            Technical Support Document (TSD) for the Transport Rule
                      Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491

                      Allowance Allocation Final Rule TSD

                      U.S Environmental Protection Agency
                          Office of Air and Radiation
                                   June 2011

Allowance Allocation to Existing and New Units under the Transport Rule Federal Implementation Plan (FIP)

	This Technical Support Document (TSD) provides information that supports EPA's determination of unit-level allocations for existing and new units under the final Transport Rule.  Section VI.D of the preamble discusses state budgets, and section VII.D discusses how the budgets are apportioned (i.e., allocated) to existing and new units under FIP program structure.   This TSD provides additional information in support of unit level allocations and elaborates on the data and methodology used to arrive at the final allocations.  The TSD is organized as follows:
   1) Overview
   2) New Unit Set-Asides and Allocations
   3) Allocation Methodology for Existing Units
         a. List of Existing Units
         b. Data and Calculations

EPA anticipates that some states will submit State Implementation Plans (SIPs) with revised unit-level allocations to existing units that will replace those defined in the FIP.  Section X of the final Transport Rule preamble explains when and how states may replace the FIP allocations, which can occur by vintage year 2013 or later through specific SIP procedures.

1. Overview
   As discussed in preamble section VI, each state's budget is comprised of the emissions that EPA estimates remain after the state has made the reductions required to eliminate its significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance of the relevant National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in downwind states in an average year.  EPA finalized the Transport Rule with four limited interstate trading programs.  Emission allowances are used in the implementation of these programs.  Specifically, EPA creates one allowance for each ton of emissions allowed in each year under each state's budget.  Each allowance has a "vintage" year, which is the year for which the allowance is issued.  Covered sources are required to submit such an allowance for each ton of the relevant pollutant emitted on an annual basis.  To implement the programs, allowances are initially allocated among covered sources within a state.
   As discussed in the preamble, under the FIP, EPA allocates allowances to sources in the state equal to that state's total budget.  The methodology used to determine states budgets is independent of and not affected by the methodology used to determine initial allowance allocations. In other words, initial allowance allocations in no way impact the state budgets.   The state budgets are determined independently through the multi-factor analysis outlined in section VI of the Transport Rule preamble.   Regardless of the methodology used by EPA or a state to allocate allowances to sources within the state, all emissions in each covered state that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in another state will be prohibited.  In sum, the allocation methodology has no impact on the rule's ability to satisfy the statutory mandate of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to eliminate significant contribution and interference with maintenance in downwind states.
	As discussed in section VII.D of the preamble, under the FIPs, EPA will distribute the entire budget to sources located in the state subject to the FIP.  However, this budget would first be divided into three different subgroups listed below (note, amounts vary by state):
   1) New source set-aside
   2) Indian Country set-aside
   3) Existing unit budget
   An initial amount of the state budget (92% to 98%, depending on the state) would be distributed to existing sources (i.e. sources online before January 1, 2010) in advance of the vintage year for which they are issued.  The remaining amount would be held back for new units in a new source set-aside account.  If any of the new source set-aside allowances remained unclaimed two weeks prior to the allowance transfer deadline, then they would be allocated to existing units on the same pro-rata heat input basis as the initial existing unit budget so they will be available to existing units for compliance.
   The final Transport Rule identifies potentially covered existing Transport Rule units and allocations for each of those units under the FIP.  This TSD details how the list of potentially existing units was determined, how allocations were calculated, and how the quantity of allowance set-asides for new units and Indian Country units were determined.  Following these descriptions, an appendix showing each affected EGU's allocation under the final Transport Rule FIP along with the underlying data and calculations used to derive the allocation comprises most of the document.
2)	 New Unit Set Asides and Allocations
	As explained in section VII.D, the final Transport Rule uses January 1, 2010 as the cut-off date used to distinguish "new units" from "existing units" for purposes of allowance allocation.  Allocations to existing units are based on historic heat input over a five-year baseline as well as historic emissions data.  To allocate on this basis, EPA needs at least one full year of heat input and emissions data from an "existing unit" to determine its allocation using this methodology.  If a unit did not come online prior to January 1, 2010, it cannot have provided a full year of data at the time of the Transport Rule's finalization.   For this reason, EPA could not use a date later than Jan. 1, 2010 for the cut-off date. Units that came online after January 1, 2010 are considered "new units" for purposes of allocation under the final Transport Rule FIPs and will receive their allocations from the new source set aside.  In the proposal, only units that came online after January 1, 2012 were considered "new units".  Therefore, units coming online on or after January 1, 2010 and before January 1, 2012 represent a unique subset of units that were considered "existing units" at proposal, but "new units" in the final Transport Rule.  EPA recognizes that the final rule's designation of these units as "new units" would, all else held equal, increase the demand for allowances in the new unit set-asides.  As a result, EPA's methodology for establishing each state's new unit set aside in the final Transport Rule accounts specifically for the inclusion of units that commenced commercial operation on or after January 1, 2010 as described below.
      The new unit set-aside for SO2, annual NOX, and ozone season NOX for each state is a percentage of the state's total budget.  This percentage is the sum of a "base" percentage that all states receive for "potential" new units and a state-specific percentage reflecting emissions from "planned" units.  For purposes of this document, the "potential" units on which the new source set-aside base percentage relies are those units that are projected new builds in the IPM modeling of the Transport Rule.  In other words, they are units that do not show up in the modeling input, but do show up in the modeling output.  "Planned" units, on which the state-specific percentage of the new source set-aside is based, are those units that are already identified in the modeling input (NEEDS) because they are specific plants that already built or are under construction, but that commence commercial operation on or after January 1, 2010.  Because the location of these "planned" units is already known and identified in the modeling input, the portion of the new unit set-aside corresponding to these units is state-specific.
      EPA determined the base percentage of the new unit set-aside by assessing the share of each state's budget that is emitted in 2020 by new capacity build projected by the model (i.e., "potential units").  EPA identified each state's projected net new emissions in 2020 as a percent of the state's total budget.  It then selected the maximum percentage among all states for all pollutants at the state level as the "base" percentage for each state's new unit set aside.  By selecting the maximum percentage, EPA chose a conservative envelope that would provide a pool of new source set-aside allowances large enough to cover emissions from "potential" new units in any state.  EPA chose this basis in order to preserve a reasonable amount of allowances for new unit allocations in every state, as new units may not be sited in the same locations that EPA's modeling assumes for analytical purposes.  The maximum percentages of the total emissions represented by the projected net new emissions projected in 2020 at the state level are:
      SO2: 			0.00 %
      Annual NOX: 		1.80%
      Ozone season NOX: 	1.76%
      In the final Transport Rule, EPA relied on this analysis to establish a "base" percentage for each pollutant as 2 percent of each state's total emissions budget for each pollutant.  This base percentage is smaller than the 3 percent share EPA proposed to use in the proposed Transport Rule and is the result of EPA's updated power sector modeling, which projects a lower share of future emissions from "potential" new capacity build that the model projects.
      The "state-specific" percentage represents the share of each state budget that EPA projects to be emitted from "planned" units in 2020. As discussed previously, determining the state-specific percentage is necessary given the new unit definition used in the final rule.  EPA is determining a state-specific percentage for projected emissions from "planned" units because unlike the location of new capacity that the model projects to be built, the location of planned units is already known.
       The base and state-specific percentages were added for each state and each pollutant to determine that state's size of the new-unit set asides, which are shown below in Tables 1 through 3 below.

   Table 1 - State New Unit Set-Aside Accounts (As % of Total State Budget)

                                  Annual SO2
                                  Annual NOX
                               Ozone Season NOX
Alabama
                                      2%
                                      2%
                                      2%
Arkansas
                                      ---
                                      ---
                                      2%
Florida
                                      ---
                                      ---
                                      2%
Georgia
                                      2%
                                      2%
                                      2%
Illinois
                                      5%
                                      8%
                                      8%
Indiana
                                      3%
                                      3%
                                      3%
Iowa
                                      2%
                                      2%
                                      2%
Kansas
                                      2%
                                      2%
                                      2%
Kentucky
                                      6%
                                      4%
                                      4%
Louisiana
                                      ---
                                      ---
                                      3%
Maryland
                                      2%
                                      2%
                                      2%
Michigan
                                      2%
                                      2%
                                      2%
Minnesota
                                      2%
                                      2%
                                      ---
Mississippi
                                      ---
                                      ---
                                      2%
Missouri
                                      2%
                                      3%
                                      3%
Nebraska
                                      4%
                                      7%
                                      ---
New Jersey
                                      2%
                                      2%
                                      2%
New York
                                      2%
                                      3%
                                      3%
North Carolina
                                      8%
                                      6%
                                      6%
Ohio
                                      2%
                                      2%
                                      2%
Oklahoma
                                      ---
                                      ---
                                      2%
Pennsylvania
                                      2%
                                      2%
                                      2%
South Carolina
                                      2%
                                      2%
                                      2%
Tennessee
                                      2%
                                      2%
                                      2%
Texas
                                      5%
                                      3%
                                      3%
Virginia
                                      4%
                                      5%
                                      5%
West Virginia
                                      7%
                                      5%
                                      5%
Wisconsin
                                      5%
                                      6%
                                      6%

             Table 2:   State New Unit Set-Aside Accounts (tons).*

SO2 in 2012-2013
SO2 in 2014 and Later
NOX Annual in 2012-2013
NOX Annual in 2014 and Later
Ozone Season NOX  in 2012-2013
Ozone Season NOX in 2014
Alabama
                                     4,321
                                     4,265
                                     1,454
                                     1,439
                                      635
                                      630
Arkansas
                                      ---
                                      ---
                                      ---
                                      ---
                                      301
                                      301
Florida
                                      ---
                                      ---
                                      ---
                                      ---
                                      557
                                      557
Georgia
                                     3,171
                                     1,905
                                     1,240
                                      811
                                      559
                                      366
Illinois
                                    11,744
                                     6,206
                                     3,830
                                     3,830
                                     1,697
                                     1,697
Indiana
                                     8,563
                                     4,833
                                     3,292
                                     3,253
                                     1,406
                                     1,385
Iowa
                                     2,142
                                     1,503
                                      766
                                      749
                                      331
                                      324
Kansas
                                      831
                                      831
                                      615
                                      512
                                      271
                                      220
Kentucky
                                    11,360
                                     6,377
                                     3,403
                                     3,090
                                     1,447
                                     1,307
Louisiana
                                      ---
                                      ---
                                      ---
                                      ---
                                      403
                                      403
Maryland
                                      602
                                      564
                                      333
                                      331
                                      144
                                      144
Michigan
                                     3,891
                                     2,880
                                     1,204
                                     1,156
                                      515
                                      495
Minnesota
                                      840
                                      840
                                      592
                                      592
                                      ---
                                      ---
Mississippi
                                      ---
                                      ---
                                      ---
                                      ---
                                      203
                                      203
Missouri
                                     4,149
                                     3,319
                                     1,571
                                     1,462
                                      683
                                      632
Nebraska
                                     2,602
                                     2,602
                                     1,850
                                     1,850
                                      ---
                                      ---
New Jersey
                                      111
                                      111
                                      145
                                      145
                                      68
                                      68
New York
                                      409
                                      237
                                      527
                                      527
                                      250
                                      250
North Carolina
                                    10,951
                                     4,610
                                     3,036
                                     2,494
                                     1,330
                                     1,107
Ohio
                                     6,205
                                     2,742
                                     1,854
                                     1,750
                                      801
                                      756
Oklahoma
                                      ---
                                      ---
                                      ---
                                      ---
                                      437
                                      437
Pennsylvania
                                     5,573
                                     2,240
                                     2,400
                                     2,384
                                     1,044
                                     1,038
South Carolina
                                     1,773
                                     1,773
                                      649
                                      649
                                      278
                                      278
Tennessee
                                     2,963
                                     1,177
                                      714
                                      387
                                      298
                                      160
Texas
                                    12,198
                                    12,198
                                     4,008
                                     4,008
                                     1,891
                                     1,891
Virginia
                                     2,833
                                     1,402
                                     1,662
                                     1,662
                                      723
                                      723
West Virginia
                                    10,232
                                     5,297
                                     2,974
                                     2,729
                                     1,264
                                     1,165
Wisconsin
                                     3,974
                                     2,006
                                     1,898
                                     1,823
                                      822
                                      793
*Amounts shown reflect total set aside portion of budget (including set aside for Indian Country new units).  Values are approximate, may vary slightly due to rounding.  See regulatory text for final set-aside values.

      For each control period, any allowances remaining in a state's new unit set-aside (after allocations are made to new units that requested allowances) are distributed to the existing units in that state in proportion to the existing units' original allocations. This ensures that total allocations to units in the state are equal to the state budget in that year.
      Each Indian country set-aside equals a proportion of the "base" new unit set-aside included in this final Transport Rule (the base percentage, as described above, is calculated as 2 percent of the state budget).  EPA is reserving allowances for the Indian country set-aside from each state's "base" percentage of the new unit set-aside.  EPA is not reserving these allowances from the state-specific percentage of each state's new unit set-aside because that percentage is specifically calculated on the basis of projected emissions from "planned" units, none of which are located in Indian country.  EPA is creating Indian country set-asides in each state as a share of that state's base percentage portion of the new unit set-aside, i.e., as a share of the 2 percent portion of the total budget in that state.  EPA is determining the size of the Indian country set-aside (within that 2 percent portion of the state budget) on the basis of the percentage of Indian country relative to the entire state.  EPA calculates the maximum percentage of Indian country in any state within the Transport Rule region to equal to 5 percent, and is using that level as a basis for establishing Indian country set-asides for all states whose geographic boundaries encompass Indian country.  Therefore, the Indian country set-aside is 5 percent of the base percentage new unit set-aside, which is equivalent to 0.1 percent of the total state budget (i.e., 5 percent of 2 percent is 0.1 percent).  EPA assessed the share of Indian country within each state using the American Indian Reservations/Federally Recognized Tribal Entities dataset, which contains data for the 562 federally recognized Tribal entities in the contiguous U.S. and Alaska.  EPA analyzed the share of square miles of Indian country within the total square miles of a state whose geographic boundaries encompass that Indian country.  As explained above, EPA then took the highest percentage as the number to be applied across all states with Indian country to determine the Indian country new unit set-aside.  The Indian country new unit set-asides in the following Transport Rule states with Indian Country are shown in Table 4.

      Table 3:  New Unit Set-Aside Allowances for Indian Country (tons)

For SO2 in 2012-2013, Indian Country
For SO2 in 2014, Indian Country
For NOX Annual in 2012-2013, Indian Country
For NOX Annual in 2014, Indian Country
For Ozone Season NOX in 2012-2013, Indian Country
For Ozone Season NOX in 2014, Indian Country
Florida
                                      ---
                                      ---
                                      ---
                                      ---
                                      28
                                      28
Iowa
                                      107
                                      75
                                      38
                                      37
                                      17
                                      16
Kansas
                                      42
                                      42
                                      31
                                      26
                                      14
                                      11
Louisiana
                                      ---
                                      ---
                                      ---
                                      ---
                                      13
                                      13
Michigan
                                      195
                                      144
                                      60
                                      58
                                      26
                                      25
Minnesota
                                      42
                                      42
                                      30
                                      30
                                      ---
                                      ---
Mississippi
                                      ---
                                      ---
                                      ---
                                      ---
                                      10
                                      10
Nebraska
                                      65
                                      65
                                      26
                                      26
                                      ---
                                      ---
New York
                                      20
                                      12
                                      18
                                      18
                                       8
                                       8
North Carolina
                                      137
                                      58
                                      51
                                      42
                                      22
                                      18
South Carolina
                                      89
                                      89
                                      32
                                      32
                                      14
                                      14
Texas
                                      244
                                      244
                                      134
                                      134
                                      63
                                      63
Wisconsin
                                      79
                                      40
                                      32
                                      30
                                      14
                                      13
*Values are approximate, may vary slightly due to rounding.  See regulatory text for final set-aside values
      New units are allocated allowances from the set aside accounts described above.  The final rule provides that a unit's new unit set-aside allocation initially equals that unit's emissions for the control period (annual or ozone season) in the preceding year.  EPA determines whether the total amount of initial allowance allocations for all units in a state for a control period exceeds the amount in the state's new unit set-aside for the control period.  If the amount in the new unit set-aside is exceeded, EPA allocates each unit a proportionate share of the new unit set-aside based on the unit's initial allocation amount.  Any unallocated allowances in the new unit set-aside are allocated to existing units in proportion to their share of the current existing-unit allocations.  Unused allowances in the Indian country set aside are first transferred to the respective state's new unit set-aside. If allowances remain unused in the state's new unit set aside, they are then proportionally distributed, as previously described, to existing units in that state.

3)	Allocation Methodology for Existing Units
   The allocation methodology bases a unit's allocation off heat input but limits any unit's allocation to its historic maximum emissions.  Implementation of this methodology involves identifying potentially covered units and determining appropriate data baselines for each unit.  EPA first identified the list of potential TR covered units.  Next, it compiled reported data on each unit and calculated its share of heat input.  Both stages are described below.
   a) List of Potential Existing Transport Rule Units

      The list of units to which final allocations are adopted in the final rule is based on final applicability criteria discussed in section VII.B of the preamble and Sections 97.404, 97.504, 97.604, and 97.704 of the final Transport Rule regulations.  Existing units are units that are covered under these criteria and that commenced commercial operation prior to January 1, 2010.  This cutoff date is used in the definition of existing unit because it assures that at least one full year of historic data is available to determine each existing unit's allocation.  The baseline years used in the NODA also ended in 2009 for similar reasons.  Since publishing the NODA, the 2010 data has been reported and verified.  Because an additional year of data is available, EPA updated it cut-off date for existing units to January 1, 2010, its heat input baseline from 2005-2009 to 2006-2010, and its historic emission baseline to 2003-2010.   These final allocation tables (Document ID EPA-HQ-OAR-XXXXX) contain a list of units that EPA believes, based on best available data, meet the covered and existing unit criteria.  As described above, the percent of the state budgets allocated to existing units varies between 92% and 98% for each state depending on the number of planned units in each state.
      To identify the potential existing Transport Rule units, EPA relied largely on data reported to EPA.  To develop the list of potential existing Transport Rule units, EPA first included any fossil-fuel-fired unit serving a generator greater than 25 MWe producing electricity for sale that is in a Transport Rule state and on line prior to January 1, 2010 and that reported emissions data in 2010 under at least one of the following ongoing EPA trading programs: the CAIR NOX or CAIR SO2 annual trading program or the Acid Rain Program.  EPA did not include units that were flagged as opt-in units.  Data reported to EPA under CAIR and the Acid Rain Program meet the requirements of Part 75 and have been certified as to their accuracy and completeness by the source's designated representative.    About 98% of the potential existing covered units listed in the final rule allocation tables were identified in this manner.
      Next, EPA supplemented the list of units by using data from the Integrated Planning Model v.4.10 (IPM) to identify potential existing units under the Transport Rule that were not reporting data to EPA under the CAIR NOX or SO2 annual or Acid Rain trading program.  Specifically, IPM's National Electric Energy Data System (NEEDS) was used to identify units that were potentially fossil-fuel-fired units serving generators greater than 25 MWe producing electricity for sale that are in a Transport Rule state and were not reporting under one of these ongoing EPA trading programs.  The capacity field in NEEDs was used as a proxy for nameplate capacity.  However, the capacity reported is actually net summertime dependable capacity.  Net summer dependable capacity is the maximum capacity that the unit can sustain over the summer peak demand period reduced by the capacity required for station services or auxiliary equipment.  EPA notes that while this data point does not directly reflect capacity as defined in the Transport Rule, it serves as a reasonable proxy and is the best data that EPA has available for these units.
      A source who felt the summertime dependable capacity identified in NEEDS did not accurately reflect their TR applicability status as determined by their actual nameplate capacity had the chance to express such comments in response to the January 7, 2011 NODA (76 FR 1109).  EPA reviewed these comments and updated the list of potentially covered units to reflect these comments.  To identify whether the NEEDs unit potentially met the fossil fuel criteria of a covered unit, EPA identified those units with a plant type listing of coal steam, combined cycle, combustion turbine, fossil waste, IGCC, landfill gas, Municipal Solid Waste, O/G Steam, tires or biomass.  Approximately 2% of the potential existing covered units listed in the final rule allocation tables were identified in this manner.
      This subset of units identified through NEEDS was then screened to remove units that were not potential existing Transport Rule units and thus not eligible to obtain allocations.  In particular, if the unit was retired or in cold storage in 2010 or is a steam turbine at a combined cycle (CC) plant that was listed as a separate unit in NEEDS but reported to EPA as one CC unit, then it was not included as a unit in the list of potential existing Transport Rule units.  The remaining units in this subset of units were added to the list.  For instance, there were units in Nebraska and Kansas that were identified through NEEDS as being potential existing Transport Rule units that were not currently reporting under the CAIR NOX or SO2 annual or Acid Rain trading program because the units were not Acid Rain Program units and were not in a CAIR state.  Finally, a small number of units were added to or removed from the list based on comment and supporting data previously submitted to EPA during the comment period on the proposed Transport Rule and/or the January 7, 2011 NODA by the unit owner or operator.
      Units identified using the EPA and NEEDS databases were included in the list of potential existing Transport Rule units if they were in one of the following states covered by the Transport Rule: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

   b) Data and Calculations
      For the 98% of units identified through the process in section 3.a. above because they were reporting under the ARP and/or CAIR programs, EPA used reported heat-input and emissions data from the EPA database for the years 2003 through 2010.   For units included in the list of potential existing Transport Rule units that were not reporting under one of these ongoing EPA trading programs, EPA used historic heat input and emissions data from Energy Information Administration (EIA) forms 767, 860, 906, 920, and 923.  These data are publicly available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/data.html.  The heat input based allocation method finalized and described below is used to allocate the existing unit portion of the state's budget (i.e., the state budget less the state's new unit set-aside and, if applicable, the Indian Country new unit set-aside for the state).
      Specifically, the heat input approach with the historic maximum emissions upper bound used for allocations in Transport Rule FIPs establishes a baseline historic heat input value for each potential existing Transport Rule unit and sets a unit's share of available allowances under each Transport Rule trading program equal to the unit's percentage share of the total baseline historic heat input for all potential existing Transport Rule units in the state.  This approach is applied to each state separately, using the portion of that state's budget available for potential existing Transport Rule units in that state.  In instances where the heat input based allocation exceeds the unit's historic maximum emissions over the baseline period, this historic maximum emissions is used as an upper bound on the allocation and the source's allocation is set equal to this emission level.
      Allocations under this approach for each existing unit are determined by applying the following steps.

   1. For each unit in the list of potential existing Transport Rule units, annual heat input values for the baseline period of 2006 through 2010 are identified using data reported to EPA or, where EPA data is unavailable, EIA.  For a baseline year for which a unit has no data on heat input (e.g., for a baseline year before the year when a unit started operating), the units is assigned a zero value.  (Step 2 explains how such zero values are treated in the calculations.)  The allocation method uses a five-year baseline in order to improve representation of a unit's normal operating conditions over time.
   2. For each unit, the three highest, non-zero annual heat input values within the 5 year baseline are selected and averaged.  Selecting the three highest, non-zero annual heat input values within the five-year baseline reduces the likelihood that any particular single year's operations (which might be negatively affected by outages or other unusual events) determine a unit's allocation.  If a unit does not have three non-zero heat input values during the 5 year baseline period, EPA averages only those years for which a unit does have non-zero heat input values.  For example, if a unit has only reported data for 2008 and 2009 among the baseline years and the reported heat input values are 2 and 4 mmBtus respectively, then the unit's average heat input used to determine its pro-rata share of the state budget is (2+4)/2 = 3.
   3. Each unit is assigned a baseline heat input value calculated as described in step 2 above.  This baseline heat input value is referred to in the data tables in the rulemaking docket, and on the website referenced previously, as the "three-year average heat input".
   4. The three-year average heat inputs of all potential existing Transport Rule units in a state is summed to obtain that state's total "three-year average heat input".
   5. Each unit's three-year average heat input is divided by the state's total three-year average heat input to determine that unit's share of the state's total three-year average heat input.
   6. Each unit's share of the state's total three-year average heat input is multiplied by the existing-unit portion of the state budget (i.e., the state budget less the state's new unit set-aside and, if applicable, the Indian Country new unit set-aside for the state) to determine that unit's initial allocation.
   7. An eight-year (2003-2010) historic emissions baseline is established for SO2, NOX, and ozone season NOX based on data reported to EPA or, where EPA data is unavailable, EIA data.  This eight-year historic emissions baseline is used in order to capture the unit-level emission before and after the promulgation of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and the NOX Budget Program (NBP).
   8. For each unit, the maximum annual historic SO2 and NOX emissions would be identified within the eight-year baseline.  Similarly, the maximum ozone season NOX emissions from the eight-year baseline for each unit would be identified.  These values are referred to as the "maximum historic baseline emissions" for each unit.
   9. If a unit has a historic heat-input based allocation (as determined in step 6) that exceeds its maximum historic baseline emissions (as determined in step 8), then its allocation would equal the maximum historic baseline emission for that unit.
   10. The difference (if positive) under step 9 between a unit's historic heat-input-based allocation and its "maximum historic baseline emissions" would be reapportioned on the same basis as described in steps 1 through 6 to units whose historic-heat-input-based allocation does not exceed its maximum historic baseline emissions.  Steps 7, 8, and 9 are repeated with each revised allocation distribution until the entire existing-unit portion of the state budget would be allocated. The resulting allocation value is rounded to the nearest whole number using conventional rounding.  The table below provides an example application of the steps 1-10 in a hypothetical state.
Table 4 - Demonstration of Allocations Using Final Allocation Methodology in a Three-Unit State With a 80 Ton State Budget

                                   Step 1-6
                                  Step 7,8,9
                                    Step 10

                 Historic Heat-input-based Initial Allocation
                      Maximum Historic Baseline Emissions
                               Final Allocation
Unit A
                                      20
                                      16
                                      16
Unit B
                                      30
                                      50
                                      32
Unit C
                                      30
                                      50
                                      32

Where can I find this data?
The unit level allocations can be found in the separate file titled "Unit Level Allocations under the FIP" published as an Excel file and available at placeholder.  The file contains three worksheets.  The first, titled "Final Allocations" identifies each unit and its final allocation under each of the trading programs.  The second worksheet, titled "underlying data", shows all the data and calculations that are numerated above.  Each of the ten steps are color coded and displayed in sequential order moving from left to right across the spreadsheet.  The formulas to derive any calculated values are explained directly beneath the column header.  The final worksheet, "corrected data" identifies corrections to unit level data identified by commenter and incorporated into final tables by EPA.
Rounding
EPA uses conventional rounding for its allocation purposes and applies rounding at the unit level for existing unit allocations.  For example, if State A has a 500 ton budget with a 5% new source set-aside, than its existing unit allocation would be 475 tons.  If there are only two covered existing units in the state with equal heat inputs and a historic maximum emissions above 500 tons, than the steps described above would result in an allocation of 237.5 tons for each unit.  This unit level allocation for each of these units would round to 238 allowances, which would sum to 476 allowances.  The difference between the sum of the rounded existing unit level allocations and the state budget (i.e., 500-476), would be the actual new source set-aside budget for the state.  EPA notes that because of rounding, the actual number of allowances in the new source set aside will sometimes sum to a total value whose percentage of the state value is marginally greater or less than the percentage identified in the tables above.  In other words, the percentage approximated for the new source set aside in the tables above may be 5%, but the actual total new source set-aside allowances may equal 5.01% or 4.99% of the state budget.  Because EPA does not issue allowances nor require compliance using fractional tons, this type of rounding is necessary.


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 123 (Wednesday, June 30, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34732-34733]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13925]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL21-85-000]

SOO Green HVDC Link ProjectCo, LLC v. PJM Interconnection,
L.L.C.; Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on June 21, 2021, pursuant to sections 206, 306,
and 309 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e, 825e, and 825h and
Rule 206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206 (2020), SOO Green HVDC
Link ProjectCo, LLC (Complainant) filed a formal complaint against PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM or Respondent), alleging that PJM's
current Open Access Transmission Tariff and Amended and Restated
Operating Agreement are unjust and unreasonable, because they require
merchant transmission facilities to complete the profoundly-delayed
generation interconnection process in order to be studied and
integrated into the grid, all as more fully explained in its complaint.
    The Complainant certify that copies of the complaint were served on
the contacts listed for Respondent in the Commission's list of
Corporate Officials.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainant.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically may mail
similar

pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street
NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 12, 2021.

    Dated: June 23, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-13925 Filed 6-29-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 25, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 101)]
[Notices]
[Page 30375]
[DOCID:fr25my11-101]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3322-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

Louisiana; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of an Emergency Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of the emergency declaration for
the State of Louisiana (FEMA-3322-EM), dated May 6, 2011, and related
determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: May 13, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of an emergency declaration for
the State of Louisiana is hereby amended to include the following areas
among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the
event declared an emergency by the President in his declaration of May
6, 2011.

    The parishes of Ascension, Assumption, Avoyelles, Catahoula,
Concordia, East Baton Rouge, East Carroll, Iberia, Iberville, La
Salle, Madison, Pointe Coupee, St. Charles, St. James, St. John the
Baptist, St. Landry, St. Martin, St. Mary, Tensas, Terrebonne, West
Baton Rouge, and West Feliciana for emergency protective measures
[Category B], including direct Federal assistance, under the Public
Assistance program (already designated for emergency protective
measures [Category B], limited to direct Federal assistance, under
the Public Assistance program).

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant)

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-12907 Filed 5-24-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 177 (Thursday, September 12, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48068-48071]
[FR Doc No: 2019-19510]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2019-0179; FRL-9999-13-Region 1]

Air Plan Approval; New Hampshire; Reasonably Available Control
Technology Orders

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of New
Hampshire. These revisions consist of single source Orders that New
Hampshire adopted to meet reasonably

available control technology (RACT) requirements, and requests made by
New Hampshire to withdraw from its SIP a number of previously issued
RACT Orders. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This rule is effective on October 15, 2019.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2019-0179. All documents in the docket
are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed
in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 at https://www.regulations.gov or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
Region 1 Regional Office, Air and Radiation Division, 5 Post Office
Square--Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible,
you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob McConnell, Environmental Engineer,
Air and Radiation Division (Mail Code 05-2), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston,
Massachusetts 02109-3912;<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background and Purpose
II. Response to Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    On July 12, 2019 (84 FR 33198), EPA published a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) for the State of New Hampshire. The NPRM proposed
approval of the following items into the New Hampshire SIP: A single
source NOX RACT Order for Schiller Station; a revised single
source NOX RACT Order for Anheuser Busch; a revised single
source VOC RACT Order for Metal Works Incorporated; a revised single
source VOC RACT Order for Polyonics, Inc., and; a single source VOC
RACT Order for Complete Coverage Woodpriming, LLC. EPA also proposed to
withdraw from the New Hampshire SIP previously approved RACT Orders for
the L.W. Packard Company, the Groveton Paperboard Company, the
Hampshire Chemical Company, the Waterville Valley Ski Resort, and the
Concord Litho Group, Incorporated. We note that although our NPRM
mentioned that New Hampshire's September 5, 2018 submittal request
included a request to withdraw from the SIP two RACT orders previously
issued to the Public Service Company of New Hampshire (PSNH), our NPRM
did not propose action on that request. We will take action on the
State's request regarding withdrawal of the RACT orders for PSNH in a
future rulemaking. Other specific requirements of the State's
submittals and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in
the NPRM and will not be restated here. We received one set of comments
on the NPRM, which we have summarized and responded to in section II
below.

II. Response to Comments

    We received one comment letter containing three comments on the
NPRM. A summary of the comments, and our responses, follows.
    Comment 1: The RACT Order for the Metal Works facility should not
be approved because, by definition, RACT is the lowest achievable
emission limit capable of being met by application of technological and
economical control technology. Purchasing of emission reduction credits
is not an emission limit and thus cannot be approved as RACT. EPA has
no precedent that allows this and directly goes against settled case
law. RACT must be an emission limit, and that limit must be met with
technologically and economically feasible control equipment.
    Response: Contrary to the commenter's assertion, EPA has long held
that compliance with RACT can be achieved via the purchase of emission
reduction credits (ERCs), and so does not need to be met exclusively by
the establishment of emission limits applicable to all RACT-subject
sources. In 1986, EPA issued its Emission Trading Policy Statement
(ETPS). See 51 FR 43814; December 4, 1986. Subsequently, on April 7,
1994, pursuant to Section 182(g)(4)(B) of the Clean Air Act, EPA
promulgated its Economic Incentive Program (EIP) Rules (see 59 FR
16690; April 7, 1994), and updated the EIP in 2001.\1\ The ETPS and the
EIP rules contain guidelines for the generation and use of ERCs. In New
Hampshire's case, although the state has adopted an emission credit
trading rule, Env-A 3100, Discrete Emission Reduction Trading Program,
we have not approved that rule into the New Hampshire SIP. Therefore,
we evaluate the generation and use of ERCs for RACT compliance in New
Hampshire on a case by case basis. See, for example, our final rule for
New Hampshire from November 5, 2012 (77 FR 66391). In this particular
case, we agree with New Hampshire's determination that the ERCs to be
used by the Metal Works facility meet the key aspects of the ETPS and
EIP rules, namely that they are surplus, enforceable, permanent, and
quantifiable, and therefore are appropriate for use in trading to meet
RACT requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs; EPA-
452/R-01-001; January, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 2: For Polyonics, EPA is proposing to establish the sale of
emission reduction credits as representing RACT, but the sale of
emission credits cannot possibly represent the application of
technological and economically feasible control technology. The same
emission limit that applied before the order was amended should
``continue to represent RACT''
    Response: The commenter misinterprets our proposed action with
regard to the Polyonics facility. The same emission limits within the
pre-existing RACT order do continue to apply to the facility. The
amendment to the Order just added the capability for the source to
generate ERCs.
    Comment 3: For L.W. Packard, Groveton Paperboard, Hampshire
Chemical Corp, and Concord Litho Group, EPA states that these
facilities ``ceased operations'' as of various dates in the past. EPA
must only allow removal of these orders if the state has fully
rescinded their operating permits and the facilities are unable to be
reactivated under their current Title V operating permit.
    Response: The Hampshire Chemical Corporation closed and surrendered
its operating permit in 2004; the L.W. Packard Company and Groveton
Paperboard both closed and surrendered their operating permits in 2008.
On October 29, 2018, the Concord Litho Group requested that New
Hampshire terminate its operating permit because it had ceased printing
operations, which had been the subject of its operating permit
requirements, and New Hampshire complied with that request. We note
that our NPRM incorrectly indicated the facility had closed; other
operations at the facility remain in

existence, but due to their minimal emissions do not require issuance
of a state operating permit or RACT order from the State.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving the following RACT orders and RACT order
withdrawals as revisions to the New Hampshire SIP: A single source
NOX RACT Order for Schiller Station; a revised single source
NOX RACT Order for Anheuser Busch; a revised single source
VOC RACT Order for Metal Works Incorporated; a revised single source
VOC RACT Order for Polyonics, Inc., and a single source VOC RACT Order
for Complete Coverage Woodpriming, LLC. We are also withdrawing from
the New Hampshire SIP previously approved RACT Orders for the L.W.
Packard Company, the Groveton Paperboard Company, the Hampshire
Chemical Company, the Waterville Valley Ski Resort, and the Concord
Litho Group, Incorporated.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the
following RACT Orders issued by New Hampshire: NOX RACT
Order RO-003 for Schiller Station; NOX RACT Order ARD-05-001
for Anheuser Busch; VOC RACT Order ARD-05-001 for Metal Works
Incorporated; VOC RACT Order ARD 07-004 for Polyonics, Inc., and; VOC
RACT Order RO-0004 for Complete Coverage Wood Priming, LLC. The EPA has
made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available
through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 1 Office
(please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). Therefore,
these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the State
implementation plan, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into
that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113
of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's
approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to
the SIP compilation.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because
this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    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. Section 804, however, exempts from section 801 the
following types of rules: Rules of particular applicability; rules
relating to agency management or personnel; and rules of agency
organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect
the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3).
Because this is a rule of particular applicability, EPA is not required
to submit a rule report regarding this action under section 801.
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 12, 2019. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action 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. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: August 28, 2019.
Deborah Szaro,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
    Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart EE--New Hampshire

0
2. Section 52.1520(d) is amended by:

0
a. Removing the entries for ``Source specific NOX RACT order
for Groveton Paperboard Corp., Groveton, NH''; ``Source specific
NOX RACT order for Waterville Valley Ski Area Ltd.,
Waterville Valley, NH''; ``VOC RACT for L.W. Packard and Company, Inc.
Ashland, NH''; ``Source specific NOX RACT order for
Hampshire Chemical Corporation, Nashua, NH''; ``Concord Litho Group--
Permit No. ARD-07-003''; ``Metal Works''; ``Polyonics''; ``Anheuser
Busch''; ``PSNH, Schiller Station''; and ``Concord Litho Group--Permit
No. ARD-07-003A''; and b. Adding entries for ``Schiller Station'';
``Anheuser Busch''; ``Metal Works''; ``Polyonics''; and ``Complete
Coverage Woodpriming'' in numerical order.
    The additions read as follows:

Sec.  52.1520  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *

                             EPA-Approved New Hampshire Source Specific Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Additional
          Name of source                Permit No.           State       EPA approval date    explanations/Sec.
                                                        effective date          \2\            52.1535 citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Schiller Station.................  NOx RACT Order RO-         9/6/2018  9/12/2019 [Insert    Order contains NOx
                                    003.                                 Federal Register     emission limits
                                                                         citation].           for emission units
                                                                                SR4 and SR6.
Anheuser Busch...................  NOx RACT Order ARD-       1/17/2018  9/12/2019 [Insert    Revisions made to
                                    05-001.                              Federal Register     testing
                                                                         citation].           requirements for
                                                                                two boilers.
Metal Works......................  VOC RACT Order ARD-       8/16/2018  9/12/2019 [Insert    Order allows for
                                    05-001.                              Federal Register     compliance via
                                                                         citation].           purchase of
                                                                                emission reduction
                                                                                credits.
Polyonics........................  VOC RACT Order            8/28/2018  9/12/2019 [Insert    Order allows
                                    ARD07-004.                           Federal Register     facility to
                                                                         citation].           generate emission
                                                                                reduction credits.
Complete Coverage Woodpriming....  VOC RACT Order RO-        3/14/2019  9/12/2019 [Insert    Order provides a
                                    0004.                                Federal Register     VOC content limit
                                                                         citation].           for stain blocker
                                                                                used by the
                                                                                facility.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the
  Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision.

* * * * *

Sec.  52.1525  [Amended]

0
3. In Sec.  52.1525, amend the table by removing the entries with the
following State citation chapter: ``Order ARD-94-001''; ``Order ARD-95-
001''; ``Order ARD-95-003''; ``Order ARD-95-011''; and ``Order ARD-00-
001''.

[FR Doc. 2019-19510 Filed 9-11-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P