Page 1 of 93

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 97

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491; FRL- ]

RIN 2060-AR22

Revisions to Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce 

Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing revisions to the Transport Rule 

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

revisions address discrepancies in unit-specific modeling 

assumptions that affect the proper calculation of Transport 

Rule state budgets and assurance levels in Florida, 

Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Jersey, New 

York, Texas, and Wisconsin, as well as new unit set-asides 

in Arkansas and Texas. EPA is also finalizing allowance 

allocation revisions to specific units covered by certain 

consent decrees that restrict the use of those allowances. 

The resulting budgets maintain substantial emission 

reductions from historic levels and are consistent with the 
Page 2 of 93

final Transport Rule's methodology for defining significant 

contribution and interference with maintenance.1 

EPA is also finalizing the proposal to amend the 

assurance penalty provisions of the rule to make them 

effective beginning January 1, 2014. EPA believes that 

deferring the effective date of the assurance provisions 

will provide additional program confidence and will not 

compromise the air quality goals of the program.

In addition, we are finalizing corrections of 

typographical errors in the rule. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS 

FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action 

under Docket ID No. OAR-EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0491. All 

documents in the docket are listed on the 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed on 

the index, some information is not publicly available, 

e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and 

will be publicly available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are available either 

electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in 

hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room B102, 

1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and 

 

1

In this preamble, EPA uses the terms ‘‘significant contribution’’ and 

‘‘interference with maintenance’’ to refer to the emissions that must 

be prohibited pursuant to Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

because they significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state.
Page 3 of 93

the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742. 

This Docket Facility is open from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

Docket telephone number is (929)566-1742, fax (202) 566-

1741.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general questions 

concerning this action, contact Gabrielle Stevens, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Clean Air Markets 

Division, MC 6204J, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460, telephone (202) 343-9252, 

e-mail at stevens.gabrielle@epa.gov. Electronic copies of 

this document can be accessed through the EPA Website at: 

http://epa.gov/crossstaterule.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations

The following are abbreviations of terms used in this 

final rule:

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

EGU Electric Generating Unit

FIP Federal Implementation Plan

FR Federal Register

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ICR Information Collection Request 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NODA Notice of Data Availability

NOX Nitrogen Oxides

SIP State Implementation Plan

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PM2.5 Fine Particulate Matter, Less Than 2.5 

Micrometers

PM Particulate Matter

RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis
Page 4 of 93

SNPR Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide

TSD Technical Support Document

II. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

Regulated Entities. Entities regulated by this action 

primarily are fossil fuel-fired boilers, turbines, and 

combined cycle units that serve generators that produce 

electricity for sale or cogenerate electricity for sale and 

steam. Regulated categories and entities include:

Category NAICS Code

Examples of Potentially Regulated 

Industries

Industry2211, 2212, 

2213 

Electric service providers

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to 

provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be 

regulated by this action. This table lists the types of 

entities which EPA is now aware could potentially be 

regulated by this action. Other types of entities not 

listed in this table could also be regulated. To determine 

whether your facility, company, business, organization, 

etc., is regulated by this action, you should carefully 

examine the applicability criteria in §§ 97.404, 97.504,

and 97.604 of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. 

If you have questions regarding the applicability of this 

action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in 

the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

 B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other 

related information?
Page 5 of 93

In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic 

copy of this final rule will also be available on the World 

Wide Web. Following signature by the EPA Administrator, a 

copy of this action will be posted on the transport rule 

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

C. How is this Preamble Organized?

I. Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations

II. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other 

related information?

C. How is the preamble organized?

III. Executive Summary 

IV. Specific Revisions

A. Budgets/New Unit Set-aside Revisions and 

Recordation of Allowances

B. Allowance Allocation Revisions to Units Covered by 

Existing Utility Consent Decrees 

C. Assurance Penalty Provisions 

D. Typographical Errors

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and 

Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation 

and Regulatory Review

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health and Safety Risks
Page 6 of 93

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly 

Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations

K. Congressional Review Act

L. Judicial Review

III. Executive Summary 

In a previous proposal published on October 14, 2011 

(76 FR 63860), EPA identified potential errors in unitspecific modeling assumptions that affect the proper 

calculation of Transport Rule state budgets and assurance 

levels in Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, 

Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Texas, and Wisconsin, as 

well as potential errors affecting the proper calculation 

of new unit set-asides in Arkansas and Texas. EPA is now 

taking final action to: (1) revise Michigan’s annual NOX

budget to account for an erroneously assumed selective 

catalytic reduction (SCR) emission control device at one 

unit; (2) revise Nebraska’s annual NOX budget to account for 

an erroneously assumed SCR emission control device at one 

unit; (3) revise the Texas SO2 budget to account for 

erroneously assumed flue gas desulphurization (FGD, or 

scrubber) emission control devices at three units and 

revised assumptions regarding flue gas treatment in 

existing scrubbers at seven units; (4) revise the Arkansas 

ozone-season new unit set-aside to account for erroneously 

omitted projected emissions from one new unit; (5) revise 

the Texas new unit set-aside to account for erroneously 

omitted projected emissions for SO2, ozone-season NOX, and 
Page 7 of 93

annual NOX from one new unit; (6) revise New Jersey’s ozone 

season NOX, annual NOX, and SO2 budgets to account for 

erroneously assumed FGD and SCR emission control devices at 

one unit, and taking into account operational constraints 

likely to necessitate non-economic generation at six 

facilities; (7) revise Wisconsin’s SO2 and annual NOX

budgets to account for erroneously assumed FGD and SCR 

devices at two units; (8) revise New York’s SO2, annual NOX, 

and ozone season NOX budgets taking into account operational 

constraints likely to necessitate non-economic generation 

at ten units; (9) revise Louisiana’s ozone season NOX budget 

taking into account operational constraints likely to 

necessitate non-economic generation at twelve units; (10) 

revise Mississippi’s ozone season NOX budget taking into 

account operational constraints likely to necessitate noneconomic generation at four units; (11) revise the Texas 

annual NOX and ozone season NOX budgets taking into account 

operational constraints likely to necessitate non-economic 

generation at seven units; and (12) revise Florida’s ozoneseason NOX budget taking into account the immediate-term 

unavailability of a previously operating nuclear unit. See 

section IV.A of this preamble for a discussion of these 

revisions and any additional changes. 

The proposed revisions to state budgets also entailed 

proposed revisions to the affected states' assurance 

levels, as the variability limit component of the assurance 

level for each state is calculated as a percentage of the 

applicable budget. Therefore, for each revision EPA is 

finalizing to a state budget, EPA is also finalizing 

corresponding revisions to the calculation of that state’s 

variability limit and assurance level pertinent to that 

state budget. Assurance levels are only applicable to 2014 
Page 8 of 93

and beyond, given the 2014 effective date of the assurance 

provisions as described below and in section IV.C of this 

preamble. 

The revised budgets maintain substantial emission 

reductions from historic levels and are consistent with the 

final Transport Rule’s methodology for defining significant 

contribution and interference with maintenance.2 No changes 

to that methodology were proposed, and EPA did not reopen 

the methodology established in the final Transport Rule for 

public comment. EPA also did not propose any change to the 

levels of stringency (i.e., cost per ton) selected in the 

final Transport Rule’s determination of significant 

contribution and interference with maintenance and did not 

reopen that issue for public comment. For more 

information, see the “Final Revisions Rule Significant 

Contribution Assessment Technical Support Document” in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

In the proposed revisions rule, EPA solicited further 

information from the public that may support similar 

revisions to Transport Rule state budgets or new unit setasides (76 FR 63868). EPA believed that the scope of such 

information supporting potential revisions was limited, 

considering that EPA had already conducted several noticeand-comment processes through initial proposal of the 

Transport Rule and multiple notices of data availability 

(NODAs) to prompt the public to provide the relevant input 

information that informs the calculation of the Transport 

 

2

Throughout this preamble, EPA refers to a state budget for 2012 and 

2013 as a “2012” state budget and refers to a state budget for 2014 and 

thereafter as a “2014” state budget. Therefore, any revision of a 2012

state budget would apply to the state budget for 2012 and 2013, and any 

revision of a 2014 state budget would apply to the state budget for 

2014 and thereafter.
Page 9 of 93

Rule state budgets. By providing, in this rulemaking, an 

additional opportunity for comment on aspects of Transport 

Rule state budgets, EPA also addressed some of the issues 

and concerns raised in many of the petitions for 

administrative reconsideration of the final Transport Rule.

Based on relevant comments received that merited 

revisions, EPA is making additional revisions in a separate 

direct final rule with parallel proposal rulemaking. 

EPA also proposed revisions to allowance allocations 

at certain units in six states that are affected by 

existing utility consent decrees. When establishing the 

state budgets under the final Transport Rule, EPA accounted 

for the emission reduction requirements of these consent 

decrees; therefore, the Transport Rule state budgets 

sustain the environmental protection secured by those 

existing utility consent decrees. However, when dividing 

those state budgets into individual unit-level allowance 

allocations, EPA included allowance allocations to certain 

units that exceed those units’ allowable emissions under 

the terms of the applicable consent decree. Because EPA 

already secured the environmental improvements required by 

the consent decrees by incorporating their emission 

reductions into the Transport Rule state budgets, there is 

no environmental need to prevent the allowances from being 

used for compliance by sources subject to the Transport 

Rule, aside from those sources whose emissions are 

restricted by the terms of the consent decrees to which 

they are subject. Therefore, EPA proposed to revise 

Transport Rule unit-level allowance allocations to the 

specific units affected by these consent decrees to reflect 

their maximum allowable emissions, such that none of the 

allowances affected by the consent decrees are 
Page 10 of 93

unnecessarily removed from use for compliance by other 

units. EPA proposed this revision to benefit program 

implementation. EPA is finalizing this revision as 

proposed, with small adjustments to reflect provisions 

under existing consent decrees that account for 

extraordinary events. See section IV.B of this preamble 

for further explanation of Transport Rule units also 

covered by existing utility consent decrees.

EPA is finalizing its proposal to revise the assurance 

penalty provisions of the Transport Rule to make them 

effective January 1, 2014. The revision of the effective 

date of the assurance provisions will promote the 

development of allowance market liquidity, thereby 

smoothing the transition from the Clean Air Interstate Rule 

(CAIR) programs, which were temporarily re-instated as of 

the Court’s action on December 30, 2011 to stay the 

Transport Rule, at such time as the Court lifts the stay of 

the Transport Rule and provides clarity on implementation 

dates for the Transport Rule programs. See section IV.C of 

this preamble for a further discussion of the assurance 

provisions effective date.

EPA is also finalizing corrections to typographical 

errors in certain sections of rule text in parts 52 and 97 

of the final Transport Rule. See section IV.D of this 

preamble for further explanation of these corrections.

On December 30, 2011, the Court of Appeals for the 

D.C. Circuit in EME Homer City Generation, L.P., v. 

Environmental Protection Agency, No. 11-1302 (EME Homer 

City) issued an Order staying the final Transport Rule. 

While this action revises that rule, it is consistent with 

and is unaffected by the Court’s Order staying the 

underlying final Transport Rule. Finalizing this action in 
Page 11 of 93

and of itself does not impose any requirements on regulated 

units or states. 

IV. Specific Revisions 

A. Budget/New Unit Set-Aside Revisions and Recordation of 

Allowances 

EPA is finalizing the following revisions:

(1) Increase Michigan’s 2012 and 2014 annual NOX

budgets in accordance with a revision to the final 

Transport Rule analysis that erroneously assumed 

that an SCR exists at Monroe Unit 2. 

EPA is finalizing revisions to Michigan’s 2012 and 

2014 annual NOX budgets as proposed. This action revises 

the assumption of an SCR at Monroe Unit 2. This SCR is 

planned, but is not expected to be online in 2012 or 2014. 

Commenters did not identify any errors that would 

invalidate EPA's approach to making the proposed revisions 

addressing Monroe Unit 2. This results in a 5,228 ton 

increase in the state’s annual NOX budget. See “Final 

Revisions Rule State Budgets and New Unit Set-Asides TSD” 

in the docket for this rulemaking for a quantitative 

demonstration of these revisions. 

EPA adjusted Michigan’s 2012 and 2014 ozone-season NOX

budgets to reflect the corrections to the Monroe Unit 2 

emissions when it included Michigan in the Transport Rule 

ozone-season NOX program (76 FR 80760, December 27, 2011), 

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

(2) Increase Nebraska’s 2012 and 2014 annual NOX

budgets in accordance with a revision to the final 
Page 12 of 93

Transport Rule analysis that erroneously assumed 

that an SCR exists at Nebraska City Unit 1. 

EPA is finalizing Nebraska’s 2012 and 2014 annual NOX

budgets, as proposed, to correct an assumption that an SCR 

exists at Nebraska City Unit 1. There is no SCR that is 

present, planned, or under construction at the unit. 

Commenters did not identify any errors that would 

invalidate EPA's approach to addressing Nebraska City Unit 

1. This adjustment results in an increase of 3,599 tons to 

the state’s annual NOX budget. See “Final Revisions Rule 

State Budgets and New Unit Set-Asides TSD” in the docket 

for this rulemaking for a quantitative demonstration of 

these revisions, as well as for the impacts this revision 

has on the state’s assurance level, new unit set-aside, and 

Indian country new unit set-aside, and “Final Revisions to 

Unit-Level Allocations under the FIPs” in the docket to 

this rulemaking for a quantitative demonstration of the 

effect of this revision on unit-level allocations under the 

FIP.

(3) Increase the Texas 2012 and 2014 SO2 budgets in 

accordance with a revision to the final Transport 

Rule analysis that erroneously assumed that 

scrubbers exist at W. A. Parish Unit 6, J.T. Deely 

Unit 1, and J.T. Deely Unit 2, and that assumed full 

flue gas treatment in existing scrubbers at Martin 

Lake, Monticello, Sandow, W.A. Parish, and Oklaunion 

facilities.

EPA is finalizing revisions to the modeling 

assumptions affecting the calculation of the Texas SO2
Page 13 of 93

budget, with an adjustment described below based on 

comments received. EPA is finalizing increases to the 

Texas SO2 budget in accordance with a revision to the final 

Transport Rule analysis that erroneously assumed flue-gas 

desulfurization (FGD) technology is installed on J.T. Deely 

Units 1 and 2 and W.A. Parish Unit 6 by 2012. As explained 

in the proposal, these FGDs are no longer scheduled to be 

installed in 2012 (76 FR 63864). Commenters did not 

identify any errors that would invalidate EPA's approach to

addressing J.T. Deely Units 1 and 2 or W.A. Parish Unit 6.

EPA is also finalizing an increase to the Texas SO2

budget in accordance with revised assumptions regarding the 

SO2 removal efficiency of existing scrubbers on units at the 

Martin Lake, Monticello, Sandow, W.A. Parish, and Oklaunion 

facilities. These facilities in Texas currently face 

immediate-term limitations regarding the amount of flue gas 

that can be treated in their existing FGDs. In the final 

Transport Rule analysis, EPA relied on the SO2 removal 

efficiency that these facilities reported at their 

scrubbers to the Energy Information Administration (EIA). 

However, EPA has since determined that these particular 

facilities’ reports only intended to address the removal 

efficiency for the portion of the flue gas treated in the 

scrubber. For this reason, that removal efficiency should 

not be applied to the total amount of sulfur combusted in 

the coal consumed (as some of the flue gas at these units 

must be vented without being treated in the scrubber as 

originally constructed). When the SO2 removal rates are 

decreased to reflect the reported operational constraint of 

each affected scrubber’s flue gas treatment, the projected 

emission level for Texas, after all significant 

contribution and interference with maintenance identified 
Page 14 of 93

in the final Transport Rule is addressed, correspondingly 

rises.

In the proposed revisions rule, EPA quantified this 

revision using these scrubbers’ SO2 removal efficiencies as 

reported for 2008 on EIA form 923. Public comments on the 

rule pointed out that data reported by these units on EIA 

form 860 offered more technically detailed explanation of 

these scrubbers’ SO2 removal efficiencies. In addition, EPA 

based all of its assumptions of existing scrubber 

performance in the final Transport Rule analysis on values 

reported by sources on EIA form 860, as EPA believes this 

data captures scrubber performance capability as opposed to

performance in any particular year, which can vary 

depending on the frequency that a facility chooses to 

operate its FGD.3 EPA believes that basing the effective 

removal rate for these units on EIA 860 constitutes a more 

accurate and reliable data source for this rulemaking, and 

EPA is finalizing this revision using this data as the 

basis for the recalculated projected emissions at these 

units, which inform the state budget. 

In accordance with the revised unit-level input 

assumptions regarding existing scrubbers and adjustments to 

the flue gas treatment calculations at the Texas units 

described above, EPA is increasing the state’s 2012 and 

2014 SO2 budgets each by 50,517 tons. 

See “Final Revisions Rule State Budgets and New Unit 

Set-Asides TSD” in the docket for this rulemaking for a 

quantitative demonstration of these revisions.

 

3

For example, the same facilities for which EPA proposed these revisions 

reported higher scrubber SO2 removal efficiencies in 2009 on the EIA 923 

form than they reported on the same form in 2008.
Page 15 of 93

(4) Increase Arkansas’ ozone-season NOX new unit setaside in accordance with revisions to the final 

Transport Rule’s calculation of the new unit set-aside 

that erroneously omitted Plum Point Unit 1’s projected 

emissions.

EPA is finalizing an increase of 3 percent to the 

portion of Arkansas’ ozone-season budget dedicated to the 

new unit set-aside account. This change yields a total new 

unit set-aside of 5 percent as the portion of Arkansas’ 

ozone-season budget dedicated to the new unit set-aside 

account (as opposed to the 2 percent previously established 

under the final Transport Rule). The revision is 

consistent with the new unit set-aside methodology 

described in the final rule. As explained in the proposal, 

the updated value simply reflects the revised 

classification of Plum Point Unit 1, which commenced 

commercial operation on or after January 1, 2010, as a new 

unit for purposes of unit-level allowance allocations under 

the final Transport Rule’s unit-level allocation 

methodology (76 FR 48290). Commenters did not identify any 

errors that would invalidate EPA's approach to addressing 

Plum Point Unit 1. See the “Final Revisions Rule State 

Budgets and New Unit Set-Asides TSD” in the docket for this 

rulemaking for a quantitative demonstration of these

revisions.

These revisions to the Arkansas new unit set-aside 

result in changes to allowance allocations to existing 

units, but they do not change the state’s overall budget. 

See “Final Revisions Rule Unit-Level Allocations under the 

FIPs” in the docket to this rulemaking.
Page 16 of 93

(5) Increase Texas’ ozone-season NOX, annual NOX, and 

SO2 new unit set-asides in accordance with a revision 

to the final Transport Rule’s calculations of the new 

unit set-asides that erroneously omitted Oak Grove 

Unit 2’s projected emissions. 

EPA is finalizing a revision to the calculation of the 

new unit set-asides for ozone-season NOX, annual NOX, and 

SO2 in Texas to reflect the revised classification of one 

unit as a new unit for purposes of unit-level allowance 

allocation. As explained in the proposal, this unit, Oak 

Grove Unit 2, commenced commercial operation on or after 

January 1, 2010, and should be considered a new unit under 

the final Transport Rule’s unit-level allocation 

methodology. Including this unit’s projected emissions in 

the calculation yields revised new unit set-asides of 4 

percent of the state’s ozone-season NOX budget, 4 percent of 

the state’s annual NOX budget, and 5 percent of the state’s 

SO2 budget. Commenters did not identify any errors that 

would invalidate EPA's approach to addressing Oak Grove 

Unit 2. See “Final Revisions Rule State Budgets and New 

Unit Set-Asides TSD” in the docket for this rulemaking for 

a quantitative demonstration of these revisions.

These revisions to the Texas new unit set-asides 

result in changes to allowance allocations to existing 

units, but they do not change the state’s overall budget. 

See “Final Revisions Rule Unit-Level Allocations under the 

FIPs” in the docket to this rulemaking.

(6)Increase New Jersey’s 2012 SO2 budget and 2012 and 2014 

ozone-season and annual NOX budgets in accordance with 

revisions to the final Transport Rule analysis that 
Page 17 of 93

erroneously assumed that an SCR and scrubber exist at BL 

England Unit 1 and to reflect operational constraints 

likely to necessitate non-economic dispatch at six other 

facilities. 

 EPA is finalizing New Jersey’s ozone-season NOX, annual 

NOX, and SO2 budgets to reflect revisions to assumed control 

technologies at BL England Unit 1 (2012 only) and 

operational constraints affecting units at six other 

facilities. Commenters did not identify any errors that 

would invalidate EPA's approach to making the proposed 

revisions addressing BL England Unit 1, which were 

described in the proposal (76 FR 63865). EPA is also 

finalizing revisions to New Jersey’s state budgets based on 

information demonstrating that northern New Jersey is an 

out-of-merit-order dispatch area. Units at six New Jersey 

plants (Bergen, Edison, Essex, Kearny, Linden, and Sewaren 

Generating Stations) are frequently dispatched out of 

regional economic order as a result of short-run 

limitations on the ability to meet local electricity demand 

with generation from outside the area. EPA is making only 

a minor adjustment in the way these budget revisions are 

calculated based on public comments regarding the eligible 

sources of generation that would be offset by the 

assumption of increased generation at the identified units. 

Commenters argued that cogeneration units would be less 

likely than other generators to adjust their dispatch in 

order to maintain the system’s equilibrium between 

electricity supply and demand, as operation of these units 

would remain supported by steam demand. EPA agrees with 

these commenters and has recalculated the associated budget 
Page 18 of 93

revisions while excluding cogeneration units from the 

calculation. 

EPA re-calculated projected emissions from BL England 

Unit 1 and the six plants with near-term out-of-merit-order

generation to account for the input assumption changes 

finalized in this action. These calculations yield 

increases to the New Jersey 2012 state budgets for SO2 of 

2,096 tons, annual NOX of 952 tons, and ozone-season NOX of 

746 tons; and 2014 state budget increases for annual NOX of 

679 tons, and ozone-season NOX of 349 tons. See “Final 

Revisions Rule State Budgets and New Unit Set-Asides TSD” 

in the docket for this rulemaking for a quantitative 

demonstration of these revisions.

(7) Increase Wisconsin’s 2014 SO2 budget and 2012 and 

2014 annual NOX budget in accordance with a revision to 

the final Transport Rule analysis that erroneously 

assumed that an FGD exists at Weston Unit 3, wet FGDs 

(instead of dry FGDs) exist at Columbia Units 1 and 2, 

and a SCR exists at John P. Madgett Unit 1. 

EPA is finalizing the proposed increase to Wisconsin’s 

SO2 budget. As explained in the proposal, EPA proposed to 

adjust Wisconsin's 2014 SO2 budget to reflect Weston Unit 

3’s operation without an FGD in 2014; and dry scrubbers 

instead of wet scrubbers at Columbia Units 1 and 2. 

Commenters did not identify any errors that would 

invalidate EPA's approach to making the proposed revisions 

addressing Weston Unit 3 or Columbia Units 1 and 2. To 

account for these adjustments, EPA is increasing the 

Wisconsin SO2 budget by a total of 7,757 tons in 2014.
Page 19 of 93

EPA is also finalizing the proposed increase to 

Wisconsin’s annual NOX budgets in 2012 and 2014. As 

explained in the proposal to this action, there is no SCR 

expected to be online in 2012 or 2014 at John P. Madgett 

Unit 1. Commenters did not identify any errors that would 

invalidate EPA's approach to addressing John P. Madgett 

Unit 1. Therefore, EPA is increasing Wisconsin’s annual NOX

budgets by 2,473 tons.

See “Final Revisions Rule State Budgets and New Unit 

Set-Asides TSD” in the docket for this rulemaking for a 

quantitative demonstration of these revisions, as well as 

for the impacts this revision has on the state’s assurance 

level, new unit set-aside, and Indian country new unit setaside, and “Final Revisions to Unit-Level Allocations under 

the FIPs” in the docket to this rulemaking for a 

quantitative demonstration of the effect of this revision 

on unit-level allocations under the FIP.

EPA adjusted Wisconsin’s 2012 and 2014 ozone-season NOX

budgets to reflect the corrections to the John P. Madgett 

emissions when it included Wisconsin in the Transport Rule 

ozone-season NOX program (76 FR 80760, December 27, 2011), 

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

(8) Increase New York’s 2012 and 2014 ozone-season NOX, 

annual NOX, and SO2 budgets in accordance with a 

revision to the final Transport Rule analysis that did 

not reflect operational constraints likely to 

necessitate non-economic dispatch at four plants. 

EPA is finalizing increases to the New York state 

ozone-season NOX, annual NOX, and SO2 budgets in 2012 and 

2014, to satisfy three specific immediate-term operational 
Page 20 of 93

constraints documented by the New York Independent System 

Operator (NYISO). These three constraints are referred to 

here as the N-1-1 Contingency, the Minimum Oil Burn Rules, 

and out-of-merit-order dispatch conditions, which 

collectively affect the likely 2012 and 2014 operations of 

specific units in the New York City and Long Island areas. 

See the proposal to this rule for details (76 FR 63865, 

October 14, 2011). Commenters did not identify any errors 

that would invalidate EPA's approach to addressing the 

units identified by the proposal with near-term out-ofmerit-order generation in New York State. 

EPA re-calculated projected emissions from the units 

identified in the proposal at Arthur Kill Generating 

Station, Ravenswood, Astoria Generating Station, and 

Northport facilities with near-term out-of-merit-order 

generation to account for the input assumption changes 

finalized in this action. These calculations yield 

increases to the New York 2012 and 2014 state budgets for 

SO2 of 3,527 tons, for annual NOX of 3,485 tons, and for 

ozone-season NOX of 1,911 tons. See “Final Revisions Rule 

State Budgets and New Unit Set-Asides TSD” in the docket 

for this rulemaking for a quantitative demonstration of 

these revisions, as well as for the impacts this revision 

has on the state’s assurance level, new unit set-aside, and 

Indian country new unit set-aside, and “Final Revisions to 

Unit-Level Allocations under the FIPs” in the docket to 

this rulemaking for a quantitative demonstration of the 

effect of this revision on unit-level allocations under the 

FIP.

(9) Increase Louisiana’s 2012 and 2014 ozone-season NOX

budgets in accordance with a revision to the final 
Page 21 of 93

Transport Rule analysis to reflect operational 

constraints likely to necessitate non-economic 

dispatch at twelve units. 

EPA is finalizing revisions to Louisiana’s 2012 and 

2014 state ozone season NOX budgets based on assumptions 

regarding near-term non-economic dispatch of certain units. 

As explained in the proposed revisions rule, conditions in 

these out-of-merit-order dispatch areas are likely to 

necessitate what would otherwise be non-economic generation 

at five Louisiana plants (R.S. Nelson, Nine Mile Point, 

Michoud, Little Gypsy, and Waterford) in the immediate 

future, as explained in detail in the proposed revisions 

rule (76 FR 63866). EPA is making only a minor adjustment 

in the way these budget revisions are calculated based on 

public comments regarding the eligible sources of 

generation that would be offset by the assumption of 

increased generation at the identified units. Commenters 

argued that cogeneration units would be less likely than 

other generators to adjust their dispatch in order to 

maintain the system’s equilibrium between electricity 

supply and demand, as operation of these units would remain 

supported by steam demand. EPA agrees with these 

commenters and has recalculated the associated budget 

revisions while excluding cogeneration units from the 

calculation. 

EPA is increasing Louisiana’s 2012 and 2014 state 

budgets for ozone-season NOX by 4,594 tons. See “Final 

Revisions Rule State Budgets and New Unit Set-Asides TSD” 

in the docket for this rulemaking for a quantitative 

demonstration of these revisions. 
Page 22 of 93

(10) Increase Mississippi’s 2012 and 2014 ozone-season 

NOX budgets in accordance with a revision to the final 

Transport Rule analysis to reflect operational 

constraints likely to necessitate non-economic 

dispatch at certain units. 

EPA is finalizing revisions to Mississippi’s 2012 and 

2014 state ozone season NOX budget based on conditions in 

this out-of-merit-order dispatch area that are likely to 

necessitate what would otherwise be non-economic generation 

at three Mississippi plants (Rex Brown, Gerald Andrus, 

Baxter Wilson) in the immediate future, as explained in 

detail in the proposed revisions rule (76 FR 63866). EPA 

is making only a minor adjustment in the way these budget 

revisions are calculated in order to replace the proposal’s 

use of an annual NOX rate with a more appropriate ozoneseason NOX rate to calculate the revision to the state’s 

ozone-season NOX budgets.

EPA re-calculated the emissions from the three plants 

with non-economic generation to account for the input 

assumption changes. These calculations yield increases to 

Mississippi’s 2012 and 2014 state budgets for ozone-season 

NOX of 2,154 tons. See “Final Revisions Rule State Budgets 

and New Unit Set-Asides TSD” in the docket for this 

rulemaking for a quantitative demonstration of these

revisions.

(11) Increase the Texas 2012 and 2014 annual and 

ozone-season NOX budgets in accordance with a revision 

to the final Transport Rule analysis to reflect 

operational constraints likely to necessitate noneconomic dispatch at two plants. 
Page 23 of 93

EPA is finalizing revisions to Texas’s 2012 and 2014 

state annual and ozone season NOX budgets as proposed. EPA 

is adjusting Texas’s emission budgets based on analysis 

projecting the minimum frequency units at two plants, Lewis 

Creek and Sabine, will have to run in the immediate-term 

for non-economic purposes, according to data provided by 

the utility operating those units. Commenters did not 

identify any errors that would invalidate EPA's approach to 

making the proposed revisions addressing the units 

identified by the proposal with near-term out-of-meritorder generation in Texas.

These revisions yield increases to Texas’s 2012 and 

2014 state budgets for annual NOX of 1,375 tons and ozoneseason NOX of 1,375 tons. See “Final Revisions Rule State 

Budgets and New Unit Set-Asides TSD” in the docket for this 

rulemaking for a quantitative demonstration of these

revisions.

(12) Increase Florida’s 2012 ozone-season NOX budget in 

accordance with a revision to the final Transport Rule 

analysis to reflect the immediate-term unavailability of 

Crystal River Unit 3, a nuclear unit. 

EPA is finalizing the increase of 819 tons to 

Florida’s 2012 ozone-season NOX budget as proposed. As 

explained in the proposal, Crystal River Unit 3 is 

currently experiencing an extended outage that renders its

nuclear generation unavailable in the immediate future (76 

FR 63867). EPA received public comments requesting that 

this revision to Florida’s ozone-season NOX budget be 

extended into 2014 and beyond, on the basis that future 
Page 24 of 93

generation from Crystal River Unit 3 is uncertain. EPA 

does not believe this revision has merit on that timeframe.

4

Commenters did not provide any evidence that Crystal River 

Unit 3 would fail to return to service upon the conclusion 

of the current extended outage, and the unit is in fact 

expected to return to service in 2014.

5 Furthermore, EPA 

notes that the potential outage of a nuclear unit in any 

given year is a scenario that the Transport Rule’s 

assurance provisions were explicitly designed to 

accommodate. The final Transport Rule’s methodology for 

calculating variability limits (the degree to which a 

state’s emissions are permitted to exceed its budget in any 

given year under the program) is based on a decade-long 

observation of historic year-to-year variability in states’ 

heat input at covered units, which would capture the impact 

of disruptions at other sources of generation (such as a 

nuclear outage) on emissions at covered units. As EPA 

explained in the final Transport Rule, a state budget 

represents remaining emissions at covered units in an 

average year after the elimination of significant 

contribution and interference with maintenance, whereas the 

variability limit accommodates year-to-year fluctuation of 

state-level emissions around that average outcome 

consistent with historically observed year-to-year 

 

4 In 2002, during NRC-required inspections, plant workers discovered a 

football-sized cavity atop the reactor vessel head. The Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) ordered the plant closed and it stayed 

closed for a total of two years while undergoing increased NRC 

scrutiny. It reopened in 2004. See

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0925/ML092540084.pdf

5 The plant operator has announced intentions to return the unit to 

service by 2014 (https://www.progress-energy.com/company/mediaroom/news-archive/pressrelease.page?title=Progress+Energy+provides+update+on+Crystal+River+Nuc

lear+Plant+outage&pubdate=06-27-2011).
Page 25 of 93

variability in state-level heat input at covered units. 

EPA believes it is appropriate to quantify an “average 

year” of projected emissions in Florida for 2014 and beyond 

to include projected generation from Crystal River Unit 3, 

while allowing the variability limit to accommodate the 

potential that such generation may be temporarily 

unavailable in any given year in that timeframe. As such, 

EPA is not extending this revision to Florida’s ozoneseason NOX budget for 2014 and beyond.

See “Final Revisions Rule State Budgets and New Unit 

Set-Asides TSD” in the docket for this rulemaking for a 

quantitative demonstration of these revisions.

B. Allowance Allocation Revisions to Units Covered by 

Existing Utility Consent Decrees

The state budgets in the August 8, 2011 final 

Transport Rule (76 FR 48290) accurately incorporated the 

emission reduction requirements of existing utility consent 

decrees. However, after the final rule was published, EPA 

determined that provisions under certain existing utility 

consent decrees could restrict the use of Transport Rule 

allowances allocated to units subject to those consent 

decrees, such that a certain portion of those allocated 

allowances could be rendered unavailable for compliance use 

by any source under the Transport Rule programs. EPA 

determined that the sum of the SO2 and/or NOX allowances 

allocated to the units at certain facilities (or to the 

units included in certain systems) affected by these 

consent decrees exceeded the facility-wide (or system-wide) 

annual tonnage limit (ATL) specified in the applicable 

consent decree. The consent decrees for these facilities 

and systems include provisions that either require that 
Page 26 of 93

allowances in excess of those necessary for compliance with 

the consent decrees be surrendered or place restrictions on 

the trading of such allowances. Therefore, excess 

allowances at these facilities (or within these systems) 

cannot be used by any Transport Rule program source(s) for 

compliance purposes. 

To address this issue, on October 14, 2011, EPA 

proposed to add a constraint on Transport Rule unit-level 

allowance allocations for the facilities and systems in 

question (76 FR 63860). This action finalizes the proposed 

constraint, which affects a total of 82 units in six 

states: Alabama, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Ohio, and 

Tennessee. The constraint reduces the number of SO2 and/or 

NOX allowances allocated to each of the 82 affected units, 

in order to align the facility-wide and system-wide 

allowance totals with the ATLs specified in the consent 

decrees. 

The unit-level allowance adjustments for each affected 

facility (or system) were made using the methodology 

described in the October 14, 2011 proposed rule. First, 

EPA calculated the ratio of the facility-wide (or systemwide) ATL to the total number of allowances allocated to 

the units at the facility (or in the system). Then, for 

each unit, an annual tonnage limit equivalent (“unit-level 

cap”) was determined by multiplying this ratio by the 

number of allowances originally allocated to the unit. 

As previously noted, EPA took the requirements of 

existing utility consent decrees into account when the 

state budgets were established. Therefore, this final 

action, as it regards the consent decrees, does not alter

the budget of any of the six affected states. Further, 

this action with respect to the consent decrees has no 
Page 27 of 93

impact on the existing unit-level allocations in states 

where there are no units covered by consent decrees with 

ATLs. The excess allowances removed from the 82 affected 

units have been reallocated to other covered sources in 

each relevant state using the allowance allocation 

methodology described in the October 14, 2011 proposed 

rule.

EPA received several comments on the proposed 

constraint and the unit-level cap apportionment 

methodology. Some commenters supported the proposal. 

Other commenters expressed concern that EPA was 

inappropriately using its rulemaking authority to modify, 

undo, or compromise provisions in the negotiated consent 

decree agreements. The Agency does not agree that the 

allowance allocation revisions being finalized in this rule

modify the terms of any consent decree. The unit-level 

allowance allocation caps applied in this rulemaking do not 

alter any obligation, timeline, or other requirement of the 

utility consent decrees. None of the restrictions in the 

utility consent decrees are premised on trading programs 

that employ any particular allocation methodology or 

distribution of unit-level allocations. Moreover, the 

utility consent decrees do not, and cannot, preclude any 

particular allocation methodology or distribution from 

being implemented in future trading programs. Finally, 

unit-level allowance allocations under existing trading 

programs, including the Transport Rule programs, do not 

establish unit-level emission constraints, because sources 

may obtain additional allowances from the marketplace to 

cover emissions that are above the unit-level allocations. 

Several commenters asked EPA to either clarify the 

specific consent decrees or exempt Transport Rule 
Page 28 of 93

allowances from those restrictions and requirements. 

However, legal interpretations of utility consent decree 

provisions are outside the scope of this rulemaking. 

Moreover, it would be inappropriate for EPA to attempt to 

alter the terms of the consent decrees to exempt the 

Transport Rule allowances from the trading restrictions and 

allowance surrender provisions via a rulemaking.

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) commented that the 

TVA consent decree includes a higher SO2 ATL in the event 

that a nuclear electric generating unit is shut down for 

more than 120 days during calendar years 2012, 2013, or 

2014. Because EPA and TVA are unable to predict whether 

such an event will occur, EPA is adopting, for purposes of 

allowance allocations in this rulemaking, the higher ATL 

for the TVA system which is based on the occurrence of a 

nuclear unit shut down. This change only affects TVA unitlevel allocations in the year 2013. EPA reviewed the other 

existing utility consent decrees and did not find similar 

provisions in those decrees that require such an 

adjustment.

In the proposed revisions rule, EPA adjusted unitlevel allocations to units affected by the TVA consent 

decree in years for which the final Transport Rule’s 

allowance allocations to those units collectively exceeded 

that consent decree’s ATL that is effective in that year. 

For the affected TVA units, the final Transport Rule’s 

allowance allocations exceeded the consent decree ATL in 

2013, 2018, and thereafter. TVA submitted comments arguing 

that the effective ATL under that consent decree is subject 

to change based on the potential retirement of affected 

units, which would also reduce aggregate unit-level 

allowance allocations to TVA under the Transport Rule. 
Page 29 of 93

TVA’s comments noted that the future balance of these two 

factors, which change over time, is uncertain.

EPA recognizes that the relationship between unitlevel allowance allocations under the FIPs and the 

applicable ATL becomes relatively less certain when 

considered over longer time horizons. In order to reduce 

the potential impact utility consent decree ATLs may have 

on the availability of Transport Rule allowances for 

compliance, EPA must account for the variability in utility 

consent decree ATLs in future years. Where information was 

available, EPA included generating unit retirements in its 

analysis of utility consent decree ATLs (see “Assessment of 

Impact of Consent Decree Annual Tonnage Limits on Transport 

Rule Allocations” in the Docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491) for 

the proposed revisions (76 FR 63860)). However, EPA agrees 

that the uncertainty becomes more pronounced in more 

distant years. Therefore, in this rulemaking EPA is not 

quantifying any additional adjustments to unit-level caps 

attributable to consent decree ATLs that become effective 

after 2017. In 2018 and thereafter, EPA will continue to 

apply the ATLs effective in 2017 for the purpose of unitlevel allocations. EPA notes that this timeline will 

provide states with ample opportunity, if they wish, to 

submit SIPs and establish alternate allocation 

methodologies where updated information on consent decree 

requirements may affect Transport Rule allowance use.

C. Assurance Penalty Provisions 

EPA is finalizing its proposal to make the assurance 

provisions effective starting in 2014. EPA maintains that, 

for 2012-2013, the Transport Rule (as revised by this final 

rule) ensures the elimination of each state’s significant 
Page 30 of 93

contribution to nonattainment and interference with 

maintenance.6 The only commenters that opposed this 

proposed approach were North Carolina and Maryland. EPA is 

adopting the proposed approach -- and rejecting North 

Carolina’s and Maryland’s comments in opposition -- for the 

following reasons. 

EPA’s decision in this final revised rule to delay the 

effectiveness of the assurance provisions is based on new 

information, i.e., information that recently became 

available on states’ total EGU emissions in the last four 

quarters (one in 2010 and three in 2011) and concerns 

raised recently by commenters about the immediate-term 

viability of Transport Rule allowance markets during the 

transition from CAIR. The most current available emissions 

data -- i.e., total emissions for the last quarter of 2010 

and the first three quarters of 2011 -- for EGUs in the 

states subject to the Transport Rule trading programs show 

that, in the vast majority of states, EGUs are already 

emitting at an annual level below the level of the 

applicable 2012 state assurance level. Specifically, in 16 

out of the 23 states subject to the Transport Rule SO2

program, 19 out of the 23 states subject to the Transport 

Rule NOX annual program, and 22 out of the 25 states subject 

to the Transport Rule NOX ozone season program, EGU 

emissions for the state for the last 12 months total less 

than the state assurance level (state budget plus 

 

6

As discussed in the Transport Rule, with respect to the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS, for certain states EPA quantified the ozone-season NOX emission 

reductions that are necessary but may not be sufficient to eliminate

all significant contribution and interference with maintenance (76 FR 

48210). For such states EPA maintains that, for 2012-2013, the 

Transport Rule (as revised by this final rule) ensures the elimination 

of the quantified prohibited emissions.
Page 31 of 93

variability limit), the level that reflects elimination of 

significant contribution and interference with maintenance.7 

Moreover, in the remaining states, emission controls that 

EPA’s projections demonstrate will bring annual emissions 

down to the level of the applicable state assurance level 

are in the process of being installed and will be in 

operation in 2012 and 2013. 

In addition, EGU owners and operators will know in 

2012 and 2013 that the assurance provisions will be taking 

effect in 2014 when many state budgets under the Transport 

Rule trading programs will be reduced. Owners and 

operators will therefore need to implement compliance 

strategies to meet both the requirement to hold allowances 

covering emissions and to avoid assurance provision 

penalties in the context of, in many cases, reduced state 

budgets. Consequently, EGU emissions are likely to decline 

even further during 2012-2013 as owners and operators make 

immediate investments in further emission reductions to 

prepare for 2014 and beyond. As one commenter observed, 

“Moreover, the desire of electric generating units (EGUs) 

to avoid the increased penalties once they are implemented 

in 2014 should encourage compliance with the Transport Rule 

even prior to assurance penalties being imposed. It is 

likely not in a polluter’s interest to fail to implement 

emission reduction measures now, as it would be forced to 

decrease emissions with potentially unfeasible rapidity 

once the assurance penalty provisions are enacted, or else 

face extra exorbitant penalties” (Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR2009-0491-4775).

 

7

http://camddataandmaps.epa.gov/gdm/index.cfm?fuseaction=iss.isshome
Page 32 of 93

EPA also conducted additional modeling of projected 

EGU emissions in 2012 and 2013 under the Transport Rule 

without applying the assurance provisions to those years.

8

 

This modeling shows that the Transport Rule trading 

programs will still result in emission reductions that 

cause total emissions in each state to be below the level 

of the applicable state assurance level, even when sources

are not subject to the assurance provisions in those years. 

These very short-term projections are based on inputs that 

reflect validated, currently installed emission controls 

resulting in a higher degree of certainty than longer-term 

emission projections. In particular, the locations are 

known of existing EGUs with existing emission controls or 

with ongoing emission control retrofits to be completed by 

2012, and of new EGUs (with emission controls) to be 

completed by 2012, and the emission reduction capabilities 

of all these controls also are known. 

Based on the current level of EGU emissions and EPA’s 

short-term modeling results, EPA maintains that EGU 

emissions in 2012 and 2013 in each of the states subject to 

the Transport Rule -- without the assurance provisions 

being applicable in those years -- have virtually no chance 

of exceeding the applicable state assurance level. 

Consequently, imposition of the assurance provisions during 

2012-2013 is unnecessary and could actually be detrimental 

to smooth program implementation, as explained below. 

 

8

IPM uses model run years to represent the full planning horizon. 

Mapping each year in the planning horizon into a representative model 

run year enables IPM to perform multiple year analyses while keeping 

the model size manageable. In this case, results for 2012 also apply to 

2013. Modeling results are available in the docket for this 

rulemaking, in IPM output files named after this modeling scenario 

entitled “Final Transport Rule with 2014 Assurance.”
Page 33 of 93

EPA believes that a limited postponement of the 

effectiveness of the assurance provisions is justified in 

order to achieve a seamless transition from the existing 

CAIR programs to the new Transport Rule programs. Under 

both CAIR and the Transport Rule, individual units have the 

flexibility to supplement their own emission reduction 

efforts with acquisitions from the market of any additional 

allowances needed to cover emissions under the applicable

programs. Active, transparent markets providing broad 

access to CAIR NOX annual, CAIR NOX ozone season, and Acid 

Rain SO2 allowances have been in existence for many years. 

Sources covered by CAIR have relied on the availability of 

these robust markets when developing compliance plans. The 

Transport Rule (TR) creates new TR SO2 Group 1, TR SO2 Group 

2, TR NOX annual, and TR NOX ozone season allowances. 

Markets for these allowances have started up and were 

developing before the Court issued a stay of the rule on 

December 30, 2011. 

Some EGU owners and operators, states, and other 

organizations have expressed concern about the future 

availability of Transport Rule allowances in the market. 

For example, EPA received the following comment and several 

others like it: “The [Group] strongly supports EPA’s 

proposal to delay implementation of the assurance penalty 

provisions until January 1, 2014. The Group has 

significant concerns regarding the viability of the 

allowance markets anticipated by CSAPR. Delay of the 

assurance penalty provisions may increase the likelihood 

that allowance markets will develop in the first CSAPR 

compliance period. Accordingly, the Group urges EPA to 

finalize its proposed amendments to the assurance penalty 

provisions. . . Delaying implementation of the assurance 
Page 34 of 93

penalty provisions until 2014 would reduce the risks 

associated with entering the market and encourage sources 

to engage in allowance trading” (Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-

0491-4821).9 Indeed, such concerns are to be expected as 

new markets start up and develop, with the result that 

prices tend to spike during market start-up and eventually 

settle to anticipated levels. After a period of time, the 

market matures and increasing numbers of participants gain 

experience with, and confidence in, the market.

Not only do the allowance markets under the Transport 

Rule involve the purchase and sale of new types of 

allowances for use in new trading programs, but also only 

the Transport Rule trading programs include assurance 

provisions, which were not included in any previous 

allowance trading programs. Many of the comments EPA 

received indicated that the introduction of this new and 

unfamiliar element in the Transport Rule trading programs 

has heightened concerns about the ability of owners and 

operators to use the new allowance markets to comply with 

the requirement to hold allowances covering emissions. 

Early trading activity is important for demonstrating 

market liquidity and assisting in price discovery to 

facilitate compliance planning by owners and operators of 

covered sources. If, out of immediate-term unfamiliarity 

with how the assurance provisions would be applied, owners 

and operators were to limit their own early trading 

activity, the assurance provisions would have negative 

impacts not only on those owners and operators, but also on 

all participants in the Transport Rule trading programs.

 

9

The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) is another name for the 

Transport Rule.
Page 35 of 93

EPA is delaying the effective date of the assurance 

provisions until 2014 in order to neutralize a key 

uncertainty facing successful and potentially rapid program 

implementation following the current stay, such that 

sources can rely on immediate activation of a Transport 

Rule allowance market that offers the cost-effective 

emission reduction flexibilities on which the rule relies 

to eliminate significant contribution and interference with 

maintenance.

In summary, EPA concludes that, not only are the 

assurance provisions not necessary in 2012-2013 to ensure 

elimination of significant contribution and interference 

with maintenance, but also that the imposition of the 

assurance provisions in 2012-2013 would risk inhibiting the 

development and availability of the allowance market and 

thus raise the costs of compliance with Transport Rule 

emission reduction requirements. Delaying imposition of 

the assurance provisions until 2014 will ease the 

transition for covered sources from compliance with CAIR 

requirements to compliance with Transport Rule requirements 

by addressing concerns about the readiness of new Transport 

Rule allowance markets, facilitating progress of these 

markets, and instilling confidence that owners and 

operators can comply through a variety of cost-effective 

strategies that are not limited by initial Transport Rule 

unit-level allowance allocations. EPA maintains that this 

will result, in the aggregate in each state, in costeffective emission reductions and total state emissions 

that are consistent with EPA’s quantification of each 

state’s obligation to eliminate significant contribution 

and interference with maintenance in downwind areas. 
Page 36 of 93

EPA’s adoption, in the final revision rule, of a brief 

delay until 2014 in the imposition of the assurance 

provisions constitutes a change in the Agency’s approach 

from the approach adopted in the final Transport Rule. In 

the final Transport Rule, EPA decided to make the assurance 

provisions effective starting in 2012 “because this 

approach provides even further assurance, consistent with 

North Carolina, that each state’s prohibited emissions will 

be eliminated from the start of the Transport Rule trading 

programs” (76 FR at 48296). Although EPA took the 

conservative approach of providing more assurance by 

adopting 2012 as the start of the assurance provisions, EPA 

did not conclude, in the final Transport Rule, that 

starting the assurance provisions in 2014 would be 

inconsistent with North Carolina or would result in states 

not eliminating their significant contribution or 

interference with maintenance. 

The trading programs created by the final Transport 

Rule, as modified by the final revision rule, are 

distinguishable from the CAIR trading programs that the 

Court reversed in North Carolina and meet the requirements 

set forth in the Court’s decision. In the Transport Rule, 

EPA established state-specific budgets and state-specific 

variability limits, and, if each state’s total EGU 

emissions for a control period do not exceed the applicable 

state budget plus variability, then that state’s 

significant contribution and interference with maintenance 

are eliminated for that control period. In contrast with 

the Transport Rule, in CAIR, EPA determined at a regional 

level the amount of required emission reductions. See

North Carolina, 531 F.3d at 907. Thus, the requirement --

which was not met by CAIR -- to determine the amount of 
Page 37 of 93

each state’s significant contribution and interference with 

maintenance is met by the Transport Rule. 

Moreover, unlike the circumstances in CAIR, EPA 

determined in this rulemaking that information on the 

current level of EGU emissions and ongoing emission control 

installations, supported by the results of EPA’s short-term 

modeling, demonstrates that without the assurance 

provisions being applicable in 2012-2013, EGU emissions in 

2012 and 2013 in each state will not exceed the applicable 

state assurance level. For 2014 and thereafter when 

controls and emissions are likely to be different from 

current controls and emissions and modeling projections are 

correspondingly less certain, the Transport Rule imposes 

assurance provision requirements that penalize sources 

whose emissions result in the state having total EGU 

emissions in excess of the state assurance level, and 

thereby ensures that sources operate in a manner that 

results in the elimination of each state’s significant 

contribution and interference with maintenance. 

In contrast with the Transport Rule, state-level EGU 

emissions were not, when CAIR was issued, already at (or 

well on the way to meeting) the required reduction levels.

EPA did not impose penalties on sources whose emissions 

resulted in a state’s failing to eliminate its significant 

contribution and interference with maintenance, and EPA 

relied entirely on its modeling, as opposed to data 

demonstrating states' emission reductions occurring in the 

period immediately prior to the relevant compliance years,

to show that significant contribution and interference with 

maintenance would be eliminated. See North Carolina, 531 

F.3d at 907 (stating that “CAIR only assures that the 

entire region’s significant contribution will be 
Page 38 of 93

eliminated. It is possible that CAIR would achieve [CAA] 

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

that sources contributing to North Carolina’s nonattainment 

areas will at least reduce their emissions even after 

opting into CAIR’s trading programs...But EPA is not 

exercising its section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) duty unless it is 

promulgating a rule that achieves something measurable 

toward the goal of prohibiting sources ‘within the State’ 

from contributing to nonattainment or interfering with 

maintenance ‘in any other State.’") 

In addition, in CAIR, the EPA modeling was for the 

intermediate term (i.e., projected in 2005 emissions for 

2009 and 2010), not for the short term when critical 

elements (such as the locations of existing EGUs with 

existing emission controls or with control retrofits to be 

completed by 2012 and of soon-to-be-completed, new EGUs 

with controls and the reduction capabilities of all these 

controls) are known. Thus, the Transport Rule accomplishes 

on a state-by-state basis what CAIR accomplished on a 

regional basis, i.e., assurance that significant 

contribution and interference with maintenance will be 

eliminated, and the requirement -- which was not met by 

CAIR -- that EPA provide such assurance is met by the 

Transport Rule. 

North Carolina’s argument that EPA is somehow barred 

from delaying the effectiveness of the assurance provisions 

in the Transport Rule FIPs because this delay “will, at 

least in some locations, lead to” increased emissions in 

some nonattainment or maintenance areas is inconsistent 

with the facts regarding emission controls installed on 

EGUs over the near term. As discussed above, without the 

assurance provisions in 2012-2013, total EGU emissions in 
Page 39 of 93

each state will still be below the state assurance level 

and therefore each state will meet the requirements of CAA 

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

contribution and interference with maintenance identified 

in the final Transport Rule. North Carolina failed to show 

otherwise. 

On the contrary, North Carolina asserted that, during 

2012-2013, the lack of assurance provisions will result in 

more emissions in “some locations” than if the assurance 

provisions were in effect and that these emissions will 

increase ambient pollutant levels in areas with 

nonattainment or maintenance problems. However, North 

Carolina failed to identify any such “locations” and any 

such nonattainment/maintenance problem areas, or to provide 

any modeling or other evidence showing that these emission 

increases and ambient effects would occur.

For the reasons explained above, EPA is revising the 

Transport Rule such that its assurance provisions are 

effective beginning in 2014.

D. Correct Typographical Errors 

EPA is finalizing as proposed to correct typographical 

errors in certain sections of rule text in parts 52 and 97 

in the final Transport Rule. EPA received no comments on 

correcting typographical errors. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review 

and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 

1993), this action is a "significant regulatory action.” 
Page 40 of 93

Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011) and 

any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have 

been documented in the docket for this action. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

This action does not impose any new information 

collection burden. This action makes relatively minor 

revisions to the emission budgets and allowance allocations 

or allowance allocations only in certain states in the 

final Transport Rule and corrects minor technical errors 

which are ministerial. However, the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the information 

collection requirements contained in the final Transport 

Rule under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 

44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB control number 

2060-0667. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 

40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally 

requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility 

analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure 

Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that 

the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on 

small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) a small 

business as defined by the Small Business Administration’s 

(SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small 
Page 41 of 93

governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, 

county, town, school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is 

independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its 

field. 

After considering the economic impacts of this action 

on small entities, I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 

small entities. The small entities directly regulated by 

this action are electric power generators whose ultimate 

parent entity has a total electric output of 4 million 

megawatt-hours (MWh) or less in the previous fiscal year. 

We have determined that the changes considered in this 

proposed rulemaking pose no additional burden for small 

entities. The proposed revision to the new unit set-asides 

in Arkansas and Texas would yield an extremely small change 

in unit-level allowance allocations to existing units, 

including small entities, such that it would not affect the 

analysis conducted on small entity impacts under the 

finalized Transport Rule. In all other states, the 

revisions proposed in this rulemaking would yield 

additional allowance allocations to all units, including 

small entities, without increasing program stringency, such 

that it is not possible for the impact to small entities to 

be any larger than that already considered and reviewed in 

the finalized Transport Rule. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may 

result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the 

private sector in any one year. This action is increasing 
Page 42 of 93

the budgets and increasing the total number of allowances 

or maintaining the same budget but revising unit-level 

allocations in several other states in the Transport Rule. 

Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of 

sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.

In developing the final Transport Rule, EPA consulted 

with small governments pursuant to a plan established under 

section 203 of UMRA to address impacts of regulatory 

requirements in the rule that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

This action does not have federalism implications. It 

will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on 

the relationship between the national government and the 

States, or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various levels of government, as 

specified in Executive Order 13132. This action makes 

relatively minor revisions to the emissions budgets and 

allowance allocations or allowance allocations only in 

certain states in the final Transport Rule. Thus, Executive 

Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. EPA did provide 

information to state and local officials during development 

of both the proposed and final Transport Rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments

This action does not have tribal implications, as 

specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 

9, 2000). This action makes relatively minor revisions to 

the emissions budgets and allowance allocations in several 

states in the final Transport Rule and helps ease the 

transition from CAIR. Indian country new unit set-asides 

will increase slightly or remain unchanged in the states 
Page 43 of 93

affected by this action. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does 

not apply to this action. EPA consulted with tribal 

officials during the process of promulgating the final 

Transport Rule to permit them to have meaningful and timely 

input into its development.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health and Safety Risks

This action is not subject to EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant 

as defined in EO 12866, and because the Agency does not 

believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed 

by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. 

Analyses by EPA that show how the emission reductions from 

the strategies in the final Transport Rule will further 

improve air quality and children’s health can be found in 

the final Transport Rule RIA.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations 

that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or 

Use

This action is not a “significant energy action” as 

defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)), because it is not likely to have a significant 

adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. EPA believes that there is no meaningful impact to 

the energy supply beyond that which is reported for the 

Transport Rule program in the final Transport Rule.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law No. 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 
Page 44 of 93

otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test 

methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that 

are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through 

OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. 

As described in section XII.I of the preamble to the 

final Transport Rule, the Transport Rule program requires 

all sources to meet the applicable monitoring requirements 

of 40 CFR part 75. Part 75 already incorporates a number of 

voluntary consensus standards. This action does not involve 

technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the 

use of any voluntary consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 

1994)) establishes federal executive policy on 

environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal 

agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted 

by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 

by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, policies, and 

activities on minority populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

In the Final Revisions Rule Significant Contribution 

Assessment Technical Support Document in the docket to this 

rulemaking, EPA assessed impacts of the emission changes in 

this rule on air quality throughout the Transport Rule 
Page 45 of 93

region. For SO2, the estimated air quality impacts were 

minimal and no additional nonattainment or maintenance 

areas were identified. EPA also assessed the relationship 

between the NOX emission inventories in each affected state 

and the finalized revisions to annual and ozone-season NOX

budgets and found the revisions represent small percentages 

of each state’s total emissions in 2014. As a result, EPA 

does not believe these technical revisions would affect any 

of the conclusions supported by the air quality and 

environmental justice analyses conducted for the final 

Transport Rule.

Based on the significant contribution assessment in 

the technical support document for this action, EPA has 

determined that this action will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or low-income populations 

because it does not affect the level of protection provided 

to human health or the environment. EPA believes that the 

vast majority of communities and individuals in areas 

covered by the Transport Rule program inclusive of this 

action, including numerous low-income, minority, and tribal 

individuals and communities in both rural areas and inner 

cities in the eastern and central U.S., will see 

significant improvements in air quality and resulting 

improvements in health. EPA’s assessment of the effects of 

the final Transport Rule program on these communities is 

available in section XII.J of the preamble to the final 

Transport Rule.
Page 46 of 93

K. Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as 

added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 

Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take 

effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule 

report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of 

the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United 

States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and 

other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. 

House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of 

the United States prior to publication of the rule in the 

Federal Register. A Major rule cannot take effect until 60 

days after it is published in the Federal Register. This 

action is a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

This rule will be effective [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

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 

indicates which Federal Courts of Appeal have venue for 

petitions of review of final actions by EPA. This section 

provides, in part, that petitions for review must be filed 

in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit if (i) the agency action consists of “nationally 

applicable regulations promulgated, or final action taken, 

by the Administrator,” or (ii) such action is locally or 

regionally applicable, if “such action is based on a 

determination of nationwide scope or effect and if in 

taking such action the Administrator finds and publishes 

that such action is based on such a determination.”
Page 47 of 93

In the final Transport Rule, EPA determined that 

“[a]ny final action related to the Transport Rule is 

‘nationally applicable’ within the meaning of section 

307(b)(1).” 76 Fed. Reg. 48,352. Through this rule, EPA 

is revising specific aspects of the final Transport Rule. 

This rule therefore is a final action related to the 

Transport Rule and as such is covered by the determination 

of national applicability made in the final Transport Rule. 

Thus, pursuant to section 307(b) any petitions for review 

of this action must be filed in the Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days from the 

date final action is published in the Federal Register. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration of this action does 

not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of 

judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a 

petition for judicial review may be filed and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. In 

addition, pursuant to CAA section 307(b)(2) this action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its 

requirements.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution 

control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Regional haze, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 

Sulfur dioxide.
Page 48 of 93

Revisions to Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce 

Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone

(page 48 of 93)

40 CFR Part 97

Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution 

control, Electric utilities, Nitrogen oxides, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide.

Dated: ____________________

______________________________________________________

Lisa P. Jackson

Administrator.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, parts 52 and 97 

of chapter I of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations 

are proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

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

follows:

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

Subpart A--General Provisions
Page 49 of 93

2. Section 52.39 is amended by revising paragraph 

(i)(1)(ii) by removing the words "Group 1" and adding, in 

their place, the words "Group 2".

Subpart O--Illinois

3. Section 52.745 is redesignated as §52.731. 

4. Section 52.746 is redesignated as §52.732. 

Subpart VV--Virginia

5. Section 52.2241 is redesignated as §52.2441.

PART 97—[AMENDED]

6. The authority citation for Part 97 continues to read as 

follows:

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

7651, et seq.

7. Section 97.406 is amended by:

a. Revising paragraph (c)(3) by removing the words 

“paragraphs (c)(1) and (2)”, adding in their place the 

words “paragraph (c)(1)”, and designating the first 

sentence as paragraph (i); 

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

c. Revising paragraph (e)(2) by removing the words “or or” 

and adding, in their place, the word “or” to read as 

follows:
Page 50 of 93

§ 97.406 Standard requirements.

* * * * * *

(c) * * *

(3) * * *

(ii) A TR NOX Annual unit shall be subject to the 

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

control period starting on the later of January 1, 2014 or 

the deadline for meeting the unit's monitor certification 

requirements under §97.430(b) and for each control period 

thereafter.

8. Section 97.410 is revised to read as follows:

§97.410 State NOX Annual trading budgets, new unit setasides, Indian country new unit set-aside, and variability 

limits.

(a) The State NOx Annual trading budgets, new unit setasides, and Indian country new unit-set asides for 

allocations of TR NOx Annual allowances for the control 

periods in 2012 and thereafter are as follows:

(1) Alabama. (i) The NOX annual trading budget for 2012 

and 2013 is 72,691 tons.

(ii) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 

2013 is 1,454 tons.

(iii) [Reserved] 
Page 51 of 93

(iv) The NOX annual trading budget for 2014 and 

thereafter is 71,962 tons.

(v) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and 

thereafter is 1,439 tons.

(vi) [Reserved]

(2) Georgia. (i) The NOX annual trading budget for 2012 

and 2013 is 62,010 tons.

(ii) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 

2013 is 1,240 tons.

(iii) [Reserved]

(iv) The NOX annual trading budget for 2014 and 

thereafter is 40,540 tons.

(v) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and 

thereafter is 811 tons.

(vi) [Reserved]

(3) Illinois. (i) The NOX annual trading budget for 

2012 and 2013 is 47,872 tons.

(ii) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 

2013 is 3,830 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX annual trading budget for 2014 and 

thereafter is 47,872 tons. 

(v) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and 

thereafter is 3,830 tons. 
Page 52 of 93

(vi) [Reserved]

(4) Indiana. (i) The NOX annual trading budget for 2012 

and 2013 is 109,726 tons.

(ii) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 

2013 is 3,292 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX annual trading budget for 2014 and 

thereafter is 108,424 tons. 

(v) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and 

thereafter is 3,253 tons. 

(vi) [Reserved]

(5) Iowa. (i) The NOX annual trading budget for 2012 

and 2013 is 38,335 tons.

(ii) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 

2013 is 729 tons. 

(iii) The NOX annual Indian country new unit set-aside 

for 2012 and 2013 is 38 tons. 

(iv) The NOX annual trading budget for 2014 and 

thereafter is 37,498 tons. 

(v) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and 

thereafter is 712 tons. 

(vi) The NOX annual Indian country new unit set-aside 

for 2014 and thereafter is 38 tons.

(6) Kansas. (i) The NOX annual trading budget for 2012 
Page 53 of 93

and 2013 is 30,714 tons.

(ii) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 

2013 is 583 tons. 

(iii) The NOX annual Indian country new unit set-aside 

for 2012 and 2013 is 31 tons. 

(iv) The NOX annual trading budget for 2014 and 

thereafter is 25,560 tons. 

(v) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and 

thereafter is 485 tons. 

(vi) The NOX annual Indian country new unit set-aside 

for 2014 and thereafter is 26 tons.

(7) Kentucky. (i) The NOX annual trading budget for 

2012 and 2013 is 85,086 tons.

(ii) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 

2013 is 3,403 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX annual trading budget for 2014 and 

thereafter is 77,238 tons. 

(v) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and 

thereafter is 3,090 tons. 

(vi) [Reserved]

(8) Maryland. (i) The NOX annual trading budget for 

2012 and 2013 is 16,633 tons.

(ii) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 
Page 54 of 93

2013 is 333 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX annual trading budget for 2014 and 

thereafter is 16,574 tons. 

(v) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and 

thereafter is 331 tons. 

(vi) [Reserved]

(9) Michigan. (i) The NOX annual trading budget for 

2012 and 2013 is 65,421 tons.

(ii) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 

2013 is 1,243 tons. 

(iii) The NOX annual Indian country new unit set-aside 

for 2012 and 2013 is 65 tons. 

(iv) The NOX annual trading budget for 2014 and 

thereafter is 63,040 tons. 

(v) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and 

thereafter is 1,198 tons. 

(vi) The NOX annual Indian country new unit set-aside 

for 2014 and thereafter is 63 tons.

(10) Minnesota. (i) The NOX annual trading budget for 

2012 and 2013 is 29,572 tons.

(ii) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 

2013 is 561 tons. 

(iii) The NOX annual Indian country new unit set-aside 
Page 55 of 93

for 2012 and 2013 is 30 tons. 

(iv) The NOX annual trading budget for 2014 and 

thereafter is 29,572 tons. 

(v) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and 

thereafter is 561 tons. 

(vi) The NOX annual Indian country new unit set-aside 

for 2014 and thereafter is 30 tons.

(11) Missouri. (i) The NOX annual trading budget for 

2012 and 2013 is 52,374 tons.

(ii) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 

2013 is 1,571 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX annual trading budget for 2014 and

thereafter is 48,717 tons. 

(v) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and 

thereafter is 1,462 tons. 

(vi) [Reserved]

(12) Nebraska. (i) The NOX annual trading budget for 

2012 and 2013 is 30,039 tons.

(ii) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 

2013 is 1,772 tons. 

(iii) The NOX annual Indian country new unit set-aside 

for 2012 and 2013 is 30 tons. 

(iv) The NOX annual trading budget for 2014 and 
Page 56 of 93

thereafter is 30,039 tons. 

(v) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and 

thereafter is 1,772 tons. 

(vi) The NOX annual Indian country new unit set-aside 

for 2014 and thereafter is 30 tons.

(13) New Jersey. (i) The NOX annual trading budget for 

2012 and 2013 is 8,218 tons.

(ii) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 

2013 is 164 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX annual trading budget for 2014 and 

thereafter is 7,945 tons. 

(v) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and 

thereafter is 159 tons. 

(vi) [Reserved]

(14) New York. (i) The NOX annual trading budget for 

2012 and 2013 is 21,028 tons.

(ii) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 

2013 is 400 tons. 

(iii) The NOX annual Indian country new unit set-aside 

for 2012 and 2013 is 21 tons. 

(iv) The NOX annual trading budget for 2014 and 

thereafter is 21,028 tons. 

(v) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and 
Page 57 of 93

thereafter is 400 tons. 

(vi) The NOX annual Indian country new unit set-aside 

for 2014 and thereafter is 21 tons.

(15) North Carolina. (i) The NOX annual trading budget 

for 2012 and 2013 is 50,587 tons.

(ii) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 

2013 is 2,984 tons. 

(iii) The NOX annual Indian country new unit set-aside 

for 2012 and 2013 is 51 tons. 

(iv) The NOX annual trading budget for 2014 and 

thereafter is 41,553 tons. 

(v) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and 

thereafter is 2,451 tons. 

(vi) The NOX annual Indian country new unit set-aside 

for 2014 and thereafter is 42 tons.

(16) Ohio. (i) The NOX annual trading budget for 2012 

and 2013 is 92,703 tons.

(ii) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 

2013 is 1,854 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX annual trading budget for 2014 and 

thereafter is 87,493 tons. 

(v) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and 

thereafter is 1,750 tons. 
Page 58 of 93

(vi) [Reserved]

(17) Pennsylvania. (i) The NOX annual trading budget 

for 2012 and 2013 is 119,986 tons.

(ii) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 

2013 is 2,400 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX annual trading budget for 2014 and 

thereafter is 119,194 tons. 

(v) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and 

thereafter is 2,384 tons. 

(vi) [Reserved]

(18) South Carolina. (i) The NOX annual trading budget 

for 2012 and 2013 is 32,498 tons.

(ii) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 

2013 is 617 tons. 

(iii) The NOX annual Indian country new unit set-aside 

for 2012 and 2013 is 33 tons. 

(iv) The NOX annual trading budget for 2014 and 

thereafter is 32,498 tons. 

(v) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and 

thereafter is 617 tons. 

(vi) The NOX annual Indian country new unit set-aside 

for 2014 and thereafter is 33 tons.

(19) Tennessee. (i) The NOX annual trading budget for 
Page 59 of 93

2012 and 2013 is 35,703 tons.

(ii) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 

2013 is 714 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX annual trading budget for 2014 and 

thereafter is 19,337 tons. 

(v) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and 

thereafter is 387 tons. 

(vi) [Reserved]

(20) Texas. (i) The NOX annual trading budget for 2012 

and 2013 is 134,970 tons.

(ii) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 

2013 is 5,264 tons. 

(iii) The NOX annual Indian country new unit set-aside 

for 2012 and 2013 is 135 tons. 

(iv) The NOX annual trading budget for 2014 and 

thereafter is 134,970 tons. 

(v) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and 

thereafter is 5,264 tons. 

(vi) The NOX annual Indian country new unit set-aside 

for 2014 and thereafter is 135 tons.

(21) Virginia. (i) The NOX annual trading budget for 

2012 and 2013 is 33,242 tons.

(ii) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 
Page 60 of 93

2013 is 1,662 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX annual trading budget for 2014 and 

thereafter is 33,242 tons. 

(v) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and 

thereafter is 1,662 tons. 

(vi) [Reserved]

(22) West Virginia. (i) The NOX annual trading budget 

for 2012 and 2013 is 59,472 tons.

(ii) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 

2013 is 2,974 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX annual trading budget for 2014 and 

thereafter is 54,582 tons. 

(v) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and 

thereafter is 2,729 tons. 

(vi) [Reserved]

(23) Wisconsin. (i) The NOX annual trading budget for 

2012 and 2013 is 34,101 tons.

(ii) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 

2013 is 2,012 tons. 

(iii) The NOX annual Indian country new unit set-aside 

for 2012 and 2013 is 34 tons. 

(iv) The NOX annual trading budget for 2014 and 
Page 61 of 93

thereafter is 32,871 tons. 

(v) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and 

thereafter is 1,939 tons. 

(vi) The NOX annual Indian country new unit set-aside 

for 2014 and thereafter is 33 tons.

(b) The States’ variability limits for the State NOx

Annual trading budgets for the control periods in 2014 and 

thereafter are as follows:

(1) The NOX annual variability limit for Alabama is 

12,953 tons.

(2) The NOX annual variability limit for Georgia is 

7,297 tons.

(3) The NOX annual variability limit for Illinois is 

8,617 tons.

(4) The NOX annual variability limit for Indiana is 

19,516 tons.

(5) The NOX annual variability limit for Iowa is 6,750 

tons.

(6) The NOX annual variability limit for Kansas is 

4,601 tons.

(7) The NOX annual variability limit for Kentucky is 

13,903 tons.

(8) The NOX annual variability limit for Maryland is 

2,983 tons.
Page 62 of 93

(9) The NOX annual variability limit for Michigan is 

11,347 tons.

(10) The NOX annual variability limit for Minnesota is 

5,323 tons.

(11) The NOX annual variability limit for Missouri is 

8,769 tons.

(12) The NOX annual variability limit for Nebraska is 

5,407 tons.

(13) The NOX annual variability limit for New Jersey is 

1,430 tons.

(14) The NOX annual variability limit for New York is 

3,785 tons.

(15) The NOX annual variability limit for North 

Carolina is 7,480 tons.

(16) The NOX annual variability limit for Ohio is 

15,749 tons.

(17) The NOX annual variability limit for Pennsylvania 

is 21,455 tons.

(18) The NOX annual variability limit for South 

Carolina is 5,850 tons.

(19) The NOX annual variability limit for Tennessee is 

3,481 tons.

(20) The NOX annual variability limit for Texas is 

24,295 tons.
Page 63 of 93

(21) The NOX annual variability limit for Virginia is 

5,984 tons.

(22) The NOX annual variability limit for West Virginia 

is 9,825 tons.

(23) The NOX annual variability limit for Wisconsin is 

5,917 tons.

(c) Each NOX annual trading budget identified in this 

section includes any tons in a new unit set aside or Indian 

country new unit set aside, but does not include any tons 

in a variability limit.

9. Section 97.425 is amended by, in paragraph (b)(1), 

removing the word “2013” and adding, in its place, the word 

“2015”. 

10. Section 97.506 is amended by:

a. Revising paragraph (c)(3) by removing the words 

“paragraphs (c)(1) and (2)”, adding in their place the 

words “paragraph (c)(1)”, and designating the first 

sentence as paragraph (i); and

b. Adding a new paragraph (c)(3)(ii) to read as follows:

§ 97.506 Standard requirements.

* * * * * *

(c) * * *

(3) * * *
Page 64 of 93

(ii) A TR NOX Ozone Season unit shall be subject to the 

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

control period starting on the later of May 1, 2014 or the 

deadline for meeting the unit's monitor certification 

requirements under §97.530(b) and for each control period 

thereafter.

11. Section 97.510 is revised to read as follows:

§97.510 State NOX Ozone Season trading budgets, new unit 

set-asides, Indian country new unit set-aside, and 

variability limits.

(a) The State NOx ozone season trading budgets, new 

unit set-asides, and Indian country new unit-set asides for 

allocations of TR NOx Ozone Season allowances for the 

control periods in 2012 and thereafter are as follows:

(1) Alabama. (i) The NOX ozone season trading budget 

for 2012 and 2013 is 31,746 tons.

(ii) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 

and 2013 is 635 tons.

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and 

thereafter is 31,499 tons.

(v) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 

and thereafter is 630 tons.
Page 65 of 93

(vi) [Reserved]

(2) Arkansas. (i) The NOX ozone season trading budget 

for 2012 and 2013 is 15,037 tons.

(ii) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 

and 2013 is 752 tons.

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and 

thereafter is 15,037 tons.

(v) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 

and thereafter is 752 tons.

(vi) [Reserved]

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

for 2012 and 2013 is 28,644 tons.

(ii) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 

and 2013 is 544 tons.

(iii) The NOX ozone season Indian country new unit setaside for 2012 and 2013 is 29 tons. 

(iv) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and 

thereafter is 27,825 tons.

(v) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 

and thereafter is 529 tons.

(vi) The NOX ozone season Indian country new unit setaside for 2014 and thereafter is 28 tons.

(4) Georgia. (i) The NOX ozone season trading budget 
Page 66 of 93

for 2012 and 2013 is 27,944 tons.

(ii) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 

and 2013 is 559 tons.

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and 

thereafter is 18,279 tons.

(v) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 

and thereafter is 366 tons.

(vi) [Reserved]

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

for 2012 and 2013 is 21,208 tons.

(ii) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 

and 2013 is 1,697 tons.

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and 

thereafter is 21,208 tons.

(v) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 

and thereafter is 1,697 tons.

(vi) [Reserved]

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

for 2012 and 2013 is 46,876 tons.

(ii) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 

and 2013 is 1,406 tons.

(iii) [Reserved] 
Page 67 of 93

(iv) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and 

thereafter is 46,175 tons.

(v) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 

and thereafter is 1,385 tons.

(vi) [Reserved]

(7) Iowa. (i) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 

2012 and 2013 is 16,532 tons.

(ii) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 

and 2013 is 314 tons.

(iii) The NOX ozone season Indian country new unit setaside for 2012 and 2013 is 17 tons. 

(iv) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and 

thereafter is 16,207 tons.

(v) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 

and thereafter is 308 tons.

(vi) The NOX ozone season Indian country new unit setaside for 2014 and thereafter is 16 tons.

(8) Kentucky. (i) The NOX ozone season trading budget 

for 2012 and 2013 is 36,167 tons.

(ii) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 

and 2013 is 1,447 tons.

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and 

thereafter is 32,674 tons.
Page 68 of 93

(v) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 

and thereafter is 1,307 tons.

(vi) [Reserved]

(9) Louisiana. (i) The NOX ozone season trading budget 

for 2012 and 2013 is 18,026 tons.

(ii) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 

and 2013 is 523 tons.

(iii) The NOX ozone season Indian country new unit setaside for 2012 and 2013 is 18 tons. 

(iv) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and 

thereafter is 18,026 tons.

(v) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 

and thereafter is 523 tons.

(vi) The NOX ozone season Indian country new unit setaside for 2014 and thereafter is 18 tons.

(10) Maryland. (i) The NOX ozone season trading budget 

for 2012 and 2013 is 7,179 tons.

(ii) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 

and 2013 is 144 tons.

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and 

thereafter is 7,179 tons.

(v) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 

and thereafter is 144 tons.
Page 69 of 93

(vi) [Reserved]

(11) Michigan. (i) The NOX ozone season trading budget 

for 2012 and 2013 is 28,041 tons.

(ii) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 

and 2013 is 533 tons.

(iii) The NOX ozone season Indian country new unit setaside for 2012 and 2013 is 28 tons. 

(iv) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and 

thereafter is 27,016 tons.

(v) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 

and thereafter is 513 tons.

(vi) The NOX ozone season Indian country new unit setaside for 2014 and thereafter is 27 tons.

(12) Mississippi. (i) The NOX ozone season trading 

budget for 2012 and 2013 is 12,314 tons.

(ii) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 

and 2013 is 234 tons.

(iii) The NOX ozone season Indian country new unit setaside for 2012 and 2013 is 12 tons. 

(iv) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and 

thereafter is 12,314 tons.

(v) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 

and thereafter is 234 tons.

(vi) The NOX ozone season Indian country new unit set-
Page 70 of 93

aside for 2014 and thereafter is 12 tons.

(13) Missouri. (i) The NOX ozone season trading budget 

for 2012 and 2013 is 22,762 tons.

(ii) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 

and 2013 is 683 tons.

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and 

thereafter is 21,073 tons.

(v) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 

and thereafter is 632 tons.

(vi) [Reserved] 

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

budget for 2012 and 2013 is 4,128 tons.

(ii) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 

and 2013 is 83 tons.

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and 

thereafter is 3,731 tons.

(v) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 

and thereafter is 75 tons.

(vi) [Reserved]

(15) New York. (i) The NOX ozone season trading budget 

for 2012 and 2013 is 10,242 tons.

(ii) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 
Page 71 of 93

and 2013 is 195 tons.

(iii) The NOX ozone season Indian country new unit setaside for 2012 and 2013 is 10 tons. 

(iv) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and 

thereafter is 10,242 tons.

(v) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 

and thereafter is 195 tons.

(vi) The NOX ozone season Indian country new unit setaside for 2014 and thereafter is 10 tons.

(16) North Carolina. (i) The NOX ozone season trading 

budget for 2012 and 2013 is 22,168 tons.

(ii) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 

and 2013 is 1,308 tons.

(iii) The NOX ozone season Indian country new unit setaside for 2012 and 2013 is 22 tons. 

(iv) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and 

thereafter is 18,455 tons.

(v) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 

and thereafter is 1,089 tons.

(vi) The NOX ozone season Indian country new unit setaside for 2014 and thereafter is 18 tons.

(17) Ohio. (i) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 

2012 and 2013 is 40,063 tons.

(ii) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 
Page 72 of 93

and 2013 is 801 tons.

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and 

thereafter is 37,792 tons.

(v) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 

and thereafter is 756 tons.

(vi) [Reserved]

(18) Oklahoma. (i) The NOX ozone season trading budget 

for 2012 is 36,567 and for 2013 is 21,835 tons.

(ii) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 

is 731 and for 2013 is 437 tons.

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and 

thereafter is 21,835 tons.

(v) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 

and thereafter is 437 tons.

(vi) [Reserved] 

(19) Pennsylvania. (i) The NOX ozone season trading 

budget for 2012 and 2013 is 52,201 tons.

(ii) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 

and 2013 is 1,044 tons.

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and 

thereafter is 51,912 tons.
Page 73 of 93

(v) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 

and thereafter is 1,038 tons.

(vi) [Reserved]

(20) South Carolina. (i) The NOX ozone season trading 

budget for 2012 and 2013 is 13,909 tons.

(ii) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 

and 2013 is 264 tons.

(iii) The NOX ozone season Indian country new unit 

set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 14 tons. 

(iv) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and 

thereafter is 13,909 tons.

(v) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 

and thereafter is 264 tons.

(vi) The NOX ozone season Indian country new unit setaside for 2014 and thereafter is 14 tons.

(21) Tennessee. (i) The NOX ozone season trading budget 

for 2012 and 2013 is 14,908 tons.

(ii) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 

and 2013 is 298 tons.

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and 

thereafter is 8,016 tons.

(v) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 

and thereafter is 160 tons.
Page 74 of 93

(vi) [Reserved]

(22) Texas. (i) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 

2012 and 2013 is 64,418 tons.

(ii) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 

and 2013 is 2,513 tons.

(iii) The NOX ozone season Indian country new unit setaside for 2012 and 2013 is 64 tons. 

(iv) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and 

thereafter is 64,418 tons.

(v) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 

and thereafter is 2,513 tons.

(vi) The NOX ozone season Indian country new unit setaside for 2014 and thereafter is 64 tons.

(23) Virginia. (i) The NOX ozone season trading budget 

for 2012 and 2013 is 14,452 tons.

(ii) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 

and 2013 is 723 tons.

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and 

thereafter is 14,452 tons.

(v) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 

and thereafter is 723 tons.

(vi) [Reserved]

(24) West Virginia. (i) The NOX ozone season trading 
Page 75 of 93

budget for 2012 and 2013 is 25,283 tons.

(ii) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 

and 2013 is 1,264 tons.

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and 

thereafter is 23,291 tons.

(v) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 

and thereafter is 1,165 tons.

(vi) [Reserved]

(25) Wisconsin. (i) The NOX ozone season trading budget 

for 2012 and 2013 is 14,784 tons.

(ii) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 

and 2013 is 872 tons.

(iii) The NOX ozone season Indian country new unit setaside for 2012 and 2013 is 15 tons. 

(iv) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and 

thereafter is 14,296 tons.

(v) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 

and thereafter is 844 tons.

(vi) The NOX ozone season Indian country new unit setaside for 2014 and thereafter is 14 tons.

(b) The States’ variability limits for the State NOx

ozone season trading budgets for the control periods in 

2014 and thereafter are as follows:
Page 76 of 93

(1) The NOx ozone season variability limit for Alabama 

is 6,615 tons.

(2) The NOx ozone season variability limit for Arkansas 

is 3,158 tons.

(3) The NOx ozone season variability limit for Florida 

is 5,843 tons.

(4) The NOx ozone season variability limit for Georgia 

is 3,839 tons.

(5) The NOx ozone season variability limit for Illinois 

is 4,454 tons.

(6) The NOx ozone season variability limit for Indiana 

is 9,697 tons.

(7) The NOx ozone season variability limit for Iowa is 

3,403 tons.

(8) The NOx ozone season variability limit for Kentucky 

is 6,862 tons.

(9) The NOx ozone season variability limit for 

Louisiana is 3,785 tons.

(10) The NOx ozone season variability limit for 

Maryland is 1,508 tons.

(11) The NOx ozone season variability limit for 

Michigan is 5,673 tons.

(12) The NOx ozone season variability limit for 

Mississippi is 2,586 tons.
Page 77 of 93

(13) The NOx ozone season variability limit for 

Missouri is 4,425 tons.

(14) The NOx ozone season variability limit for New 

Jersey is 784 tons.

(15) The NOx ozone season variability limit for New 

York is 2,151 tons.

(16) The NOx ozone season variability limit for North 

Carolina is 3,876 tons.

(17) The NOx ozone season variability limit for Ohio is 

7,936 tons.

(18) The NOx ozone season variability limit for 

Oklahoma is 4,585 tons.

(19) The NOx ozone season variability limit for 

Pennsylvania is 10,902 tons.

(20) The NOx ozone season variability limit for South 

Carolina is 2,921 tons.

(21) The NOx ozone season variability limit for 

Tennessee is 1,683 tons.

(22) The NOx ozone season variability limit for Texas 

is 13,528 tons.

(23) The NOx ozone season variability limit for 

Virginia is 3,035 tons.

(24) The NOx ozone season variability limit for West 

Virginia is 4,891 tons.
Page 78 of 93

(25) The NOx ozone season variability limit for 

Wisconsin is 3,002 tons.

(c) Each NOX ozone season trading budget in this 

section includes any tons in a new unit set aside or Indian 

country new unit set aside, but does not include any tons 

in a variability limit.

12. Section 97.525 is amended by, in paragraph (b)(1), 

removing the word “2013” and adding, in its place, the word 

“2015”. 

13. Section 97.606 is amended by:

a. Revising paragraph (c)(3) by removing the words 

“paragraphs (c)(1) and (2)”, adding in their place the 

words “paragraph (c)(1)”, and designating the first 

sentence as paragraph (i); 

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

c. Revising paragraph (e)(2) by removing the words “or or” 

and adding, in their place, the word “or” to read as 

follows:

§ 97.606 Standard requirements.

* * * * * *

(c) * * *

(3) * * *
Page 79 of 93

(ii) A TR SO2 Group 1 unit shall be subject to the 

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

control period starting on the later of January 1, 2014 or 

the deadline for meeting the unit's monitor certification 

requirements under §97.630(b) and for each control period 

thereafter.

14. Section 97.610 is revised to read as follows: 

§97.610 State SO2 Group 1 trading budgets, new unit setasides, Indian country new unit set-aside, and variability 

limits.

(a) The State SO2 trading budgets, new unit set-asides, 

and Indian country new unit-set asides for allocations of 

TR SO2 Group 1 allowances for the control periods in 2012 

and thereafter are as follows:

(1) Illinois. (i) The SO2 trading budget for 2012 and 

2013 is 234,889 tons.

(ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 

11,744 tons.

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 

124,123 tons.

(v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter 

is 6,206 tons.
Page 80 of 93

(vi) [Reserved]

(2) Indiana. (i) The SO2 trading budget for 2012 and 

2013 is 285,424 tons.

(ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 

8,563 tons.

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 

161,111 tons.

(v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter 

is 4,833 tons.

(vi) [Reserved]

(3) Iowa. (i) The SO2 trading budget for 2012 and 2013 

is 107,085 tons.

(ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 

2,035 tons.

(iii) The SO2 Indian country new unit set-aside for 

2012 and 2013 is 107 tons. 

(iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 

75,184 tons.

(v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter 

is 1,429 tons.

(vi) The SO2 Indian country new unit set-aside for 2014 

and thereafter is 75 tons.

(4) Kentucky. (i) The SO2 trading budget for 2012 and 
Page 81 of 93

2013 is 232,662 tons.

(ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 

13,960 tons.

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 

106,284 tons.

(v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter 

is 6,377 tons.

(vi) [Reserved]

(5) Maryland. (i) The SO2 trading budget for 2012 and 

2013 is 30,120 tons.

(ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 

602 tons.

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 

28,203 tons.

(v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter 

is 564 tons.

(vi) [Reserved]

(6) Michigan. (i) The SO2 trading budget for 2012 and 

2013 is 229,303 tons.

(ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 

4,357 tons.

(iii) The SO2 Indian country new unit set-aside for 
Page 82 of 93

2012 and 2013 is 229 tons.

(iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 

143,995 tons.

(v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter 

is 2,736 tons.

(vi) The SO2 Indian country new unit set-aside for 2014 

and thereafter is 144 tons.

(7) Missouri. (i) The SO2 trading budget for 2012 and 

2013 is 207,466 tons.

(ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 

4,149 tons.

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 

165,941 tons.

(v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter 

is 3,319 tons.

(vi) [Reserved]

(8) New Jersey. (i) The SO2 trading budget for 2012 and 

2013 is 7,670 tons.

(ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 

153 tons.

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 

5,574 tons.
Page 83 of 93

(v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter 

is 111 tons.

(vi) [Reserved]

(9) New York. (i) The SO2 trading budget for 2012 and 

2013 is 30,852 tons.

(ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 

586 tons.

(iii) The SO2 Indian country new unit set-aside for 

2012 and 2013 is 31 tons.

(iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 

22,112 tons.

(v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter 

is 420 tons.

(vi) The SO2 Indian country new unit set-aside for 2014 

and thereafter is 22 tons.

(10) North Carolina. (i) The SO2 trading budget for 

2012 and 2013 is 136,881 tons.

(ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 

10,813 tons.

(iii) The SO2 Indian country new unit set-aside for 

2012 and 2013 is 137 tons. 

(iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 

57,620 tons.

(v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter 
Page 84 of 93

is 4,552 tons.

(vi) The SO2 Indian country new unit set-aside for 2014 

and thereafter is 58 tons.

(11) Ohio. (i) The SO2 trading budget for 2012 and 2013 

is 310,230 tons.

(ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 

6,205 tons.

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 

137,077 tons.

(v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter 

is 2,742 tons.

(vi) [Reserved]

(12) Pennsylvania. (i) The SO2 trading budget for 2012 

and 2013 is 278,651 tons.

(ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 

5,573 tons.

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 

112,021 tons.

(v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter 

is 2,240 tons.

(vi) [Reserved]

(13) Tennessee. (i) The SO2 trading budget for 2012 and 
Page 85 of 93

2013 is 148,150 tons.

(ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 

2,963 tons.

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 

58,833 tons.

(v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter 

is 1,177 tons.

(vi) [Reserved]

(14) Virginia. (i) The SO2 trading budget for 2012 and 

2013 is 70,820 tons.

(ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 

2,833 tons.

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 

35,057 tons.

(v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter 

is 1,402 tons.

(vi) [Reserved]

(15) West Virginia. (i) The SO2 trading budget for 2012 

and 2013 is 146,174 tons.

(ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 

10,232 tons.

(iii) [Reserved] 
Page 86 of 93

(iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 

75,668 tons.

(v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter 

is 5,297 tons.

(vi) [Reserved]

(16) Wisconsin. (i) The SO2 trading budget for 2012 and 

2013 is 79,480 tons.

(ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 

3,099 tons.

(iii) The SO2 Indian country new unit set-aside for 

2012 and 2013 is 80 tons.

(iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 

47,883 tons.

(v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter 

is 1,867 tons.

(vi) The SO2 Indian country new unit set-aside for 2014 

and thereafter is 48 tons.

(b) The States’ variability limits for the State SO2

Group 1 trading budgets for the control periods in 2014 and 

thereafter are as follows:

(1) The SO2 variability limit for Illinois is 22,342 

tons.

(2) The SO2 variability limit for Indiana is 29,000 

tons.
Page 87 of 93

(3) The SO2 variability limit for Iowa is 13,533 tons.

(4) The SO2 variability limit for Kentucky is 19,131 

tons.

(5) The SO2 variability limit for Maryland is 5,077 

tons.

(6) The SO2 variability limit for Michigan is 25,919 

tons.

(7) The SO2 variability limit for Missouri is 29,869 

tons.

(8) The SO2 variability limit for New Jersey is 1,003 

tons.

(9) The SO2 variability limit for New York is 3,980 

tons.

(10) The SO2 variability limit for North Carolina is 

10,372 tons.

(11) The SO2 variability limit for Ohio is 24,674 tons.

(12) The SO2 variability limit for Pennsylvania is 

20,164 tons.

(13) The SO2 variability limit for Tennessee is 10,590 

tons.

(14) The SO2 variability limit for Virginia is 6,310 

tons.

(15) The SO2 variability limit for West Virginia is 

13,620 tons.
Page 88 of 93

(16) The SO2 variability limit for Wisconsin is 8,619 

tons.

(c) Each SO2 trading budget in this section includes 

any tons in a new unit set aside or Indian country new unit 

set aside, but does not include any tons in a variability 

limit.

15. Section 97.625 is amended by, in paragraph (b)(1), 

removing the word “2013” and adding, in its place, the word 

“2015”. 

16. Section 97.706 is amended by:

a. Revising paragraph (c)(3) by removing the words 

“paragraphs (c)(1) and (2)”, adding in their place the 

words “paragraph (c)(1)”, and designating the first 

sentence as paragraph (i); 

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

c. Revising paragraph (e)(2) by removing the words “or or” 

and adding, in their place, the word “or” to read as 

follows:

§ 97.706 Standard requirements.

* * * * * *

(c) * * *

(3) * * *
Page 89 of 93

(ii) A TR SO2 Group 2 unit shall be subject to the 

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

control period starting on the later of January 1, 2014 or 

the deadline for meeting the unit's monitor certification 

requirements under §97.730(b) and for each control period 

thereafter.

17. Section 97.710 is revised to read as follows: 

§97.710 State SO2 Group 2 trading budgets, new unit setasides, Indian country new unit set-aside, and variability 

limits.

(a) The State SO2 trading budgets, new unit set-asides, 

and Indian country new unit-set asides for allocations of 

TR SO2 Group 2 allowances for the control periods in 2012 

and thereafter are as follows:

(1) Alabama. (i) The SO2 trading budget for 2012 and 

2013 is 216,033 tons.

(ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 

4,321 tons.

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 

213,258 tons.

(v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter 
Page 90 of 93

is 4,265 tons.

(vi) [Reserved]

(2) Georgia. (i) The SO2 trading budget for 2012 and 

2013 is 158,527 tons.

(ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 

3,171 tons.

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 

95,231 tons.

(v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter 

is 1,905 tons.

(vi) [Reserved] 

(3) Kansas. (i) The SO2 trading budget for 2012 and 

2013 is 41,528 tons.

(ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 

789 tons.

(iii) The SO2 Indian country new unit set-aside for 

2012 and 2013 is 42 tons. 

(iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 

41,528 tons.

(v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter 

is 789 tons.

(vi) The SO2 Indian country new unit set-aside for 2014 

and thereafter is 42 tons.
Page 91 of 93

(4) Minnesota. (i) The SO2 trading budget for 2012 and 

2013 is 41,981 tons.

(ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 

798 tons.

(iii) The SO2 Indian country new unit set-aside for 

2012 and 2013 is 42 tons. 

(iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 

41,981 tons.

(v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter 

is 798 tons.

(vi) The SO2 Indian country new unit set-aside for 2014 

and thereafter is 42 tons.

(5) Nebraska. (i) The SO2 trading budget for 2012 and 

2013 is 65,052 tons.

(ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 

2,537 tons.

(iii) The SO2 Indian country new unit set-aside for 

2012 and 2013 is 65 tons. 

(iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 

65,052 tons.

(v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter 

is 2,537 tons.

(vi) The SO2 Indian country new unit set-aside for 2014 

and thereafter is 65 tons.
Page 92 of 93

(6) South Carolina. (i) The SO2 trading budget for 2012 

and 2013 is 88,620 tons.

(ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 

1,683 tons.

(iii) The SO2 Indian country new unit set-aside for 

2012 and 2013 is 89 tons. 

(iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 

88,620 tons.

(v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter 

is 1,683 tons.

(vi) The SO2 Indian country new unit set-aside for 2014 

and thereafter is 89 tons.

(7) Texas. (i) The SO2 trading budget for 2012 and 2013 

is 294,471 tons.

(ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 

14,430 tons.

(iii) The SO2 Indian country new unit set-aside for 

2012 and 2013 is 294 tons. 

(iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is 

294,471 tons.

(v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter 

is 14,430 tons.

(vi) The SO2 Indian country new unit set-aside for 2014 

and thereafter is 294 tons.
Page 93 of 93

(b) The States’ variability limits for the State SO2

Group 2 trading budgets for the control periods in 2014 and 

thereafter are as follows:

(1) The SO2 variability limit for Alabama is 38,386 

tons.

(2) The SO2 variability limit for Georgia is 17,142 

tons.

(3) The SO2 variability limit for Kansas is 7,475 tons.

(4) The SO2 variability limit for Minnesota is 7,557 

tons.

(5) The SO2 variability limit for Nebraska is 11,709 

tons.

(6) The SO2 variability limit for South Carolina is 

15,952 tons.

(7) The SO2 variability limit for Texas is 53,005 tons.

(c) Each SO2 Group 2 trading budget in this section 

includes any tons identified under a new unit set aside or 

Indian country new unit set aside, but excludes any tons in 

a variability limit.

18. Section 97.725 is amended by, in paragraph (b)(1), 

removing the word “2013” and adding, in its place, the word 

“2015”.