[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 12, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34830-34846]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14251]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 97

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491; FRL-9672-4]
RIN 2060-AR35

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 taking final action on revisions to the final Transport
Rule (Federal Implementation Plans: Interstate Transport of Fine
Particulate Matter and Ozone and Correction of SIP Approvals, published
August 8, 2011). EPA is revising the 2012 and 2014 state budgets for
Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri,
New York, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas, and
revising the new unit set-asides for Arkansas, Louisiana, and Missouri.
These revisions are in addition to the revisions to the final Transport
Rule published on February 21, 2012.

DATES: This final rule is effective on August 13, 2012.

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<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Air
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. 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<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeremy Mark, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Clean Air Markets Division, MC 6204J, Ariel Rios
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, telephone
(202) 343-9087, email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Electronic copies of this
document can be accessed through the EPA Web site at: http://epa.gov/airmarkets.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations

    The following are abbreviations of terms used in 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
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:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Examples of potentially  regulated
              Category                         NAICS code                            industries
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry............................  2211, 2212, 2213............  Electric service providers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities which EPA is now aware
could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities
not listed in this table could also be regulated. To determine whether
your facility, company, business, organization, etc., is regulated by
this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in
Sec. Sec.  97.404, 97.504, and 97.604 of title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations. If you have questions regarding the applicability
of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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

    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. Response to General Comments
V. Specific Revisions in This Final Action
VI. 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
    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 Low-Income
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act
    L. Judicial Review

III. Executive Summary

    In this action, EPA is revising specific aspects of the Transport
Rule promulgated by EPA on July 6, 2011 (76 FR 48208, Aug. 2, 2011)
(the July 6, 2011 final rule). Specifically, EPA is revising the 2012
and 2014 state budgets for Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New York, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma,
South Carolina, and Texas, revising the new unit set-asides for
Arkansas, Louisiana, and Missouri, and making associated changes to
variability limits.\1\ EPA originally proposed the Transport Rule on
July 6, 2010, (75 FR 45210) and subsequently issued three related
notices of data availability (NODAs). The first NODA, published on
September 1, 2010, addressed updates to power sector modeling and data
(75 FR 53613). The second NODA, published on October 27, 2010,
addressed updates to emissions inventory data (75 FR 66055). The third
NODA, published on January 7, 2011, addressed the data basis for unit-
level allowance allocation methodologies (76 FR 1109). EPA then
finalized the Transport Rule on July 6, 2011 (76 FR 48208).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Throughout this preamble, EPA refers to a state budget for
2012 and 2013 as a ``2012'' state budget and refers to a state
budget for 2014 and thereafter as a ``2014'' state budget.
Therefore, any revision of a 2012 state budget would apply to the
state budget for 2012 and 2013, and any revision of a 2014 state
budget would apply to the state budget for 2014 and thereafter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After the final Transport Rule was published, EPA identified
discrepancies in certain data assumptions that affected the calculation
of a few states' budgets and new unit set-asides in the July 6, 2011,
final rule; as a result, on October 14, 2011, EPA published proposed
revisions to Transport Rule state budgets in Florida, Louisiana,
Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Texas, and
Wisconsin, as well as new unit set-asides in Arkansas and Texas (76 FR
63860). In that October 14, 2011, proposal, EPA provided an additional
opportunity for commenters to identify information, not previously made
available to the agency, that might support similar revisions to
Transport Rule state budgets or new unit set-asides in addition to
those specifically identified in that proposal (76 FR 63868).
    After reviewing comments received on the October 14, 2011 proposal,
EPA published three actions on February 21, 2012. First, the Agency
issued a final rule addressing the revisions specifically identified in
the October 14, 2011, proposal (77 FR 10324). Second, the Agency issued
a direct final rule that would have made a set of similar revisions on
the basis of new information supplied by commenters responding to the
October 14, 2011, proposal (77 FR 10342). Specifically, the direct
final included revisions to the 2012 and 2014 state budgets for
Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri,
New York, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas, and
revisions to the new unit set-asides for Arkansas, Louisiana, and
Missouri. Third, EPA published a parallel proposal that proposed the
adjustments made in the direct final rule. (77 FR 10350) EPA indicated
that if it received adverse comment, it would withdraw the relevant
portions of that rule and address all relevant comments received in any
subsequent rule taking final action based on the parallel proposal.
    EPA received adverse comment on the February 21, 2012, direct final
rule and the parallel proposal, and thus has taken a separate action to
withdraw the direct final rule May 16, 2012. (77 FR 28785). EPA has
reviewed all of the comments received and is now taking final action on
the revisions that were proposed in the February 21, 2012, parallel
proposal. See section IV of this preamble for a discussion of the
Agency's response to general comments on this action. See section V of
this preamble for a discussion of the specific revisions being made in
this final rule as well as

the corresponding Response to Comments document contained in the docket
for this action.
    Tables III-1 through III-6 below summarize the state budgets, new
unit set-asides, Indian country new-unit set-asides, and variability
limits for all states covered by the Transport Rule, reflecting all of
the revisions finalized in this action as well as those revisions
included in a previous final rule published on February 21, 2012 (77 FR
10324).

                             Table III-1--2012-2013 SO2 Budgets, New Unit Set-Asides
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                2012-2013 Indian
                State                  2012-2013 Total   2012 New unit set- 2013 New unit set-  country new unit
                                            budget             aside              aside            set-aside
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.............................            216,033                  4,321                 .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Georgia.............................            158,527                  3,171                 .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois............................            234,889                 11,744                 .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indiana.............................            290,762                  8,723                 .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iowa................................            107,085                  2,035                               107
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kansas..............................             41,980                   798                                 42
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kentucky............................            232,662                 13,960                 .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maryland............................             30,120                   602                  .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan............................            229,303                  4,357                               229
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minnesota...........................             41,981                   798                                 42
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missouri............................            207,466              4,149              6,224  .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nebraska............................             68,162                  2,658                                68
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Jersey..........................              7,670                   153                  .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York............................             36,296                   690                                 36
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Carolina......................            136,881                 10,813                               137
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio................................            315,393                  6,308                 .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pennsylvania........................            278,651                  5,573                 .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Carolina......................             96,633                  1,836                                97
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tennessee...........................            148,150                  2,963                 .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas...............................            294,471                 14,430                               294
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Virginia............................             70,820                  2,833                 .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
West Virginia.......................            146,174                 10,232                 .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wisconsin...........................             79,480                  3,099                                80
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    Table III-2--2014 SO2 Budgets, New Unit Set-Asides and Variability Limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               2014  Indian
                State                 2014 Total budget    2014 New unit    country  new unit   2014 Variability
                                                             set-aside           set-aside           limit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.............................            213,258              4,265  .................             38,386
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Georgia.............................            135,565              2,711  .................             24,402
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois............................            124,123              6,206  .................             22,342
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indiana.............................            166,449              4,993  .................             29,961
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iowa................................             75,184              1,429                 75             13,533
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kansas..............................             41,980                798                 42              7,556
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kentucky............................            106,284              6,377  .................             19,131
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maryland............................             28,203                564  .................              5,077
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan............................            143,995              2,736                144             25,919
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minnesota...........................             41,981                798                 42              7,557
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missouri............................            165,941              4,978  .................             29,869
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nebraska............................             68,162              2,658                 68             12,269
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Jersey..........................              5,574                111  .................              1,003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York............................             27,556                523                 28              4,960
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Carolina......................             57,620              4,552                 58             10,372
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio................................            142,240              2,845  .................             25,603
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pennsylvania........................            112,021              2,240  .................             20,164
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Carolina......................             96,633              1,836                 97             17,394
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tennessee...........................             58,833              1,177  .................             10,590
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas...............................            294,471             14,430                294             53,005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Virginia............................             35,057              1,402  .................              6,310
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
West Virginia.......................             75,668              5,297  .................             13,620
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wisconsin...........................             47,883              1,867                 48              8,619
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         Table III-3--2012-2013 Annual NOX Budgets, New Unit Set-Asides
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                2012-2013  Indian
                State                  2012-2013  Total    2012  New unit     2013  New unit    country new unit
                                            budget           set-aside          set-aside           set-side
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.............................             72,691                  1,454                 .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Georgia.............................             62,010                  1,240                 .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois............................             47,872                  3,830                 .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indiana.............................            109,726                  3,292                 .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iowa................................             38,335                   729                                 38
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kansas..............................             31,354                   596                                 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kentucky............................             85,086                  3,403                 .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maryland............................             16,633                   333                  .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan............................             65,421                  1,243                                65
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minnesota...........................             29,572                   561                                 30
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missouri............................             52,400              1,572              3,144  .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nebraska............................             30,039                  1,772                                30
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Jersey..........................              8,218                   164                  .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York............................             21,722                   412                                 22
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Carolina......................             50,587                  2,984                                51
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ohio................................             95,468                  1,909                 .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pennsylvania........................            119,986                  2,400                 .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Carolina......................             32,498                   617                                 33
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tennessee...........................             35,703                   714                  .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas...............................            137,701                  5,370                               138
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Virginia............................             33,242                  1,662                 .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
West Virginia.......................             59,472                  2,974                 .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wisconsin...........................             34,101                  2,012                                34
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                Table III-4--2014 Annual NOX Budgets, New Unit Set-Asides and Variability Limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               2014  Indian
                State                    2014  Total       2014  New unit    country new unit  2014  Variability
                                            budget            set-side           set-side            limit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.............................             71,962              1,439  .................             12,953
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Georgia.............................             53,738              1,075  .................              9,673
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois............................             47,872              3,830  .................              8,617
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indiana.............................            108,424              3,253  .................             19,516
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iowa................................             37,498                712                 38              6,750
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kansas..............................             31,354                596                 31              5,644
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kentucky............................             77,238              3,090  .................             13,903
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maryland............................             16,574                331  .................              2,983
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan............................             63,040              1,198                 63             11,347
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minnesota...........................             29,572                561                 30              5,323
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missouri............................             48,743              2,925  .................              8,774
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nebraska............................             30,039              1,772                 30              5,407
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Jersey..........................              7,945                159  .................              1,430
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York............................             21,722                412                 22              3,910
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Carolina......................             41,553              2,451                 42              7,480
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio................................             90,258              1,805  .................             16,246
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pennsylvania........................            119,194              2,384  .................             21,455
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Carolina......................             32,498                617                 33              5,850
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tennessee...........................             19,337                387  .................              3,481
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas...............................            137,701              5,370                138             24,786
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Virginia............................             33,242              1,662  .................              5,984
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
West Virginia.......................             54,582              2,729  .................              9,825
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wisconsin...........................             32,871              1,939                 33              5,917
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                          Table III-5--2012-2013 Ozone-Season NOX Budgets, New Unit Set-Asides
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                2012-2013  Indian
                          State                               2012  Total        2013  Total       2012  New unit     2013  New unit    country new unit
                                                                 budget             budget           set-aside          set-aside          set-aside
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama..................................................                 31,746
                                                                            635                  .................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas.................................................                 15,110
                                                                            756                  .................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida..................................................                 28,644
                                                                            544                                 29
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Georgia..................................................                 27,944
                                                                            559                  .................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois.................................................                 21,208
                                                                           1,697                 .................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indiana..................................................                 46,876
                                                                           1,406                 .................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iowa.....................................................                 16,532
                                                                            314                                 17
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kentucky.................................................                 36,167
                                                                           1,447                 .................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana................................................                 18,115
                                                                            344                                 18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maryland.................................................                  7,179
                                                                            144                  .................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan.................................................                 28,041
                                                                            533                                 28
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mississippi..............................................                 12,429
                                                                            237                                 12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missouri.................................................                 22,788                               684              1,367  .................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Jersey...............................................                  4,128
                                                                            83                   .................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York.................................................                 10,369
                                                                            197                                 10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Carolina...........................................                 22,168
                                                                           1,308                                22
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio.....................................................                 41,284
                                                                            826                  .................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oklahoma.................................................             36,567             22,694                731                454  .................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pennsylvania.............................................                 52,201
                                                                           1,044                 .................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Carolina...........................................                 13,909
                                                                            264                                 14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tennessee................................................                 14,908
                                                                            298                  .................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas....................................................                 65,560
                                                                           2,556                                66
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Virginia.................................................                 14,452
                                                                            723                  .................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
West Virginia............................................                 25,283
                                                                           1,264                 .................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wisconsin................................................                 14,784
                                                                            872                                 15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

             Table III-6--2014 Ozone-Season NOX Budgets, New Unit Set-Asides and Variability Limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               2014  Indian
                State                 2014 Total budget  2014 New unit set-  country new unit   2014 Variability
                                                               aside            set-aside            limit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.............................             31,499                630  .................              6,615
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas............................             15,110              1,209  .................              3,173
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida.............................             27,825                529                 28              5,843
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Georgia.............................             24,041                481  .................              5,049
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois............................             21,208              1,697  .................              4,454
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indiana.............................             46,175              1,385  .................              9,697
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iowa................................             16,207                308                 16              3,403
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kentucky............................             32,674              1,307  .................              6,862
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana...........................             18,115                344                 18              3,804
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maryland............................              7,179                144  .................              1,508
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan............................             27,016                513                 27              5,673
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mississippi.........................             12,429                237                 12              2,610
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missouri............................             21,099              1,266  .................              4,431
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Jersey..........................              3,731                 75  .................                784
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York............................             10,369                197                 10              2,177
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Carolina......................             18,455              1,089                 18              3,876
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio................................             39,013                780  .................              8,193
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oklahoma............................             22,694                454  .................              4,766
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pennsylvania........................             51,912              1,038  .................             10,902
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Carolina......................             13,909                264                 14              2,921
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tennessee...........................              8,016                160  .................              1,683
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas...............................             65,560              2,556                 66             13,768
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Virginia............................             14,452                723  .................              3,035
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
West Virginia.......................             23,291              1,165  .................              4,891
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wisconsin...........................             14,296                844                 14              3,002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Response to General Comments

    EPA received several comments on the direct final rule and parallel
proposal published on February 21, 2012. Many commenters generally
supported the proposed revisions to state budgets and new unit set-
asides, and EPA received few comments addressing the manner in which
the revisions were quantified.
    Some commenters, while supporting the proposed revisions, asked
that additional revisions be made. Most of these comments simply re-
iterated, often verbatim, comments that were previously submitted and
to which EPA had already responded. (See, EPA's Response to Comments
document in the docket for this action.) Some of those comments
asserted that EPA had failed to address specific unit level issues that
commenters had previously raised, frequently in reference to unit level
emission rates and fuel choices. EPA responded to all comments received
on prior proposals in the context of those prior rulemakings. In some
cases, EPA declined to make specific revisions requested by commenters.
EPA's reasoned determination that it would not be appropriate to make
certain requested revisions does not, as commenters appear to suggest,
demonstrate that the EPA ``failed to address'' issues raised in prior
comments.
    For instance, a commenter responding to EPA's October 14, 2011
proposed revisions rule argued that the NOX emission rate in
the IPM ``TR Remedy'' run was erroneously low for several units in
Florida, including Crist Units 4 and 5, Smith Unit 1, and Scholz Units
1 and 2. The commenters argued that the rates in IPM should have
reflected the units' historic emission rates and should not have
reflected the installation of low-NOX burners (LNBs). EPA
evaluated these comments and determined that the correct rate was used
in the TR remedy run. EPA explained its rationale for disagreeing with
the comment in the Response to Comment document. As the Agency
explained, ``[t]he controlled NOX base rate modeled for
these units is very consistent with the emission rates reported by the
units themselves. However, the controlled NOX policy rate
for these units is adjusted downward as a result of combustion control
(e.g., LNB) upgrades or installation that would be considered economic
at the cost thresholds modeled in the remedy scenario. The rates
modeled are reflective of what other similarly-configured units are
achieving when installing such controls. Therefore, the rates modeled
are derived, but different, from the historic rates observed at the
units as noted by commenter. However, the change is not accidental (as
assumed by commenter) but intentional and explained in section VII of
the final Transport Rule preamble and the IPM v.4.10 documentation.''
\2\ In this case, EPA did indeed address the comment, and its
determination that the requested budget adjustment was not appropriate
does not imply that it ``failed to address'' an issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Response to Comments on the Proposed Revisions to FIPs to
Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine PM and Ozone (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-
0491-4963, page 83).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A brief summary of selected general comments received on the
February 21,

2012, direct final/parallel proposal notices follows. Responses to
comments on specific proposed revisions are addressed in section V,
which describes in greater detail the specific revisions finalized in
this action. Additional and more detailed responses appear in the
response to comments document in the docket for this rulemaking.
1. General Comments on Rulemaking Procedures
    Comment: One commenter suggests that, before finalizing this rule,
EPA should prepare a ``comprehensive proposal that includes the
information provided in the Direct Final Rule, the Final Revisions
Rule, the Supplemental Rule, and the three NODAs.''
    Response: EPA does not agree that an additional proposal is needed
in these circumstances. EPA published the direct final rule and
parallel proposal on February 21, 2012. That notice explicitly laid out
for public comment all of the actions EPA is taking in this final
action. EPA provided ample opportunity for comment on those revisions,
received public comment on the notices, and in accordance with proper
rulemaking procedure is now taking this final action. The commenter has
not identified any specific criteria in the Administrative Procedures
Act or the Clean Air Act with which it believes EPA did not adhere.
    Further, in this action, EPA is only making targeted specific
revisions to state budgets and new unit set asides. EPA neither
proposed, nor reopened for comment, any aspect of the applicability
provisions in the final Transport Rule or any the methodologies
established in that rule including those used to quantify each
individual state's significant contribution to nonattainment and
interference with maintenance, to develop state budgets, and to
allocate allowances to individual units.
2. Comment Regarding Air Quality Modeling
    Comment: A commenter suggested that EPA should redo air quality
modeling in light of the revisions.
    Response: EPA conducted quantitative air quality assessments
regarding the full suite of revisions contained in the actions EPA
published on February 21, 2012 (including the revisions in that date's
final rule as well as that date's direct final rule and parallel
proposal), with the intent of determining whether any of the unit-level
discrepancies addressed by those revisions would have affected the
basis (informed by air quality modeling) of decisions EPA made in the
promulgation of the final Transport Rule. That analysis evaluated the
relationship between all of the revisions EPA has considered and the
original air quality analysis conducted for the July 6, 2011, final
Transport Rule that informed that Rule's determination of emissions
that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in
downwind states.\3\ This analysis found that the revisions would lead
to only minor changes in estimated air quality concentrations at the
receptors to which the states in this rule were ``linked'' in the final
Transport Rule (76 FR 48236; see section V.D in the preamble to the
final Transport Rule for an explanation of how upwind states are linked
to specific downwind receptors at issue in the Transport Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See, ``Final Revisions Rule Significant Contribution
Assessment TSD'' (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4956) where this relationship
is evaluated by comparing Tables 37, 38, 39, and 40 (inclusive of
the revisions contained in the February 21, 2012 final rule (77 FR
10324) as well as the revisions contained in this action) with the
columns ``Without'' budget increases in Tables 2, 3, 4, and 5. See
also, ``Final June Revisions Rule Significant Contribution
Assessment TSD,'' Tables 2, 3, 4, and 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These findings confirmed that the revisions at issue in this action
as well as the revisions in the February 21, 2012, final rule (77 FR
10324) have only a limited air quality impact that would not have
changed EPA's determination of the appropriate cost thresholds with
which EPA quantified significant contribution or interference with
maintenance under the final Transport Rule. EPA's analysis shows that
SO2 emission increases related to state budget increases in
this action would not substantially affect the air quality component of
the multifactor test and thus would not affect EPA's conclusions in the
final Transport Rule identifying $2,300/ton and $500/ton as the
appropriate SO2 cost thresholds for ``Group 1'' and ``Group
2'' states, respectively, and would not change each state's designation
as either ``Group 1'' or ``Group 2'' as was made in the final Transport
Rule. For more detail regarding this analysis, please see section B of
the ``Final June Revisions Rule Significant Contribution Assessment
TSD'' in the docket for this rulemaking.
    The results of this analysis also show that the increases in annual
and ozone-season NOX related to this action's revisions
represent a small percentage of each state's total emissions.
Therefore, EPA believes that the impact of these revisions would be
limited to comparatively small changes to the 2014 ozone design values
projected in the final Transport Rule air quality analysis. As a
result, EPA does not find any basis on which this action's revisions,
and the underlying data supporting those revisions, would substantively
impact the air quality modeling previously conducted in support of the
final Transport Rule.
3. Comments Regarding Power-Sector Modeling to Quantify State Budgets
    Comment: Some commenters suggested that the information underlying
the proposed revisions would require EPA to re-execute full power
sector modeling using the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) to determine
state budgets.
    Response: EPA previously responded to comments on this topic on
page 18-19 of the ``Response to Comments on the Proposed Revisions to
FIPs to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine PM and Ozone.'' (EPA-HQ-
OAR-2009-0491-4963) The state budgets are defined as the emissions
projected to remain, in an average year, after all emissions that
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the relevant NAAQS in a downwind state are eliminated (76 FR 48246).
In developing the Transport Rule, EPA relied on sophisticated air
quality analysis and power sector modeling in order to determine the
appropriate cost per ton thresholds at which emission reductions
relevant to significant contribution and interference with maintenance
could be identified (based on the ``multifactor test'' described in the
July 6, 2011, final Transport Rule). This approach was broad enough to
necessitate a simultaneous examination of emissions across thousands of
EGUs at multiple cost per ton levels, which EPA determined was best
simulated with the assistance of IPM modeling. (See, ''Final June
Revisions Rule Significant Contribution Assessment TSD'' and ``Final
June Revisions Rule State Budgets TSD'' in the docket for this
rulemaking).
    In contrast, this action considers small adjustments to the
quantification of remaining emissions at a discrete and limited subset
of individual EGUs. While IPM is a powerful tool and EPA uses its
output information when determining state budgets, that does not
preclude EPA from making targeted adjustments to the IPM output that
are consistent with the overall methodology. For example, some of the
revisions were made due to non-economic factors that affect near-term
unit-level electricity dispatch in certain specific circumstances. In
those narrow

cases, it is appropriate to adjust the output of an economic model like
IPM to reflect these factors, as demonstrated in this rule's ``Final
June Revisions Rule State Budgets and New Unit Set-Asides TSD''
quantifying these out-of-merit-order dispatch adjustments, found in the
docket for this rulemaking. As a result, EPA does not find it necessary
to re-execute full power sector modeling in order to quantify the
revisions to state budgets addressing the unit-level discrepancies the
Agency identified in the final Transport Rule analysis as the basis for
this rulemaking.
4. Comments Regarding Budget Adjustments Based on Control Installation
Timing
    Comment: One commenter argued that the Wisconsin state
SO2 and NOX budgets should be increased to
account for the scheduling of the installation of controls. The
commenter notes that EPA proposed making such an adjustment for
controls in Georgia and believes the Wisconsin situation is similar.
    Response: EPA has previously responded to these comments (see
Response to Comments on the Proposed Revisions to FIPs to Reduce
Interstate Transport of Fine PM and Ozone; EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4963).
Moreover, the commenter errs in asserting that the adjustments it
requests are similar to the adjustments made to the Georgia budget.
First, the commenter overlooks the fact that Georgia is a Group 2 state
while Wisconsin is a Group 1 state. EPA determined in the final
Transport Rule that implementation of all controls available at $500/
ton would resolve the significant contribution and interference with
maintenance of Group 2 states. For Group 1 states, however, significant
contribution and interference with maintenance is not resolved unless
controls available at $2300/ton are implemented. EPA acknowledges that,
absent an independent non Transport Rule related requirement, no
additional scrubbers will be installed in Group 2 states (76 FR 48257,
48282). For this same reason, EPA determined that it could not assume
that planned scrubber installations would be expedited in Group 2
states. This conclusion does not hold true for units in Group 1 states,
where the $2300/cost threshold may be sufficient to incentivize both
new scrubbers and the expedited installation of planned scrubbers.
    Second, in the case of Georgia, the controls would not be operating
until the following year (i.e. 2015 instead of 2014). The commenter
acknowledges that this is not the case in Wisconsin as the controls
will operate in 2014, just potentially not at the beginning of the
year. The commenter's suggestion that EPA should assume the controls
will not operate at all in 2014 contradicts their own acknowledgement
that these controls will be operating most of the year; furthermore,
even if the controls are not installed in time to operate at the very
beginning of the year, the plant will not be emitting, or emitting at
low levels, due to outages necessary for final tie-in. Additionally,
the flexibility of trading mechanisms of the Transport Rule allows
plants to accommodate this type of control installation schedule
without disrupting the state's ability to meet its budget and assurance
level. For these reasons, the requested revisions to the Wisconsin
budget are not comparable to the revisions made to state budgets in
Georgia .
5. Petitions for Reconsideration
    EPA received a number of Petitions, pursuant to section
307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act, for Reconsideration of the Transport
Rule. By providing, in this rulemaking, an additional opportunity for
comment on aspects of Transport Rule state budgets, EPA has addressed
some of the issues and concerns raised in many of the petitions for
administrative reconsideration. While EPA is not, in this final action,
taking action to grant or deny any such petitions, EPA believes this
action may make moot some of the issues raised in those petitions. EPA
will take separate action to grant or deny reconsideration on issues
raised in the petitions to the extent they have not become moot.

V. Specific Revisions in This Final Action

    In this rule, EPA is taking final action to revise the Transport
Rule and the Transport Rule FIPs. EPA has determined after considering
all comments received during the comment period that it is appropriate
to finalize the revisions as proposed. This section describes the
specific revisions made in this rule. Additional information regarding
the calculations done by EPA to quantify the appropriate changes to
state budgets and new unit set asides can be found in the ``Final June
Revisions Rule State Budgets and New Unit Set-Asides TSD.''
Quantitative assessments of the relationship between final revisions to
the Transport Rule and the original analysis can be found in the
``Final June Revisions Rule Significant Contribution Assessment TSD.''
Unit-level allocations under the revised FIPs appear in a document
entitled ``Final June Revisions Rule Unit-Level Allocations under the
FIPs.'' All of these documents, and additional relevant information
including a detailed response to additional comments received during
the comment period are in the docket for this rulemaking.
    (1) Revise the Arkansas ozone season NOX budgets for
2012 and 2014 and increase the Arkansas ozone season new unit set-aside
budget.
    In this final action, EPA is increasing the Arkansas 2012 and 2014
ozone-season NOX budgets by 73 tons. EPA is also increasing
the ozone-season NOX new unit set-aside for Arkansas for
2014 and beyond. The revised ozone new unit set-aside is 8 percent of
the ozone-season NOX budget.
    EPA evaluated comments received in response to the October 14,
2011, proposed revisions, and determined that the McClellan plant is in
an out-of-merit-order dispatch area with conditions likely to
necessitate what would otherwise be non-economic generation.\4\ EPA
therefore recalculated the emissions from the McClellan plant with non-
economic generation to account for the input assumption changes. These
calculations yield increases to the Arkansas 2012 and 2014 state
budgets for ozone-season NOX of 73 tons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For purposes of this rule and the February 21, 2012,
revisions rule, EPA characterizes an out-of-merit-order dispatch
area as one in which ``units * * * are frequently dispatched out of
regional economic order as a result of short-run limitations on the
ability to meet local electricity demand with generation from
outside the area.'' See 76 FR 63865.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA received comments on the October 14, 2011 revisions proposal
that identified Turk Unit 1 as a unit commencing commercial operation
on or after January 1, 2010. EPA evaluated these comments and
determined that Turk Unit 1 qualifies as a new unit under the final
Transport Rule's unit-level allocation methodology (see 76 FR 48290 for
a description of that allocation methodology). The final Transport Rule
did not include this unit's projected emissions in the calculation of
Arkansas' ozone-season NOX new unit set-aside. EPA is
therefore revising the portion of the Arkansas ozone-season budget
dedicated to the state's new unit set-aside account so that it takes
into account this unit's projected emissions, consistent with the new
unit set-aside methodology in the final Transport Rule. EPA is applying
this revision to the new unit set-asides for 2014 and beyond. 2014 is
the first year for which EPA has not yet recorded (i.e., distributed)
allowances to existing units under the Arkansas state budget. To
implement this revision for 2012 and 2013, EPA would have to take back
allocations of 2012 and 2013 allowances that the Agency has already
distributed

to existing units in Arkansas.\5\ EPA received a comment suggesting
that the revision to the 2012 and 2013 new unit set-asides could be
made because the stay meant ``these allocations are no longer
distributed for use until the stay is lifted.'' The premise of this
comment is incorrect. Allowances for 2012 and 2013 were recorded in the
compliance accounts of existing sources in Arkansas prior to the
December 30, 2011, stay of the Transport Rule. Transport Rule allowance
allocations recorded prior to December 30, 2011 remain in circulation
in the marketplace. These allowances are electronically transferable by
the owners and operators of such sources, and therefore those
allowances may no longer reside in the specific compliance accounts in
which they were originally recorded. Further, allowances still in their
original recorded accounts may already be under contract to be
transferred at a later date to another entity.\6\ The commenter's
assertion that ``these allocations are no longer distributed for use''
is thus not accurate. While sources are not required to hold allowances
for compliance at this time, the previously allocated allowances remain
in circulation and may have already been traded. Turk Unit 1 remains
eligible to request allowance allocation from the new unit set-asides
for any control period under the program. In the final Transport Rule,
EPA established a minimum amount of allowances (equivalent to 2 percent
of the relevant state budget) to be supplied to each new unit set-aside
in addition to any other allowances supplied to that set-aside on the
basis of projected emissions from specific new units EPA identified at
the time. As such, the new unit set-asides can accommodate allocation
requests from new units that were not explicitly identified at the time
EPA promulgated the Transport Rule. (76 FR 48291) Further, as the
commenter acknowledges, this unit is not projected to start-up until
late 2012 and thus the unit will have little if any ozone-season
emissions in 2012. It is likely that this unit will not need to hold
2012 ozone-season allowances for compliance. Finally, EPA notes that
Turk Unit 1's compliance possibilities are not limited to its initial
allowance allocation; like any other unit, it may obtain other
allowances as necessary in the marketplace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Because the total number of allowances available to all
sources in a given state is limited to that state's budget,
adjusting the size of the new unit set-aside necessarily changes the
size of the total allowance pool that is distributed as initial
allocations to existing units.
    \6\ EPA does not collect information on when and how allowance
trades are executed in private contracts; instead, EPA's data only
shows the physical location of allowances in accounts at a given
point in time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This revision yields an ozone-season NOX new unit set-
aside of 8 percent for 2014 and beyond for Arkansas. See the ``Final
June 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 June Revisions Rule
Unit-Level Allocations under the FIPs'' in the docket to this
rulemaking.
    (2) Revise the Georgia SO2, annual NOX, and
ozone season NOX budgets for 2014.
    In this final action, EPA is increasing the Georgia 2014
SO2 budget by 40,334 tons, the Georgia 2014 annual
NOX budget by 13,198 tons and the Georgia 2014 ozone-season
NOX budget by 5,762 tons.
    EPA received comments on the October 14, 2011, revisions proposal
indicating that EPA erroneously assumed certain pollution control
requirements would be in place by 2014 due to requirements in a Georgia
state rule. Other commenters with sources in Group 1 states (i.e.,
Virginia, West Virginia, Ohio, Wisconsin) suggested that similar timing
issues existed for their units. However, in these particular states the
2014 scrubber installations were predicted due to the economic
incentives facing Group 1 states at the higher cost threshold ($2,300
per ton) derived from EPA's multi-factor analysis. EPA's modeling
projects that units in those states would find it cost-effective to
install and operate new scrubbers in 2014 to support Transport Rule
emission reductions regardless of other pollution control incentives or
requirements that may be on a different schedule. Georgia faces a lower
cost threshold ($500 per ton) as a Group 2 state, and while EPA
believes that such a cost threshold is sufficient to induce the
operation of existing scrubbers, EPA is not assuming that these units
in Georgia would install new scrubbers by 2014 purely in response to
the cost threshold applied to their state under the Transport Rule.
    EPA evaluated the Georgia-specific comments on this issue and
determined that the deadlines for certain units extend beyond 2014 in
the Georgia state law in question. EPA also determined that, because
Georgia is a Group 2 SO2 state, it could not demonstrate
that these controls would be installed absent the Georgia state law or
in advance of the deadlines established therein. To correct the
alignment of the Georgia 2014 state budgets with the requirements for
affected units in Georgia to install controls by the state rule's
deadlines, EPA is increasing Georgia's 2014 state budgets by 40,334
tons of SO2, 13,198 tons of annual NOX, and 5,762
tons of ozone-season NOX.
    (3) Revise the Indiana SO2 budgets for 2012 and 2014.
    In this final action, EPA is increasing the Indiana SO2
budget for 2012 and 2014 by 5,338 tons.
    EPA evaluated comments received in response to the October 14,
2011, proposed revisions regarding post-combustion control status at
Gallagher Units 2 and 4. Commenters identified an erroneous assumption
of flue gas desulphurization (FGD, or scrubber) with 86 percent removal
at units that have actually installed dry sorbent injection (DSI)
technology with a 60 percent removal rate and an emission rate limit of
0.8 lbs/mmBtu established in a NSR settlement agreement. EPA evaluated
the comments and determined that an adjustment was appropriate as it is
supported by their data reported in EIA form 860 data and the legal
requirements under Consent Decree of the Gallagher Plant. Therefore,
EPA increased the state's annual SO2 budget by 3,465 tons.
    Commenters on the October 14, 2011, revisions proposal also
identified a facility in Indiana, Gibson Unit 5, which currently faces
immediate-term limitations regarding the amount of flue gas that can be
treated in its existing FGD. Commenters noted its removal rate should
be lower than that assumed by EPA. EPA examined the basis for its
assumed removal rate--the design capability reported for the unit in
EIA form 860. The Gibson Unit 5 reports in form EIA 860 that it can
only pass 98% of its flue gas through its scrubber, not 100% as
originally assumed by EPA. EPA modified the unit's removal rate assumed
in IPM to be consistent with its reported design capability and revised
the budget accordingly.
    In the final Transport Rule analysis, EPA relied on the
SO2 removal efficiency that this facility reported at its
scrubber to the Energy Information Administration (EIA). However, EPA
has since determined that this reported value only intended to address
the removal efficiency for the portion of the flue gas treated in the
scrubber.
    EPA received comments supporting the revised assumption regarding
the portion of the flue gas treated in the scrubber, and comments
opposing EPA's use of the removal efficiency rate (95%) reported on EIA
form 860. The

commenter argues that EPA should instead use a lower removal efficiency
rate (85%). While this removal efficiency rate is not a rate that was
reported to EIA, the commenter argues that this rate is closer to the
unit's removal values reported in EIA form 923.
    After evaluating comments on this topic, EPA determined that its
use of the 95% rate reported on EIA form 860 is appropriate. First, EPA
relied on EIA form 860 as its default assumption for scrubber removal
efficiency as it represents a consistent, conservative, and accurate
metric (reported by the sources themselves). As explained in the Final
Transport Rule Response to Comments, ``EPA notes that where EIA 860
reported values conflicted with those provided in comments, EPA
generally relied on the EIA 860 reported values to promote consistent
treatment of removal efficiencies among scrubbed units.'' Among other
things, there can be inconsistency in the suggested removal rates
provided to EPA by commenters. For example, at proposal, two different
utilities that were co-owners of the same unit commented separately and
provided a suggested removal rate for the same unit that they co-owned.
However, the rate each suggested was different (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-
2689.1, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2665.1). For all of the above reasons, EPA
remains confident that the consistent use of EIA 860 data is
appropriate.
    Second, the commenter's observation that its comment-supplied
removal rate more closely parallels that reported in EIA 923
misunderstands the parameter being addressed in the IPM modeling and
misconstrues the purpose for which EPA conducted IPM modeling in
support of the Transport Rule. EPA applied its IPM modeling to develop
accurate and reasonable state-level emission projections, for which it
was necessary to develop a consistent approach and data source
regarding the emission reduction capability of all scrubbers throughout
the fleet. The removal rate input parameter that EPA uses in its power
sector modeling addresses scrubber capability, not a particular
scrubber's performance in any given year. The removal rate reported on
EIA form 923 only reflects performance of the scrubber in a particular
year, which can be significantly affected by variable operational
decisions at the unit; conversely, the removal rate reported on EIA
form 860 reflects design capability of the scrubber--that is, what the
supplier built it to regularly accomplish when at full operation. While
the commenter argues that this particular scrubber has performed under
its design value, there is also evidence that other scrubbers have
performed above their design values. For example, comparing the
scrubber removal efficiencies reported on EIA 923 to the corresponding
design values reported in EIA 860 shows that three out of the four
units at the Petersburg plant exceeded their design values in 2010.
Evidently, individual scrubber efficiency in any given year may vary
above or below that scrubber's design value; however, EPA does not find
that any one instance of this type of variation, such as that reported
by Gibson Unit 5, provides a sufficient basis for revising the
projected state-level emissions on which the quantification of the
state budget depends.
    Because of the conservative nature of design values (representing
broadly reliable and sustainable performance expectations) and the
consistency with which they are reported from year to year on EIA form
860 (contrary to reported values on EIA form 923 that vary
significantly from year to year), EPA determined that the design value
data provided on EIA form 860 provide, in the aggregate, a more
reliable metric for estimating the performance capability of a state's
scrubbed fleet and thus result in reasonable and accurate state-level
emission projections. For these reasons, EPA believes it is appropriate
to use the scrubber removal efficiency reported on EIA form 860 for
units modeled in IPM--including Gibson 5.
    EPA recalculated the projected emissions for this unit using the
most recent data reported by this facility to EIA on form 860 for 2009,
which includes the scrubber's removal efficiency and the portion of
flue gas treated. Based on this recalculation, EPA is increasing
Indiana's 2012 and 2014 SO2 budgets by 1,873 tons (5,338
tons total).
    (4) Revise the Kansas SO2 and annual NOX
budgets for 2012 and 2014.
    In this final rule, EPA is increasing the Kansas 2012 and 2014
SO2 budgets by 452 tons, as well as increasing the 2012
annual NOX budget by 640 tons and the 2014 annual
NOX budget by 5,794 tons.
    Commenters on the October 14, 2011, revisions proposal provided
information showing that one unit at the Quindaro plant in Kansas is in
an out-of-merit-order dispatch area with conditions likely to
necessitate what would otherwise be non-economic generation. EPA
evaluated these comments and determined that, based on the new
information submitted, there were immediate-term local conditions that
would likely necessitate non-economic generation at these units. EPA
therefore recalculated the emissions from this plant with non-economic
generation to account for the input assumption changes. These
calculations yield increases to the Kansas 2012 and 2014 state budgets
for annual SO2 of 452 tons and annual NOX of 640
tons.
    Commenters on the October 14, 2011, revisions proposal also noted
that EPA inadvertently included an emission rate requirement from a
consent decree affecting a Kansas facility whose deadline actually
extends beyond 2014. EPA evaluated the comment and determined that a
revision was warranted because it could not establish that this
emission rate limit would be met absent the consent decree or before
the consent decree deadline. In particular, EPA determined that,
because Kansas is a Group 2 SO2 state, EPA could not
demonstrate that these controls would be installed absent the consent
decree or in advance of the deadlines established therein. To correct
the alignment of the Kansas 2014 state budget with the requirements for
affected units in Kansas to meet the emission rate limitation by the
consent decree's deadlines, EPA is increasing the Kansas 2014 annual
NOX budget by an additional 5,154 tons (5,794 tons total).
    (5) Revise the Louisiana ozone season NOX budgets for
2012 and 2014 and adjust the ozone season new unit set-aside.
    In this final action, EPA is increasing the Louisiana 2012 and 2014
ozone-season NOX budgets by 89 tons. EPA is also decreasing
the ozone-season NOX new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2014.
The revised new unit set-aside is 2 percent of the ozone-season budget.
    EPA received comments on the October 14, 2011, proposed revisions
rule demonstrating that the Stall and Lieberman plants are in an out-
of-merit-order dispatch area with conditions likely to necessitate what
would otherwise be non-economic generation. EPA evaluated the comments
and determined that immediate-term local conditions would likely
necessitate non-economic generation at these units. EPA recalculated
the emissions from the Stall and Lieberman plants with non-economic
generation to account for the input assumption changes. These
calculations yield increases to Louisiana's 2012 and 2014 state budgets
for ozone-season NOX of 89 tons.
    Comments on the October 14, 2011, revisions proposal also noted
that in calculating the Louisiana ozone-season NOX new unit
set-aside, EPA included projected emissions from a planned new

facility, Washington Parish, which will not in fact come into service
in Louisiana. EPA determined that Washington Parish's projected
emissions should be subtracted from Louisiana's new unit set-aside
calculations. EPA is therefore reducing the size of Louisiana's ozone-
season NOX new unit set-aside in 2012 and 2014 to 2 percent
(from the previous 3 percent) to account for the exclusion of these
projected emissions from the relevant calculation. This revision means
that fewer allowances will need to be held in reserve for the new unit
set-aside. After this revision's effective date, EPA will reallocate
any allowances in excess of the revised new unit set-aside to existing
units in the state by the same existing unit allowance allocation
methodology as previously finalized. See the ``Final June 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 Louisiana 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 June Revisions Rule
Unit-Level Allocations under the FIPs'' in the docket to this
rulemaking.
    (6) Revise the Mississippi ozone season NOX budgets for
2012 and 2014.
    In this final action, EPA is increasing both the Mississippi 2012
and 2014 ozone-season NOX budgets by 115 tons.
    EPA received comments on the October 14, 2011, revisions proposal
demonstrating that the Moselle plant is in an out-of-merit-order
dispatch area with conditions likely to necessitate what would
otherwise be non-economic generation. EPA has determined that there
were immediate-term local conditions that would likely necessitate non-
economic generation at these units.
    Therefore, EPA recalculated the emissions from the Moselle plant
with non-economic generation to account for the input assumption
changes. These calculations yield increases to Mississippi's 2012 and
2014 state budgets for ozone-season NOX of 115 tons.
    (7) Revise the Missouri annual and ozone season NOX
budgets for 2012 and 2014 and revise the SO2, annual
NOX, and ozone season NOX new unit set-aside
budgets.
    In this final action, EPA is increasing the Missouri 2012 and 2014
annual and ozone-season NOX budgets by 26 tons and
increasing the size of the SO2, annual NOX, and
ozone season NOX new unit set-aside budgets. The revised
set-aside budgets are 3 percent of the SO2 budget and 6
percent of the annual and ozone-season NOX budgets.
    EPA is increasing these budgets to account for operational
constraints at six plants that were identified in comments received on
the October 14, 2011, revisions proposal. Commenters provided
information showing that these units were in out-of-merit-order
dispatch areas with conditions likely to necessitate what would
otherwise be non-economic generation. EPA evaluated these comments and
determined that there were immediate-term local conditions that would
likely necessitate non-economic generation at these units.
    EPA recalculated the emissions from these six plants with non-
economic generation to account for the input assumption changes. These
calculations yield increases to Missouri's 2012 and 2014 state budgets
for annual NOX of 26 tons and ozone-season NOX of
26 tons.
    Comments on the October 14, 2011, revisions proposal also
identified Iatan Unit 2 as commencing commercial operation on or after
January 1, 2010. EPA reviewed these comments and determined that Iatan
Unit 2 qualifies as a new unit under the final Transport Rule's unit-
level allocation methodology (76 FR 48290). The final Transport Rule
omitted this unit's projected emissions from the calculation of
Missouri's new unit set-asides. EPA is therefore revising the portion
of Missouri's SO2, annual NOX, and ozone-season
NOX budgets dedicated to the state's new unit set-asides so
that they take into account this unit's projected emissions, consistent
with the new unit set-aside methodology in the final Transport Rule.
EPA is only applying this revision for 2013 and beyond, the first year
for which EPA has not yet recorded (i.e., distributed) allowances to
existing units under the Missouri state budget. In this manner, EPA
will avoid any retroactive adjustments to allowance allocations that
the Agency has already distributed to existing units in Missouri for
Transport Rule compliance in the 2012 and 2013 control periods.\7\
Allowances for 2012 were recorded in the compliance accounts of
existing sources in Missouri prior to the December 30, 2011, stay of
the Transport Rule. Transport rule allowance allocations recorded prior
to the December 30, 2011 stay are electronically transferable by the
owners and operators of such sources, and because they are
transferable, those allowances may no longer reside in the compliance
accounts in which they were originally recorded. Iatan Unit 2 remains
eligible to request allowance allocation from the new unit set-asides
for any control period under the program. This revision yields an
ozone-season NOX new unit set-aside of 6 percent, an annual
NOX new unit set-aside of 6 percent, and an SO2
new unit set-aside of 3 percent for 2013 and beyond for Missouri. See
the ``Final June Revisions Rule State Budgets and New Unit Set-Asides
TSD'' in the docket for this rulemaking for a quantitative
demonstration of these revisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Because the total number of allowances available to all
sources in a given state is limited to that state's budget,
adjusting the size of the new unit set-aside necessarily changes the
size of the total allowance pool that is distributed as initial
allocations to existing units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These revisions to the Missouri 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 June Revisions Rule
Unit-Level Allocations under the FIPs'' in the docket to this
rulemaking.
    (8) Revise the Ohio SO2, annual NOX, and
ozone season NOX budgets for 2012 and 2014.
    In this final action, EPA is increasing Ohio's 2012 and 2014 annual
SO2, annual NOX, and ozone-season NOX
by 5,163, 2,765, and 1,221 tons respectively.
    EPA is finalizing budget increases in this action account for
operational constraints at two plants, Conesville and Muskingum River,
that were identified in comments received on the October 14, 2011,
revisions proposal. The commenter provided information showing that
these plants were in out-of-merit-order dispatch areas with conditions
likely to necessitate what would otherwise be non-economic generation.
EPA determined there were immediate-term local conditions that would
likely necessitate non-economic generation at these units.
    EPA recalculated the emissions from these two plants with non-
economic generation to reflect the input assumption changes. These
calculations yield increases to Ohio's 2012 and 2014 state budgets for
annual SO2 of 5,163 tons, annual NOX of 547 tons,
and ozone-season NOX of 257 tons.
    EPA is finalizing additional adjustments to Ohio's 2012 and 2014
annual and ozone-season NOX budgets to correct an erroneous
assumption of an SCR at Bayshore 4. EPA received comments on the
October 14, 2011, revisions proposal arguing that EPA's assumption
regarding SCR at the unit was incorrect. EPA reviewed recent emissions
data and verified that there is no SCR currently at the facility, and
that there is no evidence contradicting the commenter's recent claims
that no SCR

is planned or under construction. Therefore, removing the SCR
assumption results in an additional 2,218 ton increase (2,765 ton
total) in the state's annual NOX budget and a 964 ton
increase (1,221 ton total) for the ozone-season NOX budget.
    (9) Revise the Nebraska SO2 budgets for 2012 and 2014.
    EPA is finalizing revisions to increase the Nebraska 2012 and 2014
SO2 budgets by 3,110 tons.
    EPA received comments on the October 14, 2011 revisions proposal
arguing that EPA's assumptions regarding FGD pollution control
technology at Whelan Energy Center Units 1 and 2 and Nebraska City Unit
2 were incorrect. The commenter noted that the technology at Nebraska
Unit 2 and Whelan Unit 2 is dry FGD technology, whereas EPA had assumed
wet FGD technology with a higher SO2 removal efficiency than
the actual dry FGD technology that those units achieve. EPA evaluated
these comments and determined that this difference in control type
warranted a change in the relevant budgets. Additionally, EPA is also
revising its assumption of FGD technology at Whelan Energy Center Unit
1, as EPA determined that there is no FGD present, planned, or under
construction at the unit. These adjustments result in an increase of
3,110 tons to the 2012 and 2014 annual SO2 budgets for the
state.
    (10) Revise the New York SO2, annual NOX, and
ozone season NOX budgets for 2012 and 2014.
    In this final action, EPA is increasing New York's 2012 and 2014
annual SO2, annual NOX, and ozone-season
NOX budgets by 5,444 tons, 694 tons, and 127 tons
respectively.
    EPA received comments on the October 14, 2011, revisions proposal
demonstrating that the East River plant is in an out-of-merit-order
dispatch area with conditions likely to necessitate what would
otherwise be non-economic generation. EPA determined that based on this
information, the East River plant's near-term operations are likely to
yield increased emissions beyond those accounted for in the final
Transport Rule's quantification of the relevant state budgets. EPA
recalculated the emissions from this facility with out-of-merit-order
dispatch to reflect the input assumption changes. These calculations
yield increases to New York's 2012 and 2014 state budgets for annual
SO2 of 84 tons, annual NOX of 694 tons, and
ozone-season NOX of 127 tons.
    EPA is also finalizing an adjustment of 5,360 tons to New York's
2012 and 2014 SO2 budgets based on its determination that
the appropriate removal rate for two facilities, Dunkirk and Huntley,
with existing dry sorbent injection (DSI). The removal rate for the DSI
controls should be 53 percent. EPA had previously assumed an
SO2 removal rate of 70 percent for these two units, as 70%
is the default value that EPA assumes for new DSI retrofits in IPM
modeling. However, more recently reported EIA form 860 data released
after the rule was finalized confirms the commenter's reporting that
the removal rate is less than 70%. In the 2010 EIA 860 form, the
sources reported 53% removal and EPA is updating its assumptions and
budgets to reflect this value. This revised approach is consistent with
EPA's assumptions of scrubber SO2 removal rates, which EPA
bases on reported values on EIA form 860. EPA recalculated the
projected emissions for these units based on this revised assumption
and is increasing the New York 2012 and 2014 SO2 budgets
accordingly.
    (11) Revise the Oklahoma ozone-season NOX budgets for
2013 and 2014.
    EPA is increasing the Oklahoma 2013 \8\ and 2014 ozone-season
NOX budgets by 859 tons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ These changes do not apply to the Oklahoma 2012 budget
because similar changes were already made to the affected units'
operation in 2012, as described in the Technical Support Document
``Determination of State Budgets for the Final Ozone Supplemental of
the Transport Rule'' (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-485, pg 5-7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA received comments received on the October 14, 2011, revisions
proposal demonstrating that the Comanche plant is in an out-of-merit-
order dispatch area with conditions likely to necessitate what would
otherwise be non-economic generation. EPA determined there were
immediate-term local conditions that would likely necessitate non-
economic generation at these units. This action also revises the
assumption of an FGD at the W S Lee Facility. Current emissions data
reported to EPA's Air Markets Program Data (http://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/)
did not suggest any existing FGD, and EPA could not find any new
evidence to suggest that FGDs were planned, under construction, or
expected to be online in 2012 or 2014 at this facility.
    (12) Revise the Texas annual NOX and ozone season
NOX budgets for 2012 and 2014.
    In this final action, EPA is increasing the Texas 2012 and 2014
annual and ozone-season NOX budgets by 2,731 and 1,142 tons
respectively.
    These revisions are made to account for operational constraints at
six plants: Jones, Moore County, Nichols, Plant X, Knox Lee, and
Wilkes. These constraints were identified by commenters in response to
the October 14, 2011, revisions proposal. The commenters provided
information showing that these plants were in out-of-merit-order
dispatch areas with conditions likely to necessitate what would
otherwise be non-economic generation. EPA determined that there were
immediate-term local conditions that would likely necessitate non-
economic generation at these units.
    EPA recalculated the emissions from these plants with non-economic
generation to account for the input assumption changes. These
calculations yield increases to the Texas 2012 and 2014 state budgets
for annual NOX of 2,731 tons, and ozone-season
NOX of 1,142 tons.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

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

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's 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 rulemaking pose no
additional burden for small entities. The revision to the new unit set-
asides in Arkansas, Missouri, and Texas would yield an extremely small
change in unit-level allowance allocations to existing units, including
small entities, such that it would not affect the analysis conducted on
small entity impacts under the finalized Transport Rule. In all other
states, the revisions 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 action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector. This action is increasing the budgets and increasing the total
number of allowances or maintaining the same budget but revising unit-
level allocations in several other states in the Transport Rule. Thus,
this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of
UMRA.
    In developing the final Transport Rule, EPA consulted with small
governments pursuant to a plan established under section 203 of UMRA to
address impacts of regulatory requirements in the rule that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. This action makes relatively minor
revisions to the emissions budgets and allowance allocations or
allowance allocations only in certain states in the final Transport
Rule. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. EPA did
provide information to state and local officials during development of
both the proposed and final Transport Rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action
makes relatively minor revisions to the emissions budgets and allowance
allocations in several states in the final Transport Rule and helps
ease the transition from CAIR. Indian country new unit set-asides will
increase slightly or remain unchanged in the states affected by this
action. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. EPA
consulted with tribal officials during the process of promulgating the
final Transport Rule to permit them to have meaningful and timely input
into its development.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    This action is not subject to EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) because it is not economically significant as defined in EO
12866, and because the Agency does not believe the environmental health
or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate
risk to children. Analyses by EPA that show how the emission reductions
from the strategies in the final Transport Rule will further improve
air quality and children's health can be found in the final Transport
Rule RIA.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    As described in section XII.I of the preamble to the final
Transport Rule, the Transport Rule program requires all sources to meet
the applicable monitoring requirements of 40 CFR part 75. Part 75
already incorporates a number of voluntary consensus standards. This
action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not
consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    In the ``Final June Revisions Rule Significant Contribution
Assessment TSD'' in the docket to this rulemaking, EPA assessed impacts
of the emission changes in this rule on air quality throughout the
Transport Rule region. For 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.

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 not ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective August 13, 2012.

L. Judicial Review

    Petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by
August 13, 2012. Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA indicates which Federal
Courts of Appeal have venue for petitions of review of final actions by
EPA. This section provides, in part, that petitions for review must be
filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit if
(i) the agency action consists of ``nationally applicable regulations
promulgated, or final action taken, by the Administrator,'' or (ii)
such action is locally or regionally applicable, if ``such action is
based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect and if in taking
such action the Administrator finds and publishes that such action is
based on such a determination.''
    In the final Transport Rule, EPA determined that ``[a]ny final
action related to the Transport Rule is `nationally applicable' within
the meaning of section 307(b)(1).'' 76 FR 48352. Through this rule, EPA
is revising specific aspects of the final Transport Rule. This rule
therefore is a final action related to the Transport Rule and as such
is covered by the determination of national applicability made in the
final Transport Rule. Thus, pursuant to section 307(b) any petitions
for review of this action must be filed in the Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days from the date final action
is published in the Federal Register. Filing a petition for
reconsideration of this action does not affect the finality of this
rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time
within which a petition for judicial review may be filed and shall not
postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. In addition,
pursuant to CAA section 307(b)(2) this action may not be challenged
later in proceedings to enforce its requirements.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 97

    Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control,
Electric utilities, Nitrogen oxides, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur dioxide.

    Dated: June 5, 2012.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 97--[Amended]

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

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

Subpart AAAAA--[Amended]

0
2. Section 97.410 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(2)(iv) and (a)(2)(v);
0
b. Revising paragraphs (a)(6), (a)(11), (a)(14), (a)(16), and (a)(20);
and
0
c. Revising paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(6), (b)(11), (b)(14), (b)(16) and
(b)(20).
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  97.410  State NOX Annual trading budgets, new unit
set-asides, Indian country new unit set-aside, and variability limits.

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iv) The NOX annual trading budget for 2014 and
thereafter is 53,738 tons.
    (v) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and
thereafter is 1,075 tons.
* * * * *
    (6) Kansas. (i) The NOX annual trading budget for 2012
and 2013 is 31,354 tons.
    (ii) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013
is 596 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 31,354 tons.
    (v) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and
thereafter is 596 tons.
    (vi) The NOX annual Indian country new unit set-aside
for 2014 and thereafter is 31 tons.
* * * * *
    (11) Missouri. (i) The NOX annual trading budget for
2012 and 2013 is 52,400 tons.
    (ii) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2012 is 1,572
tons and for 2013 is 3,144 tons.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The NOX annual trading budget for 2014 and
thereafter is 48,743 tons.
    (v) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and
thereafter is 2,925 tons.
* * * * *
    (14) New York. (i) The NOX annual trading budget for
2012 and 2013 is 21,722 tons.
    (ii) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013
is 412 tons.
    (iii) The NOX annual Indian country new unit set-aside
for 2012 and 2013 is 22 tons.
    (iv) The NOX annual trading budget for 2014 and
thereafter is 21,722 tons.
    (v) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and
thereafter is 412 tons.
    (vi) The NOX annual Indian country new unit set-aside
for 2014 and thereafter is 22 tons.
* * * * *
    (16) Ohio. (i) The NOX annual trading budget for 2012
and 2013 is 95,468 tons.
    (ii) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013
is 1,909 tons.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The NOX annual trading budget for 2014 and
thereafter is 90,258 tons.
    (v) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and
thereafter is 1,805 tons.
* * * * *

    (20) Texas. (i) The NOX annual trading budget for 2012
and 2013 is 137,701 tons.
    (ii) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013
is 5,370 tons.
    (iii) The NOX annual Indian country new unit set-aside
for 2012 and 2013 is 138 tons.
    (iv) The NOX annual trading budget for 2014 and
thereafter is 137,701 tons.
    (v) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and
thereafter is 5,370 tons.
    (vi) The NOX annual Indian country new unit set-aside
for 2014 and thereafter is 138 tons.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) The NOX annual variability limit for Georgia is
9,673 tons.
* * * * *
    (6) The NOX annual variability limit for Kansas is 5,644
tons.
* * * * *
    (11) The NOX annual variability limit for Missouri is
8,774 tons.
* * * * *
    (14) The NOX annual variability limit for New York is
3,910 tons.
* * * * *
    (16) The NOX annual variability limit for Ohio is 16,246
tons.
* * * * *
    (20) The NOX annual variability limit for Texas is
24,786 tons.
* * * * *

Subpart BBBBB--[Amended]

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

Sec.  97.510  State NOX Ozone Season trading budgets, new
unit set-asides, Indian country new unit set-aside, and variability
limits.

    (a) * * *
    (2) Arkansas. (i) The NOX ozone season trading budget
for 2012 and 2013 is 15,110 tons.
    (ii) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012
and 2013 is 756 tons.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and
thereafter is 15,110 tons.
    (v) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and
thereafter is 1,209 tons.
* * * * *
    (4) * * *
    (iv) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and
thereafter is 24,041 tons.
    (v) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and
thereafter is 481 tons.
* * * * *
    (9) Louisiana. (i) The NOX ozone season trading budget
for 2012 and 2013 is 18,115 tons.
    (ii) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012
and 2013 is 344 tons.
    (iii) The NOX ozone season Indian country new unit set-
aside for 2012 and 2013 is 18 tons.
    (iv) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and
thereafter is 18,115 tons.
    (v) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and
thereafter is 344 tons.
    (vi) The NOX ozone season Indian country new unit set-
aside for 2014 and thereafter is 18 tons.
* * * * *
    (12) Mississippi. (i) The NOX ozone season trading
budget for 2012 and 2013 is 12,429 tons.
    (ii) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012
and 2013 is 237 tons.
    (iii) The NOX ozone season Indian country new unit set-
aside for 2012 and 2013 is 12 tons.
    (iv) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and
thereafter is 12,429 tons.
    (v) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and
thereafter is 237 tons.
    (vi) The NOX ozone season Indian country new unit set-
aside for 2014 and thereafter is 12 tons.
    (13) Missouri. (i) The NOX ozone season trading budget
for 2012 and 2013 is 22,788 tons.
    (ii) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 is
684 tons and for 2013 is 1,367 tons.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and
thereafter is 21,099 tons.
    (v) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and
thereafter is 1,266 tons.
* * * * *
    (15) New York. (i) The NOX ozone season trading budget
for 2012 and 2013 is 10,369 tons.
    (ii) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012
and 2013 is 197 tons.
    (iii) The NOX ozone season Indian country new unit set-
aside for 2012 and 2013 is 10 tons.
    (iv) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and
thereafter is 10,369 tons.
    (v) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and
thereafter is 197 tons.
    (vi) The NOX ozone season Indian country new unit set-
aside for 2014 and thereafter is 10 tons.
* * * * *
    (17) Ohio. (i) The NOX ozone season trading budget for
2012 and 2013 is 41,284 tons.
    (ii) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012
and 2013 is 826 tons.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and
thereafter is 39,013 tons.
    (v) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and
thereafter is 780 tons.
    (18) Oklahoma. (i) The NOX ozone season trading budget
for 2012 is 36,567 tons and for 2013 is 22,694 tons.
    (ii) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 is
731 tons and for 2013 is 454 tons.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and
thereafter is 22,694 tons.
    (v) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and
thereafter is 454 tons.
* * * * *
    (22) Texas. (i) The NOX ozone season trading budget for
2012 and 2013 is 65,560 tons.
    (ii) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012
and 2013 is 2,556 tons.
    (iii) The NOX ozone season Indian country new unit set-
aside for 2012 and 2013 is 66 tons.
    (iv) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and
thereafter is 65,560 tons.
    (v) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and
thereafter is 2,556 tons.
    (vi) The NOX ozone season Indian country new unit set-
aside for 2014 and thereafter is 66 tons.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) The NOX ozone season variability limit for Arkansas
is 3,173 tons.
* * * * *
    (4) The NOX ozone season variability limit for Georgia
is 5,049 tons.
* * * * *
    (9) The NOX ozone season variability limit for Louisiana
is 3,804 tons.
* * * * *
    (12) The NOX ozone season variability limit for
Mississippi is 2,610 tons.
    (13) The NOX ozone season variability limit for Missouri
is 4,431 tons.
* * * * *

    (15) The NOX ozone season variability limit for New York
is 2,177 tons.
* * * * *
    (17) The NOX ozone season variability limit for Ohio is
8,193 tons.
    (18) The NOX ozone season variability limit for Oklahoma
is 4,766 tons.
* * * * *
    (22) The NOX ozone season variability limit for Texas is
13,768 tons.
* * * * *

Subpart CCCCC--[Amended]

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

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

    (a) * * *
    (2) Indiana. (i) The SO2 trading budget for 2012 and
2013 is 290,762 tons.
    (ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is
8,723 tons.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is
166,449 tons.
    (v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter
is 4,993 tons.
* * * * *
    (7) * * *
    (ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 is 4,149 tons
and for 2013 is 6,224 tons.
* * * * *
    (v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter
is 4,978 tons.
* * * * *
    (9) New York. (i) The SO2 trading budget for 2012 and
2013 is 36,296 tons.
    (ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 690
tons.
    (iii) The SO2 Indian country new unit set-aside for 2012
and 2013 is 36 tons.
    (iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is
27,556 tons.
    (v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter
is 523 tons.
    (vi) The SO2 Indian country new unit set-aside for 2014
and thereafter is 28 tons.
* * * * *
    (11) Ohio. (i) The SO2 trading budget for 2012 and 2013
is 315,393 tons.
    (ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is
6,308 tons.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is
142,240 tons.
    (v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter
is 2,845 tons.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) The SO2 variability limit for Indiana is 29,961
tons.
* * * * *
    (9) The SO2 variability limit for New York is 4,960
tons.
* * * * *
    (11) The SO2 variability limit for Ohio is 25,603 tons.
* * * * *

Subpart DDDDD--[Amended]

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

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

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is
135,565 tons.
    (v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter
is 2,711 tons.
* * * * *
    (3) Kansas. (i) The SO2 trading budget for 2012 and 2013
is 41,980 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
41,980 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 68,162 tons.
    (ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is
2,658 tons.
    (iii) The SO2 Indian country new unit set-aside for 2012
and 2013 is 68 tons.
    (iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is
68,162 tons.
    (v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter
is 2,658 tons.
    (vi) The SO2 Indian country new unit set-aside for 2014
and thereafter is 68 tons.
    (6) South Carolina. (i) The SO2 trading budget for 2012
and 2013 is 96,633 tons.
    (ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is
1,836 tons.
    (iii) The SO2 Indian country new unit set-aside for 2012
and 2013 is 97 tons.
    (iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is
96,633 tons.
    (v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter
is 1,836 tons.
    (vi) The SO2 Indian country new unit set-aside for 2014
and thereafter is 97 tons.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) The SO2 variability limit for Georgia is 24,402
tons.
    (3) The SO2 variability limit for Kansas is 7,556 tons.
* * * * *
    (5) The SO2 variability limit for Nebraska is 12,269
tons.
    (6) The SO2 variability limit for South Carolina is
17,394 tons.
* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2012-14251 Filed 6-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P