Notice of Data Availability for Federal Implementation Plans To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone: Request for Comment on Alternative Allocations, Calculation of Assurance Provision Allowance Surrender Requirements, New-Unit Allocations in Indian Country, and Allocations by States, 1109-1121 [2011-109]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 51, 52, 72, 78, and 97
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0491; FRL–9249–6]
RIN 2060–AP50
Notice of Data Availability for Federal
Implementation Plans To Reduce
Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate
Matter and Ozone: Request for
Comment on Alternative Allocations,
Calculation of Assurance Provision
Allowance Surrender Requirements,
New-Unit Allocations in Indian
Country, and Allocations by States
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of data availability
(NODA) for the proposed Transport
Rule and request for comment.
AGENCY:
EPA has supplemented the
Transport Rule docket with additional
information relevant to the rulemaking,
including unit-level SO2 Group 1 and
Group 2, NOX annual, and NOX ozone
season allowances for existing units
calculated using two alternative
methodologies and data supporting
those calculations. This NODA requests
public comment on these two
alternative allocation methodologies for
existing units, on the unit-level
allocations calculated using those
alternative methodologies, on the data
supporting the calculations, and on any
resulting implications for the proposed
assurance provisions. This NODA also
requests comment on information about:
An alternative approach to calculation
of assurance provision allowance
surrender requirements; allocations for
new units locating in Indian country in
the proposed Transport Rule region in
the future; and provisions for states to
submit State Implementation Plans
providing for State allocation of
allowances in the proposed Transport
Rule trading programs.
DATES: Comments on this NODA must
be received on or before February 7,
2011.
Please refer to SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION for additional information
on submitting comments.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2009–0491, by one of the
following methods:
• https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the online instructions for submitting
comments. Attention Docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0491.
• Fax: (202) 566–9744. Attention
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–
0491.
jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:28 Jan 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
• Mail: EPA Docket Center, EPA West
(Air Docket), Attention Docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0491, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Please include 2 copies. In addition,
please mail a copy of your comments on
the information collection provisions to
the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for
EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington,
DC 20503.
• Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA West (Air
Docket), 1301 Constitution Avenue,
NW., Room 3334, Washington, DC
20004, Attention Docket ID No. EPA–
HQ–OAR–2009–0491. Such deliveries
are only accepted during the Docket’s
normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–
0491. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://www.regulations.gov Web site is
an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through https://
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, avoid any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information
about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at https://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1109
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
will be publicly available only in hard
copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center, EPA/DC, EPA East
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566–1744, and the telephone
number for the Air Docket is (202) 566–
1742.
For
questions regarding this Notice of Data
Availability and the additional
allocations information placed in the
docket contact Brian Fisher, Clean Air
Markets Division, USEPA Headquarters,
Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Mail Code: 6204J,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number: (202) 343–9633; fax number:
(202) 343–2359; e-mail
fisher.brian@epa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Detailed
background information describing the
proposed rulemaking may be found in a
previously published notice: Federal
Implementation Plans to Reduce
Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate
Matter and Ozone (proposed Transport
Rule); Proposed Rule, 75 FR 45210;
August 2, 2010.
The information placed in the docket
is also available for public review on the
Web site for this rulemaking at https://
www.epa.gov/airtransport/. If additional
relevant supporting information
becomes available in the future, EPA
will place this information in the docket
and make it available for public review
on this Web site. This NODA does not
extend the comment period for the
proposed Transport Rule, which ended
on October 1, 2010. This NODA also
does not extend the comment period for
the two NODAs supporting the
proposed Transport Rule that were
previously published in the Federal
Register. The comment period for the
NODA published September 1, 2010
closed on October 15, 2010. The
comment period for the NODA
published October 27, 2010 closed on
November 26, 2010.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\07JAP1.SGM
07JAP1
1110
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules
I. Additional Information on
Submitting Comments
jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
A. How can I help EPA ensure that my
comments are reviewed quickly?
To expedite review of your comments
by Agency staff, you are encouraged to
send a separate copy of your comments,
in addition to the copy you submit to
the official docket, to Brian Fisher,
Clean Air Markets Division, USEPA
Headquarters, Ariel Rios Building, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Mail Code:
6204J, Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number: (202) 343–9633; fax
number: (202) 343 2359; e-mail address
fisher.brian@epa.gov.
B. What should I consider as I prepare
my comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this
information to EPA through EDOCKET,
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark
the part or all of the information that
you claim to be CBI. For CBI
information in a disk or CD ROM that
you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the
disk or CD ROM as CBI and then
identify electronically within the disk or
CD ROM the specific information that is
claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that
includes information claimed as CBI, a
copy of the comment that does not
contain the information claimed as CBI
must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked
will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2. Send or deliver
information identified as CBI only to the
following address: Gene Sun, Clean Air
Markets Division, USEPA Headquarters,
Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Mail Code: 6204J,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number: (202) 343–9119; fax number:
(202) 343–2359.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments.
When submitting comments, remember
to: i. Identify the NODA by docket
number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal
Register date and page number).
ii. Follow directions—The Agency
may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by
referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section
number.
iii. Explain your comments, why you
agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your
requested changes.
iv. Describe any assumptions and
provide any technical information and/
or data that you used.
v. If you estimate potential costs or
burdens, explain how you arrived at
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:28 Jan 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
your estimate in sufficient detail to
allow for it to be reproduced.
vi. Provide specific examples to
illustrate your concerns, and suggest
alternatives.
vii. Explain your views as clearly as
possible, avoiding the use of profanity
or personal threats.
viii. Make sure to submit your
comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
II. Web Site for Rulemaking
Information
The EPA has previously established a
Web site for the proposed rulemaking at
https://www.epa.gov/airtransport. The
Web site includes the proposed
rulemaking actions and other related
information that the public may find
useful in addition to a link to this
NODA.
III. What is this Notice of Data
Availability?
In the Transport Rule Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), EPA
proposed that, until states submit and
the Administrator approves State
Implementation Plans (SIPs), Transport
Rule Federal Implementation Plans
(FIPs) would provide backstops to
prohibit emissions in upwind states that
significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of certain National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) in downwind states in
compliance with section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA). This Notice of Data Availability
(NODA) provides an opportunity for
public comment on five issues related to
the proposed Transport Rule and on
data relevant to those issues. The
relevant data has been placed in the
rulemaking docket (Docket ID No. EPA–
HQ–OAR–2009–0491) and on the Web
at https://www.epa.gov/airtransport.
Specifically, EPA is providing an
opportunity for additional public
comment on two methodologies for
allocating allowances under the remedy
proposed by EPA in the proposed
Transport Rule and on supplemental
data and information concerning the
two allocation methodologies. EPA is
also providing an opportunity for
comment on: The implications of the
alternative allocation methodologies for
the proposed assurance provisions; an
alternative approach to calculation of
assurance provision allowance
surrender requirements at the
designated representative (DR) level; a
methodology for allocating allowances
to new units that choose to locate in
Indian country in the Transport Rule
region; and possible options for states
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
wishing to submit State Implementation
Plans (SIPs) providing for State
allocation of allowances in the proposed
Transport Rule trading programs.
The first issue on which EPA is
soliciting comment relates to allowance
allocations under the proposed limited
interstate trading remedy. In the
Transport Rule NPR, EPA proposed FIPs
with a limited interstate trading remedy
and requested comment on alternative
remedies including intrastate trading
and direct control. To implement the
proposed limited interstate trading
remedy, EPA would, among other
things, require sources to hold
emissions allowances equal to their
emissions of certain air pollutants
during each compliance period. Because
EPA proposed FIPs in the Transport
Rule, EPA also proposed a methodology
for distributing (allocating) the
allowances to individual existing units
based on a combination of adjusted
historic and projected emissions data
and requested comment on possible
alternative allocation methodologies.
This NODA describes two specific
alternative allocation methodologies
that would potentially be used to
allocate allowances under FIPs in the
final Transport Rule. These alternatives
rely largely on historic heat input data
to determine unit-level allocations. The
NODA provides the underlying data,
calculations, and resulting unit-level
allocations obtained when each
alternative is applied to the State
budgets in the proposed Transport Rule.
These alternative allocation
methodologies could be used to
implement the proposed interstate
trading remedy or the intrastate trading
remedy set forth in the proposed
Transport Rule. In developing the final
Transport Rule, EPA will consider these
alternative allocation methodologies, as
well as the allocation methodologies
presented in the proposed Transport
Rule. Further, issuance of this NODA
does not preclude EPA from finalizing
any of the remedies in the Transport
Rule proposal, including limited
interstate trading, intrastate trading, or
direct control.
EPA received numerous public
comments on the methodology in the
proposed Transport Rule for allocating
SO2 Group 1, SO2 Group 2, NOX annual,
and NOX ozone season allowances to
existing units. Many commenters
suggested alternative allocation
approaches. A number of commenters
requested that EPA publish allocations
and underlying data for any potential
alternative allocation methodologies
before issuing a final Transport Rule.
The public comments received are
available in the docket for the Transport
E:\FR\FM\07JAP1.SGM
07JAP1
jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Rule (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–
2009–0491).
This NODA describes the two
alternative allocation methodologies for
existing units. Classification of units as
existing units is discussed in section IV
in this NODA. Units that are not
classified as existing units would
receive allocations of allowances based
on the provisions for new unit
allocations in the proposed Transport
Rule. Note that the proposed Transport
Rule does not discuss allocations to new
units in Indian country; see section VII
in this NODA for information on a
potential allocation methodology for
such units.
The alternative methodologies for
existing unit allocations described in
this NODA emerge from comments that
EPA received during the comment
period on the proposed Transport Rule.
This NODA explains the two alternative
allocation methodologies and identifies
the unit-level data that serve as inputs
for these alternative methodologies and
the resulting existing-unit-level
allocations obtained when the
methodologies are applied to the State
budgets provided in the proposal.
Section V in this NODA lays out key
issues that EPA encourages commenters
to consider when submitting comments
on the alternative allocation
methodologies.
The unit-level allocations in this
NODA are based on State emissions
budgets in the proposed Transport Rule.
It is important to note that final State
budgets may differ from the proposed
budgets because EPA is still in the
process of updating its emissions
inventories and modeling in response to
public comments, including comments
on the Integrated Planning Model (IPM).
The final budgets will be based on the
updated inventories and modeling.
Thus, unit-level allocations in this
NODA provide an indication of the
proportional share of a State’s budget
that would be allocated to individual
existing units if the alternative
methodologies would be used. Any final
allocations in the final Transport Rule
would be based on the final State
budgets and allocation methodology
employed in the final rule. Because the
unit-level allocations in the proposed
Transport Rule and the unit-level
allocations in this NODA are based on
the same State budgets (i.e., the budgets
in the proposed Transport Rule), this
approach allows commenters to
compare how the allocation
methodologies impact the distribution
of allowances within a state.
This NODA only provides illustrative
allocations to potential existing
Transport Rule units. For purposes of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:28 Jan 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
this NODA, potential existing Transport
Rule units are units that potentially
meet the applicability criteria in the
Transport Rule NPR (proposed
§§ 97.404, 97.504, 97.604, and 97.704)
and began commercial operation prior
to January 1, 2009. Any unit that meets
the proposed applicability criteria and
began commercial operation on or after
January 1, 2009 would be considered a
new unit and receive allocations
through the new unit set-aside
described in the Transport Rule NPR
because the unit would not have a full
year of baseline data available at the
time the Agency anticipates determining
allocations to existing units. Such a new
unit would not be reflected in the list of
potential existing units for which
illustrative allocations are presented in
this NODA.
This NODA presents allocations based
on the existing-unit portions of the state
budgets under the proposed Transport
Rule. In the proposal, the existing-unit
portion of a state budget would be
calculated as 97% of the total state
budget in order to allot 3% to the new
unit set-aside. EPA recognizes that the
revised classification of units as existing
units presented with these alternative
allocation methodologies might affect
the methodology used in the proposal
that would establish the size of the new
unit set-aside. EPA will consider
comments submitted during this
NODA’s comment period when
finalizing FIP allocations in the final
Transport Rule and will address the
issue of any effect of the finalized
allocation methodology on the size of
the new unit set-aside.
This NODA also requests public
comment on four other issues.
Specifically, the NODA requests
comment on: an alternative approach to
the calculation of assurance provision
allowance surrender requirements
(calculation at the DR level); the
implications that the alternative
allocation methods might have for the
proposed assurance provisions;
allocations to any new units that choose
to locate in Indian country in a
proposed Transport Rule state; and
provisions for a state to participate in
the Transport Rule trading programs
through submission of a SIP (referred to
as a full SIP) or to determine unit-level
allocations under a FIP through
submission of a SIP revision addressing
only allocations (referred to as an
abbreviated SIP).
EPA has placed in the docket for the
proposed Transport Rule (Docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0491) additional
information relevant to the rulemaking,
including illustrative unit-level
allocations based on the state budgets
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1111
provided in the Transport Rule proposal
and supporting data discussed in this
NODA. The information placed in the
docket is also available for public
review on the Web site for this
rulemaking at https://www.epa.gov/
airtransport.
It is also important to note that EPA
is neither proposing any changes to nor
accepting comment on the approach
that will be used to identify each state’s
significant contribution and interference
with maintenance and each state’s
emissions budget. EPA took comment
on this approach and the resulting state
budgets in the proposed Transport Rule.
EPA also took comment on related
modeling and emissions inventories in
two subsequent NODAs (75 FR 53613;
September 1, 2010, and 75 FR 66055;
October 27, 2010).
For example, EPA is accepting
comment on the alternative allowance
allocation methodologies presented in
this NODA, but not on whether EPA
should use a remedy that requires the
allocation of allowances. The
allowances that are allocated to
individual units are a tool that would be
used to implement two of the remedies
discussed in the proposed Transport
Rule—the proposed limited interstate
trading remedy and the alternative
intrastate trading remedy; the allocation
methodologies detailed in this NODA
are simply variations on approaches for
distributing those allowances to
individual units.
Similarly, while EPA is accepting
comment on discrete issues relating to
implementation of the assurance
provisions, EPA is not accepting
comments on the need to have
assurance provisions. The EPA took
comment on this in the proposed
Transport Rule and is now only
requesting comment on discrete
implementation issues concerning the
assurance provisions. In particular, EPA
is requesting comment on the
implications that the alternative
allocations methods might have for the
assurance provisions and on the
alternative of calculating assurance
provision surrender on a DR-by-DR,
rather than an owner-by-owner basis.
This latter alternative of implementing
the assurance provisions on a DR-by-DR
basis is simply a variation in
implementation of the proposed
assurance provisions.
In summary, this NODA provides the
public with the opportunity to comment
on:
a. The two alternative allocation
methodologies (described in section V
in this NODA), including the major
components of each alternative (e.g., the
E:\FR\FM\07JAP1.SGM
07JAP1
1112
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
baseline period and formulas to be used
in calculating allocations);
b. The underlying unit-level data and
resulting allowance allocations for the
alternative allocation methodologies
based on the proposal’s state budgets;
and
c. The list of units used in applying
the alternative allocation
methodologies, including the
classification of ‘‘existing’’ units.
This NODA also provides the public
with the opportunity to comment on:
• The alternative of implementing the
proposed assurance provisions on a DRby-DR, rather than owner-by-owner
basis (section VI in this NODA);
• The implications that the
alternative allocation methodologies
might have concerning the proposed
assurance provisions of the Transport
Rule and the reasonableness of using the
proposed assurance provisions with
these alternative allocation
methodologies;
• Information regarding unit-level
allowance allocations for any new units
that choose to locate in Indian country
in the proposed Transport Rule region
in the future (section VII in this NODA);
and
• Information regarding provisions
for a state in the proposed Transport
Rule region to participate in the
Transport Rule trading programs
through submission of a full SIP or to
determine the unit-level allocations
under a FIP through submission of an
abbreviated SIP addressing only
allocations (section VIII in this NODA).
During the comment period for this
NODA, EPA will accept comments only
on the issues explicitly addressed in
this NODA. EPA is not requesting, and
will not consider, comments on other
aspects of the proposed Transport Rule
(such as determinations concerning
states’ significant contribution and
interference with maintenance and state
budgets). EPA is not extending the
comment period of the proposed
Transport Rule, which closed on
October 1, 2010. EPA also is not
extending the comment period of the
NODA published September 1, 2010,
which closed on October 15, 2010, or
the comment period of the NODA
published on October 27, 2010, which
closed on November 26, 2010.
IV. What are the sources of data in this
NODA?
A. List of Potential Existing Transport
Rule Units
Under the proposed Transport Rule, a
covered Transport Rule unit is generally
any stationary, fossil-fuel-fired boiler or
stationary, fossil-fuel-fired combustion
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:28 Jan 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
turbine located in a proposed Transport
Rule state and serving at any time, since
the later of November 15, 1990 or the
start-up of the unit’s combustion device,
a generator with a nameplate capacity
greater than 25 MWe producing
electricity for sale. The proposed
Transport Rule would exclude certain
cogeneration units and solid waste
incineration units from being covered
Transport Rule units.
This NODA provides for comment on
unit-level allocations (based on the
budgets in the proposed Transport Rule)
to potential existing covered units. For
purposes of this NODA, a potential
existing unit is assumed to be a unit that
would potentially meet the proposed
applicability criteria (i.e., the criteria in
proposed §§ 97.404, 97.504, 97.604, and
97.704 in the proposed Transport Rule)
for covered units and that commenced
commercial operation prior to January 1,
2009. This cutoff date was chosen for
existing units because it assured that at
least 1 full year of historic data would
be available to determine each existing
unit’s allocation. This NODA contains a
list of, and sets forth allocations under
the two alternative methodologies to,
units that potentially meet the covered
and existing unit criteria discussed
above based on EPA’s best available
data.
To identify the potential existing
Transport Rule units, EPA relied largely
on data reported to EPA. To develop the
list of potential existing Transport Rule
units, EPA first included any fossil-fuelfired unit serving a generator greater
than 25 MWe producing electricity for
sale that is in a proposed Transport Rule
state and on line prior to January 1,
2009 and that reported emissions data
in 2010 under at least one of the
following ongoing EPA trading
programs: Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR) NOX or CAIR SO2 annual trading
program, Acid Rain Program (ARP), and
CAIR NOX ozone Season in
Massachusetts, Connecticut, or
Arkansas. Data reported to EPA under
the CAIR and ARP programs meets the
requirements of part 75 and has been
certified as to its accuracy and
completeness by the source’s designated
representative.
Next, EPA supplemented the list of
units by using data from the Integrated
Planning Model (IPM) v.4.10 to identify
potential existing Transport Rule units
that were not included in emissions
data reported to EPA. Specifically,
IPM’s National Electric Energy Data
System (NEEDS) was used to identify
and obtain data for a subset of fossilfuel-fired units serving generators
greater than 25 MWe producing
electricity for sale that are in a proposed
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Transport Rule state and were not
reporting under one of the
aforementioned ongoing EPA trading
programs. NEEDS is a representation of
all units capable of supplying electricity
to the U.S. electric grid. This subset of
units identified through NEEDS was
then screened to remove units that were
not potential existing Transport Rule
units and thus not eligible to obtain
allocations under one of the two
alterative allocation methodologies
discussed in this NODA.
In particular, if the unit was retired or
in cold storage in 2010 or is a steam
turbine at a combined cycle (CC) plant,
then it was not included as a unit in the
list of potential existing Transport Rule
units.1 The remaining units in this
subset of units were added to the list.
For instance, there were units in
Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma that
were identified through NEEDS as being
potential existing Transport Rule units
that were not currently reporting under
one or more of the aforementioned
ongoing EPA trading programs because
the units were not ARP units and were
not in a CAIR state. Finally, a small
number of units were added to or
removed from the list based on
comment and supporting data
previously submitted to the EPA during
the comment period on the proposed
Transport Rule by the unit owner or
operator.
As described above, the list of
potential existing Transport Rule units
is based on EPA and NEEDS data. Units
identified using the EPA and NEEDS
databases were included in the list of
potential existing Transport Rule units
if they were in one of the following
states covered by the proposed
Transport Rule: Arkansas, Alabama,
Connecticut, Delaware, District of
Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois,
Iowa, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New
York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West
Virginia, and Wisconsin.
EPA notes that inclusion of a unit in,
or exclusion of a unit from, the list of
potential existing Transport Rule units
presented in this NODA reflects only a
preliminary assessment of the
applicability of the proposed Transport
Rule and in no way suggests that EPA
has made a determination about the
1 In NEEDS, the combustion turbine and steam
turbine associated with a single CC plant are
generally represented as two separate generating
units. The steam turbine at a CC does not combust
fuel, though, and should not be included in the list
of potential existing Transport Rule units.
E:\FR\FM\07JAP1.SGM
07JAP1
jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules
applicability of the proposed Transport
Rule to any unit. As discussed above,
the list of units developed for this
NODA enables EPA to calculate
illustrative allowance allocations for
potential existing units based on the
alternative methodologies presented.
Moreover, this list may be used by EPA
to calculate unit-level allocations in the
final Transport Rule. While allocations
calculated for the final Transport Rule
would be based on the best available
data provided to EPA by the time of the
calculation, the applicability of the final
Transport Rule to an individual unit
would be determined based on all
relevant data, whether or not EPA
would have such data at the time that
allocations would be calculated. In fact,
because any list of units developed for
purposes of allowance allocation may
not be entirely consistent with
applicability determinations made in
the future, the proposed Transport Rule
(proposed §§ 97.411(c), 97.511(c),
97.611(c), and 97.711(c)) would
establish procedures to be applied when
the Administrator would determine that
a unit allocated allowances would turn
out not to actually be a proposed
Transport Rule unit. For example, under
these proposed procedures, if such a
determination would be made after
EPA’s recordation of the allowance
allocation but before EPA’s deduction of
allowances for compliance with the
requirement to hold allowances
covering emissions, the Administrator
would deduct the recorded allowances
and transfer them to a new unit setaside for the appropriate state.
If owners and operators believe that
their units that are included in the list
of potential existing units should not be
included, these owners and operators
should submit comments on this NODA
informing EPA why the units should not
be in the list. If owners and operators
believe that their units should be, but
are not, treated as potential existing
Transport Rule units and included in
the list of such units provided by this
NODA, these owners and operators
should submit comments on this NODA,
informing EPA that the units should be
added to the list and allocated
allowances and providing support for
this addition to the list. The data
necessary for calculating allowance
allocations under the two alternative
allocation methodologies should also be
provided. A unit that would not be
allocated allowances as an existing unit
because of the unit’s exclusion from the
list of potential existing Transport Rule
units could ultimately be determined to
be a Transport Rule unit. Under the
proposed Transport rule, each Transport
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:28 Jan 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
Rule unit would be subject to the
allowance-holding requirements of the
Transport Rule regardless of whether
the unit would be allocated any
allowances as an existing unit.
B. Historic Heat Input and Emissions
Data Used in the Allowance Allocation
The alternative allocation
methodologies presented in this NODA
draw on historic heat input and historic
emissions for potential existing
Transport Rule units. For units subject
to one of the aforementioned ongoing
EPA trading programs and included in
the list of potential existing Transport
Rule units, EPA used reported heatinput data from the EPA database for the
years 2005 through 2009. For these same
units, EPA used reported emissions
from the EPA database for the years
2003 to 2009. These data are publicly
available through EPA’s data and maps
at https://camddataandmaps.epa.gov/
gdm/.
For units included in the list of
potential existing Transport Rule units
that were not reporting under one of the
aforementioned ongoing EPA trading
programs, EPA used historic heat input
and emissions data from Energy
Information Administration (EIA) forms
767, 860, 906, 920, and 923. These data
are publicly available at https://
www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/
data.html.
V. What are the alternative allocation
methodologies and on what is EPA
requesting comment?
(a) Why is EPA considering heat inputbased allocation methodologies?
In the proposed Transport Rule, EPA
proposed a methodology for allocating
allowances to potential existing
Transport Rule units. That methodology
is based on a combination of adjusted
historic and adjusted projected
emissions data. EPA received a large
number of public comments from a
variety of commenters suggesting
alternative allocation methodologies.
One of the most frequently suggested
metrics for allocation was historic heat
input. Commenters stated that using
historic heat input as the basis for
allocations has the following
advantages:
(i) Historic heat input data are more
likely to be accurate at a unit level than
projected unit-level emissions and are
generally based on quality-assured data
reported by sources from continuous
monitoring systems.
(ii) Historic heat input data are fuelneutral.
(iii) Historic heat input data are
emissions-control-neutral and thus do
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1113
not yield reduced allocations for units
that installed or are projected to install
pollution control technology.
EPA is considering the above-listed
points made by commenters regarding
heat-input based allocations.
Numerous commenters also noted
that EPA has broad authority to
implement alternative allocation
methodologies under sections
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 302(y) of the Clean
Air Act (CAA).2 EPA agrees with
commenters that the Agency has
significant discretion in this area.
Neither the CAA nor the D.C. Circuit
Court’s opinion in North Carolina v.
EPA (531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008),
specifies a particular methodology that
EPA must use to allocate allowances to
individual units. The statute focuses on
prohibiting emissions within the state
that significantly contribute to or
interfere with maintenance. Under CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), states have
significant discretion to develop a
control program in a SIP that achieves
this objective and EPA has similarly
wide latitude when issuing a FIP.
Moreover, the definition of FIP in
section 302(y) of the Act clarifies that a
FIP may include ‘‘enforceable emission
limitations or other control measures,
means or techniques (including
economic incentives, such as
marketable permits or auctions of
emissions allowances)’’ but does not
require EPA to use any particular
methodology to allocate allowances
under a FIP trading program. In light of
this lack of direction concerning
allowance allocation, EPA has
significant discretion to select an
allocation methodology that is
reasonable and consistent with the goals
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the
Act, including improving long-term air
quality and encouraging cost-effective
emissions reductions.
EPA believes the allocation
methodologies presented in the
proposed Transport Rule as well as
those presented in this NODA all meet
that test. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the
CAA requires that emissions ‘‘within a
state’’ that significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance in another state be
2 CAA section 302(y) defines the term ‘‘Federal
implementation plan’’ as follows:
Federal implementation plan.—The term ‘‘Federal
implementation plan’’ means a plan (or portion
thereof) promulgated by the Administrator to fill all
or a portion of a gap or otherwise correct all or a
portion of an inadequacy in a State implementation
plan, and which includes enforceable emission
limitations or other control measures, means or
techniques (including economic incentives, such as
marketable permits or auctions of emissions
allowances), and provides for attainment of the
relevant national ambient air quality standard.
E:\FR\FM\07JAP1.SGM
07JAP1
jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
1114
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules
prohibited. In the proposed Transport
Rule, EPA analyzed each individual
state’s significant contribution and
interference with maintenance and
calculated budgets that represent each
state’s emissions after the elimination of
those prohibited emissions. The
methodology used to allocate
allowances to individual units in a
particular state has no impact on that
state’s budget or on the requirement that
the state’s emissions not exceed that
budget plus variability. Regardless of
the allocation methodology used, all
emissions in each covered state that
significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance in another state will be
prohibited. In sum, the allocation
methodology has no impact on the
rule’s ability to satisfy the statutory
mandate of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to eliminate significant
contribution and interference with
maintenance in downwind states.
EPA believes that a historic-heatinput-based allocation methodology is
consistent with the goals of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). The proposed
Transport Rule would set state budgets
reflecting the overall emission
reductions necessary for each respective
state to eliminate significant
contribution and interference with
maintenance in downwind states. The
initial allocation of allowances under
each state budget to existing units on
the basis of the units’ historic heat input
would yield a distribution of allowances
putting relatively greater burden on the
higher-emission-rate units to reduce
emissions or purchase additional
allowances in order for the units to be
in compliance with the proposed
Transport Rule trading programs. This
pattern would result because heat-inputbased allocations would provide the
same share of allowances to units with
the same heat input even though the
higher-emission-rate units would
require more allowances in order to
cover their emissions than would loweremission-rate units. EPA believes that,
because higher-emission-rate units
generally are responsible for a greater
share of a state’s total emissions and
thus bear greater responsibility for a
states’ significant contribution and
interference with maintenance, this
distribution of burden is consistent with
the goals of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
The proposed Transport Rule
includes four trading programs (SO2
Group 1, SO2 Group 2, NOX annual, and
NOX ozone season). EPA requests
comment on whether the allocation
methodology chosen for each of the four
trading programs must be the same or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:28 Jan 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
whether it would be reasonable to
allocate using different methodologies
for the different programs. EPA also
requests comment on rationales for
using different methodologies for the
different trading programs.
(b) What are the alternative heat input
allocation methodologies and how
would they be applied?
This NODA provides an opportunity
for public comment on the two
alternative allocation methodologies
described below. To make it easier for
commenters to compare the
methodologies presented in this NODA
with the methodology proposed in the
proposed Transport Rule, EPA is
providing in the rulemaking docket for
the Transport Rule (and on the EPA Web
site) data showing the unit-level
allocations that would result if the
methodologies were applied to allocate
allowances from the state budgets in the
proposed Transport Rule. As noted
above, these budgets may be revised in
the final Transport Rule and thus the
unit-level allocations (based on 97% of
the respective state budgets) in this
NODA would not necessarily be the
unit-level allocations in the final rule.
The alternative allocation
methodologies described in this NODA
represent two variations of historic-heatinput-based allocations. For each
alternative allocation methodology, the
underlying data and resulting
allocations are set forth in allocation
tables located at https://www.epa.gov/
airquality/transport/actions.html and in
the public docket for the Transport
Rule. The calculations used to derive
the unit-by-unit allocations for each
alternative option are described below.
Option 1 described below would
allocate a state’s existing unit budget
(i.e., 97% of its budget) based on each
unit’s proportionate share of the state’s
total historic heat input.
Option 2 would yield the same initial
allocation pattern as Option 1 (based on
historic heat input) but would then add
a constraint (i.e., a limit on allocations)
premised on a unit’s reasonably
foreseeable maximum emissions under
the proposed Transport Rule trading
programs.
Option 1—Historic Heat Input
Approach
This option would establish a
baseline historic heat input value for
each potential existing Transport Rule
unit and allocate to that unit a share of
available allowances under each
proposed Transport Rule program equal
to the unit’s percentage share of the total
baseline historic heat input for all
potential existing Transport Rule units
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
in the state. As with all allocation
approaches under consideration by
EPA, this option would be applied to
each state separately using the portion
of that state’s budget available for
potential existing Transport Rule units
in that state. Allocations under this
approach for each existing unit would
be determined by applying the
following steps.
1. For each unit in the list of potential
existing Transport Rule units, annual
heat input values for the baseline period
of 2005 through 2009 would be
identified using data reported to EPA or,
where EPA data is unavailable, EIA. As
discussed above, for purposes of this
NODA, potential existing Transport
Rule units are units that potentially
meet the applicability criteria in the
proposed Transport Rule and began
commercial operation prior to January 1,
2009. A number of units would not have
non-zero data for one or more of the
baseline years (e.g., a unit that came on
line after 2005 but before 2009) and
would be assigned a zero value for each
of those years in the baseline. (Step 2
explains how such zero values would be
treated in the calculations.) This option
would use a five-year baseline in order
to improve representation of a unit’s
normal operating conditions over time.
EPA requests comment on the existingunit cut-off date of January 1, 2009 for
purposes of this NODA.
2. For each unit, the three highest,
non-zero annual heat input values
within the 5 year baseline would be
selected and averaged. Selecting the
three highest, non-zero annual heat
input values within the five-year
baseline would reduce the likelihood
that any particular single year’s
operations (which might be negatively
affected by outages or other unusual
events) would determine a unit’s
allocation. If a unit would not have
three non-zero heat input values during
the 5 year baseline period, EPA would
average only those years for which a
unit does have non-zero heat input
values. For example, if a unit has only
reported data for 2008 and 2009 among
the baseline years and the reported heat
input values are 2 and 4 mmbtus
respectively, then the unit’s average
heat input used to determine its pro-rata
share of the state budget would be
(2+4)/2 = 3.
3. Each unit would be assigned a
baseline heat input value calculated as
described in step 2 above. This baseline
heat input value is referred to in the
data tables in the rulemaking docket and
on the Web site referenced previously,
and in the remainder of this NODA, as
the ‘‘three-year average heat input’’.
E:\FR\FM\07JAP1.SGM
07JAP1
1115
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
4. The three-year average heat inputs
of all potential existing Transport Rule
units in a state would be summed to
obtain that state’s total ‘‘three-year
average heat input’’.
5. Each unit’s three-year average heat
input would be divided by the state’s
total three-year average heat input to
determine that unit’s share of the state’s
total three-year average heat input.
6. Each unit’s share of the state’s total
three-year average heat input would be
multiplied by the state’s existing-unit
portion of the state budget (i.e., 97% of
the state budget) to determine that unit’s
allocation.
Option 2—Emissions-Rate-Informed
Historic Heat Input Approach
This option retains the historic-heatinput-based approach but adds a
constraint premised on a unit’s
reasonably foreseeable maximum
emissions under the proposed Transport
Rule trading programs. For the majority
of units, the historic heat input-based
allocation will not be sufficient to cover
historic emission levels; this reflects the
shared burden on units to reduce
emissions in order to eliminate the
state’s significant contribution and
interference with maintenance. Heat
input-based allocations only exceed
historic emissions for units at the lower
end of the range of historic emission
rates for the pollutant involved. For
these lower-emission rate units, this
option would establish, based on
historic data, a reasonably foreseeable
maximum emissions level reflecting a
reasonable upper-bound capacity
utilization factor and a well-controlled
emission rate that all units (regardless of
the type of fuel they combust) can meet
for the pollutant. For those units whose
heat-input-based allocations would
exceed historic emissions, this option
would limit the historic-heat-inputbased allocations to this maximum
emissions level so that the units would
not be allocated allowances in excess of
their reasonably foreseeable maximum
emissions. EPA believes that this
approach would result in a reasonable
initial distribution of allowances that is
consistent with the goals of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
1. The same 6 steps outlined above in
Option 1 would be applied to each unit.
2. A seven-year (2003 through 2009)
historic emissions baseline would be
established for SO2, NOX, and ozone
season NOX based on data reported to
EPA or, where EPA data is unavailable,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:28 Jan 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
EIA data. This approach would use this
seven-year historic emissions baseline
in order to reflect unit-level emissions
before and after the promulgation of the
CAIR.
3. For each unit, the maximum annual
historic SO2 and NOX emissions would
be identified within the seven-year
baseline. Similarly, the maximum ozone
season NOX emissions from the sevenyear baseline for each unit would be
identified. These values are referred to
as the ‘‘maximum historic baseline
emissions’’ for each unit.
4. For each unit whose historic-heatinput-based allocation exceeds its
maximum historic baseline emissions,
EPA would determine an emission level
(referred to as the ‘‘well-controlled-rate
maximum’’ for each unit) calculated as:
a. For a unit reporting maximum
hourly heat input to EPA, the reported
figure multiplied by a well-controlled
emission rate of 0.06 lbs/mmBtu for SO2
and 0.06 lbs/mmBtu for NOX. For a unit
that does not report maximum hourly
heat input to EPA, EPA would estimate
the unit’s maximum hourly heat input
by multiplying the unit’s heat rate and
capacity values (from NEEDS in IPM
version 4.10). These well-controlled
emission rates of 0.06 lbs/mmBtu for
SO2 and NOX represent the lowest
annual emission rates assumed
achievable when state-of-the-art
pollution control technologies are
installed at coal units in the IPM
modeling.3
b. The unit’s maximum hourly heat
input determined in step 4.a above
would be multiplied by 8,760 hours
(annual) or 3,672 hours (ozone season)
to get an annual or ozone season
emissions level at 100% utilization.
c. The unit’s emissions level at 100%
utilization determined in step 4.b above
would be multiplied by the reasonable
upper-bound capacity factor for each
technology type. These upper-bounds
would be calculated as the utilization
values at the 95th percentile in each
technology class.4 These 95th percentile
values are set forth in the table below.
3 As identified in EPA’s documentation of EPA
Base Case v.4.10 model available at https://
www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/epa-ipm/docs/
v410/Chapter5.pdf. These emission rates are based
on the floor rates used in IPM modeling and are
intended to reflect the lower bound of emission
rates that suppliers are willing to guarantee when
installing state-of-the-art pollution control
equipment (selective catalytic reduction (SCR) and
flue-gas desulfurization (FGD)).
4 Capacity factors were determined as follows.
(1) Using data reported to EPA by source owners
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
TABLE I—SUMMARY OF CAPACITY
FACTORS AT 95TH PERCENTILE
[‘‘Reasonable Upper-Bound Capacity Factor’’]
Technology class
Coal-fired boiler ................
Combined cycle ................
Combustion turbine ..........
Oil or gas fired boiler ........
Other .................................
Annual
Ozone
season
0.87
0.70
0.14
0.46
0.71
0.89
0.73
0.22
0.55
0.75
5. If a unit identified in step 4 has an
historic-heat-input-based allocation
greater than both its maximum historic
baseline emissions (as determined in
step 3) and its well-controlled-rate
maximum (as determined in step 4),
then its allocation (referred to as the
unit’s ‘‘reasonable foreseeable maximum
emissions level’’) would equal the
higher of these two values.
6. The difference (if positive) under
step 5 between a unit’s historic-heatinput-based allocation and its
‘‘reasonable foreseeable maximum
emissions level’’ would be
reapportioned on the same basis as
described in step 1 to units whose
historic-heat-input-based allocations are
not revised under step 5. Steps 4, 5, and
6 would be repeated with each revised
allocation distribution until the entire
existing-unit portion of the state budget
(i.e., 97% of the state budget) would be
allocated.
The table below provides an example
of application of the steps in Option 2.
and operators under the aforementioned ongoing
EPA trading programs, EPA determined, for units
reporting electrical output, the capacity factor for
each unit for each year of operation during 2000–
2009 by dividing gross electrical output by
maximum hourly load times 8,760 hours/year and,
for units reporting steam output (KLBsteam),
dividing total mass of steam produced by the
maximum rate times 8,760 hours; (2) EPA then
identified each unit’s plant type based on how the
unit was listed in NEEDS in IPM version 4.10 (e.g.,
coal steam, combined cycle, combustion turbine,
oil/gas steam, and ‘‘other’’). ‘‘Other’’ comprised fossil
waste, biomass, tires, and landfill gas. (3) Using the
units’ calculated annual capacity factors, EPA
identified the 95th percentile value of capacity
factor for each plant type. Resulting values are in
Table 1 above. This analysis is based largely on the
same data and methodology used in the Capacity
Factor Analysis Technical Support Document
located at https://www.epa.gov/airquality/transport/
pdfs/
TSD_capacity_factors_analysis_for_new_units_7–6–
10.pdf. However, in this analysis EPA expanded the
data set to include all units, whereas the previous
analysis had examined solely CAIR units online
after 1999 because its focus had been on new units.
E:\FR\FM\07JAP1.SGM
07JAP1
1116
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE II—DEMONSTRATION OF ALLOCATIONS USING OPTION 2 IN A TWO-UNIT STATE WITH A 30-TON STATE BUDGET
Step 1
Step 2 & 3
Step 4
Step 5
(greater of step
3 result or
step 4 result)
Step 6
Heat-inputbased
allocation
Historic
maximum
baseline
emissions
Wellcontrolled-rate
maximum
Reasonable
foreseeable
maximum
emissions
level
Final allocation
jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Unit A ...............................................................................
Unit B ...............................................................................
(c) What allocations-related data and
information are the EPA making
available for review and comment?
EPA has used the best available data
to develop a list of potential existing
Transport Rule units and to calculate
illustrative allowance allocations for
each such unit under the two alternative
allocation methodologies discussed in
this NODA. However, through the
NODA, EPA is giving unit owners and
operators and the public in general the
opportunity to offer comments on
individual units’ inclusion in or
exclusion from such list and—for units
that EPA included on the list or that
commenters believe should be included
on the list—on the data needed for
allocation calculations (including any
necessary data that EPA has not
provided in this NODA) under the two
alternative allocation methodologies
and the allocations that result or should
result from such calculations.
For units on the list of potential
existing Transport Rule units, EPA is
providing for the years 2003 through
2009 the relevant EPA-reported heat
input and emissions data under the
aforementioned ongoing EPA trading
programs and, for those units not
reporting under these programs, heat
input and fuel data in EIA databases.
EPA is also providing the Agency’s
calculations using these data in the two
alternative allocation methodologies
described in this NODA.
In addition to comments on the list of
potential existing Transport Rule units,
allocation-related data, and calculations
of allocations, EPA requests comments
on the appropriateness of the alternative
allocation methodologies and their
implications for rule implementation. In
particular, EPA encourages commenters
to address the following:
• Are the alternative allocation
methodologies clear and easy to
understand?
• Do these alternative methodologies
raise any implementation concerns,
such as concerns about feasibility of
implementing the methodology?
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:28 Jan 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
10
20
4
40
• How are these methodologies
consistent with the goals of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)?
• Do these alternative methodologies
yield a reasonable distribution of
allowances?
• Should the same methodology be
used for each of the proposed Transport
Rule trading programs, or should a
different methodology be used for one
or more such trading programs?
(d) Why is the EPA providing
opportunity to comment on these
allocation-related data and
information?
Through this NODA, EPA is providing
owners and operators, states and the
public in general the opportunity to
comment on the allocations-related data
and information described above in
order to ensure that we use the best
available data in the Transport Rule FIP
allocation process. For example, the
heat input and emissions data used to
calculate allocations came from data
reported to EPA and EIA, and a unit
owner or operator (or other member of
the public) should comment if he or she
sees any discrepancy between the data
reported for the unit and the heat input
and emissions data used in calculating
the allocations in this NODA. Such
comment should include the data that
the commenter believes EPA should use
and the source of that data and where
else the data may be reported to the
Federal government. EPA is also
providing an opportunity to comment
on the calculations using the alternative
allocation methodologies and the data
in order to ensure the accuracy of the
calculations.
The allocations presented in this
NODA are also based on the list of
potential existing Transport Rule units
developed using data currently available
to EPA. As discussed above, a unit’s
inclusion on or exclusion from this list
does not constitute a determination of
the applicability of the proposed
Transport Rule to the unit, but rather
reflects EPA’s preliminary application
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
6
N/A
6
N/A
6
24
of the applicability provisions in the
proposed Transport Rule. In order to
ensure the accuracy of the allocation
calculations, the EPA is providing this
opportunity for source owners and
operators, and the public in general, to
(1) comment on units’ inclusion in, or
exclusion from, the allocation tables in
the NODA and the data on which the
inclusion or exclusion is or should be
based, (2) comment on the heat input
and other data used or that should be
used to calculate the allocations and the
resulting allocations, and (3) submit
corrections of the data or supplementary
data. While EPA requests that owners
and operators, states, and other
members of the public who believe that
a unit has been incorrectly included in
or excluded from the allocation tables
submit a comment (including any
supporting data). EPA is not requesting,
and will not consider, any comments on
the proposed applicability provisions
themselves (proposed §§ 97.404, 97.504,
97.604, and 97.704).
The addition or removal of existing
units to or from a state’s list of potential
existing Transport Rule units will not
impact the size of the state budget.
EPA’s responses to comments on this
NODA concerning the list of potential
existing Transport Rule units and the
data to be used to allocate to specific
units and EPA’s updated modeling and
responses to comments on the proposed
Transport Rule concerning the proposed
state budgets may result in the
individual units receiving different
shares of the applicable state budget
than reflected in the allocation tables.
(e) What supporting documentation do
I need to provide with my comments?
While we will consider all comments
on issues that are within the scope of
this NODA, these comments should be
supported with appropriate
documentation. Supporting
documentation can include, but is not
limited to, spreadsheets, explanations of
why you believe the data on such
spreadsheets are accurate (e.g., the
E:\FR\FM\07JAP1.SGM
07JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules
quality assurance of the data), and
information on the data source.
In general, we do not anticipate
revisions to unit heat input and
emissions data reported to EPA under
the ARP and CAIR programs since, in
submitting the data under these
programs, a source’s DR has already
certified the accuracy and completeness
of the data. However, we will consider
any comments. For example, a source’s
DR may provide evidence that we
improperly calculated heat input at the
unit-level if the heat input was actually
measured at another location (such as a
common stack). As a further example, a
source’s DR may demonstrate that the
data provided in this NODA are not
consistent with the data reported to EPA
for compliance with the ARP or CAIR
programs. In that case, the commenter
should explain why the data values in
EPA’s data files are incorrect and should
document and explain the new data
values.
Similarly, in general, we do not
anticipate revisions to data reported to
EIA since such data were submitted to
meet regulatory reporting requirements.
However, we will consider any
comments on the data as reported, as
well as on any calculation in which we
used the data for purposes of this
NODA.
VI. On what aspects of the proposed
assurance provisions is EPA requesting
comment?
jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
(a) Whether the Assurance Provision
Allowance Surrender Requirement
Should be Calculated on a Designated
Representative Basis
Under the proposed Transport Rule,
the assurance provisions would be
triggered for a state for a given year if
total emissions for covered units in the
state for the year exceed the state
assurance level (i.e., the state budget
plus the state’s variability limit). As
proposed, if this level were exceeded,
the assurance provision allowance
surrender requirement would be
imposed on certain owners of covered
units in the state and calculated on an
owner-by-owner basis. Specifically,
each owner whose share of the state’s
total covered-unit emissions exceeded
the owner’s share of the state assurance
level would have to surrender a
proportionate share of the state’s
exceedance. In this NODA, EPA is
requesting comment on whether the
surrender requirement should be
imposed on certain owners and
operators of covered units in the state
but calculated on a DR-by-DR basis,
rather than on an owner-by-owner basis.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:28 Jan 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
Under this alternative approach, the
calculation of shares of covered-unit
emissions and of the state budget plus
variability would be performed for each
group of covered units having a
common DR. EPA would use the DR as
of the allowance transfer deadline for a
given control period (generally March 1
following the control period for the
proposed Transport Rule NOX and SO2
annual trading programs and December
1 following the control period for the
proposed Transport Rule NOX ozone
season trading program) for determining
assurance provision surrender
requirements. In order to be treated as
a group of covered units for this
purpose, the units would have to be
located at sources in the state with the
same individual as their DR (not
alternate designated representative).5
For each such group of covered units
in the state, the DR’s share of the state’s
covered-unit emissions (i.e., the total
emissions of the covered units at the
group of covered sources having that
DR) for the year and the DR’s share of
the state assurance level (i.e., the total
allocations for the covered units at such
sources plus the units’ proportionate
share of the state variability limit)
would be calculated. The owners and
operators represented by a common DR
whose share of state covered-unit
emissions exceeded his or her share of
the state assurance level would all be
subject to the DR’s proportionate share
of the proposed assurance provision
allowance surrender requirement (i.e.,
the requirement that one allowance be
surrendered for each ton by which the
state’s total covered-unit emissions
would exceed the state assurance level).
The DR’s share of the surrender
requirement would equal the amount by
which the DR’s share of the state’s total
covered-unit emissions exceeded the
DR’s share of the state assurance level,
divided by the sum of all such
exceedances for all DRs for covered
units in the state. The owners and
operators would be collectively and
individually liable for making this
allowance surrender and would
determine themselves how to divide up
the actual surrender. This would be
5 Under proposed §§ 97.413, 97.513, 97.613, and
97.713, the owners and operators of a source could
designate one individual as the DR, who would
represent and legally bind them in all matters
concerning the proposed Transport Rule trading
programs. Under these provisions, these owners
and operators also could designate another
individual as the alternate designated
representative, who could act on behalf of the DR
and would legally bind the DR and thus the owners
and operators. EPA notes that the concept of
requiring representation of source owners and
operators by a DR has been used in prior EPA
trading programs, including the ARP and CAIR
trading programs.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1117
similar to the way that all owners and
operators of a covered source that fails
to hold allowances covering the source’s
emissions are collectively and
individually liable for an excess
emissions penalty. The owners and
operators subject to the allowance
surrender requirement would be
required to transfer the necessary
amount of allowances by the specified
deadline to an assurance account
created by EPA for these owners and
operators.
EPA believes that imposing the
proposed assurance provision allowance
surrender requirement at the DR level,
rather than owner level, is more
straightforward and consistent with
information already provided to EPA
and potentially provides owners and
operators with more flexibility than
under the approach in the proposed
Transport Rule. Other requirements
under the proposed Transport Rule
trading programs (e.g., the requirement
to monitor and report emissions and to
hold allowances covering emissions)
would be imposed on a unit-by-unit or
source-by-source basis. Consequently,
EPA would not generally obtain detailed
ownership information (such as
percentage ownership in individual
units) and would have to collect such
information only in order to implement
the owner-by-owner approach in the
assurance provisions in the proposed
Transport Rule. The DR approach for
calculating the assurance provision
surrender requirements would eliminate
the need to collect detailed ownership
information and would also avoid the
complications arising from having to
divide up units’ emissions and
allocations among partial owners of the
units. In addition, the DR approach
would apply to units with a common
DR even in the case where the units
involved did not have a common owner
or operator. This would allow owners
and operators to designate a common
DR for all of the sources at which their
units are located and thereby obtain the
increased flexibility of having the
assurance provisions apply to the entire
group. Like the proposed approach of
calculating the assurance provision
surrender requirements on an owner-byowner basis, the alternative approach of
calculating such requirements on a DRby-DR basis could be applied under any
of the allocation methods under
consideration. In developing the final
Transport Rule, EPA will consider both
approaches.
E:\FR\FM\07JAP1.SGM
07JAP1
jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
1118
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules
(b) Whether the Overall Assurance
Provision Approach Should Be
Maintained if One of the Alternative
Allocation Methodologies Is Used in the
Final Transport Rule
EPA received several comments on
the proposed Transport Rule concerning
whether the proposed assurance
provisions should be changed if the
proposed allocation methodology were
changed. For the reason discussed
below, EPA does not believe that a
change in allocation methodology
would necessitate any changes in the
assurance provisions set forth in the
proposed Transport Rule. In the
unlikely event that a state exceeds its
state assurance level, only the owners
and operators whose shares (or the
owners and operators whose common
DR’s share) of the state’s emissions
exceed the owners’ and operators’ (or
the common DR’s) share of the state
assurance level would be subject to the
allowance surrender requirement.
While EPA believes the likelihood of
triggering assurance provisions would
be low for the reasons provided in the
proposed Transport Rule (75 FR 45314),
the assurance provisions must have an
enforcement mechanism to be effective.
The assurance provision allowance
surrender requirements exist to ensure
that the state budgets plus variability
limits (the state assurance levels) would
not be exceeded in any state. These
surrender requirements identify what
penalties would apply if the assurance
level were to be exceeded.
EPA believes that a change to the
allocation methodology would not
necessitate any changes to the assurance
provisions in the proposed Transport
Rule for the following reason. The
proposed Transport Rule explained that,
in the event that a state’s total emissions
would exceed the state budget plus
variability, those groups of units
(whether grouped by owner as in the
proposal or by common DR as discussed
in this NODA) with an analogous
exceedance (i.e., those groups of units
with total emissions exceeding their
total allowance allocations plus their
shares of state variability) would
reasonably be viewed as accounting for
the state’s exceedance and thus should
be subject to proportionate shares of the
allowance surrender penalty calculated
as one allowance to be surrendered for
each ton of the state’s exceedance. Even
under a different allowance allocation
methodology than the allocation
methodology proposed in the Transport
Rule, it would continue to be the case
that groups of units with greater
emissions than their allocations plus
share of state variability would
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:28 Jan 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
reasonably be held responsible for the
state’s excess of emissions over the state
assurance level. EPA believes that any
state that would exceed its state
assurance level would likely do so
because not all units would have made
the reductions necessary to eliminate
the state’s contribution to
nonattainment or interference with
maintenance. Moreover, the groups of
units with emissions exceeding their
allocations plus share of variability
would be the units that were most likely
to have contributed to the state’s
exceedance of its state assurance level
and thus to the state’s triggering of the
assurance provisions. Consequently, it
would be reasonable to penalize those
groups of units (whether grouped by
owner or by common DR)—through
application of the assurance provision
allowance surrender requirement—for
the state’s exceedance.
EPA received comments that
proposed assurance provision penalties
should be delinked from allocations and
that a different method of imposing
such penalties should be applied.
However, as discussed above, the
Agency still believes that the proposed
assurance provisions provide a
reasonable way of identifying those
sources within a state that most likely
contributed to, and share responsibility
for, any triggering of the assurance
provisions. EPA also believes that the
proposed assurance provisions, with
calculation of the allowance surrender
requirements made on an owner-byowner basis (as proposed) or on a DRby-DR basis (under the alternative
discussed in this NODA) provide a
reasonable way of distributing
proportionate shares of the
responsibility for eliminating a state’s
significant contribution and interference
with maintenance. However, EPA is
requesting comment in this NODA on
the implications of retaining the
proposed assurance provisions (with the
surrender requirements calculated on an
owner-by-owner or DR-by-DR basis) in
conjunction with the alternative
allocation methodologies presented.
While EPA believes that the overall
approach for the assurance provisions
would still be appropriate with an
alternative allocation methodology, the
Agency may reevaluate some of the
details of those provisions, for example,
the proposed variability limits for each
state, the treatment of new units that
have not yet been allocated allowances,
and the allowance surrender levels
when it promulgates the final Transport
Rule.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
VII. Allocations to New Covered Units
in Indian Country in the Future
EPA received comments that it did
not adequately consider opportunities
for Indian tribes to enter into any of the
trading programs in the Transport Rule
proposal. This section explains and
provides an opportunity to comment on
some options for allocating allowances
to covered units that might in the future
be constructed in Indian country. In
addition, EPA has initiated a process to
consult with any interested tribes on
issues related to the proposed Transport
Rule and will conclude this
consultation before making any final
decisions on this issue. EPA will take
into consideration additional input it
receives as part of the tribal consultation
process.
In the Tribal Authority Rule, EPA
determined that it was appropriate to
treat eligible Indian tribes in the same
manner as states for purposes of the
prohibitions and authority contained in
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D). See 63 FR
7254, 7260; February 12, 1998. Tribes
are not, however, required to submit
implementation plans. As explained in
EPA’s regulations outlining Tribal Clean
Air Act authority, EPA is authorized to
promulgate FIPs for Indian country as
necessary or appropriate to protect air
quality if a tribe does not submit and get
EPA approval of an implementation
plan. See 40 CFR 49.11(a). Presently,
there are no covered sources located in
Indian country in the region covered by
the proposed Transport Rule. In the
event of the planned construction of
such a source in Indian country in the
proposed Transport Rule region, EPA
intends to work with the relevant Tribal
government to ensure that Tribal
concerns regarding allocations are
addressed and, at the same time, that
emissions from the source do not violate
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In the
case of a covered source locating in the
future in Indian country in the proposed
Transport Rule region, the EPA
anticipates that the Transport Rule FIPs
would require the covered source to
meet the requirements of the proposed
EPA administered Transport Rule
trading programs if those programs are
finalized.
EPA also anticipates that any covered
units at a covered source locating in
Indian country in the proposed
Transport Rule region would be eligible
to receive allowances from the EPAadministered new unit set-aside under
the FIPs for the proposed Transport
Rule state in which the area of Indian
country is located. Identical to the
approach proposed in the Transport
Rule for other new covered units, the
E:\FR\FM\07JAP1.SGM
07JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
owner or operator of units in Indian
country in the proposed Transport Rule
region could request allocations from
the EPA-administered new unit setaside by a specified deadline each year.
The allocations distributed by EPA
under the FIPs would equal that unit’s
emissions for the control period in the
preceding year (75 FR 45322). EPA has
not currently identified a basis for
treating new units locating in Indian
country without initial SO2 or NOX
allowance allocations differently from
new units locating elsewhere in the
Transport Rule region without initial
allowance allocations.
As part of this NODA, EPA is
requesting comment on all aspects of
how allowances for covered units
locating on tribal lands should be
allocated. Specifically, EPA requests
comment on how, in the final Transport
Rule FIPs, EPA should allocate
allowances to any covered units that are
constructed in Indian country in the
proposed Transport Rule region in the
future. EPA is also requesting comment
on how any such allowance allocation
methodology should, if at all, affect state
budgets or allowance allocations to
existing units and what further action,
if any, EPA should take to work with
Tribes and affected states to resolve this
issue in the event any covered units are
constructed in Indian Country in the
proposed Transport Rule region.
Finally, EPA requests comment on how
such allocations should be addressed in
a state that has submitted a SIP
providing for state allocation of
allowances in the proposed Transport
Rule trading programs.
VIII. Provisions for States To Submit
Transport Rule SIPs or Abbreviated
SIPs Providing for State Allocation of
Allowances in Proposed Transport Rule
Trading Programs
The proposed Transport Rule explains
that ‘‘by promulgating these Transport
Rule FIPs, EPA would in no way affect
the right of states to submit, for review
and approval, a SIP that replaces the
Federal requirements of the FIP with
state requirements. In order to replace
the FIP in a state, the state’s SIP must
provide adequate provisions to prohibit
NOX and SO2 emissions that contribute
significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance [of the 1997
ozone and 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS] in another state or states * * *
EPA is taking comment on all aspects of
how a state could replace the Transport
Rule FIP with a SIP and on what the SIP
approval criteria should be.’’ 75 FR
45342.
EPA received comments suggesting
that EPA allow states to replace EPA’s
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:28 Jan 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
allowance allocation provisions in the
proposed Transport Rule trading
programs by state-developed allocation
provisions. Commenters referenced the
two alternatives provided to states by
EPA in the CAIR trading programs
where: (1) EPA adopted a rule and
model trading regulations under which
states that adopted, as state SIP trading
programs, the model regulations (with
only certain limited changes allowed,
e.g., in the allocation provisions) could
participate in the EPA-administered
CAIR trading programs; and (2) EPA
adopted a rule allowing states to adopt
in SIPs provisions replacing only certain
provisions in the CAIR FIPs (e.g., the
allocation provisions) and to remain in
the CAIR trading programs under the
CAIR FIPs. Under both approaches, the
covered units in the state participated in
the CAIR trading programs, albeit with
state-, rather than EPA-, determined
allocations.
In the comment period on the
proposed Transport Rule FIP, EPA
received comments supporting these
two types of approaches for allowing
states to replace EPA allocations under
the proposed Transport Rule trading
programs by state allocations. EPA is
therefore requesting comment—in
conjunction with comment on the
alternative allocation methodologies—
on both of the following two
approaches, which are analogous to the
approaches adopted under the CAIR
trading programs. These approaches
would allow states to—and would
provide the only ways that states
could—allocate allowances and
participate in the proposed Transport
Rule trading programs.
Under the first approach, EPA would
adopt new provisions, as part of the
proposed Transport Rule FIP that would
allow a state to submit a SIP (referred as
an abbreviated SIP) that would modify
specified provisions of the proposed
Transport Rule FIP trading programs.
Specifically, the abbreviated SIP would
substitute state allocation provisions
(for entities other than opt-in units)—
for control periods in years after 2012
and applicable to a proposed Transport
Rule FIP trading program—in lieu of the
current allocation provisions (except
those for opt-in units) under those
proposed Transport Rule FIP program.
The Transport Rule FIP provisions that
could be replaced would be proposed
§§ 97.411(a) and (b) and 97.412 (in the
proposed TR NOX Annual Trading
Program), proposed §§ 97.511(a) and (b)
and 97.512 (in the TR NOX Ozone
Season Trading Program), proposed
§§ 97.611(a) and (b) and 97.612 (in the
TR SO2 Group 1 Trading Program), and
proposed §§ 97.711(a) and (b) and
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1119
97.712 (in the TR SO2 Group 2 Trading
Program). The abbreviated SIP could
provide for this substitution of state
allocations in one or more of the
proposed Transport Rule FIP trading
programs applicable to the state.
If the state allocation provisions met
certain requirements and the
abbreviated SIP did not change any
other provisions in the respective
proposed Transport Rule FIP trading
program, then EPA would approve the
abbreviated SIP. In the substitute state
allocation provisions, the state could
allocate allowances to Transport Rule
units (whether existing or new units) or
other entities (such as renewable energy
facilities) or could auction some or all
of the allowances. For EPA approval,
the state allocation provisions would
have to meet the following
requirements. First, the provisions
would have to provide that, for each
year for which the state allocation
provisions would apply, the total
amount of control period (annual or
ozone season) allowances allocated and,
where applicable, auctioned could not
exceed the applicable state budget for
that year under the relevant proposed
Transport Rule FIP trading program.
Second, to the extent the state
provisions would provide for
allocations for, or auctions open to,
existing units (i.e., units covered by
proposed § 97.411(a), § 97.511(a),
97.611(a), or 97.711(a), as applicable),
the provisions would have to provide
that the permitting authority under title
V of the CAA for the state would issue
final allocations and, if applicable,
auction results by May 1 (or January 1
with regard to the NOX ozone season
program) of the year two years before
the year of the control period for which
the allowances would be distributed. To
the extent the provisions would provide
for allocations for or auctions open to
new units (i.e., units covered by
proposed § 97.411(b) and 97.412,
§ 97.511(b) and 97.512, 97.611(b) and
97.612, or 97.711(b) and 97.712, as
applicable) or any other entities, the
provisions would also have to provide
that the permitting authority would
issue final allocations and, if applicable,
auction results by August 1 (or May 1
with regard to the NOX ozone season
program) of the year of the control
period for which the allowances would
be distributed. The allocation (or
auction) of allowances would be final
and could not be subject to modification
E:\FR\FM\07JAP1.SGM
07JAP1
1120
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules
(e.g., through an allowance surrender
adjusting the allocation).6
Third, the state provisions could not
change any other provisions of the
proposed Transport Rule FIP trading
programs with regard to the allowances
(e.g., the deadlines for allocation
recordation, requirements for transfer or
use of allowances, and allocation and
recordation of allowances for opt-in
units) or any other aspect of such
trading programs.7
Under the second approach, EPA
would adopt a new rule that would
provide that, if a state submitted a SIP
(referred to as a full SIP) that adopted
trading program regulations meeting
certain requirements for control period
in years after 2012, then EPA would
approve the full SIP as correcting the
deficiency under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in the state’s SIP that
was the basis for issuance of the
comparable proposed Transport Rule
FIP. In the state allocation provisions,
the state could allocate allowances to
Transport Rule units (whether existing
or new units, except for opt-in units) or
other entities (such as renewable energy
facilities) or could auction allowances.
As a result of EPA approval of the
state’s full SIP under this second
approach, the state’s trading program set
forth in the SIP would be integrated
with the comparable proposed
Transport Rule FIP trading program
(whether or not modified by an
abbreviated SIP) covering other states.
Moreover, covered sources in the state
could participate in the integrated
trading program, and the allowances
issued under the state trading program
would be interchangeable with the
allowances issued in the comparable
proposed Transport Rule trading
program.
Like the abbreviated SIP discussed
above, a full SIP providing for state
participation in the integrated trading
program could include only limited
differences from the provisions of the
proposed Transport Rule FIP trading
program. First, the only differences that
the full SIP could adopt would be in the
allocation provisions (other than those
for opt-in units). Second, the revised
state allocation provisions in the full
SIP would have to meet the same
requirements as state allocation
provisions in an abbreviated SIP. For
example, the full SIP would have to
provide that, for each year, the total
amount of control period (annual or
ozone season) allocations would not
exceed the applicable state budget for
that year. Further, to the extent the full
SIP would provide for allocations for
existing units, the SIP would have to
provide that the permitting authority
would issue final allocations by May 1
(or January 1 with regard to the NOX
ozone season program) of the year two
years before the year of the control
period for which the allowances would
be distributed. To the extent the full SIP
would provide for allocations for new
units or any other entities, the SIP
would also have to provide that the
permitting authority would issue final
allocations by August 1 (or May 1 with
regard to the NOX ozone season
program) of the year of the control
period for which the allowances would
be distributed. The allocation of
allowances would be final and could
not be subject to modification.8
It is important to note that, of course,
each state would still have the ability to
submit other types of SIPs using
emissions reduction approaches other
than the proposed Transport Rule
trading programs to correct the
deficiency under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in the state’s SIP that
was the basis for the proposed Transport
Rule FIPs. The EPA would review such
SIP submissions on a case-by-case basis
and intends to provide guidance to
states that want to develop and submit
such SIPs. However, in order for the
state to use the proposed Transport Rule
trading programs to correct that
deficiency in the SIP, the state would
have to submit a full SIP in accordance
with this second approach.
In order for a state’s allocation
provisions in an abbreviated SIP or a
full SIP to replace EPA’s allocation
provisions for a control period in a
given year under these two approaches,
a state would have to submit the
abbreviated SIP or full SIP meeting the
requirements of these approaches by a
deadline that would provide EPA
sufficient time to review and approve
the SIP provisions and to record the
unit-by-unit allocations or auction
results. EPA would need about 6
months—starting from the date of
receipt of an abbreviated or full SIP—to
complete its review and approval
process, which would have to provide
an opportunity for public comment on
the approval (or disapproval) action.
The following tables show, for the
allocations or auction results for the
control periods in 2012 through 2018,
the deadlines that would apply for
submission of an abbreviated or full SIP,
for submission of the unit-by-unit
allocations or auction results for
recordation by EPA, and for recordation.
These tables assume: Allocation (or
auction) and recordation of allowances
for existing units under the Transport
Rule trading programs one year at a time
and about one and one-half years ahead
of the year for which the allocations (or
auctions) apply; and allocation (or
auction) and recordation of allowances
for new units and other entities one year
at a time and six months after the
commencement of the control period for
which the allocations (or auction) apply.
Because EPA anticipates issuing the
final Transport Rule around mid-2011,
there would not be sufficient time for
states to develop and submit
abbreviated or full SIPs with allowance
allocation provisions, and for EPA to
review and approve such SIP
submissions, before September 2011
when EPA would record allocations to
existing units for 2012 and 2013.
Consequently, the tables assume that the
first year for which state allocations
might be used, in lieu of EPA allocation,
would be 2014.
jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
TABLE III—DEADLINES FOR SUBMISSION OF ABBREVIATED OR FULL SIPS AND UNIT-BY-UNIT ALLOCATIONS OR AUCTION
RESULTS AND FOR RECORDATION; ANNUAL TRADING PROGRAMS
First TR control period
for which allowances
would be allocated or
auctioned
Deadline for State
submitting abbreviated or full SIP
Deadline for State
submitting allocations
or auction results for
existing units
Deadline for State
submitting allocations
or auction results for
new units and others
Deadline for EPA
recording allocations
or auction results for
existing units
Deadline for EPA
recording allocations
or auction results for
new units and others
2012 ...........................
2013 ...........................
NA .............................
NA .............................
NA .............................
NA .............................
NA .............................
NA .............................
September 1, 2011 ...
September 1, 2011 ...
September 1, 2012.
September 1, 2013.
6 If any auctions were to be conducted, the
provisions would have to specify the auction
procedures that the permitting authority would use.
7 However, if auctions were to be conducted, the
abbreviated SIP would have to provide that any
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:28 Jan 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
allowance auctioned to a covered unit or source
would be treated as an allocated allowance, solely
for purposes of applying the assurance provisions
in the proposed Transport Rule FIP.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
8 In addition, the requirements for state allocation
provisions in full SIPs would apply to any
auctioned allowances in the same way that is
described above with regard to any allowances to
be auctioned under abbreviated SIPs.
E:\FR\FM\07JAP1.SGM
07JAP1
1121
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE III—DEADLINES FOR SUBMISSION OF ABBREVIATED OR FULL SIPS AND UNIT-BY-UNIT ALLOCATIONS OR AUCTION
RESULTS AND FOR RECORDATION; ANNUAL TRADING PROGRAMS—Continued
First TR control period
for which allowances
would be allocated or
auctioned
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
...........................
...........................
...........................
...........................
...........................
Deadline for State
submitting abbreviated or full SIP
November
November
November
November
November
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
2011
2012
2012
2014
2015
....
....
....
....
....
Deadline for State
submitting allocations
or auction results for
existing units
Deadline for State
submitting allocations
or auction results for
new units and others
Deadline for EPA
recording allocations
or auction results for
existing units
Deadline for EPA
recording allocations
or auction results for
new units and others
May
May
May
May
May
August
August
August
August
August
June
June
June
June
June
September
September
September
September
September
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
2014.
2015.
2016.
2017.
2018.
TABLE IV—DEADLINES FOR SUBMISSION OF ABBREVIATED OR FULL SIPS AND UNIT-BY-UNIT ALLOCATIONS OR AUCTION
RESULTS AND FOR RECORDATION; OZONE SEASON TRADING PROGRAMS
First TR control period
for which allowances
would be allocated or
auctioned
jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
...........................
...........................
...........................
...........................
...........................
...........................
...........................
Deadline for State
submitting abbreviated or full SIP
Deadline for State
submitting allocations
or auction results for
existing units
Deadline for State
submitting allocations
or auction results for
new units and others
Deadline for EPA
recording allocations
or auction results for
existing units
Deadline for EPA
recording allocations
or auction results for
new units and others
NA .............................
NA .............................
November 1, 2011 ....
November 1, 2012 ....
November 1, 2013 ....
November 1, 2014 ....
November 1, 2015 ....
NA .............................
NA .............................
May 1, 2012 ..............
May 1, 2013 ..............
May 1, 2014 ..............
May 1, 2015 ..............
May 1, 2016 ..............
NA .............................
NA .............................
May 1, 2014 ..............
May 1, 2015 ..............
May 1, 2016 ..............
May 1, 2017 ..............
May 1, 2018 ..............
September 1, 2011 ...
September 1, 2011 ...
June 1, 2012 .............
June 1, 2013 .............
June 1, 2014 .............
June 1, 2015 .............
June 1, 2016 .............
June
June
June
June
June
June
June
As discussed above, a trading program
adopted by a state in a full SIP and
approved by EPA under the second
approach would be fully integrated with
any comparable proposed Transport
Rule FIP trading program (i.e., the
proposed TR NOX Annual, TR NOX
Ozone Season, TR SO2 Group 1, or TR
SO2 Group 2 Trading Program
respectively) for other states. This
would apply whether the comparable
proposed Transport Rule FIP program
for other states was modified by an
abbreviated SIP approved by EPA under
the first approach or was not modified
by an abbreviated SIP. The integration
of these three types of trading programs
would be accomplished primarily
through the definitions of the terms, ‘‘TR
NOX Annual allowance’’, ‘‘TR NOX
Ozone Season allowancerdquo;, ‘‘TR
SO2 Group 1 allowance’’, and ‘‘TR SO2
Group 2 allowance’’ in the full SIPs
approved by EPA and the proposed TR
FIP trading programs (whether or not
the programs were modified by
abbreviated SIPs). ‘‘TR NOX Annual
allowance’’ would be defined in the
state and proposed Transport Rule FIP
trading programs as including
allowances issued under any of the
following trading programs: The
comparable EPA-approved state trading
programs; the comparable proposed
Transport Rule FIP trading program
with EPA-approved state allocation
provisions; and the proposed Transport
Rule FIP trading program with EPA
allocation provisions. Similarly, the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:28 Jan 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
definitions in the state and Transport
Rule FIP trading programs of ‘‘TR NOX
Ozone Season allowance’’, ‘‘TR SO2
Group 1 allowance’’, and ‘‘TR SO2 Group
2 allowance’’ respectively would
include allowances issued under all
three types of trading programs. As a
result, allowances issued in one
approved state trading program would
be interchangeable with allowances
issued in the comparable Transport Rule
FIP trading program (whether or not
modified by an abbreviated SIP), and all
these allowances could be used for
compliance with the allowance-holding
requirements (to cover emissions and to
meet assurance provision requirements)
in all three types of trading programs.
The integration of state and the
proposed Transport Rule FIP trading
programs would also be reflected in the
definitions of ‘‘TR NOX Annual Trading
Program,’’ ‘‘TR NOX Ozone Season
Trading Program’’, ‘‘TR SO2 Group 1
Trading Program’’, and ‘‘TR SO2 Group
2 Trading Program’’. Each of these
definitions in the state and Transport
Rule FIP trading programs would
expressly encompass the comparable
proposed Transport Rule FIP trading
programs (whether or not modified by
an abbreviated SIP) and the comparable
EPA-approved state full SIP trading
program.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
2012.
2013.
2014.
2015.
2016.
2017.
2018.
Dated: December 30, 2010.
Brian McLean,
Director, Office of Atmospheric Programs.
[FR Doc. 2011–109 Filed 1–6–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Federal Emergency Management
Agency
44 CFR Part 67
[Docket ID FEMA–2010–0003; Internal
Agency Docket No. FEMA–B–1170]
Proposed Flood Elevation
Determinations
Federal Emergency
Management Agency, DHS.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
Comments are requested on
the proposed Base (1% annual-chance)
Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed
BFE modifications for the communities
listed in the table below. The purpose
of this notice is to seek general
information and comment regarding the
proposed regulatory flood elevations for
the reach described by the downstream
and upstream locations in the table
below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are
a part of the floodplain management
measures that the community is
required either to adopt or to show
evidence of having in effect in order to
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\07JAP1.SGM
07JAP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 5 (Friday, January 7, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1109-1121]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-109]
[[Page 1109]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 51, 52, 72, 78, and 97
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491; FRL-9249-6]
RIN 2060-AP50
Notice of Data Availability for Federal Implementation Plans To
Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone:
Request for Comment on Alternative Allocations, Calculation of
Assurance Provision Allowance Surrender Requirements, New-Unit
Allocations in Indian Country, and Allocations by States
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of data availability (NODA) for the proposed Transport
Rule and request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA has supplemented the Transport Rule docket with additional
information relevant to the rulemaking, including unit-level
SO2 Group 1 and Group 2, NOX annual, and
NOX ozone season allowances for existing units calculated
using two alternative methodologies and data supporting those
calculations. This NODA requests public comment on these two
alternative allocation methodologies for existing units, on the unit-
level allocations calculated using those alternative methodologies, on
the data supporting the calculations, and on any resulting implications
for the proposed assurance provisions. This NODA also requests comment
on information about: An alternative approach to calculation of
assurance provision allowance surrender requirements; allocations for
new units locating in Indian country in the proposed Transport Rule
region in the future; and provisions for states to submit State
Implementation Plans providing for State allocation of allowances in
the proposed Transport Rule trading programs.
DATES: Comments on this NODA must be received on or before February 7,
2011.
Please refer to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for additional
information on submitting comments.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2009-0491, by one of the following methods:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491.
Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0491.
Mail: EPA Docket Center, EPA West (Air Docket), Attention
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20460. Please include 2 copies. In addition, please mail a copy of your
comments on the information collection provisions to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC
20503.
Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
West (Air Docket), 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 3334,
Washington, DC 20004, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0491. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The https://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through https://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, avoid any form of encryption, and be
free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's
public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center, EPA/DC, EPA East Building, Room 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202)
566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions regarding this Notice of
Data Availability and the additional allocations information placed in
the docket contact Brian Fisher, Clean Air Markets Division, USEPA
Headquarters, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Mail
Code: 6204J, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 343-9633;
fax number: (202) 343-2359; e-mail fisher.brian@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Detailed background information describing
the proposed rulemaking may be found in a previously published notice:
Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine
Particulate Matter and Ozone (proposed Transport Rule); Proposed Rule,
75 FR 45210; August 2, 2010.
The information placed in the docket is also available for public
review on the Web site for this rulemaking at https://www.epa.gov/airtransport/. If additional relevant supporting information becomes
available in the future, EPA will place this information in the docket
and make it available for public review on this Web site. This NODA
does not extend the comment period for the proposed Transport Rule,
which ended on October 1, 2010. This NODA also does not extend the
comment period for the two NODAs supporting the proposed Transport Rule
that were previously published in the Federal Register. The comment
period for the NODA published September 1, 2010 closed on October 15,
2010. The comment period for the NODA published October 27, 2010 closed
on November 26, 2010.
[[Page 1110]]
I. Additional Information on Submitting Comments
A. How can I help EPA ensure that my comments are reviewed quickly?
To expedite review of your comments by Agency staff, you are
encouraged to send a separate copy of your comments, in addition to the
copy you submit to the official docket, to Brian Fisher, Clean Air
Markets Division, USEPA Headquarters, Ariel Rios Building, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Mail Code: 6204J, Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number: (202) 343-9633; fax number: (202) 343 2359; e-mail
address fisher.brian@epa.gov.
B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
EDOCKET, regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. Send or deliver information
identified as CBI only to the following address: Gene Sun, Clean Air
Markets Division, USEPA Headquarters, Ariel Rios Building, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Mail Code: 6204J, Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number: (202) 343-9119; fax number: (202) 343-2359.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to: i. Identify the NODA by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
ii. Follow directions--The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
iii. Explain your comments, why you agree or disagree; suggest
alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
II. Web Site for Rulemaking Information
The EPA has previously established a Web site for the proposed
rulemaking at https://www.epa.gov/airtransport. The Web site includes
the proposed rulemaking actions and other related information that the
public may find useful in addition to a link to this NODA.
III. What is this Notice of Data Availability?
In the Transport Rule Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), EPA
proposed that, until states submit and the Administrator approves State
Implementation Plans (SIPs), Transport Rule Federal Implementation
Plans (FIPs) would provide backstops to prohibit emissions in upwind
states that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of certain National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
in downwind states in compliance with section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the
Clean Air Act (CAA). This Notice of Data Availability (NODA) provides
an opportunity for public comment on five issues related to the
proposed Transport Rule and on data relevant to those issues. The
relevant data has been placed in the rulemaking docket (Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491) and on the Web at https://www.epa.gov/airtransport. Specifically, EPA is providing an opportunity for
additional public comment on two methodologies for allocating
allowances under the remedy proposed by EPA in the proposed Transport
Rule and on supplemental data and information concerning the two
allocation methodologies. EPA is also providing an opportunity for
comment on: The implications of the alternative allocation
methodologies for the proposed assurance provisions; an alternative
approach to calculation of assurance provision allowance surrender
requirements at the designated representative (DR) level; a methodology
for allocating allowances to new units that choose to locate in Indian
country in the Transport Rule region; and possible options for states
wishing to submit State Implementation Plans (SIPs) providing for State
allocation of allowances in the proposed Transport Rule trading
programs.
The first issue on which EPA is soliciting comment relates to
allowance allocations under the proposed limited interstate trading
remedy. In the Transport Rule NPR, EPA proposed FIPs with a limited
interstate trading remedy and requested comment on alternative remedies
including intrastate trading and direct control. To implement the
proposed limited interstate trading remedy, EPA would, among other
things, require sources to hold emissions allowances equal to their
emissions of certain air pollutants during each compliance period.
Because EPA proposed FIPs in the Transport Rule, EPA also proposed a
methodology for distributing (allocating) the allowances to individual
existing units based on a combination of adjusted historic and
projected emissions data and requested comment on possible alternative
allocation methodologies.
This NODA describes two specific alternative allocation
methodologies that would potentially be used to allocate allowances
under FIPs in the final Transport Rule. These alternatives rely largely
on historic heat input data to determine unit-level allocations. The
NODA provides the underlying data, calculations, and resulting unit-
level allocations obtained when each alternative is applied to the
State budgets in the proposed Transport Rule. These alternative
allocation methodologies could be used to implement the proposed
interstate trading remedy or the intrastate trading remedy set forth in
the proposed Transport Rule. In developing the final Transport Rule,
EPA will consider these alternative allocation methodologies, as well
as the allocation methodologies presented in the proposed Transport
Rule. Further, issuance of this NODA does not preclude EPA from
finalizing any of the remedies in the Transport Rule proposal,
including limited interstate trading, intrastate trading, or direct
control.
EPA received numerous public comments on the methodology in the
proposed Transport Rule for allocating SO2 Group 1,
SO2 Group 2, NOX annual, and NOX ozone
season allowances to existing units. Many commenters suggested
alternative allocation approaches. A number of commenters requested
that EPA publish allocations and underlying data for any potential
alternative allocation methodologies before issuing a final Transport
Rule. The public comments received are available in the docket for the
Transport
[[Page 1111]]
Rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491).
This NODA describes the two alternative allocation methodologies
for existing units. Classification of units as existing units is
discussed in section IV in this NODA. Units that are not classified as
existing units would receive allocations of allowances based on the
provisions for new unit allocations in the proposed Transport Rule.
Note that the proposed Transport Rule does not discuss allocations to
new units in Indian country; see section VII in this NODA for
information on a potential allocation methodology for such units.
The alternative methodologies for existing unit allocations
described in this NODA emerge from comments that EPA received during
the comment period on the proposed Transport Rule. This NODA explains
the two alternative allocation methodologies and identifies the unit-
level data that serve as inputs for these alternative methodologies and
the resulting existing-unit-level allocations obtained when the
methodologies are applied to the State budgets provided in the
proposal. Section V in this NODA lays out key issues that EPA
encourages commenters to consider when submitting comments on the
alternative allocation methodologies.
The unit-level allocations in this NODA are based on State
emissions budgets in the proposed Transport Rule. It is important to
note that final State budgets may differ from the proposed budgets
because EPA is still in the process of updating its emissions
inventories and modeling in response to public comments, including
comments on the Integrated Planning Model (IPM). The final budgets will
be based on the updated inventories and modeling. Thus, unit-level
allocations in this NODA provide an indication of the proportional
share of a State's budget that would be allocated to individual
existing units if the alternative methodologies would be used. Any
final allocations in the final Transport Rule would be based on the
final State budgets and allocation methodology employed in the final
rule. Because the unit-level allocations in the proposed Transport Rule
and the unit-level allocations in this NODA are based on the same State
budgets (i.e., the budgets in the proposed Transport Rule), this
approach allows commenters to compare how the allocation methodologies
impact the distribution of allowances within a state.
This NODA only provides illustrative allocations to potential
existing Transport Rule units. For purposes of this NODA, potential
existing Transport Rule units are units that potentially meet the
applicability criteria in the Transport Rule NPR (proposed Sec. Sec.
97.404, 97.504, 97.604, and 97.704) and began commercial operation
prior to January 1, 2009. Any unit that meets the proposed
applicability criteria and began commercial operation on or after
January 1, 2009 would be considered a new unit and receive allocations
through the new unit set-aside described in the Transport Rule NPR
because the unit would not have a full year of baseline data available
at the time the Agency anticipates determining allocations to existing
units. Such a new unit would not be reflected in the list of potential
existing units for which illustrative allocations are presented in this
NODA.
This NODA presents allocations based on the existing-unit portions
of the state budgets under the proposed Transport Rule. In the
proposal, the existing-unit portion of a state budget would be
calculated as 97% of the total state budget in order to allot 3% to the
new unit set-aside. EPA recognizes that the revised classification of
units as existing units presented with these alternative allocation
methodologies might affect the methodology used in the proposal that
would establish the size of the new unit set-aside. EPA will consider
comments submitted during this NODA's comment period when finalizing
FIP allocations in the final Transport Rule and will address the issue
of any effect of the finalized allocation methodology on the size of
the new unit set-aside.
This NODA also requests public comment on four other issues.
Specifically, the NODA requests comment on: an alternative approach to
the calculation of assurance provision allowance surrender requirements
(calculation at the DR level); the implications that the alternative
allocation methods might have for the proposed assurance provisions;
allocations to any new units that choose to locate in Indian country in
a proposed Transport Rule state; and provisions for a state to
participate in the Transport Rule trading programs through submission
of a SIP (referred to as a full SIP) or to determine unit-level
allocations under a FIP through submission of a SIP revision addressing
only allocations (referred to as an abbreviated SIP).
EPA has placed in the docket for the proposed Transport Rule
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491) additional information relevant to
the rulemaking, including illustrative unit-level allocations based on
the state budgets provided in the Transport Rule proposal and
supporting data discussed in this NODA. The information placed in the
docket is also available for public review on the Web site for this
rulemaking at https://www.epa.gov/airtransport.
It is also important to note that EPA is neither proposing any
changes to nor accepting comment on the approach that will be used to
identify each state's significant contribution and interference with
maintenance and each state's emissions budget. EPA took comment on this
approach and the resulting state budgets in the proposed Transport
Rule. EPA also took comment on related modeling and emissions
inventories in two subsequent NODAs (75 FR 53613; September 1, 2010,
and 75 FR 66055; October 27, 2010).
For example, EPA is accepting comment on the alternative allowance
allocation methodologies presented in this NODA, but not on whether EPA
should use a remedy that requires the allocation of allowances. The
allowances that are allocated to individual units are a tool that would
be used to implement two of the remedies discussed in the proposed
Transport Rule--the proposed limited interstate trading remedy and the
alternative intrastate trading remedy; the allocation methodologies
detailed in this NODA are simply variations on approaches for
distributing those allowances to individual units.
Similarly, while EPA is accepting comment on discrete issues
relating to implementation of the assurance provisions, EPA is not
accepting comments on the need to have assurance provisions. The EPA
took comment on this in the proposed Transport Rule and is now only
requesting comment on discrete implementation issues concerning the
assurance provisions. In particular, EPA is requesting comment on the
implications that the alternative allocations methods might have for
the assurance provisions and on the alternative of calculating
assurance provision surrender on a DR-by-DR, rather than an owner-by-
owner basis. This latter alternative of implementing the assurance
provisions on a DR-by-DR basis is simply a variation in implementation
of the proposed assurance provisions.
In summary, this NODA provides the public with the opportunity to
comment on:
a. The two alternative allocation methodologies (described in
section V in this NODA), including the major components of each
alternative (e.g., the
[[Page 1112]]
baseline period and formulas to be used in calculating allocations);
b. The underlying unit-level data and resulting allowance
allocations for the alternative allocation methodologies based on the
proposal's state budgets; and
c. The list of units used in applying the alternative allocation
methodologies, including the classification of ``existing'' units.
This NODA also provides the public with the opportunity to comment
on:
The alternative of implementing the proposed assurance
provisions on a DR-by-DR, rather than owner-by-owner basis (section VI
in this NODA);
The implications that the alternative allocation
methodologies might have concerning the proposed assurance provisions
of the Transport Rule and the reasonableness of using the proposed
assurance provisions with these alternative allocation methodologies;
Information regarding unit-level allowance allocations for
any new units that choose to locate in Indian country in the proposed
Transport Rule region in the future (section VII in this NODA); and
Information regarding provisions for a state in the
proposed Transport Rule region to participate in the Transport Rule
trading programs through submission of a full SIP or to determine the
unit-level allocations under a FIP through submission of an abbreviated
SIP addressing only allocations (section VIII in this NODA).
During the comment period for this NODA, EPA will accept comments
only on the issues explicitly addressed in this NODA. EPA is not
requesting, and will not consider, comments on other aspects of the
proposed Transport Rule (such as determinations concerning states'
significant contribution and interference with maintenance and state
budgets). EPA is not extending the comment period of the proposed
Transport Rule, which closed on October 1, 2010. EPA also is not
extending the comment period of the NODA published September 1, 2010,
which closed on October 15, 2010, or the comment period of the NODA
published on October 27, 2010, which closed on November 26, 2010.
IV. What are the sources of data in this NODA?
A. List of Potential Existing Transport Rule Units
Under the proposed Transport Rule, a covered Transport Rule unit is
generally any stationary, fossil-fuel-fired boiler or stationary,
fossil-fuel-fired combustion turbine located in a proposed Transport
Rule state and serving at any time, since the later of November 15,
1990 or the start-up of the unit's combustion device, a generator with
a nameplate capacity greater than 25 MWe producing electricity for
sale. The proposed Transport Rule would exclude certain cogeneration
units and solid waste incineration units from being covered Transport
Rule units.
This NODA provides for comment on unit-level allocations (based on
the budgets in the proposed Transport Rule) to potential existing
covered units. For purposes of this NODA, a potential existing unit is
assumed to be a unit that would potentially meet the proposed
applicability criteria (i.e., the criteria in proposed Sec. Sec.
97.404, 97.504, 97.604, and 97.704 in the proposed Transport Rule) for
covered units and that commenced commercial operation prior to January
1, 2009. This cutoff date was chosen for existing units because it
assured that at least 1 full year of historic data would be available
to determine each existing unit's allocation. This NODA contains a list
of, and sets forth allocations under the two alternative methodologies
to, units that potentially meet the covered and existing unit criteria
discussed above based on EPA's best available data.
To identify the potential existing Transport Rule units, EPA relied
largely on data reported to EPA. To develop the list of potential
existing Transport Rule units, EPA first included any fossil-fuel-fired
unit serving a generator greater than 25 MWe producing electricity for
sale that is in a proposed Transport Rule state and on line prior to
January 1, 2009 and that reported emissions data in 2010 under at least
one of the following ongoing EPA trading programs: Clean Air Interstate
Rule (CAIR) NOX or CAIR SO2 annual trading
program, Acid Rain Program (ARP), and CAIR NOX ozone Season
in Massachusetts, Connecticut, or Arkansas. Data reported to EPA under
the CAIR and ARP programs meets the requirements of part 75 and has
been certified as to its accuracy and completeness by the source's
designated representative.
Next, EPA supplemented the list of units by using data from the
Integrated Planning Model (IPM) v.4.10 to identify potential existing
Transport Rule units that were not included in emissions data reported
to EPA. Specifically, IPM's National Electric Energy Data System
(NEEDS) was used to identify and obtain data for a subset of fossil-
fuel-fired units serving generators greater than 25 MWe producing
electricity for sale that are in a proposed Transport Rule state and
were not reporting under one of the aforementioned ongoing EPA trading
programs. NEEDS is a representation of all units capable of supplying
electricity to the U.S. electric grid. This subset of units identified
through NEEDS was then screened to remove units that were not potential
existing Transport Rule units and thus not eligible to obtain
allocations under one of the two alterative allocation methodologies
discussed in this NODA.
In particular, if the unit was retired or in cold storage in 2010
or is a steam turbine at a combined cycle (CC) plant, then it was not
included as a unit in the list of potential existing Transport Rule
units.\1\ The remaining units in this subset of units were added to the
list. For instance, there were units in Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma
that were identified through NEEDS as being potential existing
Transport Rule units that were not currently reporting under one or
more of the aforementioned ongoing EPA trading programs because the
units were not ARP units and were not in a CAIR state. Finally, a small
number of units were added to or removed from the list based on comment
and supporting data previously submitted to the EPA during the comment
period on the proposed Transport Rule by the unit owner or operator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In NEEDS, the combustion turbine and steam turbine
associated with a single CC plant are generally represented as two
separate generating units. The steam turbine at a CC does not
combust fuel, though, and should not be included in the list of
potential existing Transport Rule units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described above, the list of potential existing Transport Rule
units is based on EPA and NEEDS data. Units identified using the EPA
and NEEDS databases were included in the list of potential existing
Transport Rule units if they were in one of the following states
covered by the proposed Transport Rule: Arkansas, Alabama, Connecticut,
Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa,
Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New
York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
EPA notes that inclusion of a unit in, or exclusion of a unit from,
the list of potential existing Transport Rule units presented in this
NODA reflects only a preliminary assessment of the applicability of the
proposed Transport Rule and in no way suggests that EPA has made a
determination about the
[[Page 1113]]
applicability of the proposed Transport Rule to any unit. As discussed
above, the list of units developed for this NODA enables EPA to
calculate illustrative allowance allocations for potential existing
units based on the alternative methodologies presented. Moreover, this
list may be used by EPA to calculate unit-level allocations in the
final Transport Rule. While allocations calculated for the final
Transport Rule would be based on the best available data provided to
EPA by the time of the calculation, the applicability of the final
Transport Rule to an individual unit would be determined based on all
relevant data, whether or not EPA would have such data at the time that
allocations would be calculated. In fact, because any list of units
developed for purposes of allowance allocation may not be entirely
consistent with applicability determinations made in the future, the
proposed Transport Rule (proposed Sec. Sec. 97.411(c), 97.511(c),
97.611(c), and 97.711(c)) would establish procedures to be applied when
the Administrator would determine that a unit allocated allowances
would turn out not to actually be a proposed Transport Rule unit. For
example, under these proposed procedures, if such a determination would
be made after EPA's recordation of the allowance allocation but before
EPA's deduction of allowances for compliance with the requirement to
hold allowances covering emissions, the Administrator would deduct the
recorded allowances and transfer them to a new unit set-aside for the
appropriate state.
If owners and operators believe that their units that are included
in the list of potential existing units should not be included, these
owners and operators should submit comments on this NODA informing EPA
why the units should not be in the list. If owners and operators
believe that their units should be, but are not, treated as potential
existing Transport Rule units and included in the list of such units
provided by this NODA, these owners and operators should submit
comments on this NODA, informing EPA that the units should be added to
the list and allocated allowances and providing support for this
addition to the list. The data necessary for calculating allowance
allocations under the two alternative allocation methodologies should
also be provided. A unit that would not be allocated allowances as an
existing unit because of the unit's exclusion from the list of
potential existing Transport Rule units could ultimately be determined
to be a Transport Rule unit. Under the proposed Transport rule, each
Transport Rule unit would be subject to the allowance-holding
requirements of the Transport Rule regardless of whether the unit would
be allocated any allowances as an existing unit.
B. Historic Heat Input and Emissions Data Used in the Allowance
Allocation
The alternative allocation methodologies presented in this NODA
draw on historic heat input and historic emissions for potential
existing Transport Rule units. For units subject to one of the
aforementioned ongoing EPA trading programs and included in the list of
potential existing Transport Rule units, EPA used reported heat-input
data from the EPA database for the years 2005 through 2009. For these
same units, EPA used reported emissions from the EPA database for the
years 2003 to 2009. These data are publicly available through EPA's
data and maps at https://camddataandmaps.epa.gov/gdm/.
For units included in the list of potential existing Transport Rule
units that were not reporting under one of the aforementioned ongoing
EPA trading programs, EPA used historic heat input and emissions data
from Energy Information Administration (EIA) forms 767, 860, 906, 920,
and 923. These data are publicly available at https://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/data.html.
V. What are the alternative allocation methodologies and on what is EPA
requesting comment?
(a) Why is EPA considering heat input-based allocation methodologies?
In the proposed Transport Rule, EPA proposed a methodology for
allocating allowances to potential existing Transport Rule units. That
methodology is based on a combination of adjusted historic and adjusted
projected emissions data. EPA received a large number of public
comments from a variety of commenters suggesting alternative allocation
methodologies. One of the most frequently suggested metrics for
allocation was historic heat input. Commenters stated that using
historic heat input as the basis for allocations has the following
advantages:
(i) Historic heat input data are more likely to be accurate at a
unit level than projected unit-level emissions and are generally based
on quality-assured data reported by sources from continuous monitoring
systems.
(ii) Historic heat input data are fuel-neutral.
(iii) Historic heat input data are emissions-control-neutral and
thus do not yield reduced allocations for units that installed or are
projected to install pollution control technology.
EPA is considering the above-listed points made by commenters
regarding heat-input based allocations.
Numerous commenters also noted that EPA has broad authority to
implement alternative allocation methodologies under sections
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 302(y) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).\2\ EPA agrees
with commenters that the Agency has significant discretion in this
area. Neither the CAA nor the D.C. Circuit Court's opinion in North
Carolina v. EPA (531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), specifies a particular
methodology that EPA must use to allocate allowances to individual
units. The statute focuses on prohibiting emissions within the state
that significantly contribute to or interfere with maintenance. Under
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), states have significant discretion to
develop a control program in a SIP that achieves this objective and EPA
has similarly wide latitude when issuing a FIP. Moreover, the
definition of FIP in section 302(y) of the Act clarifies that a FIP may
include ``enforceable emission limitations or other control measures,
means or techniques (including economic incentives, such as marketable
permits or auctions of emissions allowances)'' but does not require EPA
to use any particular methodology to allocate allowances under a FIP
trading program. In light of this lack of direction concerning
allowance allocation, EPA has significant discretion to select an
allocation methodology that is reasonable and consistent with the goals
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the Act, including improving long-
term air quality and encouraging cost-effective emissions reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ CAA section 302(y) defines the term ``Federal implementation
plan'' as follows:
Federal implementation plan.--The term ``Federal implementation
plan'' means a plan (or portion thereof) promulgated by the
Administrator to fill all or a portion of a gap or otherwise correct
all or a portion of an inadequacy in a State implementation plan,
and which includes enforceable emission limitations or other control
measures, means or techniques (including economic incentives, such
as marketable permits or auctions of emissions allowances), and
provides for attainment of the relevant national ambient air quality
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA believes the allocation methodologies presented in the proposed
Transport Rule as well as those presented in this NODA all meet that
test. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA requires that emissions
``within a state'' that significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance in another state be
[[Page 1114]]
prohibited. In the proposed Transport Rule, EPA analyzed each
individual state's significant contribution and interference with
maintenance and calculated budgets that represent each state's
emissions after the elimination of those prohibited emissions. The
methodology used to allocate allowances to individual units in a
particular state has no impact on that state's budget or on the
requirement that the state's emissions not exceed that budget plus
variability. Regardless of the allocation methodology used, all
emissions in each covered state that significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in another state will be
prohibited. In sum, the allocation methodology has no impact on the
rule's ability to satisfy the statutory mandate of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to eliminate significant contribution and
interference with maintenance in downwind states.
EPA believes that a historic-heat-input-based allocation
methodology is consistent with the goals of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). The proposed Transport Rule would set state budgets
reflecting the overall emission reductions necessary for each
respective state to eliminate significant contribution and interference
with maintenance in downwind states. The initial allocation of
allowances under each state budget to existing units on the basis of
the units' historic heat input would yield a distribution of allowances
putting relatively greater burden on the higher-emission-rate units to
reduce emissions or purchase additional allowances in order for the
units to be in compliance with the proposed Transport Rule trading
programs. This pattern would result because heat-input-based
allocations would provide the same share of allowances to units with
the same heat input even though the higher-emission-rate units would
require more allowances in order to cover their emissions than would
lower-emission-rate units. EPA believes that, because higher-emission-
rate units generally are responsible for a greater share of a state's
total emissions and thus bear greater responsibility for a states'
significant contribution and interference with maintenance, this
distribution of burden is consistent with the goals of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
The proposed Transport Rule includes four trading programs
(SO2 Group 1, SO2 Group 2, NOX annual,
and NOX ozone season). EPA requests comment on whether the
allocation methodology chosen for each of the four trading programs
must be the same or whether it would be reasonable to allocate using
different methodologies for the different programs. EPA also requests
comment on rationales for using different methodologies for the
different trading programs.
(b) What are the alternative heat input allocation methodologies and
how would they be applied?
This NODA provides an opportunity for public comment on the two
alternative allocation methodologies described below. To make it easier
for commenters to compare the methodologies presented in this NODA with
the methodology proposed in the proposed Transport Rule, EPA is
providing in the rulemaking docket for the Transport Rule (and on the
EPA Web site) data showing the unit-level allocations that would result
if the methodologies were applied to allocate allowances from the state
budgets in the proposed Transport Rule. As noted above, these budgets
may be revised in the final Transport Rule and thus the unit-level
allocations (based on 97% of the respective state budgets) in this NODA
would not necessarily be the unit-level allocations in the final rule.
The alternative allocation methodologies described in this NODA
represent two variations of historic-heat-input-based allocations. For
each alternative allocation methodology, the underlying data and
resulting allocations are set forth in allocation tables located at
https://www.epa.gov/airquality/transport/actions.html and in the public
docket for the Transport Rule. The calculations used to derive the
unit-by-unit allocations for each alternative option are described
below.
Option 1 described below would allocate a state's existing unit
budget (i.e., 97% of its budget) based on each unit's proportionate
share of the state's total historic heat input.
Option 2 would yield the same initial allocation pattern as Option
1 (based on historic heat input) but would then add a constraint (i.e.,
a limit on allocations) premised on a unit's reasonably foreseeable
maximum emissions under the proposed Transport Rule trading programs.
Option 1--Historic Heat Input Approach
This option would establish a baseline historic heat input value
for each potential existing Transport Rule unit and allocate to that
unit a share of available allowances under each proposed Transport Rule
program equal to the unit's percentage share of the total baseline
historic heat input for all potential existing Transport Rule units in
the state. As with all allocation approaches under consideration by
EPA, this option would be applied to each state separately using the
portion of that state's budget available for potential existing
Transport Rule units in that state. Allocations under this approach for
each existing unit would be determined by applying the following steps.
1. For each unit in the list of potential existing Transport Rule
units, annual heat input values for the baseline period of 2005 through
2009 would be identified using data reported to EPA or, where EPA data
is unavailable, EIA. As discussed above, for purposes of this NODA,
potential existing Transport Rule units are units that potentially meet
the applicability criteria in the proposed Transport Rule and began
commercial operation prior to January 1, 2009. A number of units would
not have non-zero data for one or more of the baseline years (e.g., a
unit that came on line after 2005 but before 2009) and would be
assigned a zero value for each of those years in the baseline. (Step 2
explains how such zero values would be treated in the calculations.)
This option would use a five-year baseline in order to improve
representation of a unit's normal operating conditions over time. EPA
requests comment on the existing-unit cut-off date of January 1, 2009
for purposes of this NODA.
2. For each unit, the three highest, non-zero annual heat input
values within the 5 year baseline would be selected and averaged.
Selecting the three highest, non-zero annual heat input values within
the five-year baseline would reduce the likelihood that any particular
single year's operations (which might be negatively affected by outages
or other unusual events) would determine a unit's allocation. If a unit
would not have three non-zero heat input values during the 5 year
baseline period, EPA would average only those years for which a unit
does have non-zero heat input values. For example, if a unit has only
reported data for 2008 and 2009 among the baseline years and the
reported heat input values are 2 and 4 mmbtus respectively, then the
unit's average heat input used to determine its pro-rata share of the
state budget would be (2+4)/2 = 3.
3. Each unit would be assigned a baseline heat input value
calculated as described in step 2 above. This baseline heat input value
is referred to in the data tables in the rulemaking docket and on the
Web site referenced previously, and in the remainder of this NODA, as
the ``three-year average heat input''.
[[Page 1115]]
4. The three-year average heat inputs of all potential existing
Transport Rule units in a state would be summed to obtain that state's
total ``three-year average heat input''.
5. Each unit's three-year average heat input would be divided by
the state's total three-year average heat input to determine that
unit's share of the state's total three-year average heat input.
6. Each unit's share of the state's total three-year average heat
input would be multiplied by the state's existing-unit portion of the
state budget (i.e., 97% of the state budget) to determine that unit's
allocation.
Option 2--Emissions-Rate-Informed Historic Heat Input Approach
This option retains the historic-heat-input-based approach but adds
a constraint premised on a unit's reasonably foreseeable maximum
emissions under the proposed Transport Rule trading programs. For the
majority of units, the historic heat input-based allocation will not be
sufficient to cover historic emission levels; this reflects the shared
burden on units to reduce emissions in order to eliminate the state's
significant contribution and interference with maintenance. Heat input-
based allocations only exceed historic emissions for units at the lower
end of the range of historic emission rates for the pollutant involved.
For these lower-emission rate units, this option would establish, based
on historic data, a reasonably foreseeable maximum emissions level
reflecting a reasonable upper-bound capacity utilization factor and a
well-controlled emission rate that all units (regardless of the type of
fuel they combust) can meet for the pollutant. For those units whose
heat-input-based allocations would exceed historic emissions, this
option would limit the historic-heat-input-based allocations to this
maximum emissions level so that the units would not be allocated
allowances in excess of their reasonably foreseeable maximum emissions.
EPA believes that this approach would result in a reasonable initial
distribution of allowances that is consistent with the goals of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
1. The same 6 steps outlined above in Option 1 would be applied to
each unit.
2. A seven-year (2003 through 2009) historic emissions baseline
would be established for SO2, NOX, and ozone
season NOX based on data reported to EPA or, where EPA data
is unavailable, EIA data. This approach would use this seven-year
historic emissions baseline in order to reflect unit-level emissions
before and after the promulgation of the CAIR.
3. For each unit, the maximum annual historic SO2 and
NOX emissions would be identified within the seven-year
baseline. Similarly, the maximum ozone season NOX emissions
from the seven-year baseline for each unit would be identified. These
values are referred to as the ``maximum historic baseline emissions''
for each unit.
4. For each unit whose historic-heat-input-based allocation exceeds
its maximum historic baseline emissions, EPA would determine an
emission level (referred to as the ``well-controlled-rate maximum'' for
each unit) calculated as:
a. For a unit reporting maximum hourly heat input to EPA, the
reported figure multiplied by a well-controlled emission rate of 0.06
lbs/mmBtu for SO2 and 0.06 lbs/mmBtu for NOX. For
a unit that does not report maximum hourly heat input to EPA, EPA would
estimate the unit's maximum hourly heat input by multiplying the unit's
heat rate and capacity values (from NEEDS in IPM version 4.10). These
well-controlled emission rates of 0.06 lbs/mmBtu for SO2 and
NOX represent the lowest annual emission rates assumed
achievable when state-of-the-art pollution control technologies are
installed at coal units in the IPM modeling.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ As identified in EPA's documentation of EPA Base Case v.4.10
model available at https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/epa-ipm/docs/v410/Chapter5.pdf. These emission rates are based on the floor
rates used in IPM modeling and are intended to reflect the lower
bound of emission rates that suppliers are willing to guarantee when
installing state-of-the-art pollution control equipment (selective
catalytic reduction (SCR) and flue-gas desulfurization (FGD)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. The unit's maximum hourly heat input determined in
step 4.a above would be multiplied by 8,760 hours (annual) or 3,672
hours (ozone season) to get an annual or ozone season emissions level
at 100% utilization.
c. The unit's emissions level at 100% utilization determined in
step 4.b above would be multiplied by the reasonable upper-bound
capacity factor for each technology type. These upper-bounds would be
calculated as the utilization values at the 95th percentile in each
technology class.\4\ These 95th percentile values are set forth in the
table below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Capacity factors were determined as follows. (1) Using data
reported to EPA by source owners and operators under the
aforementioned ongoing EPA trading programs, EPA determined, for
units reporting electrical output, the capacity factor for each unit
for each year of operation during 2000-2009 by dividing gross
electrical output by maximum hourly load times 8,760 hours/year and,
for units reporting steam output (KLBsteam), dividing total mass of
steam produced by the maximum rate times 8,760 hours; (2) EPA then
identified each unit's plant type based on how the unit was listed
in NEEDS in IPM version 4.10 (e.g., coal steam, combined cycle,
combustion turbine, oil/gas steam, and ``other''). ``Other''
comprised fossil waste, biomass, tires, and landfill gas. (3) Using
the units' calculated annual capacity factors, EPA identified the
95th percentile value of capacity factor for each plant type.
Resulting values are in Table 1 above. This analysis is based
largely on the same data and methodology used in the Capacity Factor
Analysis Technical Support Document located at https://www.epa.gov/airquality/transport/pdfs/TSD_capacity_factors_analysis_for_new_units_7-6-10.pdf. However, in this analysis EPA expanded the
data set to include all units, whereas the previous analysis had
examined solely CAIR units online after 1999 because its focus had
been on new units.
Table I--Summary of Capacity Factors at 95th Percentile
[``Reasonable Upper-Bound Capacity Factor'']
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ozone
Technology class Annual season
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coal-fired boiler..................................... 0.87 0.89
Combined cycle........................................ 0.70 0.73
Combustion turbine.................................... 0.14 0.22
Oil or gas fired boiler............................... 0.46 0.55
Other................................................. 0.71 0.75
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. If a unit identified in step 4 has an historic-heat-input-based
allocation greater than both its maximum historic baseline emissions
(as determined in step 3) and its well-controlled-rate maximum (as
determined in step 4), then its allocation (referred to as the unit's
``reasonable foreseeable maximum emissions level'') would equal the
higher of these two values.
6. The difference (if positive) under step 5 between a unit's
historic-heat-input-based allocation and its ``reasonable foreseeable
maximum emissions level'' would be reapportioned on the same basis as
described in step 1 to units whose historic-heat-input-based
allocations are not revised under step 5. Steps 4, 5, and 6 would be
repeated with each revised allocation distribution until the entire
existing-unit portion of the state budget (i.e., 97% of the state
budget) would be allocated.
The table below provides an example of application of the steps in
Option 2.
[[Page 1116]]
Table II--Demonstration of Allocations Using Option 2 in a Two-Unit State With a 30-Ton State Budget
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Step 1 Step 2 & 3 Step 4 Step 5 (greater Step 6
------------------------------------------------ of step 3 ---------------
result or step 4
result)
Heat-input- Historic Well- ------------------
based maximum controlled- Reasonable Final
allocation baseline rate maximum foreseeable allocation
emissions maximum
emissions level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit A........................ 10 4 6 6 6
Unit B........................ 20 40 N/A N/A 24
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) What allocations-related data and information are the EPA making
available for review and comment?
EPA has used the best available data to develop a list of potential
existing Transport Rule units and to calculate illustrative allowance
allocations for each such unit under the two alternative allocation
methodologies discussed in this NODA. However, through the NODA, EPA is
giving unit owners and operators and the public in general the
opportunity to offer comments on individual units' inclusion in or
exclusion from such list and--for units that EPA included on the list
or that commenters believe should be included on the list--on the data
needed for allocation calculations (including any necessary data that
EPA has not provided in this NODA) under the two alternative allocation
methodologies and the allocations that result or should result from
such calculations.
For units on the list of potential existing Transport Rule units,
EPA is providing for the years 2003 through 2009 the relevant EPA-
reported heat input and emissions data under the aforementioned ongoing
EPA trading programs and, for those units not reporting under these
programs, heat input and fuel data in EIA databases. EPA is also
providing the Agency's calculations using these data in the two
alternative allocation methodologies described in this NODA.
In addition to comments on the list of potential existing Transport
Rule units, allocation-related data, and calculations of allocations,
EPA requests comments on the appropriateness of the alternative
allocation methodologies and their implications for rule
implementation. In particular, EPA encourages commenters to address the
following:
Are the alternative allocation methodologies clear and
easy to understand?
Do these alternative methodologies raise any
implementation concerns, such as concerns about feasibility of
implementing the methodology?
How are these methodologies consistent with the goals of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)?
Do these alternative methodologies yield a reasonable
distribution of allowances?
Should the same methodology be used for each of the
proposed Transport Rule trading programs, or should a different
methodology be used for one or more such trading programs?
(d) Why is the EPA providing opportunity to comment on these
allocation-related data and information?
Through this NODA, EPA is providing owners and operators, states
and the public in general the opportunity to comment on the
allocations-related data and information described above in order to
ensure that we use the best available data in the Transport Rule FIP
allocation process. For example, the heat input and emissions data used
to calculate allocations came from data reported to EPA and EIA, and a
unit owner or operator (or other member of the public) should comment
if he or she sees any discrepancy between the data reported for the
unit and the heat input and emissions data used in calculating the
allocations in this NODA. Such comment should include the data that the
commenter believes EPA should use and the source of that data and where
else the data may be reported to the Federal government. EPA is also
providing an opportunity to comment on the calculations using the
alternative allocation methodologies and the data in order to ensure
the accuracy of the calculations.
The allocations presented in this NODA are also based on the list
of potential existing Transport Rule units developed using data
currently available to EPA. As discussed above, a unit's inclusion on
or exclusion from this list does not constitute a determination of the
applicability of the proposed Transport Rule to the unit, but rather
reflects EPA's preliminary application of the applicability provisions
in the proposed Transport Rule. In order to ensure the accuracy of the
allocation calculations, the EPA is providing this opportunity for
source owners and operators, and the public in general, to (1) comment
on units' inclusion in, or exclusion from, the allocation tables in the
NODA and the data on which the inclusion or exclusion is or should be
based, (2) comment on the heat input and other data used or that should
be used to calculate the allocations and the resulting allocations, and
(3) submit corrections of the data or supplementary data. While EPA
requests that owners and operators, states, and other members of the
public who believe that a unit has been incorrectly included in or
excluded from the allocation tables submit a comment (including any
supporting data). EPA is not requesting, and will not consider, any
comments on the proposed applicability provisions themselves (proposed
Sec. Sec. 97.404, 97.504, 97.604, and 97.704).
The addition or removal of existing units to or from a state's list
of potential existing Transport Rule units will not impact the size of
the state budget. EPA's responses to comments on this NODA concerning
the list of potential existing Transport Rule units and the data to be
used to allocate to specific units and EPA's updated modeling and
responses to comments on the proposed Transport Rule concerning the
proposed state budgets may result in the individual units receiving
different shares of the applicable state budget than reflected in the
allocation tables.
(e) What supporting documentation do I need to provide with my
comments?
While we will consider all comments on issues that are within the
scope of this NODA, these comments should be supported with appropriate
documentation. Supporting documentation can include, but is not limited
to, spreadsheets, explanations of why you believe the data on such
spreadsheets are accurate (e.g., the
[[Page 1117]]
quality assurance of the data), and information on the data source.
In general, we do not anticipate revisions to unit heat input and
emissions data reported to EPA under the ARP and CAIR programs since,
in submitting the data under these programs, a source's DR has already
certified the accuracy and completeness of the data. However, we will
consider any comments. For example, a source's DR may provide evidence
that we improperly calculated heat input at the unit-level if the heat
input was actually measured at another location (such as a common
stack). As a further example, a source's DR may demonstrate that the
data provided in this NODA are not consistent with the data reported to
EPA for compliance with the ARP or CAIR programs. In that case, the
commenter should explain why the data values in EPA's data files are
incorrect and should document and explain the new data values.
Similarly, in general, we do not anticipate revisions to data
reported to EIA since such data were submitted to meet regulatory
reporting requirements. However, we will consider any comments on the
data as reported, as well as on any calculation in which we used the
data for purposes of this NODA.
VI. On what aspects of the proposed assurance provisions is EPA
requesting comment?
(a) Whether the Assurance Provision Allowance Surrender Requirement
Should be Calculated on a Designated Representative Basis
Under the proposed Transport Rule, the assurance provisions would
be triggered for a state for a given year if total emissions for
covered units in the state for the year exceed the state assurance
level (i.e., the state budget plus the state's variability limit). As
proposed, if this level were exceeded, the assurance provision
allowance surrender requirement would be imposed on certain owners of
covered units in the state and calculated on an owner-by-owner basis.
Specifically, each owner whose share of the state's total covered-unit
emissions exceeded the owner's share of the state assurance level would
have to surrender a proportionate share of the state's exceedance. In
this NODA, EPA is requesting comment on whether the surrender
requirement should be imposed on certain owners and operators of
covered units in the state but calculated on a DR-by-DR basis, rather
than on an owner-by-owner basis.
Under this alternative approach, the calculation of shares of
covered-unit emissions and of the state budget plus variability would
be performed for each group of covered units having a common DR. EPA
would use the DR as of the allowance transfer deadline for a given
control period (generally March 1 following the control period for the
proposed Transport Rule NOX and SO2 annual
trading programs and December 1 following the control period for the
proposed Transport Rule NOX ozone season trading program)
for determining assurance provision surrender requirements. In order to
be treated as a group of covered units for this purpose, the units
would have to be located a
