 2 units, and State involved, provided that such litigation was initiated no later than 30 days after promulgation of such notice required in para graph (b)(2)(iii)(B) of this section. (iii) If the revised data are used to recalculate, in accordance with paragraphs (b)(6)(i) and (b)(6)(ii) of this section, the amount of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances that the owners and operators are required to hold for such control period with regard to the TR SO 2 Group 2 sources, TR SO 2 Group 2 units, and State involved

—*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1315 of 1339 (A) Where the amount of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances that the owners and operators are required to hold increases as a result of the use of all such revi sed data, the Administrator will establish a new, reasonable deadline on which the owners and operators shall hold the additional amount of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances in the assurance account established by the Administrator for the appropriate TR SO 2 Group 2 sources, TR SO 2 Group 2 units, and State under paragraph (b)(3) of this section. The owners’ and operaters’ failure to hold such additional amount, as required, before the new deadline shall not be a violation of the Clean Air Act. The owners’ and ope rators’ failure to hold such additional amount, as required, as of the new deadline shall be a violation of the Clean Air Act. Each TR SO 2 Group 2 allowance that the owners and operators fail to hold as required as of the new deadline, and each day in such control period , shall be a separate violation of the Clean Air Act. (B) For the owners and operators for which the amount of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances required to be held decreases as a result of the use of all such revised data, the Administrator wil l record, in all accounts from which TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances were transferred by such owners and operators for such control period to the assurance account established by the Administrator for the appropriate at TR SO 2 Group 2 sources, TR SO 2 Group 2 uni ts,*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 131 6 of 1339 and State under paragraph (b)(3) of this section, a total amount of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances equal to the amount of the decrease. If TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances were transferred to such assurance account from more than one account, the amount of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances recorded in each such transferor account will be in proportion to the percentage of the total amount of TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances transferred to such assurance account for such control period from such transferor account. (C) Each TR S O 2 Group 2 allowance held under paragraph (b)(6)(iii)(A) of this section, or recorded under paragraph (b)(6)(iii)(B) of this section, as a result of recalculation of requirements under the TR SO 2 Group 2 assurance provisions for such control period must be a TR SO 2 Group 2 allowance allocated for such control period or a control period in a prior year. § 97.726 Banking. (a) A TR SO 2 Group 2 allowance may be banked for future use or transfer in a compliance account or a general account in accordance w ith paragraph (b) of this section. (b) Any TR SO 2 Group 2 allowance that is held in a compliance account or a general account will remain in such account unless and until the TR SO 2 Group 2 allowance is deducted or transferred under §97.711(c), §97.723, §9 7.724, §97.725, 97.727, or 97.728.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1317 of 1339 § 97.727 Account error. The Administrator may, at his or her sole discretion and on his or her own motion, correct any error in any Allowance Management System account. Within 10 business days of making such correction , the Administrator will notify the authorized account representative for the account. § 97.728 Administrator’s action on submissions. (a) The Administrator may review and conduct independent audits concerning any submission under the TR SO 2 Group 2 Tradi ng Program and make appropriate adjustments of the information in the submission. (b) The Administrator may deduct TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances from or transfer TR SO 2 Group 2 allowances to a compliance account or an assurance account, based on the informatio n in a submission, as adjusted under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, and record such deductions and transfers. § 97.729 [RESERVED] § 97.730 General monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1318 of 1339 The owners and operators, and to the extent appli cable, the designated representative, of a TR SO 2 Group 2 unit, shall comply with the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements as provided in this subpart and subparts F and G of part 75 of this chapter. For purposes of applying such requireme nts, the definitions in §97.702 and in §72.2 of this chapter shall apply, the terms “affected unit,” “designated representative,” and “continuous emission monitoring system” (or “CEMS”) in part 75 of this chapter shall be deemed to refer to the terms “TR S O 2 Group 2 unit,“ “designated representative,” and “continuous emission monitoring system” (or “CEMS”) respectively as defined in §97.702, and the term “newly affected unit” shall be deemed to mean “newly affected TR SO 2 Group 2 unit”. The owner or operat or of a unit that is not a TR SO 2 Group 2 unit but that is monitored under §75.16(b)(2) of this chapter shall comply with the same monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements as a TR SO 2 Group 2 unit. (a) Requirements for installation, certificat ion, and data accounting. The owner or operator of each TR SO 2 Group 2 unit shall: (1) Install all monitoring systems required under this subpart for monitoring SO 2 mass emissions and individual unit heat input*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1319 of 1339 (including all systems required to monitor SO 2 concentration, stack gas moisture content, stack gas flow rate, CO 2 or O 2 concentration, and fuel flow rate, as applicable, in accordance with §§75.11 and 75.16 of this chapter); (2) Successfully complete all certification tests required under §97.731 and meet all other requirements of this subpart and part 75 of this chapter applicable to the monitoring systems under paragraph (a)(1) of this section; and (3) Record, report, and quality - assure the data from the monitoring systems under paragraph (a)(1 ) of this section.
(b) Compliance deadlines. Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, the owner or operator shall meet the monitoring system certification and other requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section on or before the fol lowing dates. The owner or operator shall record, report, and quality - assure the data from the monitoring systems under paragraph (a)(1) of this section on and after the following dates. (1) For the owner or operator of a TR SO 2 Group 2 unit that commenc es commercial operation before July 1, 2011, by January 1, 2012.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1320 of 1339 (2) For the owner or operator of a TR SO 2 Group 2 unit that commences commercial operation on or after July 1, 2011, by the later of the following dates: (i) January 1, 2012; or
(ii) 180 c alendar days after the date on which the unit commences commercial operation.
(3) The owner or operator of a TR SO 2 Group 2 unit for which construction of a new stack or flue or installation of add- on SO 2 emission controls is completed after the applicab le deadline under paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section shall meet the requirements of §§75. 4(e)(1) through (e)(4) of this chapter, except that: (i) Such requirements shall apply to the monitoring systems required under § 97.730 through § 97.735, rather th an the monitoring systems required under part 75 of this chapter; (ii) SO 2 concentration, stack gas moisture content, stack gas volumetric flow rate, and O 2 or CO 2 concentration data shall be determined and reported, rather than the data listed in §75. 4(e) (2) of this chapter; and*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1321 of 1339 (iii) Any petition for another procedure under §75. 4(e)(2) of this chapter shall be submitted under § 97.735, rather than §75 .66. (c) Reporting data . The owner or operator of a TR SO2 Group 2 unit that does not meet the applicable compliance date set forth in paragraph (b) of this section for any monitoring system under paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall, for each such monitoring system, determine, record, and report maximum potential (or, as appropriate, minimum potential) valu es for SO2 concentration, stack gas flow rate, stack gas moisture content, fuel flow rate, and any other parameters required to determine SO2 mass emissions and heat input in accordance with § 75.31(b)(2) or (c)(3) of this chapter or section 2.4 of appendi x D to part 75 of this chapter, as applicable.
(d) Prohibitions . (1) No owner or operator of a TR SO2 Group 2 unit shall use any alternative monitoring system, alternative reference method, or any other alternative to any requirement of this subpart witho ut having obtained prior written approval in accordance with §97.735. (2) No owner or operator of a TR SO2 Group 2 unit shall operate the unit so as to discharge, or allow to be discharged, SO2*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1322 of 1339 emissions to the atmosphere without accounting for all such emissions in accordance with the applicable provisions of this subpart and part 75 of this chapter. (3) No owner or operator of a TR SO2 Group 2 unit shall disrupt the continuous emission monitoring system, any portion thereof, or any other approved emissi on monitoring method, and thereby avoid monitoring and recording SO2 mass emissions discharged into the atmosphere or heat input, except for periods of recertification or periods when calibration, quality assurance testing, or maintenance is performed in a ccordance with the applicable provisions of this subpart and part 75 of this chapter. (4) No owner or operator of a TR SO2 Group 2 unit shall retire or permanently discontinue use of the continuous emission monitoring system, any component thereof, or any other approved monitoring system under this subpart, except under any one of the following circumstances: (i) During the period that the unit is covered by an exemption under §97.705 that is in effect; (ii) The owner or operator is monitoring emissions from the unit*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1323 of 1339 with another certified monitoring system approved, in accordance with the applicable provisions of this subpart and part 75 of this chapter, by the Administrator for use at that unit that provides emission data for the same pollutant or parameter as the retired or discontinued monitoring system; or (iii) The designated representative submits notification of the date of certification testing of a replacement monitoring system for the retired or discontinued monitoring system in accordance with §97.731(d)(3)(i). (e) Long - term cold storage . The owner or operator of a TR SO 2 Group 2 unit is subject to the applicable provisions of §75.4(d) of this chapter concerning units in long - term cold storage. § 97.731 Initial monitoring system certification and recertification procedures. (a) The owner or operator of a TR SO 2 Group 2 unit shall be exempt from the initial certification requirements of this section for a monitoring system under § 97.730(a)(1) if the following conditions are met:
(1) The monit oring system has been previously certified in accordance with part 75 of this chapter; and*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1324 of 1339 (2) The applicable quality - assurance and quality - control requirements of § 75.21 of this chapter and appendices B and D to part 75 of this chapter are fully met for the certified monitoring system described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. (b) The recertification provisions of this section shall apply to a monitoring system under § 97.730(a)(1) exempt from initial certification requirements under paragraph (a) o f this section.
(c) [Reserved] (d) Except as provided in paragraph (a) of this section, the owner or operator of a TR SO 2 Group 2 unit shall comply with the following initial certification and recertification procedures, for a continuous monitoring system (i.e., a continuous emission monitoring system and an excepted monitoring system under appendix D to part 75 of this chapter) under §97.730(a)(1). The owner or operator of a unit that qualifies to use the low mass emissions excepted monitoring methodolo gy under §75.19 of this chapter or that qualifies to use an alternative monitoring system under subpart E of part 75 of this chapter shall comply with the procedures in paragraph (e) or (f) of this section respectively.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1325 of 1339 (1) Requirements for initial certif ication. The owner or operator shall ensure that each continuous monitoring system under §97.730(a)(1) (including the automated data acquisition and handling system) successfully completes all of the initial certification testing required under §75.20 of t his chapter by the applicable deadline in §97.730(b). In addition, whenever the owner or operator installs a monitoring system to meet the requirements of this subpart in a location where no such monitoring system was previously installed, initial certifi cation in accordance with §75.20 of this chapter is required. (2) Requirements for recertification. Whenever the owner or operator makes a replacement, modification, or change in any certified continuous emission monitoring system under §97.730(a)(1) tha t may significantly affect the ability of the system to accurately measure or record SO 2 mass emissions or heat input rate or to meet the quality - assurance and quality - control requirements of §75.21 of this chapter or appendix B to part 75 of this chapter, the owner or operator shall recertify the monitoring system in accordance with §75.20(b) of this chapter. Furthermore, whenever the owner or operator makes a replacement, modification, or change to the flue gas handling system or the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1326 of 1339 unit's operation that may significantly change the stack flow or concentration profile, the owner or operator shall recertify each continuous emission monitoring system whose accuracy is potentially affected by the change, in accordance with §75.20(b) of this chapter. Example s of changes to a continuous emission monitoring system that require recertification include: replacement of the analyzer, complete replacement of an existing continuous emission monitoring system, or change in location or orientation of the sampling probe or site. Any fuel flowmeter system under §97.730(a)(1) is subject to the recertification requirements in §75.20(g)(6) of this chapter. (3) Approval process for initial certification and recertification. For initial certification of a continuous monitor ing system under §97.730(a)(1), paragraphs (d)(3)(i) through (v) of this section apply. For recertifications of such monitoring systems, paragraphs (d)(3)(i) through (iv) of this section and the procedures in §§75.20(b)(5) and (g)(7) of this chapter (in lieu of the procedures in paragraph (d)(3)(v) of this section) apply, provided that in applying paragraphs (d)(3)(i) through (iv) of this section, the words “certification” and “initial certification” are replaced by the word “recertification” and the word “certified” is replaced by with the word “recertified”.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1327 of 1339 (i) Notification of certification. The designated representative shall submit to the appropriate EPA Regional Office and the Administrator written notice of the dates of certification testing, in accordance with §97.733. (ii) Certification application. The designated representative shall submit to the Administrator a certification application for each monitoring system. A complete certification application shall include the information specified in §75.63 of this chapter. (iii) Provisional certification date. The provisional certification date for a monitoring system shall be determined in accordance with §75.20(a)(3) of this chapter. A provisionally certified monitoring system may be used under the TR SO 2 Group 2 Trading Program for a period not to exceed 120 days after receipt by the Administrator of the complete certification application for the monitoring system under paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of this section. Data measured and recorded by the provisionally certified monitoring system, in accordance with the requirements of part 75 of this chapter, will be considered valid quality - assured data (retroactive to the date and time of provisional certification), provided that the Administrator does n ot invalidate the provisional*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1328 of 1339 certification by issuing a notice of disapproval within 120 days of the date of receipt of the complete certification application by the Administrator. (iv) Certification application approval process. The Administrator will issue a written notice of approval or disapproval of the certification application to the owner or operator within 120 days of receipt of the complete certification application under paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of this section. In the event the Administrator doe s not issue such a notice within such 120 - day period, each monitoring system that meets the applicable performance requirements of part 75 of this chapter and is included in the certification application will be deemed certified for use under the TR SO 2 Gr oup 2 Trading Program. (A) Approval notice. If the certification application is complete and shows that each monitoring system meets the applicable performance requirements of part 75 of this chapter, then the Administrator will issue a written notice of approval of the certification application within 120 days of receipt. (B) Incomplete application notice. If the certification application is not complete, then the Administrator will issue a*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1329 of 1339 written notice of incompleteness that sets a reasonable date b y which the designated representative must submit the additional information required to complete the certification application. If the designated representative does not comply with the notice of incompleteness by the specified date, then the Administrat or may issue a notice of disapproval under paragraph (d)(3)(iv)(C) of this section. The 120 - day review period specified in paragraph (d)(3) of this section shall not begin before receipt of a complete certification application. (C) Disapproval notice. I f the certification application shows that any monitoring system does not meet the performance requirements of part 75 of this chapter or if the certification application is incomplete and the requirement for disapproval under paragraph (d)(3)(iv)(B) of th is section is met, then the Administrator will issue a written notice of disapproval of the certification application. Upon issuance of such notice of disapproval, the provisional certification is invalidated by the Administrator and the data measured and recorded by each uncertified monitoring system shall not be considered valid quality - assured data beginning with the date and hour of provisional certification (as defined under §75.20(a)(3) of this chapter).*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1330 of 1339 (D) Audit decertification. The Administrat or may issue a notice of disapproval of the certification status of a monitor in accordance with §97.732(b).
(v) Procedures for loss of certification. If the Administrator issues a notice of disapproval of a certification application under paragraph (d)( 3)(iv)(C) of this section or a notice of disapproval of certification status under paragraph (d)(3)(iv)(D) of this section, then: (A) The owner or operator shall substitute the following values, for each disapproved monitoring system, for each hour of uni t operation during the period of invalid data specified under §75.20(a)(4)(iii), §75.20(g)(7), or §75.21(e) of this chapter and continuing until the applicable date and hour specified under §75.20(a)(5)(i) or (g)(7) of this chapter: (1) For a disapproved SO 2 pollutant concentration monitor and disapproved flow monitor, respectively, the maximum potential concentration of SO 2 and the maximum potential flow rate, as defined in sections 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.4.1 of appendix A to part 75 of this chapter.
(2) For a disapproved moisture monitoring system and disapproved*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1331 of 1339 diluent gas monitoring system, respectively, the minimum potential moisture percentage and either the maximum potential CO 2 concentration or the minimum potential O 2 concentration (as applicable), as defined in sections 2.1.5, 2.1.3.1, and 2.1.3.2 of appendix A to part 75 of this chapter. (3) For a disapproved fuel flowmeter system, the maximum potential fuel flow rate, as defined in section 2.4.2.1 of appendix D to part 75 of this chapter.
(B) The de signated representative shall submit a notification of certification retest dates and a new certification application in accordance with paragraphs (d)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section. (C) The owner or operator shall repeat all certification tests or other requirements that were failed by the monitoring system, as indicated in the Administrator's notice of disapproval, no later than 30 unit operating days after the date of issuance of the notice of disapproval. (e) The owner or operator of a unit qualified to use the low mass emissions (LME) excepted methodology under §75.19 of this chapter shall meet the applicable certification and*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1332 of 1339 recertification requirements in §§75.19(a)(2) and 75.20(h) of this chapter. If the owner or operator of such a unit elects t o certify a fuel flowmeter system for heat input determination, the owner or operator shall also meet the certification and recertification requirements in §75.20(g) of this chapter. (f) The designated representative of each unit for which the owner or op erator intends to use an alternative monitoring system approved by the Administrator under subpart E of part 75 of this chapter shall comply with the applicable notification and application procedures of §75.20(f) of this chapter. § 97.732 Monitoring system out- of - control periods. (a) General provisions . Whenever any monitoring system fails to meet the quality - assurance and quality - control requirements or data validation requirements of part 75 of this chapter, data shall be substituted using the applicab le missing data procedures in subpart D or appendix D to part 75 of this chapter.
(b) Audit decertification . Whenever both an audit of a monitoring system and a review of the initial certification or recertification application reveal that any monitoring system should not have been certified or recertified because it did not*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1333 of 1339 meet a particular performance specification or other requirement under §97.731 or the applicable provisions of part 75 of this chapter, both at the time of the initial certification o r recertification application submission and at the time of the audit, the Administrator will issue a notice of disapproval of the certification status of such monitoring system. For the purposes of this paragraph, an audit shall be either a field audit or an audit of any information submitted to the Administrator or any State or permitting authority. By issuing the notice of disapproval, the Administrator revokes prospectively the certification status of the monitoring system. The data measured and recor ded by the monitoring system shall not be considered valid quality - assured data from the date of issuance of the notification of the revoked certification status until the date and time that the owner or operator completes subsequently approved initial cer tification or recertification tests for the monitoring system. The owner or operator shall follow the applicable initial certification or recertification procedures in §97.731 for each disapproved monitoring system. § 97.733 Notifications concerning moni toring. The designated representative of a TR SO 2 Group 2 unit shall submit written notice to the Administrator in accordance with §75.61 of this chapter.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1334 of 1339 § 97.734 Recordkeeping and reporting. (a) General provisions . The designated representative shall c omply with all recordkeeping and reporting requirements in this section, the applicable recordkeeping and reporting requirements in subparts F and G of part 75 of this chapter, and the requirements of §97.714(a).
(b) Monitoring plans . The owner or operat or of a TR SO2 Group 2 unit shall comply with requirements of §75.62 of this chapter.
(c) Certification applications . The designated representative shall submit an application to the Administrator within 45 days after completing all initial certificati on or recertification tests required under §97.731, including the information required under §75.63 of this chapter.
(d) Quarterly reports . The designated representative shall submit quarterly reports, as follows: (1) The designated representative shall report the SO2 mass emissions data and heat input data for the TR SO2 Group 2 unit, in an electronic quarterly report in a format prescribed by the Administrator, for each calendar quarter beginning with:*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1335 of 1339 (i) For a unit that commences commercial operatio n before July 1, 2011, the calendar quarter covering January 1, 2012 through March 31, 2012; (ii) For a unit that commences commercial operation on or after July 1, 2011, the calendar quarter corresponding to the earlier of the date of provisional certifi cation or the applicable deadline for initial certification under §97.730(b), unless that quarter is the third or fourth quarter of 2011, in which case reporting shall commence in the quarter covering January 1, 2012 through March 31, 2012 . (2) The design ated representative shall submit each quarterly report to the Administrator within 30 days after the end of the calendar quarter covered by the report. Quarterly reports shall be submitted in the manner specified in §75.64 of this chapter.
(3) For TR SO 2 Group 2 units that are also subject to the Acid Rain Program, TR NOX Annual Trading Program, or TR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program, quarterly reports shall include the applicable data and information required by subparts F through H of part 75 of this chapter as applicable, in addition to the SO2 mass emission data, heat input data, and other information*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1336 of 1339 required by this subpart.
(4) The Administrator may review and conduct independent audits of any quarterly report in order to determine whether the quart erly report meets the requirements of this subpart and part 75 of this chapter, including the requirement to use substitute data. (i) The Administrator will notify the designated representative of any determination that the quarterly report fails to meet any such requirements and specify in such notification any corrections that the Administrator believes are necessary to make through resubmission of the quarterly report and a reasonable time period within which the designated representative must respond. Upon request by the designated representative, the Administrator may specify reasonable extensions of such time period. Within the time period (including any such extensions) specified by the Administrator, the designated representative shall resubmit t he quarterly report with the corrections specified by the Administrator, except to the extent the designated representative provides information demonstrating that a specified correction is not necessary because the quarterly report already meets the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1337 of 1339 requi rements of this subpart and part 75 of this chapter that are relevant to the specified correction. (ii) Any resubmission of a quarterly report shall meet the requirements applicable to the submission of a quarterly report under this subpart and part 75 of this chapter, except for the deadline set forth in paragraph (d)(2) of this section. (e) Compliance certification . The designated representative shall submit to the Administrator a compliance certification (in a format prescribed by the Administrator) in support of each quarterly report based on reasonable inquiry of those persons with primary responsibility for ensuring that all of the unit's emissions are correctly and fully monitored. The certification shall state that: (1) The monitoring data submitt ed were recorded in accordance with the applicable requirements of this subpart and part 75 of this chapter, including the quality assurance procedures and specifications; and
(2) For a unit with add- on SO 2 emission controls and for all hours where SO2 da ta are substituted in accordance with §75.34(a)(1) of this chapter, the add- on emission controls were operating within the range of parameters listed in the quality*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1338 of 1339 assurance/quality control program under appendix B to part 75 of this chapter and the subst itute data values do not systematically underestimate SO 2 emissions. § 97.735 Petitions for alternatives to monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting requirements. (a) The designated representative of a TR SO 2 Group 2 unit may submit a petition under §75.66 of this chapter to the Administrator, requesting approval to apply an alternative to any requirement of §§97.730 through 97.734 or paragraph (5)(i) or (ii) of the definition of “owner’s share” in §97.702. (b) A petition submitted under paragraph (a) of this section shall include sufficient information for the evaluation of the petition, including, at a minimum, the following information: (i) Identification of each unit and source covered by the petition; (ii) A detailed explanation of why the proposed al ternative is being suggested in lieu of the requirement; (iii) A description and diagram of any equipment and procedures used in the proposed alternative;*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1339 of 1339 (iv) A demonstration that the proposed alternative is consistent with the purposes of the requirement for which the alternative is proposed and with the purposes of this subpart and part 75 of this chapter and that any adverse effect of approving the alternative will be de minimis ; and (v) Any other relevant information that the Administrator may require. (c) Use of an alternative to any requirement referenced in paragraph (a) of this section is in accordance with this subpart only to the extent that the petition is approved in writing by the Administrator and that such use is in accordance with such app roval.