Rule: Air Programs: Ambient Air Quality Standards, National&#8212 Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone Interstate Transport Control Measures

Thursday,
May 12, 2005
Part II
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Parts 51, 72, et al.
Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of
Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean
Air Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid
Rain Program; Revisions to the NOX SIP
Call; Final Rule
VerDate jul<14>2003 20:31 May 11, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM 12MYR2
25162 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 91 / Thursday, May 12, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Today’s action also includes revisions petersen.sonja@epa.gov. For questions
AGENCY to the Acid Rain Program regulations regarding air quality analyses, please
under title IV of the CAA, particularly contact Norm Possiel, U.S. EPA, Office
40 CFR Parts 51, 72, 73, 74, 77, 78 and the regulatory provisions governing the of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
96 SO2 cap and trade program. The Emissions Monitoring and Analysis
[OAR–2003–0053; FRL–7885–9] revisions are made because they Division, Mail Code D243–01, Research
streamline the operation of the Acid Triangle Park, NC, 27711, telephone
RIN 2060–AL76 Rain SO2 cap and trade program and/or (919) 541–5692, e-mail at
facilitate the interaction of that cap and possiel.norm@epa.gov. For questions
Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of trade program with the model SO2 cap regarding the EGU cost analyses,
Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and trade program included in today’s emissions inventories, and budgets,
(Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions action. In addition, today’s action please contact Roman Kramarchuk, U.S.
to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the provides for the NOX SIP Call cap and EPA, Office of Atmospheric Programs,
NOX SIP Call trade program to be replaced by the Clean Air Markets Division, Mail Code
AGENCY: Environmental Protection CAIR ozone-season NOX trading 6204J, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Agency (EPA). program. Washington, DC, 20460, telephone (202)
ACTION: Final rule. DATES: The effective date of today’s 343–9089, e-mail at
action, except for the revisions to 40 kramarchuk.roman@epa.gov. For
SUMMARY: In today’s action, EPA finds questions regarding statewide emissions
CFR parts 72, 73, 74, and 77 of the Acid
that 28 States and the District of Rain Program regulations, is July 11, inventories, please contact Ron Ryan,
Columbia contribute significantly to 2005. States must submit to EPA for U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning
nonattainment of the national ambient approval enforceable plans for and Standards, Emissions Monitoring
air quality standards (NAAQS) for fine complying with the requirements of this and Analysis Division, Mail Code D205–
particles (PM2.5) and/or 8-hour ozone in rule by September 11, 2006. The 01, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27711,
downwind States. The EPA is requiring effective date for today’s revisions to 40 telephone (919) 541–4330, e-mail at
these upwind States to revise their State CFR parts 72, 73, 74, and 77 of the Acid ryan.ron@epa.gov. For questions
implementation plans (SIPs) to include Rain Program regulations is July 1, 2006. regarding emissions reporting
control measures to reduce emissions of requirements, please contact Bill
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
sulfur dioxide (SO2) and/or nitrogen Kuykendal, U.S. EPA, Office of Air
oxides (NOX). Sulfur dioxide is a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. OAR–2003–0053. All documents in Quality Planning and Standards,
precursor to PM2.5 formation, and NOX Emissions Monitoring and Analysis
the docket are listed in the EDOCKET
is a precursor to both ozone and PM2.5 Division, Mail Code D205–01, Research
formation. Reducing upwind precursor index at http://www.epa.gov/edocket.
Although listed in the index, some Triangle Park, NC, 27711, telephone
emissions will assist the downwind (919) 541–5372, e-mail at
PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone nonattainment information is not publicly available,
i.e., Confidential Business Information kuykendal.bill@epa.gov. For questions
areas in achieving the NAAQS. regarding the model cap and trade
Moreover, attainment will be achieved (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. programs, please contact Sam Waltzer,
in a more equitable, cost-effective U.S. EPA, Office of Atmospheric
manner than if each nonattainment area Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on Programs, Clean Air Markets Division,
attempted to achieve attainment by
the Internet and will be publicly Mail Code 6204J, 1200 Pennsylvania
implementing local emissions
available only in hard copy form. Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20460,
reductions alone.
Based on State obligations to address Publicly available docket materials are telephone (202) 343–9175, e-mail at
interstate transport of pollutants under available either electronically in waltzer.sam@epa.gov. For questions
section 110(a)(2)(D) of the Clean Air Act EDOCKET or in hard copy at the EPA regarding analyses required by statutes
(CAA), EPA is specifying statewide Docket Center, EPA West, Room B102, and executive orders, please contact
emissions reduction requirements for 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Linda Chappell, U.S. EPA, Office of Air
SO2 and NOX. The EPA is specifying Washington, DC. The Public Reading Quality Planning and Standards, Air
that the emissions reductions be Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 Quality Strategies and Standards
implemented in two phases. The first p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Division, Mail Code C339–01, Research
phase of NOX reductions starts in 2009 legal holidays. The telephone number Triangle Park, NC, 27711, telephone
(covering 2009–2014) and the first phase for the Public Reading Room is (202) (919) 541–2864, e-mail at
of SO2 reductions starts in 2010 566–1744, and the telephone number for chappell.linda@epa.gov. For questions
(covering 2010–2014); the second phase the Air Docket is (202) 566–1742. regarding the Acid Rain Program
of reductions for both NOX and SO2 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For regulation revisions, please contact
starts in 2015 (covering 2015 and general questions concerning today’s Dwight C. Alpern, U.S. EPA, Office of
thereafter). The required emissions action, please contact Carla Oldham, Atmospheric Programs, Clean Air
reductions requirements are based on U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning Markets Division, Mail Code 6204J,
controls that are known to be highly and Standards, Air Quality Strategies 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
cost effective for electric generating and Standards Division, Mail Code Washington, DC, 20460, telephone (202)
units (EGUs). C539–02, Research Triangle Park, NC, 343–9151, e-mail at
Today’s action also includes model 27711, telephone (919) 541–3347, e-mail alpern.dwight@epa.gov.
rules for multi-State cap and trade at oldham.carla@epa.gov. For legal SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
programs for annual SO2 and NOX questions, please contact Sonja
emissions for PM2.5 and seasonal NOX Petersen, U.S. EPA, Office of General Regulated Entities
emissions for ozone that States can Counsel, Mail Code 2344A, 1200 Except for the revisions to the Acid
choose to adopt to meet the required Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Rain Program regulations, this action
emissions reductions in a flexible and Washington, DC, 20460, telephone (202) does not directly regulate emissions
cost-effective manner. 564–4079, e-mail at sources. Instead, it requires States to
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 91 / Thursday, May 12, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 25163
revise their SIPs to include control Entities potentially regulated by the electricity, generate steam, or cogenerate
measures to reduce emissions of NOX revisions to the Acid Rain Program electricity and steam. Regulated
and SO2. The emissions reductions regulations in this action are fossil-fuel- categories and entities include:
requirement assigned to the States are fired boilers, turbines, and internal
based on controls that are known to be combustion engines, including those
highly cost effective for EGUs. that serve generators producing
Category 1 NAICS code Examples of potentially regulated entities
Industry ...................... 221112 and oth- Electric service providers, boilers, turbines, and internal combustion engines from a wide range of
ers industries.
Federal government .. 221122 Fossil fuel-fired electric utility steam generating units owned by the Federal government.
State/local/Tribal gov- 221122 Fossil fuel-fired electric utility steam generating units owned by municipalities. Fossil fuel-fired elec-
ernment. 921150 tric utility steam generating units in Indian Country.
1 North American Industry Classification System.
2 Federal, State, or local government-owned and operated establishments are classified according to the activity in which they are engaged.
This table is not intended to be A. How Did EPA Interpret the Clean Air 2. How Did EPA Determine That
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide Act’s Pollution Transport Provisions in Reductions in Interstate Transport, as
for readers regarding entities likely to be the NOX SIP Call? Well as Reductions in Local Emissions,
1. Clean Air Act Requirements Are Warranted to Help Ozone
regulated by the revisions to the Acid
2. The NOX SIP Call Rulemaking Nonattainment Areas to Meet the 8-hour
Rain Program regulations in this action. Ozone Standard?
a. Analytical Approach of NOX SIP Call
This table lists the types of entities that b. Regulatory Requirements a. What Did EPA Say in its Proposal
EPA is aware could potentially be c. SIP Submittal and Implementation Notice?
regulated. Other types of entities not Requirements b. What Did Commenters Say?
listed in the table could also be 3. Michigan v. EPA Court Case C. Comments on Excluding Future Case
regulated. To determine whether your 4. Implementation of the NOX SIP Call Measures from the Emissions Baselines
facility is regulated, you should B. How Does EPA Interpret the Clean Air Used to Estimate Downwind Ambient
Act’s Pollution Transport Provisions in Contribution
carefully examine the applicability
Today’s Rule D. What Criteria Should Be Used to
criteria in 40 CFR 72.6 and 74.2 and the Determine Which States
exemptions in 40 CFR 72.7 and 72.8. If 1. CAIR Analytical Approach
a. Nature of Nonattainment Problem and 1. What Is the Appropriate Metric for
you have questions regarding the Assessing Downwind PM2.5
Overview of Today’s Approach
applicability of the revisions to the Acid b. Air Quality Factor Contribution?
Rain Program regulations in this action a. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
c. Cost Factor
to a particular entity, consult persons b. Comments and EPA’s Responses
d. Other Factors
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER c. Today’s Action
e. Regulatory Requirements
2. What Is the Level of the PM2.5
INFORMATION CONTACT section. f. SIP Submittal and Implementation
Contribution Threshold?
Requirements a. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Web Site for Rulemaking Information 2. What Did Commenters Say and What Is b. Comments and EPA’s Responses
EPA’s Response? c. Today’s Action
The EPA has also established a Web
a. Aspects of Contribute-Significantly Test E. What Criteria Should Be Used to
site for this rulemaking at http:// III. Why Does This Rule Focus on SO2 and
www.epa.gov/cleanairinterstaterule/ or Determine Which States are Subject to
NOX, and How Were Significant this Rule Because They Contribute to
http://www.epa.gov/cair/ (formerly Downwind Impacts Determined? Ozone Nonattainment?
at http://www.epa.gov/ A. What Is the Basis for EPA’s Decision to 1. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
interstateairquality/) which includes the Require Reductions in Upwind 2. Comments and EPA Responses
rulemaking actions and certain other Emissions of SO2 and NOX to Address 3. Today’s Action
related information that the public may PM2.5 related transport? F. Issues Related to Timing of the CAIR
find useful. 1. How Did EPA determine which Controls
pollutants were necessary to control to 1. Overview
Outline address interstate transport for PM2.5? 2. By Design, the CAIR Cap and Trade
I. Overview a. What Did EPA propose regarding this Program Will Achieve Significant
A. What Are the Central Requirements of issue in the NPR? Emissions Reductions Prior to the Cap
this Rule? b. How Does EPA address public Deadlines
B. Why Is EPA Taking this Action? comments on its proposal to address SO2 3. Additional Justification for the SO2 and
1. Policy Rationale for Addressing and NOX emissions and not other NOX Annual Controls
Transported Pollution Contributing to pollutants? 4. Additional Justification for Ozone NOX
PM2.5 and Ozone Problems c. What Is EPA’s Final Determination? Requirements
a. The PM2.5 Problem 2. What Is the role for local emissions IV. What Amounts of SO2 and NOX
b. The 8-hour Ozone Problem reduction strategies? Emissions Did EPA Determine Should Be
c. Other Environmental Effects Associated a. Summary of analyses and conclusions in Reduced?
with SO2 and NOX Emissions the proposal A. What Methodology Did EPA Use to
2. The CAA Requires States to Act as Good b. Summary and Response to Public Determine the Amounts of SO2 and NOX
Neighbors by Limiting Downwind Comments Emissions That Must Be Eliminated?
Impacts B. What Is the Basis for EPA’s Decision to 1. The EPA’s Cost Modeling Methodology
3. Today’s Rule Will Improve Air Quality Require Reductions in Upwind 2. The EPA’s Proposed Methodology to
C. What was the Process for Developing Emissions of NOX to Address Ozone- Determine Amounts of Emissions that
this Rule? Related Transport? Must be Eliminated
D. What Are the Major Changes Between 1. How Did EPA Determine Which a. Overview of EPA Proposal for the Levels
the Proposals and the Final Rule? Pollutants Were Necessary to Control to of Reductions and Resulting Caps, and
II. The EPA’s Analytical Approach Address Interstate Transport for Ozone? their Timing
b. Regulatory History: NOX SIP Call B. How Did EPA Project Future Completion of the Next Review of the
c. Proposed Criteria for Emissions Nonattainment for PM2.5 and 8-Hour PM2.5 and 8-hour Ozone NAAQS
Reduction Requirements Ozone? e. The EPA’s Authority to Require States to
3. What Are the Most Significant 1. Projection of Future PM2.5 Make Section 110(a)(2)(D) Submissions
Comments that EPA Received about its Nonattainment within 18 Months of this Final Rule
Proposed Methodology for Determining a. Methodology for Projecting Future PM2.5 C. What Happens If a State Fails to Submit
the Amounts of SO2 and NOX Emissions Nonattainment a Transport SIP or EPA Disapproves the
that Must Be Eliminated, and What Are b. Projected 2010 and 2015 Base Case PM2.5 Submitted SIP?
EPA’s Responses? Nonattainment Counties 1. Under What Circumstances Is EPA
4. The EPA’s Evaluation of Highly Cost- 2. Projection of Future 8-Hour Ozone Required to Promulgate a FIP?
Effective SO2 and NOX Emissions Nonattainment 2. What Are the Completeness Criteria?
Reductions Based on Controlling EGUs a. Methodology for Projecting Future 8- 3. When Would EPA Promulgate the CAIR
a. SO2 Emissions Reductions Requirements Hour Ozone Nonattainment Transport FIP?
b. NOX Emissions Reductions b. Projected 2010 and 2015 Base Case 8- D. What Are the Emissions Reporting
Requirements Hour Ozone Nonattainment Counties Requirements for States?
B. What Other Sources Did EPA Consider C. How did EPA Assess Interstate 1. Purpose and Authority
when Determining Emission Reduction Contributions to Nonattainment? 2. Pre-existing Emission Reporting
Requirements? 1. PM2.5 Contribution Modeling Approach Requirements
1. Potential Sources of Highly Cost- 2. 8-Hour Ozone Contribution Modeling 3. Summary of the Proposed Emissions
Effective Emissions Reductions Approach Reporting Requirements
D. What Are the Estimated Interstate 4. Summary of Comments Received and
a. Mobile and Area Sources
Contributions to PM2.5 and 8-Hour EPA’s Responses
b. Non-EGU Boilers and Turbines
Ozone Nonattainment? 5. Summary of the Emissions Reporting
c. Other Non-EGU Stationary Sources
1. Results of PM2.5 Contribution Modeling Requirements
C. Schedule for Implementing SO2 and
2. Results of 8-Hour Ozone Contribution VIII. Model NOX and SO2 Cap and Trade
NOX Emissions Reduction Requirements
Modeling Programs
for PM2.5 and Ozone
E. What Are the Estimated Air Quality A. What Is the Overall Structure of the
1. Overview
Impacts of the Final Rule? Model NOX and SO2 Cap and Trade
2. Engineering Factors Affecting Timing for
1. Estimated Impacts on PM2.5 Programs?
Control Retrofits
Concentrations and Attainment B. What Is the Process for States to Adopt
a. NPR
2. Estimated Impacts on 8-Hour Ozone the Model Cap and Trade Programs and
b. Comments
Concentrations and Attainment How Will It Interact with Existing
c. Responses F. What Are the Estimated Visibility Programs?
3. Assure Financial Stability Impacts of the Final Rule? 1. Adopting the Model Cap and Trade
D. Control Requirements in Today’s Final 1. Methods for Calculating Projected Programs
Rule Visibility in Class I Areas 2. Flexibility in Adopting Model Cap and
1. Criteria Used to Determine Final Control 2. Visibility Improvements in Class I Areas Trade Rules
Requirements VII. SIP Criteria and Emissions Reporting C. What Sources Are Affected under the
2. Final Control Requirements Requirements Model Cap and Trade Rules?
V. Determination of State Emissions Budgets A. What Criteria Will EPA Use to Evaluate 1. 25 MW Cut-off
A. What Is the Approach for Setting State- the Approvability of a Transport SIP? 2. Definition of Fossil Fuel-fired
by-State Annual Emissions Reductions 1. Introduction 3. Exemption for Cogeneration Units
Requirements and EGU Budgets? 2. Requirements for States Choosing to a. Efficiency Standard for Cogeneration
1. SO2 Emissions Budgets Control EGUs Units
a. State Annual SO2 Emission Budget a. Emissions Caps and Monitoring b. One-third Potential Electric Output
Methodology b. Using the Model Trading Rules Capacity
b. Final SO2 State Emission Budget c. Using a Mechanism Other than the c. Clarifying ‘‘For Sale’’
Methodology Model Trading Rules d. Multiple Cogeneration Units
c. Use of SO2 budgets d. Retirement of Excess Title IV D. How Are Emission Allowances
2. NOX Annual Emissions Budgets Allowances Allocated to Sources?
a. Overview 3. Requirements for States Choosing to 1. Allocation of NOX and SO2 Allowances
b. State Annual NOX Emissions Budget Control Sources Other than EGUs a. Required Aspects of a State NOX
Methodology a. Overview of Requirements Allocation Approach
c. Final Annual State NOX Emission b. Eligibility of Non-EGU Reductions b. Flexibility and Options for a State NOX
Budgets c. Emissions Controls and Monitoring Allowance Allocations Approach
d. Use of Annual NOX Budgets d. Emissions Inventories and E. What Mechanisms Affect the Trading of
e. NOX Compliance Supplement Pool Demonstrating Reductions Emission Allowances?
B. What Is the Approach for Setting State- 4. Controls on Non-EGUs Only 1. Banking
by-State Emissions Reductions 5. Use of Banked Allowances and the a. The CAIR NPR and SNPR Proposal for
Requirements and EGU Budgets for Compliance Supplement Pool the Model Rules and Input from
States with NOX Ozone Season B. State Implementation Plan Schedules Commenters
Reduction Requirements? 1. State Implementation Plan Submission b. The Final CAIR Model Rules and
1. States Subject to Ozone-season Schedule Banking
Requirements a. The EPA’s Authority to Require Section 2. Interpollutant Trading Mechanisms
VI. Air Quality Modeling Approach and 110(a)(2)(D) Submissions in Accordance a. The CAIR NPR Proposal for the Model
Results with the Schedule of Section 110(a)(1) Rules and Input from Commenters
A. What Air Quality Modeling Platform b. The EPA’s Authority to Require Section b. Interpollutant Trading and the Final
Did EPA Use? 110(a)(2)(D) Submissions Prior to Formal CAIR Model Rules
1. Air Quality Models Designation of Nonattainment Areas F. Are There Incentives for Early
a. The PM2.5 Air Quality Model and under Section 107 Reductions?
Evaluation c. The EPA’s Authority to Require Section 1. Incentives for Early SO2 Reductions
b. Ozone Air Quality Modeling Platform 110(a)(2)(D) Submissions Prior to State a. The CAIR NPR and SNPR Proposal for
and Model Evaluation Submission of Nonattainment Area Plans the Model Rules and Input from
c. Model Grid Cell Configuration Under Section 172 Commenters
2. Emissions Inventory Data d. The EPA’s Authority to Require Section b. SO2 Early Reduction Incentives in the
3. Meteorological Data 110(a)(2)(D) Submissions Prior to Final CAIR Model Rules
2. Incentives for Early NOX Reductions b. Are There Health or Welfare Disbenefits cap, or budget, based on reductions that
a. The CAIR NPR and SNPR Proposal for of CAIR That Have Not Been Quantified? EPA has determined are highly cost
the Model Rules and Input from B. Paperwork Reduction Act effective. States may allow their EGUs to
Commenters C. Regulatory Flexibility Act participate in an EPA-administered cap
b. NOX Early Reduction Incentives in the D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Final CAIR Model Rules E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
and trade program as a way to reduce
G. Are There Individual Unit ‘‘Opt-In’’ F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation the cost of compliance, and to provide
Provisions? and Coordination with Indian Tribal compliance flexibility. The cap and
1. Applicability Governments trade programs are described in more
2. Allowing Single Pollutant G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of detail in section VIII.
3. Allocation Method for Opt-Ins Children from Environmental Health and The EPA estimates that today’s action
4. Alternative Opt-In Approach Safety Risks will reduce SO2 emissions by 3.5
5. Opting Out H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that million tons 2 in 2010 and by 3.8 million
6. Regulatory Relief for Opt in Units Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
H. What Are the Source-Level Emissions
tons in 2015; and would reduce annual
Distribution, or Use NOX emissions by 1.2 million tons in
Monitoring and Reporting Requirements? I. National Technology Transfer
I. What is Different Between CAIR’s 2009 and by 1.5 million tons in 2015.2
Advancement Act
Annual and Seasonal NOX Model Cap J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
(These numbers are for the 23 States and
and Trade Rules? to Address Environmental Justice in the District of Columbia that are affected
J. Are There Additional Changes to Minority Populations and Low-Income by the annual SO2 and NOX
Proposed Model Cap and Trade Rules Populations requirements of CAIR.) If all the affected
Reflected in the Regulatory Language? States choose to achieve these
K. Congressional Review Act
IX. Interactions with Other Clean Air Act
Requirements
L. Judicial Review reductions through EGU controls, then
CFR Revisions and Additions (Rule Text) EGU SO2 emissions in the affected
A. How Does this Rule Interact with the
Part 51 States would be capped at 3.6 million
NOX SIP Call?
B. How Does this Rule Interact with the Part 72 tons in 2010 and 2.5 million tons in
Acid Rain Program? Part 73 20154; and EGU annual NOX emissions
1. Legal Authority for Using Title IV Part 74
Part 77
would be capped at 1.5 million tons in
Allowances in CAIR Model SO2 Cap and 2009 and 1.3 million tons in 2015. The
trade Program Part 78
Part 96 EPA estimates that the required SO2 and
2. Legal Authority for Requiring Retirement
of Excess Title IV Allowances if State
NOX emissions reductions would, by
I. Overview themselves, bring into attainment 52 of
Does Not Use CAIR Model SO2 Cap and
trade Program By notice of proposed rulemaking the 79 counties that are otherwise
3. Revisions to Acid Rain Regulations dated January 30, 2004 and by notice of projected to be in nonattainment for
C. How Does the Rule Interact With the supplemental rulemaking dated June 10, PM2.5 in 2010, and 57 of the 74 counties
Regional Haze Program? 2004, EPA proposed to find that certain that are otherwise projected to be in
1. How Does this Rule Relate to States must reduce emissions of SO2 nonattainment for PM2.5 in 2015. The
Requirements for Best Available Retrofit EPA further estimates that the required
Technology (Bart) under the Visibility
and/or NOX because those emissions
contribute significantly to downwind NOX emissions reductions would, by
Provisions of the CAA?
a. Supplemental Notice of Proposed areas in other States that are not meeting themselves, bring into attainment 3 of
Rulemaking the annual PM2.5 NAAQS or the 8-hour the 40 counties that are otherwise
b. Comments and EPA’s Responses ozone NAAQS.1 Today, EPA takes final projected to be in nonattainment for 8-
c. Today’s Action action requiring 28 States and the hour ozone in 2010, and 6 of the 22
2. What Improvements did EPA Make to District of Columbia to adopt and counties that are projected to be in
the BART Versus CAIR Modeling, and submit revisions to their State nonattainment for 8-hour ozone in 2015.
What are the New Results? In addition, today’s rule will improve
implementation plans (SIPs), under the
a. Supplemental Notice of Proposed PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone air quality in
Rulemaking requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D), that would eliminate the areas that would remain
b. Comments and EPA Responses
c. Today’s Action specified amounts of SO2 and/or NOX
2 These data are from EPA’s most recent IPM
D. How Will EPA Handle State Petitions emissions.
modeling reflecting the final CAIR of today’s notice.
Under Section 126 of the CAA? Each State may independently These results may differ slightly from those
E. Will Sources Subject to CAIR Also Be determine which emissions sources to appearing in elsewhere in this preamble and the
Subject To New Source Review? subject to controls, and which control RIA, which were largely based upon a model run
X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews measures to adopt. The EPA’s analysis that included Arkansas, Delaware, and New Jersey
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory in the annual CAIR requirements and also did not
Planning and Review
indicates that emissions reductions from apply an ozone season cap on any States (the
1. What Economic Analyses Were electric generating units (EGUs) are modeling was completed before EPA had
Conducted for the Rulemaking? highly cost effective, and EPA determined the final scope of CAIR because of the
encourages States to adopt controls for length of time necessary to perform air quality
2. What Are the Benefits and Costs of this modeling).
Rule? EGUs. States that do so must place an 3 These values represent reductions from future
a. Control Scenario enforceable limit, or cap, on EGU projected emissions without CAIR. In 2010 CAIR
b. Cost Analysis and Economic Impacts emissions (see section VII for will reduce SO2 by 4.3 million tons from 2003
c. Human Health Benefit Analysis discussion). The EPA has calculated the levels and in 2015 it will reduce SO2 emissions by
d. Quantified and Monetized Welfare 5.4 million tons from 2003 levels. In 2009, CAIR
Benefits
amount of each State’s EGU emissions will reduce NOX levels by 1.7 million tons from
3. How Do the Benefits Compare to the 2003 levels and in 2015 it will reduce NOX levels
Costs of This Final Rule?
1 ‘‘Rule to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine by 2.0 million tons from 2003 levels.
Particulate Matter and Ozone (Interstate Air Quality 4 It should be noted that the banking provisions
4. What are the Unquantified and
Rule); Proposed Rule,’’ (69 FR 4566, January 30, of the cap and trade program which encourage
Unmonetized Benefits of CAIR 2004) (NPR or January Proposal); ‘‘Supplemental sources to make significant reductions before 2010
Emissions Reductions? Proposal for the Rule to Reduce Interstate Transport also allow sources to operate above these cap levels
a. What are the Benefits of Reduced of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air until all of the banked allowances are used,
Deposition of Sulfur and Nitrogen to Interstate Rule); Proposed Rule,’’ (69 FR 32684, June therefore EPA does not project that these caps will
Aquatic, Forest, and Coastal Ecosystems? 10, 2004) (SNPR or Supplemental Proposal). be met in 2010 or 2015.
nonattainment for those two NAAQS benefits or costs that we cannot II, ‘‘EPA’s Analytical Approach,’’
after implementation of today’s rule. monetize. summarizes EPA’s overall analytical
Because of today’s rule, the States with In 2015, we estimate that PM-related approach and responds to general
those remaining nonattainment areas annual benefits include approximately comments on that approach. Section III,
will find it less burdensome and less 17,000 fewer premature fatalities, 8,700 ‘‘Why Does This Rule Focus on SO2 and
expensive to reach attainment by fewer cases of chronic bronchitis, NOX, and How Were Significant
adopting additional local controls. The 22,000 fewer non-fatal heart attacks, Downwind Impacts Determined?,’’
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) will 10,500 fewer hospitalization admissions outlines the rationale for the CAIR focus
also reduce PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone (for respiratory and cardiovascular on SO2 and NOX, which are precursors
levels in attainment areas, providing disease combined) and result in that contribute to PM2.5 (SO2, NOX) or
significant health and environmental significant reductions in days of ozone (NOX) transport, and the analytic
benefits in all areas of the eastern US. restricted activity due to respiratory approach EPA used to determine which
illness (with an estimate of 9.9 million States had large enough downwind
The EPA’s CAIR and the previously fewer minor restricted activity days) and ambient air quality impacts to become
promulgated NOX SIP Call reflect EPA’s approximately 1,700,000 fewer work subject to today’s requirements. Section
determination that the required SO2 and loss days. We also estimate substantial IV, ‘‘What Amounts of SO2 and NOX
NOX reductions are sufficient to health improvements for children from Emissions Did EPA Determine Should
eliminate upwind States’ significant reduced upper and lower respiratory Be Reduced?,’’ describes EPA’s
contribution to downwind illness, acute bronchitis, and asthma methodology for determining the
nonattainment. These programs are not attacks. amounts of SO2 and NOX emissions
designed to eliminate all contributions Ozone health-related benefits are reductions required under today’s rule.
to transport, but rather to balance the expected to occur during the summer Section V, ‘‘Determination of State
burden for achieving attainment ozone season (usually ranging from May Emissions Budgets,’’ describes how EPA
between regional-scale and local-scale to September in the Eastern U.S.). Based determined the State-by-State emissions
control programs. upon modeling for 2015, annual ozone- reductions requirements and, in the
The EPA conducted a regulatory related health benefits are expected to event States elect to control EGUs, the
impact analysis (RIA), entitled include 2,800 fewer hospital admissions State-by-State EGU emissions budgets.
‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis for the for respiratory illnesses, 280 fewer Section VI, ‘‘Air Quality Modeling
Final Clean Air Interstate Rule (March emergency room admissions for asthma, Approach and Results,’’ describes the
2005)’’ that estimates the annual private 690,000 fewer days with restricted technical aspects of the air quality
compliance costs (1999$) of $2.4 billion activity levels, and 510,000 fewer days modeling and summarizes the
for 2010 and $3.6 billion for 2015, if all where children are absent from school numerical results of that modeling.
States make the required emissions due to illnesses. Section VII, ‘‘SIP Criteria and Emissions
reductions through the power industry. In addition to these significant health Reporting Requirements,’’ describes the
Additionally, the RIA includes a benefits, the rule will result in SIP submission date and other SIP
benefit-cost analysis demonstrating that ecological and welfare benefits. These requirements associated with the
substantial net economic benefits to benefits include visibility emissions controls that States might
society will be achieved from the improvements; reductions in adopt. Section VIII, ‘‘NOX and SO2
emissions reductions required in this acidification in lakes, streams, and Model Cap and Trade Programs,’’
rulemaking. For determination of net forests; reduced eutrophication in water describes the EPA administered cap and
benefits, the above private costs were bodies; and benefits from reduced ozone trade programs that States electing to
converted to social costs that are lower levels for forests and agricultural control emissions from EGUs are
since transfer payments, such as taxes, production. encouraged to adopt. Section IX,
are removed from the estimates. The Several other documents containing ‘‘Interactions with Other Clean Air Act
EPA analysis shows that today’s action detailed explanations of other key Requirements,’’ discusses how this rule
inclusive of the concurrent New Jersey elements of today’s rule are also interacts with the acid rain provisions
and Delaware proposal will generate included in the docket. These include a in CAA title IV, the NOX SIP Call, the
annual net benefits of approximately detailed explanation of how EPA best available retrofit technology
$71.4 or $60.4 billion in 2010 and $98.5 calculated the State-by-State EGU (BART) requirements, and other CAA or
or $83.2 billion in 2015.5 These emissions budgets, and a detailed regulatory requirements. Finally, section
alternate net benefit estimates reflect explanation of the air quality modeling X, ‘‘Statutory and Executive Order
differing assumptions about the social analyses which support this rule.6 Reviews,’’ describes the applicability of
discount rate used to estimate the Responses to comments that are not various administrative requirements for
benefits and costs of the rule. The lower addressed in the preamble to today’s today’s rule and how EPA addressed
estimates reflect a discount rate of 7 rule are included in a separate these requirements.
percent and the higher estimates a document.7 A. What Are the Central Requirements
discount rate of 3 percent. In 2015, the The remaining sections of the
of This Rule?
total annual quantified benefits are $101 preamble describe the final CAIR
or $86.3 billion and the annual social requirements and our responses to In today’s action, we establish SIP
comments on many of the most requirements for the affected upwind
costs are $2.6 or $3.1 billion—benefits
important features of the CAIR. Section States under CAA section 110(a)(2).
outweigh costs in 2015 by a ratio of 39
Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)
to 1 or 28 to 1 (3 percent and 7 percent
6 Technical support document: ‘‘Regional and requires SIPs to contain adequate
discount rates, respectively). These
State SO2 and NOX Emissions Budgets’’ is included provisions prohibiting air pollutant
estimates do not include the value of in the docket. emissions from sources or activities in
Technical support document: ‘‘Air Quality those States that contribute significantly
5 Benefit and cost estimates reflect annual SO Modeling’’ is included in the docket.
and NOX controls for Arkansas that are not a part
2
7 ‘‘Response to Significant Comments on the to nonattainment in, or interfere with
of the final CAIR program. For this reason, these Proposed Clean Air Interstate Rule’’ is included in maintenance by, any other State with
estimates are slightly overstated. the docket. respect to a NAAQS. Based on air
quality modeling analyses and cost required emission reductions by applicable, where necessary and
analyses, EPA has concluded that SO2 controlling sources other than EGUs. appropriate, to Tribes.
and NOX emissions in certain States in Due to feasibility constraints, EPA is However, among the CAA provisions
the eastern part of the country, through requiring emissions reductions be not appropriate for Tribes are ‘‘[s]pecific
the phenomenon of air pollution implemented in two phases. The first plan submittal and implementation
transport,8 contribute significantly to phase of NOX reductions starts in 2009 deadlines for NAAQS-related
downwind nonattainment, or interfere (covering 2009–2014) and the first phase requirements * * *’’ (40 CFR 49.4(a)).
with maintenance, of the PM2.5 and 8- of SO2 reductions starts in 2010 Therefore, Tribes are not required to
hour ozone NAAQS. The EPA is (covering 2010–2014); the second phase submit implementation plans under
requiring SIP revisions in 28 States and of reductions for both NOX and SO2 section 110(a)(2)(D). Moreover, because
the District of Columbia to reduce SO2 starts in 2015 (covering 2015 and no Tribal lands in the CAIR region
and/or NOX emissions, which are thereafter). For States subject to findings currently contain any of the sources
important precursors of PM2.5 (NOX and of significant contribution for PM2.5, (EGUs) on which we based the
SO2) and ozone (NOX). EPA is establishing annual emissions emissions reductions requirements
The 23 States along with the District budgets. For States subject to findings of applicable to States, there are no
of Columbia that must reduce annual significant contribution for 8-hour emission reduction requirements
SO2 and NOX emissions for the ozone, the CAIR specifies ozone-season applicable to Tribes.
purposes of the PM2.5 NAAQS are: NOX emissions budgets. States subject At the same time, the existence of the
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, to findings for both PM2.5 and ozone
CAIR cap and trade program in some or
Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, will have both an annual and an ozone
all of the affected States will have
Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, season NOX budget.
Mississippi, Missouri, New York, North The EPA is providing, as an option to implications for any future construction
Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South States, model cap and trade programs of EGUs on Tribal lands. The geographic
Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, for EGUs. The EPA will administer scope of the CAIR cap and trade
West Virginia, and Wisconsin. these programs, which will be governed program is being determined by a two
The 25 States along with the District by rules provided by EPA that States step-process: the EPA’s determination of
of Columbia that must reduce NOX may adopt or incorporate by reference. which States significantly contribute to
emissions for the purposes of the 8-hour With respect to federally recognized downwind areas, and the decision by
ozone NAAQS are: Alabama, Arkansas, Indian Tribes, the applicability of this those affected States whether to satisfy
Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, rule is governed by three factors: The their emission reduction requirement by
Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, flexible regulatory framework for Tribes participating in the CAIR cap and trade
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, provided by the CAA and the Tribal program.
Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New Authority Rule (TAR); the absence of With respect to the first step of this
York, North Carolina, Ohio, any existing EGUs on Tribal lands in the process (significant contribution test),
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, CAIR region; and the existence of notwithstanding the political autonomy
Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and reservations within the geographic areas of Tribes, we view the zero-out
Wisconsin. In addition to making the which we determined to contribute modeling as representing the entire
findings of significant contribution to significantly to nonattainment areas. geographic area within the State being
nonattainment or interference with Under CAA section 301(d) as considered, regardless of the
maintenance, EPA is requiring each implemented by the TAR, eligible jurisdictional status of areas within the
State to make specified amounts of SO2 Indian Tribes may implement all, but State. Therefore, any EGU constructed
and/or NOX emissions reductions to are not required to implement any, in the future on a reservation within a
eliminate their significant contribution programs under the CAA for which EPA CAIR-affected State would be located in
to downwind States. The affected States has determined that it is appropriate to an area which we have already
and the District of Columbia are treat Tribes similarly to States. Tribes determined to significantly contribute to
required to adopt and submit the may also implement ‘‘reasonably downwind nonattainment.9
required SIP revision with the necessary severable’’ elements of programs (40 With respect to decisions by States to
control measures by 18 months from the CFR 49.7(c)). In the absence of Tribal participate in the CAIR cap and trade
signature date of today’s rule. implementation of a CAA program or program, because Tribal governments
The emissions reductions programs, EPA will utilize Federal are autonomous, such a decision would
requirements are based on controls that implementation for the relevant area of not be directly binding for any Tribe
EPA has determined to be highly cost Indian country as necessary or located within the State.
effective for EGUs. However, States have appropriate to protect air quality, in Nonetheless, as a matter of a policy,
the flexibility to choose the measures to consultation with the Tribal cap and trade programs by their nature
adopt to achieve the specified emissions government. must apply consistently throughout the
reductions. If the State chooses to The TAR contains a list of provisions
geographic region of the program in
control EGUs, then it must establish a for which it is not appropriate to treat
order to be effective. Otherwise, the
budget—that is, an emissions cap—for Tribes in the same manner as States (40
existence of areas not covered by the
those sources. Today’s rule defines the CFR 49.4). The CAIR is based on the
cap could create incentives to locate
EGU budgets for each affected State if a States’ obligations under CAA section
sources there, and thereby undermine
State chooses to control only EGUs. The 110(a)(2)(D) to prohibit emissions which
rule also explains the emission would contribute significantly to 9 In this regard, the construction of a new EGU
reduction requirements if a State nonattainment in, or interfere with on a reservation would be analogous to the
chooses to achieve some or all of its maintenance by, other States due to construction of a new EGU within a county or
pollution transport. Because CAA region of a CAIR-affected State that does not
8 In today’s final rule, when we use the term
section 110(a)(2)(D) is not among the presently contain any EGUs. This is not meant to
‘‘transport’’ we mean to include the transport of imply that Tribes are in any way legally similar to
both fine particles (PM2.5) and their precursor
provisions we determined to be counties, only that, within the CAIR region, the
emissions and/or transport of both ozone and its inappropriate to apply to Tribes in the geographic scale of reservations is more similar to
precursor emissions. same manner as States, that section is counties than to States.
the environmental goals of the allocations on a case-by-case basis as the Call, and to assess whether further
program.10 need arises. The EPA may choose to controls are warranted to ensure
In light of these considerations, in the revisit this issue through a separate continued progress toward attainment.
event of any future planned rulemaking in the future. The modeling for the CAIR includes the
construction of EGUs on Tribal lands NOX SIP Call in the baseline and
within the CAIR region, EPA intends to B. Why Is EPA Taking This Action?
examines later years than the NOX SIP
work with the relevant Tribal Emissions reductions to eliminate Call analyses.
government to regulate the EGU through transported pollution are required by
either a Tribal implementation plan the CAA, as noted above. There are a. The PM2.5 Problem
(TIP) or a Federal implementation plan strong policy reasons for addressing By action dated July 18, 1997, we
(FIP). We anticipate that at a minimum, interstate pollution transport. revised the NAAQS for particulate
a proposed EGU on a reservation within 1. Policy Rationale for Addressing matter (PM) to add new standards for
a State participating in the CAIR cap Transported Pollution Contributing to fine particles, using as the indicator
and trade program would need to be PM2.5 and Ozone Problems particles with aerodynamic diameters
made subject to the cap and trade smaller than a nominal 2.5 micrometers,
program. In the case of a new EGU on Emissions from upwind States can
termed PM2.5 (62 FR 38652). We
a reservation in a CAIR-affected State alone, or in combination with local
established health- and welfare-based
which chose not to participate in the emissions, result in air quality levels
(primary and secondary) annual and 24-
cap and trade program, the new EGU that exceed the NAAQS and jeopardize
hour standards for PM2.5. The annual
might also be required, through a TIP or the health of residents in downwind
standards are 15 micrograms per cubic
FIP, to participate in the program. This communities. Control of PM2.5 and
meter, based on the 3-year average of
would depend on the potential for ozone requires a reasonable balance
annual mean PM2.5 concentrations. The
emissions shifting and other specific between local and regional controls. If
24-hour standard is a level of 65
circumstances (e.g., whether the EGU significant contributions of pollution
from upwind States that can be abated micrograms per cubic meter, based on
would service the electric grid of States the 3-year average of the annual 98th
involved in the cap and trade program.) by highly cost-effective controls are
unabated, the downwind area must percentile of 24-hour concentrations.
Again, EPA will work with the relevant The annual standard is generally
Tribal government to determine the achieve greater local emissions
reductions, thereby incurring extra considered the most limiting.
appropriate application of the CAIR. Fine particles are associated with a
Finally, as discussed in the SNPR, clean-up costs. Requiring reasonable
controls for both upwind and local number of serious health effects
Tribes have objected to emissions
emissions sources should result in including premature mortality,
trading programs that allocate
achieving air quality standards at a aggravation of respiratory and
allowances based on historic emissions,
lesser cost than a strategy that relies cardiovascular disease (as indicated by
on the grounds that this rewards first-in-
solely on local controls. For all these increased hospital admissions,
time emitters at the expense of those
reasons, addressing interstate transport emergency room visits, absences from
who have not yet enjoyed a fair
opportunity to pursue economic in advance of the time that States must school or work, and restricted activity
development. Comments on the CAIR adopt local nonattainment plans, will days), lung disease, decreased lung
proposal from Tribes requested a make it easier for States to develop their function, asthma attacks, and certain
Federal set-aside of allowances for nonattainment plans because the States cardiovascular problems such as heart
Tribes, or other special Tribal allowance will know the degree to which the attacks and cardiac arrhythmia. The
provisions. The few comments received pollution flowing into their EPA has estimated that attainment of
from States on the issue generally nonattainment areas will be reduced. the PM2.5 standards would prolong tens
opposed allocations based on Indian The EPA addressed interstate of thousands of lives and would
country status. One State expressed a pollution transport for ozone in the NOX prevent, each year, tens of thousands of
willingness to share its emissions SIP Call rule published in 1998.11 hospital admissions as well as hundreds
budget with Tribes in the event an EGU Today’s rulemaking is EPA’s first of thousands of doctor visits, absences
locates in Indian country. attempt to address interstate pollution from work and school, and respiratory
The EPA does not believe there is transport for PM2.5. The NOX SIP Call is illnesses in children.
sufficient information to design Tribal substantially reducing ozone transport, Individuals particularly sensitive to
allocation provisions at this time. A helping downwind areas meet the 1- fine particle exposure include older
program designed to address concerns hour and 8-hour ozone standards. The adults, people with heart and lung
which remain largely speculative is EPA has reassessed ozone transport in disease, and children. More detailed
likely to create more problems through this rulemaking for two reasons. First, information on health effects of fine
unintended consequences than it solves. several years have passed since particles can be found on EPA’s Web
Therefore, rather than create a Federal promulgation of the NOX SIP Call and site at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/
allowance set-aside for Tribes, EPA will updated air quality and emissions data standards/pm/s_pm_index.html.
work with Tribes and potentially are available. Second, some areas are At the time EPA established the PM2.5
affected States to address concerns expected to face substantial difficulty in primary NAAQS in 1997, we also
regarding the equity of allowance meeting the 8-hour ozone standards. As established welfare-based (secondary)
a result, EPA has determined it is NAAQS identical to the primary
10 Although it is possible that the CAIR cap and important to assess the degree to which standards. The secondary standards are
trade program may cover a discontinuous area ozone transport will remain a problem designed to protect against major
depending on which States participate, the failure after full implementation of the NOX SIP
of a State to participate does not raise the same environmental effects caused by PM
environmental integrity concern. A state that does such as visibility impairment—
11 ‘‘Finding of Significant Contribution and
not participate in the cap and trade program must including in Class I areas which include
still submit a SIP that limits emissions to the levels Rulemaking for Certain States in the Ozone
mandated by the CAIR emission reduction Transport Assessment Group Region for Purposes of
national parks and wilderness areas
requirements, taking into account any emissions Reducing Regional Transport of Ozone; Rule,’’ (63 across the country—soiling, and
from new sources. FR 57356; October 27, 1998). materials damage.
As discussed in other sections of this maximum 8-hour average ozone the potential for long-term adverse
preamble, SO2 and NOX emissions both concentration may not exceed 0.08 ppm. impacts on forest ecosystems. Ozone
contribute to fine particle In general, the revised 8-hour standards damage to the foliage of trees and other
concentrations. In addition, NOX are more protective of public health and plants can also decrease the aesthetic
emissions contribute to ozone problems, the environment and more stringent value of ornamental species used in
described in the next section. We than the pre-existing 1-hour ozone residential landscaping, as well as the
believe the CAIR will significantly standards. All areas that were violating natural beauty of our national parks and
reduce SO2 and NOX emissions that the 1-hour ozone standard at the time of recreation areas. The economic value of
contribute to the PM2.5 and 8-hour the 8-hour ozone designations were also some welfare losses due to ozone can be
ozone problems described here. designated as nonattainment for the 8- calculated, such as crop yield loss from
The PM2.5 ambient air quality hour ozone standard. More areas do not both reduced seed production (e.g.,
monitoring for the 2001–2003 period meet the 8-hour standard than do not soybean) and visible injury to some leaf
shows that areas violating the standards meet the 1-hour standard. The EPA crops (e.g., lettuce, spinach, tobacco), as
are located across much of the eastern published the 8-hour ozone attainment well as visible injury to ornamental
half of the United States and in parts of and nonattainment designations in the plants (i.e., grass, flowers, shrubs).
California, and Montana. Based on these Federal Register on April 30, 2004 (69 Other types of welfare loss may not be
nationwide data, 82 counties have at FR 23858). The designations were quantifiable (e.g., reduced aesthetic
least one monitor that violates either the effective on June 15, 2004. Pursuant to value of trees growing in heavily visited
annual or the 24-hour PM2.5 standard. EPA’s final rule to implement the 8- national parks). More detailed
Most areas violate only the annual hour ozone standard (69 FR 23951; information on health effects of ozone
standard; a small number of areas April 30, 2004), EPA will revoke the 1- can be found at the following EPA Web
violate both the annual and 24-hour hour ozone standard on June 15, 2005, site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/
standards; and no areas violate just the 1 year after the effective date of the 8- standards/ozone/s_o3_index.html.
24-hour standard. The population of hour designations. Almost all areas of the country have
these 82 counties totals over 56 million Short-term (1- to 3-hour) and experienced some progress in lowering
people. prolonged (6- to 8-hour) exposures to ozone concentrations over the last 20
Only two States in the western part of ambient ozone have been linked to a years. As reported in the EPA’s report,
the U.S., California and Montana, have number of adverse health effects. Short- ‘‘The Ozone Report: Measuring Progress
counties that exceeded the PM2.5 term exposure to ozone can irritate the Through 2003,’’ 12 national average
standards. On the other hand, in the respiratory system, causing coughing, levels of 1-hour ozone improved by 29
eastern part of the U.S., 124 sites in 69 throat irritation, and chest pain. Ozone percent between 1980 and 2003 while 8-
counties (with total population of 34 can reduce lung function and make it hour levels improved by 21 percent over
million) violated the annual PM2.5 more difficult to breathe deeply. the same time period. The Northeast
standard of 15.0 micrograms per cubic Breathing may become more rapid and and West regions have shown the
meter (µg/m3) over the 3-year period shallow than normal, thereby limiting a greatest improvement since 1980.
from 2001 to 2003, while 469 sites met person’s normal activity. Ozone also can However, most of that improvement
the annual standard. No sites in the aggravate asthma, leading to more occurred during the first part of the
eastern part of the United States asthma attacks that require a doctor’s period. In fact, during the most recent
exceeded the daily PM2.5 standard of 65 attention and the use of additional 10 years, ozone levels have been
µg/m3. The 69 violating counties are medication. Increased hospital relatively constant reflecting little if any
located in a region made up of 16 States admissions and emergency room visits air quality improvement. For this
(plus the District of Columbia), for respiratory problems have been reason, ozone has exhibited the slowest
extending eastward from St. Louis associated with ambient ozone progress of the six major pollutants
County, Missouri, the western-most exposures. Longer-term ozone exposure tracked nationally.
violating county and including the can inflame and damage the lining of Although ambient ozone levels
following States: Alabama, Delaware, the lungs, which may lead to permanent remained relatively constant over the
Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, changes in lung tissue and irreversible past decade, additional control
Maryland, Missouri, Michigan, New reductions in lung function. A lower requirements have reduced emissions of
Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, quality of life may result if the the two major ozone precursors, VOC
Pennsylvania, Tennessee, West Virginia, inflammation occurs repeatedly over a and NOX, although at different rates.
and the District of Columbia. The EPA long time period (such as months, years, Emissions of VOCs were reduced by 32
published the PM2.5 attainment and a lifetime). percent from 1990 levels, while
nonattainment designations on January People who are particularly emissions of NOX declined by 22
5, 2005 (70 FR 944). The designations susceptible to the effects of ozone percent.
will be effective on April 5, 2005. include children and adults who are Ozone remains a significant public
Because interstate transport is not active outdoors, people with respiratory health concern. Presently, wide
believed to be a significant contributor diseases, such as asthma, and people geographic areas, including most of the
to exceedances of the PM2.5 standards in with unusual sensitivity to ozone. nation’s major population centers,
California or Montana, today’s final In addition to causing adverse health experience unhealthy ozone levels, that
CAIR does not cover these States. effects, ozone affects vegetation and is, concentrations violating the NAAQS
ecosystems, leading to reductions in for 8-hour ozone. These areas include
b. The 8-Hour Ozone Problem agricultural crop and commercial forest much of the eastern part of the United
By action dated July 18, 1997, we yields; reduced growth and survivability States and large areas of California.
promulgated identical revised primary of tree seedlings; and increased plant More specifically, 297 counties with a
and secondary ozone standards that susceptibility to disease, pests, and total population of over 124 million
specified an 8-hour ozone standard of other environmental stresses (e.g., harsh people currently violate the 8-hour
0.08 parts per million (ppm). weather). In long-lived species, these ozone standard. Most of these ozone
Specifically, under the standards, the 3- effects may become evident only after
year average of the fourth highest daily several years or even decades and have 12 EPA 454/K–04–001, April 2004.
violations occur in the eastern half of attainment and maintenance in those 2004. The EPA received over 400
the United States: 268 counties with a nonattainment areas. comments on the SNPR.
population of over 93 million. By a notice of data availability
3. Today’s Rule Will Improve Air (NODA) dated August 6, 2004, EPA
When ozone and PM2.5 are examined Quality
jointly, 322 counties with 131 million announced the availability of additional
people are violating at least one of the The EPA has estimated the documents for this action. ‘‘Availability
standards while 57 counties nationwide improvements in emissions and air of Additional Information Supporting
have concentrations violating both quality that would result from the Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport
standards with a total population of implementing the CAIR. These of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone
over 49 million people. Of these, 46 improvements, which are substantial, (Clean Air Interstate Rule),’’ (69 FR
counties with a population of over 28 are summarized earlier in this section. 47828). The documents had been placed
million are in the Eastern United States. on the website on or about July 27,
C. What Was the Process for Developing 2004, and in the EDOCKET on that date,
c. Other Environmental Effects This Rule? or shortly thereafter. The EPA allowed
Associated With SO2 and NOX By action dated January 30, 2004, EPA public comment on those additional
Emissions issued a proposal that included many of documents until August 27, 2004.
Today’s action will result in benefits the components of today’s action. ‘‘Rule Around 30 comments were received on
in addition to the enumerated human to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine the NODA.
Particulate Matter and Ozone (Interstate The EPA has responded to all
health and welfare benefits resulting
Air Quality Rule); Proposed Rule,’’ (69 significant public comments either in
from reductions in ambient levels of
FR 4566). The Administrator signed the this preamble or in the response to
PM2.5 and ozone. Reductions in NOX
proposed rule—termed, at that time, the comment document which is contained
and SO2 will contribute to substantial
Interstate Air Quality Rule—on in the docket.
visibility improvements in many parts Comments on Rulemaking Process:
of the Eastern U.S. where people live, December 17, 2003, and EPA posted it
Some commenters expressed concerns
work, and recreate, including Federal on its Web site for this rule on that date.
about certain aspects of this process.
Class I areas such as the Great Smoky The Web site address at that time was
One concern was that EPA did not allow
Mountains. Reductions in these http://www.epa.gov/interstateairquality.
sufficient time to comment on the
pollutants will also reduce acidification (The address has since changed to
SNPR. Commenters noted that
and eutrophication of water bodies in http://www.epa.gov/
important program elements—including
the region. In addition, reduced mercury cleanairinterstaterule/ or http://
regulatory language—appeared for the
emissions are anticipated as a result of www.epa.gov/cair/.)
first time in the SNPR, but EPA held a
this rule. Reduced mercury emissions The EPA held public hearings on the public hearing on the SNPR 7 days
will lessen mercury contamination in proposal, in conjunction with a before the SNPR was published in the
lakes and thereby potentially decrease proposed rulemaking concerning Federal Register and only 16 days after
both human and wildlife exposure to mercury and other hazardous air the SNPR had been posted on the
mercury-contaminated fish. pollutants from EGUs, on February 25– website. The EPA believes that the 16-
26, 2004, in Chicago, Illinois; day period preceding the public
2. The CAA Requires States To Act as Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and
Good Neighbors by Limiting Downwind hearing, and the total of 45 days to
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. comment on the SNPR following its
Impacts The comment period for the NPR closed publication in the Federal Register,
The CAA includes the ‘‘good on March 30, 2004. The EPA received constituted an adequate opportunity for
neighbor’’ provision of section over 6,700 comments on the proposal. members of the public to comment on
110(a)(2)(D), which requires that every By action dated June 10, 2004, EPA the SNPR.
SIP prohibit emissions from any source issued a supplemental notice of Commenters also expressed concern
or other type of emissions activity in proposed rulemaking (SNPR), that certain technical documents were
amounts that will contribute ‘‘Supplemental Proposal for the Rule to not made available in sufficient time to
significantly to nonattainment in any Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine comment. However, EPA had placed all
downwind State, or that will interfere Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air technical support documents for the
with maintenance in any downwind Interstate Rule); Proposed Rule,’’ (69 FR NPR in the EDOCKET as of the date of
State. In today’s action, EPA is 32684). The Administrator signed the publication of the NPR, and all
determining that 28 States and the SNPR for this rule—now called the technical support documents for the
District of Columbia, all in the eastern Clean Air Interstate Rule—on May 18, SNPR had been placed in the EDOCKET
part of the United States, have 2004, and EPA placed it on the Web site as of the date of publication of the
emissions of SO2 and/or NOX that will on that date. The SNPR included, SNPR.
contribute significantly to among other things, proposed regulatory Commenters also expressed concern
nonattainment, or interfere with language for the rule, revised proposals that in the SNPR, EPA proposed
maintenance, of the PM2.5 NAAQS and/ concerning State-level emissions significant changes to other regulatory
or the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in another budgets, proposed State reporting programs. The EPA agrees that the
State. Under EPA’s general authority to requirements and SIP approvability SNPR did include proposed changes to
clarify the applicability of CAA criteria, and proposed model cap and certain regulatory programs, i.e., the
requirements, as provided in CAA trade rules. The SNPR also proposed requirements for BART under CAA
section 301(a)(1), EPA is establishing that under certain circumstances the sections 169A and 169B (concerning
the amount of SO2 and NOX emissions CAIR requirements could replace the visibility), certain provisions (primarily
that each affected State must prohibit by BART requirements of CAA sections concerning the allowance-holding
submitting appropriate SIP provisions to 169A and 169B. The EPA held a public requirement) in the title IV (Acid Rain
EPA. The improvements in air quality hearing on the SNPR on June 3, 2004, Program) rules, and certain emissions
will assist downwind States in in Alexandria, Virginia. The comment reporting rules under the NOX SIP Call
developing their SIPs to provide for period for the SNPR closed on July 26, (40 CFR 51.122) and Consolidated
Emissions Reporting Rule (CERR) (title SNPR’s comment period was too short reductions or to sources that
40, part 51, subpart A). The EPA to allow the public adequate demonstrate need.
believes that to the extent the opportunity to comment on the • All States for which EPA has made
requirements for BART and emissions numerous and complex issues raised in a finding with respect to ozone are
reporting rule revisions are tied to the that proposal. The EPA recognizes the subject to an ozone season cap. In order
CAIR, affected members of the public challenges faced by commenters in this to implement this ozone season cap,
had adequate notice of those revisions. rulemaking, however, we believe that EPA has finalized an ozone season NOX
(These revisions are described in section the comment periods for the NPR and trading program in addition to the
VII.) However, the SNPR contained SNPR were adequate, and note that we annual NOX and SO2 trading programs
some revisions to the emissions did receive extensive and highly that were proposed.
reporting rules that were not tied to the detailed, technical comments on both
transport provisions. The EPA is not • A number of changes were made to
proposals.
taking final action today on the proposal the trading rule including: changes to
for the emissions reporting rules that D. What Are the Major Changes Between the model NOX allocation methodology
were not tied to the transport provisions the Proposals and the Final Rule? (to fuel weight allocations) and the
and instead is issuing a new proposal The EPA is finalizing a number of addition of opt in provisions.
for them, which will provide additional revisions to the proposed elements of • The EPA is not finalizing some of
notice and opportunity to comment. the CAIR. These revisions are in the emissions reporting requirements in
Further, the Acid Rain Program rule response to information received in response to public comments indicating
revisions, although connected to the public comments and new analyses we gave inadequate notice of the
CAIR, apply to all persons subject to the conducted by EPA. The following is a changes that were proposed to be
Acid Rain Program, including persons summary list of those changes: applicable to all States, not just those
who are not affected by the CAIR. • The first phase of NOX reductions affected by the CAIR emission reduction
(These revisions are described in section starts in 2009 (covering 2009–2014) requirements. These are being
IX.) Specifically, as explained in section instead of 2010. The first phase of the reproposed, with modifications, in a
IX, the revisions to the Acid Rain SO2 reductions still starts in 2010 separate action to allow additional
Program rules are aimed at facilitating (covering 2010–2014). opportunity for public comment by all
coordination of the Acid Rain Program • The emissions inventories used for affected States and other parties.
and the CAIR model SO2 cap and trade PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone air quality
modeling have been updated and II. The EPA’s Analytical Approach
rule and/or are being adopted on their
own merits, independently of the need improved; we modeled PM2.5 using the Overview: Today’s rulemaking is
to coordinate with the CAIR. Most of the Community Multiscale Air Quality based on the ‘‘good neighbor’’ provision
proposed revisions involve changing Model (CMAQ) and meteorology for of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D), which
from unit-by-unit to source-by-source 2001 instead of the Regional Model for requires States to develop SIP
compliance with the allowance-holding Simulating Aerosols and Deposition provisions assuring that emissions from
requirement of the Acid Rain Program (REMSAD) and meteorology for 1996. their sources do not contribute
and therefore affect every source subject • The final CAIR does not cover significantly to downwind
to the Acid Rain Program, whether or Kansas based on new analyses of its nonattainment, or interfere with
not the source is also in a State covered contribution to downwind PM2.5 maintenance, of the NAAQS. The EPA
by the CAIR. The change to source-by- nonattainment. interpreted this provision, and
source compliance increases a source’s • Arkansas, Delaware, Massachusetts, developed a detailed methodology for
flexibility to use—in meeting the and New Jersey are not subject to the applying it, in the NOX SIP Call
allowance-holding requirement— CAIR based on their contribution to rulemaking, which concerned interstate
allowances held by any unit at the PM2.5 nonattainment and maintenance. transport of ozone precursors.
source. This flexibility reduces the However, they remain subject to NOX
Today’s rule requires upwind States
likelihood that sources will incur large emissions reductions requirements on
to submit SIP revisions requiring their
excess emissions penalties from the basis of their contribution to
sources to reduce emissions of certain
inadvertent, minor errors (e.g., in how downwind 8-hour ozone nonattainment.
precursors that significantly contribute
allowances are distributed among the This requirement is for the ozone season
to nonattainment in, or interfere with
units at the source), while preserving rather than the entire year. The EPA is
the environmental goals of the Acid maintenance of, the PM2.5 and 8-hour
issuing a new proposal to include
Rain Program. The remaining revisions Delaware and New Jersey for the PM2.5 ozone national ambient air quality
to the Acid Rain Program rules similarly standards in downwind States. The EPA
NAAQS based on additional
cover all Acid Rain Program sources. developed today’s rule relying heavily
considerations.
Indeed, none of the comments on the • The change in States covered by the on the NOX SIP Call approach.
proposed Acid Rain Program rule rule necessitates a re-analysis of the This section of the preamble outlines
revisions stated that the revisions would NOX budgets for all covered States. This the key aspects of today’s approach,
apply only to certain Acid Rain Program changes the amount of the budget, but some of which are described in greater
sources, but rather seemed to treat the not the procedure EPA used to calculate detail in other sections of the preamble.
revisions as applying program-wide. As it. The EPA received comments on today’s
discussed in section IX, EPA is • The SIP approval criteria have been approach that we respond to either in
finalizing, with minor modifications, changed to no longer exclude measures this section or in the other sections of
the Acid Rain Program rule revisions. otherwise required by the CAA from the preamble. This section also
Commenters also expressed concern being included in the State’s describes how today’s approach varies
that between the NPR and the SNPR, compliance with CAIR. from the NOX SIP Call, which variations
EPA had proposed program elements in • A 200,000 ton compliance result from, among other things, the fact
a piecemeal fashion, which made it supplement pool was added for NOX. that today’s action regulates a different
more difficult to comprehend and Allowances from this pool can either be pollutant (PM2.5) with a different
comment on the rule, and that the awarded to sources that make early precursor (SO2).
A. How Did EPA Interpret the Clean Air to downwind nonattainment from predicted future air quality (assuming
Act’s Pollution Transport Provisions in sources in a particular upwind State the implementation of required controls,
the NOX SIP Call? primarily by (i) evaluating, with respect but not the transport requirements that
to each upwind State, several air quality were the subject of the NOX SIP Call),
1. Clean Air Act Requirements
related factors, including determining and the boundaries of the area in light
The central CAA provisions that all emissions from the State have a of designation status (63 FR 57377).
concerning pollutant transport, for sufficiently great impact downwind (in The EPA applied the third air quality
purposes of today’s action, are found in the context of the collective factor—the ambient impact of emissions
section 110(a)(2)(D). Under these contribution nature of the ozone from the upwind sources—by projecting
provisions, each SIP must— problem); and (ii) determining the the amount of the upwind State’s entire
(D) Contain adequate provisions amount of that State’s emissions that inventory of anthropogenic emissions to
(i) Prohibiting * * * any source or can be eliminated through the the year 2007, and then quantifying,
other type of emissions activity within application of cost-effective controls. through the appropriate air quality
the State from emitting any air pollutant Before reaching a conclusion, EPA modeling techniques, the impact of
in amounts which will— evaluated several secondary, and more those emissions on downwind
(I) Contribute significantly to general, considerations. These include: nonattainment.14 Specifically, (i) EPA
nonattainment in, or interfere with • The consistency of the regional determined the minimum threshold
maintenance by, any other State with reductions with the attainment needs of impact that the upwind State’s
respect to any * * * national primary or the downwind areas with emissions must have on a downwind
secondary ambient air quality standard nonattainment problems. nonattainment area to be considered
* * *. • The overall fairness of the control potentially to contribute significantly to
regimes required of the downwind and nonattainment; and then (ii) for States
2. The NOX SIP Call Rulemaking with impacts above that threshold, EPA
upwind areas, including the extent of
Promulgated by action dated October the controls required or implemented by developed a set of metrics for further
27, 1998, the NOX SIP Call was EPA’s the downwind and upwind areas. evaluating the contribution of the
principal effort to reduce interstate • General cost considerations, upwind State’s emissions on a
transport of precursors for both the 1- including the relative cost-effectiveness downwind nonattainment area (63 FR
hour ozone NAAQS and the 8-hour of additional downwind controls 57378). The EPA considered a State
ozone NAAQS. (See ‘‘Finding of compared to upwind controls. with emissions that had a sufficiently
Significant Contribution and 63 FR 57403 great impact to contribute significantly
Rulemaking for Certain States in the to the downwind area (depending on
Ozone Transport Assessment Group i. Air Quality Factor application of the cost factor). In
Region for Purposes of Reducing The first factor concerns evaluating general, EPA established the thresholds
Regional Transport of Ozone; Rule,’’ (63 the impact on downwind air quality of at a relatively low level, which reflected
FR 57356).) In that rulemaking, EPA the upwind State’s emissions. As EPA the collective contribution
imposed seasonal NOX reduction stated in the NOX SIP Call: * * * phenomenon. That is, because the ozone
requirements on 22 States and the problem is caused by many relatively
EPA specifically considered three air small contributions, even relatively
District of Columbia in the eastern part quality factors with respect to each upwind
of the country. small contributors must participate in
State * * *.
• The overall nature of the ozone problem the solution.
a. Analytical Approach of NOX SIP Call
(i.e., ‘‘collective contribution’’). ii. Cost Factor
In the NOX SIP Call, EPA interpreted • The extent of the downwind
section 110(a)(2)(D) to authorize EPA to nonattainment problems to which the The cost factor is the second major
determine the amount of emissions in upwind State’s emissions are linked, factor that EPA applied to determine the
upwind States that ‘‘contribute including the ambient impact of controls significant contribution to
significantly’’ to downwind required under the CAA or otherwise nonattainment: ‘‘EPA * * * determined
implemented in the downwind areas. whether any amounts of the NOX
nonattainment or ‘‘interfere with’’ • The ambient impact of the emissions
downwind maintenance, and to require emissions may be eliminated through
from the upwind State’s sources on the controls that, on a cost-per-ton basis,
those States to eliminate that amount of downwind nonattainment problems.
emissions. The EPA recognized that may be considered to be highly cost
States must retain full authority to 63 FR 57376 effective.’’ (See 63 FR 57377.)
choose the sources to control, and the The EPA explained the first factor,
(I) Choice of Highly Cost-Effective
control mechanisms, to achieve those collective contribution, by noting,
Standard
reductions. [V]irtually every nonattainment problem is
caused by numerous sources over a wide
The EPA selected the standard of
The EPA set out several criteria or highly cost effective in order to assure
factors for the ‘‘contribute significantly’’ geographic area* * *[. This] factor suggest[s]
that the solution to the problem is the State flexibility in selecting control
test, and further indicated that the same strategies to meet the emissions
implementation over a wide area of controls
criteria should apply to the ‘‘interfere on many sources, each of which may have a reduction requirements of the
with maintenance’’ provision: 13 small or unmeasureable ambient impact by rulemaking. That is, the rulemaking
* * * EPA determined the amount of itself. required the States to achieve specified
emissions that significantly contribute levels of emissions reductions—the
63 FR 57377
13 In The second air quality factor—the levels achievable if States implemented
the NOX SIP Call, because the same criteria
applied, the discussion of the ‘‘contribute extent of downwind nonattainment the control strategies that EPA identified
significantly to nonattainment’’ test generally also problems—concerns whether
applied to the ‘‘interfere with maintenance’’ test. downwind areas should be considered 14 Although EPA’s air quality modeling
However, in the NOX SIP Call, EPA stated that the techniques examined all of the upwind State’s
‘‘interfere with maintenance’’ test applied with
to be in nonattainment. This emissions of ozone precursors (including VOC and
respect to only the 8-hour ozone NAAQS (63 FR determination took into account the NOX), only the NOX emissions had meaningful
57379–80). then-current air quality of the area, the interstate impacts.
as highly cost effective—but the emissions reductions were required. controls that covered much of their
rulemaking did not mandate those The first concerned the consistency of inventory. However, the upwind States
highly cost-effective control strategies, regional reductions with downwind in the region generally had not done so
or any other control strategy. Indeed, in attainment needs. The EPA ascertained (except to the extent of their ozone
calculating the amount of the required the ozone air quality impacts of the nonattainment areas). In this context,
emissions reductions by assuming the required emissions reductions, and EPA considered it reasonable to impose
implementation of highly cost-effective determined that those impacts improved an additional control burden on the
control strategies, EPA assured that air quality downwind, but not to the upwind States. Air quality modeling
other control strategies—ones that were point that would raise questions about showed that even with this additional
cost effective, if not highly cost whether the amount of reductions was level of upwind controls, residual
effective—remained available to the more than necessary (63 FR 57379). nonattainment remained, so that further
States. The second general consideration was reductions from downwind and/or
‘‘the overall fairness of the control upwind areas would be necessary.
(II) Determination of Highly Cost-
Effective Amount regimes’’ to which the downwind and b. Regulatory Requirements
upwind areas were subject. The EPA
The EPA determined the dollar explained: After ascertaining the controls that
amount considered to be highly cost qualified as highly cost effective, EPA
Most broadly, EPA believes that overall
effective by reference to the cost notions of fairness suggest that upwind
developed a methodology for
effectiveness of recently promulgated or sources which contribute significant amounts calculating the amount of NOX
proposed NOX controls. The EPA to the nonattainment problem should emissions that each State was required
determined that the average cost implement cost-effective reductions. When to reduce on grounds that those
effectiveness of controls in the reference upwind emitters exacerbate their downwind emissions contribute significantly to
list ranged up to approximately $1,800 neighbors’ ozone nonattainment problems, nonattainment downwind. The total
per ton of NOX removed (1990$), on an and thereby visit upon their downwind amount of required NOX emissions
annual basis. The EPA considered the neighbors additional health risks and reductions was the sum of the amounts
potential clean-up costs, EPA considers it fair that would be reduced by application of
controls in the reference list to be cost to require the upwind neighbors to reduce at
effective. least the portion of their emissions for which
highly cost-effective controls to each of
The EPA established $2,000 (1990$) highly cost-effective controls are available. the source categories for which EPA
in average cost effectiveness for summer In addition, EPA recognizes that in many determined that such controls were
ozone season emissions reductions as, at instances, areas designated as nonattainment available (63 FR 57378).
least directionally, the highly cost- under the 1-hour NAAQS have incurred The largest of these source categories
effective amount. Identifying this ozone control costs since the early 1970s. was EGUs. The EPA determined the
amount on an ozone season basis was Moreover, virtually all components of their amount of reductions associated with
appropriate because the NOX SIP Call NOX and VOC inventories are subject to SIP- EGU controls by applying the control
required or Federal controls designed to rate that EPA considered to reflect
concerned the ozone standard, for reduce ozone. Furthermore, these areas have
which emissions reductions during only highly cost-effective controls to each
complied with almost all of the specific
the summer ozone season are necessary. control requirements under the CAA, and State’s EGU heat input. That heat input,
This level of costs reflected the fact that generally are moving towards compliance in turn, was adjusted to reflect projected
in general, States with downwind ozone with their remaining obligations. The CAA’s growth.
nonattainment areas had already sanctions and FIP provisions provide Each affected State retained the
implemented extensive controls. assurance that these remaining controls will authority to achieve the required level
Accordingly, it was evident that the be implemented. By comparison, many of reductions by implementing whatever
level of upwind controls EPA selected upwind States in the midwest and south controls on whatever sources it wished,
have had fewer nonattainment problems and and EPA determined that there were
would prove necessary for the have incurred fewer control obligations.
downwind areas to reach attainment. other source categories for which cost-
(63 FR 57379.) effective, if not highly cost-effective,
(III) Source Categories The third general consideration was controls were available (63 FR 57378). If
The EPA then determined that the ‘‘general cost considerations.’’ The EPA the States chose to control EGUs, then
source categories for which highly cost- noted that ‘‘in general, areas that the NOX SIP Call mandated certain
effective controls were available currently have, or that in the past have requirements—including a statewide
included EGUs, large industrial boilers had, nonattainment problems * * * cap on EGU NOX emissions—but also
and turbines, and cement kilns. At the have already incurred ozone control made available an EPA-administered
same time, EPA determined, for those costs.’’ The next set of controls available regionwide EGU allowance trading
source categories, the level of controls to these nonattainment areas would be program that the States could choose to
that would cost an amount consistent more expensive than the controls adopt.
with the highly cost-effective amount available to the upwind areas. The EPA
found that this cost scenario further c. SIP Submittal and Implementation
and that would be feasible. The EPA
confirmed the reasonableness of the Requirements
considered other source categories, but
found that highly cost-effective controls upwind control obligations (63 FR At the time EPA promulgated the NOX
were not available from them for various 57379). SIP Call, States already had SIPs for the
reasons, including the size of the In the NOX SIP Call, EPA considered 1-hour ozone NAAQS in place. In the
sources, the relatively small amount of all of these factors together in NOX SIP Call, EPA determined that the
emissions from the sources, or the determining the level of controls 1-hour SIPs for the affected States were
control costs. considered to be highly cost effective. deficient, and EPA called on these
This level of controls reflected the then- States, under CAA section 110(k)(5), to
iii. Other Factors present state of ozone controls: Within submit, within 12 months of
The EPA also relied on several other, the region, the nonattainment areas promulgation of the NOX SIP Call, SIP
secondary considerations before were already required to—and had revisions to cure the deficiency by
concluding that the identified amount of already implemented—VOC and NOX complying with the NOX SIP Call
regulatory requirements. The EPA which EPA has termed the NOX SIP Call NOX, and to develop emissions
further required that the NOX SIP Call- Phase I requirements—submitted SIPs reductions requirements for SO2 and
required controls be implemented as incorporating them, and requiring NOX. However, we do not have
expeditiously as practicable. The EPA control implementation by May 31, sufficient information to address other
determined this date to be within 3 2004 or earlier. The EPA has approved precursors. As discussed in section III
years of the SIP submittal date (with those SIPs. below, for 8-hour ozone, we reiterate the
that period extended to the beginning of The EPA responded to the DC finding of the NOX SIP Call that NOX
the next ozone season), in light of the Circuit’s EGU growth remand decisions emissions, and not VOC emissions, are
various constraints that EGUs would through a Federal Register action that of primary importance for interstate
confront in implementing controls. provided a more detailed explanation transport purposes.
For the SIPs due under the 8-hour and other supporting information for the We interpret CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)
ozone NAAQS, in the NOX SIP Call, EGU growth methodology (67 FR 21868; to require SIPs in upwind States to
EPA did not incorporate a section May 1, 2002). The Court subsequently eliminate the amounts of emissions that
110(k)(5) SIP call, but instead required upheld that explanation. West Virginia contribute significantly to downwind
States to submit, under section v. EPA, 362 F.3d 861 (DC Cir. 2004). In nonattainment or interfere with
110(a)(1)–(2), SIP revisions to fulfill the addition, by action dated April 21, 2004, downwind maintenance. As described
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D). EPA promulgated a rulemaking that below, in today’s rule, EPA determines
The EPA required these 8-hour ozone responded to other remanded and that upwind States’ emissions
SIPs to be submitted—and the controls vacated issues, and included the contribute significantly to
mandated therein to be implemented— remaining requirements—termed the nonattainment or interfere with
on the same schedule as the 1-hour NOX SIP Call Phase II requirements—for maintenance of the PM2.5 NAAQS.
SIPs. the affected States (69 FR 21604). To quantify the amounts of those
However, EPA stayed the 8-hour emissions that contribute significantly
ozone requirements of the NOX SIP Call, B. How Does EPA Interpret the Clean
to nonattainment, we primarily focus on
due to litigation concerning the 8-hour Air Act’s Pollution Transport Provisions
the air quality factor reflecting the
ozone NAAQS. To date, EPA has not in Today’s Rule?
upwind State’s ambient impact on
lifted that stay. 1. CAIR Analytical Approach downwind nonattainment areas, and the
Today, EPA adopts much the same cost factor of highly cost-effective
3. Michigan v. EPA Court Case
interpretation and application of section controls. However, as with the NOX SIP
Petitioners brought legal challenges to Call, EPA also considers other factors,
110(a)(2)(D) for regulating downwind
various components of the NOX SIP which serve to establish the broad
transport of precursors of PM2.5 and
Call’s analytical approach in the United context for applying the air quality and
8-hour ozone as EPA adopted for the
States Court of Appeals for the District cost factors. Today, we adopt the
NOX SIP Call. We are adjusting some
of Columbia Circuit, in Michigan v. formulation of those factors as described
aspects of the NOX SIP Call analytic
EPA, 213 F.3d 663 (DC Cir., 2000), cert. in the CAIR NPR, which has little
approach for various reasons, including
denied, 532 U.S. 904 (2001). The Court conceptual difference from EPA’s
the need to account for regulation of a
upheld the essential features of the air application of those factors in the NOX
different pollutant (PM2.5) with an
quality modeling part of EPA’s SIP Call.
additional precursor (SO2).
approach, id. at 673; as well as EPA’s Discussion of issues relating to
definition of ‘‘contribute significantly’’ a. Nature of Nonattainment Problem and maintenance are found in section III
to include the factor of highly cost- Overview of Today’s Approach below.
effective controls, id. at 679. The Court As described in section I, above, the
did vacate or remand certain specific b. Air Quality Factor
interstate transport component of
applications of EPA’s approach, and current nonattainment of the PM2.5 and i. PM2.5
delayed the implementation date to May 8-hour ozone NAAQS is primarily With respect to the PM2.5 NAAQS, as
31, 2004. See, e.g., id. at 67, 681–85, confined to the eastern part of the described in section VI, we employed
692–94. In addition, in a subsequent country, although in an area that is air quality modeling techniques to
case that reviewed separate EPA larger, by several States, than the area assess the impact of each upwind State’s
rulemakings making technical that EPA focused on in the NOX SIP Call entire inventory of anthropogenic SO2
corrections to the NOX SIP Call, the DC for only ozone. As described in section and NOX emissions on downwind
Circuit remanded for a better III, it is evident that local controls alone nonattainment and maintenance. For air
explanation EPA’s methodology for cannot be counted on to solve the quality and technical reasons described
computing the growth component in the nonattainment problems, although below, EPA determined that upwind
EGU heat input calculation. uncertainties remain in the state of SO2 and NOX emissions contribute
Appalachian Power Co. v. EPA, 251 knowledge of these nonattainment significantly to nonattainment as of the
F.3d 1026 (DC Cir., 2001).15 problems as well as the precise role year 2010. Therefore, EPA projected SO2
4. Implementation of the NOX SIP Call interstate and local controls should and NOX emissions to the year 2010,
play. As in the case of the NOX SIP Call, assuming certain required controls (but
The court decisions left intact most of
the NOX SIP Call requirements. All it is not reasonable to expect a local area not controls required under CAIR), and
to bear the entire burden of solving the then modeled the impact of those
States subject to those requirements—
air quality problems, even if doing so projected emissions (termed the base
15 By action dated January 18, 2000, EPA were technically possible. case inventory) on downwind PM2.5
promulgated another rulemaking that was related to Turning to the interstate component nonattainment in that year.
the NOX SIP Call, known as the section 126 Rule of the nonattainment problems, as As discussed in section III, we adopt
(65 FR 2675). The DC Circuit generally upheld this discussed in section III below, for PM2.5, today a threshold air quality impact of
rule, although it remanded for better explanation
the EGU heat input growth methodology.
we find sufficient information is 0.2 µg/m3, so that an upwind State with
Appalachian Power Co. v. EPA. 249 F. 3d 1032 (DC available to address the adverse contributions to downwind
Cir., 2001). downwind impacts caused by SO2 and nonattainment below this level would
not be subject to regulatory The EPA determined that as of 2010, eliminate as contributing significantly to
requirements, but a State with 25 upwind States and the District of downwind nonattainment. Specifically,
contributions at or higher than this level Columbia will have contributions to as we stated in the CAIR NPR, ‘‘We are
would be subject to further evaluation. downwind nonattainment areas that are striving in this proposal to set up a
Because of the inherent differences sufficiently high to meet the air quality reasonable balance of regional and local
between the PM2.5 and ozone NAAQS, factor of the transport test. controls to provide a cost effective and
this threshold necessarily differs from equitable governmental approach to
the threshold chosen for the NOX SIP c. Cost Factor
attainment with the NAAQS for fine
Call in terms of: (i) The metrics selected The second major factor that EPA particles and ozone.’’ (See 69 FR 4612.)
to evaluate the threshold, and (ii) the applies is the cost factor. As in the case In this manner, we broadly incorporate
specific level of the threshold. Even so, of the NOX SIP Call, EPA interprets this the fairness concept and relative-cost-of-
the threshold EPA proposed for PM2.5 is factor as mandating emissions control (regional costs compared to local
generally consistent with the approach reductions in amounts that would result costs) concept that we generally
taken in the NOX SIP Call for the from application of highly cost-effective considered in the NOX SIP Call.
threshold level for ozone in that both controls. We ascertain the level of costs
as highly cost effective by reference to i. PM2.5 Controls
are relatively low. This level reflects the
fact that PM2.5 nonattainment, like the cost effectiveness of recent controls. For PM2.5, we promulgated the
ozone, is caused by many sources in a As we stated in the CAIR NPR, in NAAQS in 1997, we issued designations
broad region, and therefore may be determining the appropriate level of of areas in December 2004 (70 FR 944;
solved only by controlling sources controls, we considered feasibility January 5, 2005), and we intend to
throughout the region. As with the NOX issues—as we did in the NOX SIP Call— promulgate implementation
SIP Call, the collective contribution specifically, ‘‘the applicability, requirements during 2005. We project
condition of PM2.5 air quality is performance, and reliability of different that by 2010, without CAIR or other
reflected in the proposed relatively low types of pollution control technologies controls not already adopted, 80
threshold.16 for different types of sources; * * * and counties in the CAIR region would be in
The EPA determined that as of 2010, other implementation costs of a nonattainment of the annual standard.
23 upwind States and the District of regulatory program for any particular Our state of knowledge is incomplete
Columbia will have contributions to group of sources.’’ (See CAIR NPR, 69 as to the best control regime to achieve
downwind PM2.5 nonattainment areas FR 4585.) attainment and maintenance of this
that are sufficiently high to meet the air As described in section IV, today we NAAQS in individual areas, but we do
quality factor of the transport test. conclude that at present, EGUs are the know that transported SO2 and NOX
only source category for which highly emissions are important contributors to
ii. 8-Hour Ozone cost-effective SO2 and NOX controls are PM2.5 nonattainment. In addition, we
With respect to the 8-hour ozone available. In making this determination, have concluded that available controls
NAAQS, we also employed, as we examined what information is for at least the portion of these
described in section VI, air quality available concerning which source emissions from EGUs are feasible and
modeling techniques to assess the categories emit relatively large amounts relatively inexpensive on a cost-per-ton
impact of each upwind State’s entire of emissions, and what difficulties basis, and generate significant ambient
inventory of NOX and VOC emissions sources have in implementing controls. benefits. These ambient benefits include
on downwind nonattainment. The EPA These criteria are similar to those bringing many areas into attainment and
determined that upwind NOX emissions considered in the NOX SIP Call. decreasing PM2.5 levels in the rest of the
contribute significantly to 8-hour ozone As discussed in section IV, for PM2.5, nonattainment areas. Moreover,
nonattainment as of the year 2010. today’s action finalizes our proposal to available information indicates that
Therefore, EPA projected NOX identify as highly cost effective the local controls are likely to be relatively
emissions to the year 2010, assuming dollar amount of cost effectiveness that more expensive on a per-ton basis, and
certain required controls (but not falls near the low end of the reference will not reduce emissions sufficiently to
controls required under CAIR), and then range for both annual SO2 controls and bring many areas into attainment.
modeled the impact of those projected annual NOX controls. We identify this In light of this information, we plan
emissions (termed the base case level based on the overall context of the to proceed by requiring the level of
inventory) on downwind 8-hour ozone PM2.5 implementation program, regulatory control specified today on
nonattainment in that year. discussed below. upwind SO2 and NOX emissions. We
For the 8-hour ozone air quality For upwind States affecting consider today’s action to be both
factor, EPA employs the same threshold downwind 8-hour ozone nonattainment prudent and effective within the
amounts and metrics that it used in the areas, we apply the cost factor for circumstances of the developing PM2.5
NOX SIP Call. That is, as described in ozone-season NOX controls in much the implementation program. This action is
section VI, emissions from an upwind same manner as for the NOX SIP Call, one of the initial steps in implementing
State contribute significantly to although some aspects of the analysis the PM2.5 NAAQS. States, localities, and
nonattainment if the maximum have been updated. The level of NOX Tribes, as well as EPA, will continue to
contribution is at least 2 parts per control identified as highly cost evaluate the efficacy of local controls.
billion, the average contribution is effective is more stringent than in the Finally, as discussed in section VI, air
greater than one percent, and certain NOX SIP Call. quality modeling confirms that these
other numerical criteria are met. regional controls are not more than is
d. Other Factors necessary for downwind areas to attain.
16 The second air quality factor described in the As with the NOX SIP Call, EPA This overall plan is well within the
NOX SIP Call—the extent of downwind considers other factors that influence ambit of EPA’s authority to proceed
nonattainment—is reflected in the identification of the application of the air quality and with regulation on a step-by-step basis.
downwind PM2.5 nonattainment areas, discussed
elsewhere in today’s final action. The third air
cost factors, and that confirm the The time frame for section 110(a)(2)(D)
quality factor—the ambient impact of upwind conclusions concerning the amounts of SIPs, described in section VII, makes
emissions—is reflected in the threshold level. emissions that upwind States must clear that EPA has the authority to
establish the upwind reduction Integrated Planning Model (IPM), which f. SIP Submittal and Implementation
obligations before having full indicated the associated amounts of heat Requirements
information about how best to achieve input and emission rates projected for Today EPA requires that the PM2.5
attainment goals, including having full those years. The IPM indicated that the and 8-hour ozone SIPs be submitted
information about downwind control amounts of heat input for 2015 and 2010 within 18 months of promulgation of
costs and the efficacy of downwind were higher than current heat input (in today’s action. This period is 6 months
control measures. light of the increased electricity demand longer than the SIPs due under the NOX
for 2015 and 2010), and that the SIP Call. This difference is due to the
ii. Ozone Controls
emissions rates were lower than 0.125 fact that PM2.5 implementation is only
The EPA determined the level of lb/mmBtu (2015) and 0.15 lb/mmBtu now beginning, and it makes sense to
required NOX reductions for purposes of (2010). The IPM calculated the costs to keep the NOX SIPs due under the 8-hour
8-hour ozone transport through much achieve those emissions reductions and ozone requirements on the same
the same process as for purposes of EGU budget (assuming EGU controls) by schedule as the NOX and SO2 SIPs due
PM2.5 transport. 2015 and 2009, which costs EPA under the PM2.5 requirements.
e. Regulatory Requirements determined were highly cost effective
and feasible, respectively. The EPA used 2. What Did Commenters Say and What
i. Annual SO2 and NOX Emissions this same approach to determine the Is EPA’s Response?
Reductions seasonal budget for NOX reductions for Many of the comments on today’s
Although EPA determined that purposes of the ozone standard. action concern various aspects of EPA’s
upwind emissions will contribute As described in section V, we analytical approach. Most of those
significantly to both PM2.5 allocated this regionwide amount to the comments are discussed elsewhere in
nonattainment and 8-hour ozone individual States in accordance with today’s action. Comments on the most
nonattainment in 2010, the amount of their average heat input from EGUs both basic elements of EPA’s approach are
requisite emissions controls cannot subject to and not subject to title IV. We discussed here.
feasibly be implemented by 2009 for adjusted heat input for type of fuel used.
The EPA believes that this method is a a. Aspects of Contribute-Significantly
NOX, or 2010 for SO2. Instead, EPA has Test
determined to implement the reductions reasonable indicator of each State’s
in two phases for each pollutant: 2009 appropriate share of the requirements. i. Date for Evaluation of Downwind
for NOX, and 2010 for SO2 initially, with This method differs from what EPA Impacts
lower caps for both in 2015. used in the NOX SIP Call, which relied Comment: Some commenters took
As described in section IV, EPA on State-specific projections of growth issue with EPA’s approach of
evaluated the cost of emissions in heat input. determining the upwind State’s air
reductions under consideration against We require implementation of the quality impact on downwind areas by
the level of highly cost-effective PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone reductions in modeling only the State’s 2010 base case
controls. Through a multi-year process two phases, in 2009 and 2015. As emissions (that is, projected 2010
involving studies and other regulatory discussed in section IV, these dates are emissions before the 2010 CAIR
and legislative efforts, as well as the most expeditious that are controls). These commenters stated that
involvement with citizen, industry, and practicable—the same standard for the although evaluating the upwind State’s
State stakeholders, EPA arrived at an implementation period in the NOX SIP base case emissions in 2010 might
amount of SO2 emissions reductions for Call—based on engineering and indicate whether that State’s air quality
evaluation purposes for the CAIR financial factors; the performance and impact on downwind areas is
region. The EPA ascertained the costs of applicability of control measures; and sufficiently high to justify imposition of
these reductions and today determines the impact of implementation on, in the the 2010 (Phase I) controls, it does not
that they should be considered highly case of EGUs, electricity reliability. The justify imposition of the 2015 (Phase II)
cost effective. These amounts EPA considered these same factors in controls. Rather, according to the
correspond to reducing Title IV SO2 determining the implementation period commenters, EPA should conduct
allowances for utilities by 65 percent in for the NOX SIP Call requirements, but further air quality modeling that
2015 and 50 percent in 2010 in CAIR factual differences lead to the two-phase evaluates the upwind State’s 2015 base
States. approach adopted in today’s action. case emissions—taking into account the
As described in section V, EPA As discussed in section VII, each CAIR 2010 controls but not the CAIR
further determined that these emissions upwind State may achieve the required 2015 controls—to determine whether
reductions requirements should be reductions by regulating any sources of the State continues (even after
allocated to the States in proportion to SO2 or NOX that it wishes. However, if imposition of the CAIR 2010 controls) to
the title IV SO2 allowances allocated the State chooses to regulate certain have a sufficient downwind ambient
under the CAA to their EGUs. This source categories (such as EGUs), it impact to justify the 2015 controls.
approach is consistent with the system must comply with certain requirements Commenters added that, in their view,
Congress established for allocating title (such as capping EGU emissions), and it PM2.5 precursors generally were
IV allowances and facilitates may take advantage of certain decreasing after 2010, the PM2.5
implementation of the SO2 interstate opportunities (such as participation in nonattainment problem was generally
trading program. the EPA-administered EGU cap and diminishing as well, and the
For annual NOX emissions, EPA trade program). Some aspects of these contribution of some upwind States to
determined a target regionwide amount requirements and the cap and trade downwind areas was relatively small.
of both emissions reductions and the program differ from those in the NOX These facts, according to the
EGU budget by multiplying current heat SIP Call, as explained in section VIII. commenters, indicated that some
input by emission rates of 0.125 lb/ However, like the NOX SIP Call, the upwind States should not be subject to
mmBtu and 0.15 lb/mmBtu for 2015 and State may allow sources to opt in to the the 2015 reductions requirement.
2010, respectively. The EPA then CAIR trading program, as described in Some commenters stated, more
evaluated those amounts through the section VIII. broadly, that the threshold contribution
level selected by EPA should be purposes, as long as the controls yield controls could, at least in theory, result
considered a floor, so that upwind downwind benefits needed to reduce in an ambient impact that is below the
States should be obliged to reduce their the extent of nonattainment, the initial threshold. For this reason, there
emissions only to the level at which controls should not be lessened simply is no basis to conduct a separate
their contribution to downwind because they may have the effect of evaluation of the 2015 controls.
nonattainment does not exceed that reducing the upwind State’s
ii. Residual Nonattainment
threshold level. contribution to below the initial
Response: The EPA views the CAIR threshold. Comment: A commenter expressed
emission reduction requirements as a The DC Circuit, in upholding the NOX concern that too many areas will remain
single action, but one that cannot be SIP Call, rejected similar arguments to out of attainment for the PM2.5 and 8-
fully implemented in 2009 (for NOX) or those raised by commenters (Michigan hour ozone NAAQS even after
2010 (for SO2), and must instead be v. EPA, 213 F.3d at 679). In the NOX SIP implementation of the CAIR rule.
partially deferred until 2015, solely for Call rulemaking, commenters argued Response: Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the
reasons of feasibility. Under these that EPA’s analytic approach to the CAA requires upwind States to prohibit
circumstances, EPA does not believe it ‘‘contribute significantly’’ test was the amount of emissions that contribute
appropriate to re-evaluate the 2015 flawed because it meant that States with significantly to downwind
component, as commenters have different impacts downwind would nonattainment, but does not require the
suggested. nevertheless have to implement the upwind States to prohibit sufficient
Under EPA’s approach, which mirrors same level of controls (i.e., those that emissions to assure that the downwind
that of the NOX SIP Call, EPA projects, were highly cost effective). Commenters areas attain. Rather, downwind areas
for each upwind State, SO2 and NOX urged EPA to recast its approach by continue to bear the responsibility of
inventories, as of 2010, taking into limiting an upwind State’s emissions addressing remaining nonattainment.
account controls required under other reductions to the point at which the iii. Relationship of Reductions to
CAA provisions and controls adopted remaining emissions no longer caused a Attainment Dates
by State and local agencies. The EPA downwind ambient impact above the
then uses air quality modeling threshold level for significance. Comment: Some commenters, who
techniques to determine the impact of (‘‘Responses to Significant Comments viewed the CAIR as imposing unduly
these emissions on downwind air on the Proposed Finding of Significant light obligations on upwind States,
quality. The EPA then requires upwind Contribution and Rulemaking for argued that because States with
States whose emissions have a Certain States in the Ozone Transport nonattainment areas must develop SIPs
sufficiently high impact to eliminate the Assessment Group (OTAG) Region for that provide for attainment regardless of
amount of their emissions that could be Purposes of Reducing Regional the cost of the requisite controls, and
eliminated through application of Transport of Ozone (62 FR 60318; because the courts have viewed
highly cost-effective controls. These November 7, 1997 and 63 FR 25902; attainment deadlines as central to the
emissions reductions must be May 11, 1998),’’ U.S. E.P.A. (September CAA, EPA should require that upwind
implemented as expeditiously as 1998), Docket Number A–96–56–VI–C– emissions contributing to downwind
practicable. Were it feasible to 1, at 213–16.) nonattainment must be eliminated by
implement all the reductions by 2009 Petitioners challenging the NOX SIP the downwind attainment dates, and not
(for NOX) or 2010 (for SO2), EPA would Call in Michigan v. EPA used the same later.
so require. Because part of the emissions arguments to contend that EPA’s Other commenters, who viewed the
reductions cannot feasibly be analytic approach in the NOX SIP Call CAIR as imposing unduly heavy
implemented until 2015, EPA is was arbitrary and capricious. The Court obligations on upwind States, argued
requiring today’s two-phase approach. dismissed these arguments, stating: that EPA had no authority to require
This analytic method is the same as for upwind emissions reductions after the
* * * EPA required that all of the covered
the NOX SIP Call, except that in that jurisdictions, regardless of amount of downwind attainment dates because by
rulemaking all of the required emissions contribution, reduce their NOX by an amount that time, the upwind emissions were
reductions could feasibly be achievable with ‘‘highly cost-effective no longer contributing to
implemented in one phase. controls.’’ Petitioners claim that EPA’s nonattainment. These commenters
As in the case of the NOX SIP Call, uniform control strategy is irrational. * * * further argued that EPA has no authority
EPA takes the view that once a State’s [T]hey observe that where two states differ to accelerate the emissions reductions
emissions are determined to contribute considerably in the amount of their because the controls could not feasibly
respective NOX contributions to downwind
to downwind nonattainment by at least be implemented by an earlier date.
nonattainment, under the EPA rule even the
a threshold amount, then the upwind small contributors must make reductions Response: We note first that part of
State should reduce its emissions by the equivalent to those achievable by highly cost- this issue is moot since EPA is requiring
amount that would result from effective measures. This of course flows NOX controls in 2009, within the
implementation of highly cost-effective ineluctably from the EPA’s decision to draw statutory time periods for attainment.
controls. This approach is justified by the ‘‘significant contribution’’ line on a basis With respect to remaining issues, EPA’s
the benefits of reducing the upwind of cost differentials. Our upholding of that interpretation and application of the
contribution to downwind decision logically entails upholding this ‘‘contribute significantly to
nonattainment, coupled with the consequence.
nonattainment’’ standard of section
relatively low costs. However, EPA does (Michigan v. EPA, 213 F.3d at 679.) 110(a)(2)(D) is not necessarily
consider the ambient impacts of the Thus, the Court approved EPA’s constrained by the downwind area’s
required emissions reductions. For approach of requiring the same control attainment date in either manner
today’s action, air quality modeling level on all affected States, without suggested by the commenters.
indicates that the regionwide emissions concern as to the arguably inconsistent First, although it is true that the
reductions do not reduce PM2.5 levels ambient impacts that may result. By the nonattainment area requirements and
beyond what is needed for attainment same token, in today’s action, EPA’s deadlines in CAA title I, part D, mean
and maintenance. (See also section III approach should be accepted that the downwind area must achieve
below.) Most important for present notwithstanding that the upwind attainment by its attainment date
without regard to the feasibility of continued growth of the emissions with a NAAQS as a result of the
emissions reductions from sources in inventory. This is discussed in detail in proposed level of control on a particular
that nonattainment area, section section III below. source category.
110(a)(2)(D) by its terms does not apply The Agency received comments both
iv. Factors To Consider in Future supporting and opposing the adoption
those constraints to sources in the
Rulemaking of this test as a part of the ‘‘highly cost
upwind States. Rather, EPA’s
interpretation of the ‘‘contribute In the January and June CAIR effective’’ component of the ‘‘contribute
significantly to nonattainment’’ proposals, we discussed regional control significantly’’ requirement of CAA
standard—which incorporates requirements and budgets based on a section 110(a)(2)(d). Commenters
feasibility considerations in determining showing of ‘‘significant contribution’’ by supporting this test asserted that it was
the implementation period for the upwind States to nonattainment in consistent with the CAA’s overall focus
upwind emissions controls—continues downwind States (69 FR at 4611–13, on State, rather than federal, control
to apply. 32720). The CAA section 110(a)(2)(D), over which sources should be regulated,
Often, upwind emissions reductions which provides the authority for CAIR, and also was consistent with ensuring
affect at least several downwind areas states among other things that SIPs must that broad, regional SIP calls, such as
with different attainment dates. The contain adequate provisions prohibiting, the one at issue in this case, focus only
EPA does not read section 110(a)(2)(D) consistent with the CAA, sources or on source categories the control of
to require that the pace of upwind other types of emissions activity within which will result in substantial overall
reductions be controlled by the earliest a State from emitting pollutants in improvements in air quality.
downwind attainment date. Rather, EPA amounts that will ‘‘contribute Commenters opposing this screen with
views the pace of reductions as being significantly to nonattainment in, or respect to the application of section
determined by the time within which interfere with maintenance by, any 110(a)(2)(D) asserted, in general, that the
they may feasibly be achieved. In some other State with respect to’’ the NAAQS. test would be inconsistent with the
cases, upwind sources are themselves in In the CAIR, EPA has interpreted analysis used by the Agency in the NOX
a nonattainment area that has a longer section 110(a)(2)(D) to require that SIP call and with the language of section
attainment date than the downwind certain States reduce emissions by 110(a)(2)(D).
area, and it may not be feasible for those specified amounts, and has determined We have determined that it is not
upwind sources to implement those amounts based on the availability appropriate to adopt a statutory
reductions prior to the downwind of highly cost effective controls for interpretation embodying a ‘‘bright line’’
attainment date. Therefore, the upwind identified source categories. Following rule that 0.5 percent of the U.S. counties
emissions may be projected to continue this interpretation, EPA has calculated and/or parishes must be brought from
to affect adversely nonattainment in the CAIR’s emissions reduction nonattainment into attainment from
downwind area even after the requirements based on the availability controlling emissions from a particular
downwind attainment date, in the of highly cost-effective reductions of source category, in order for reductions
manner described above. Further, SO2 and NOX from EGUs in States that from that source category to be
emissions reductions after the meet EPA’s proposed inclusion criteria. considered highly cost effective. We
attainment date may be important to One approach cited in the January continue to believe, however, that broad
prevent interference with maintenance 2004 CAIR proposal for ensuring that multi-state rules under section
of the standards. both the air quality component and the 110(a)(2)(D), such as the one we are
The CAIR will achieve substantial cost effectiveness component of the finalizing today, should play a limited
reductions in time to help many section 110 ‘‘contribute significantly’’ role under the CAA and must be
nonattainment areas attain the standards determination is met, is to consider a justified by a careful evaluation of the
by the applicable attainment dates. The source category’s contribution to air quality improvement that will result
design of the SO2 program, including ambient concentrations above the from the controls under consideration.
the declining caps in 2010 and 2015 and attainment level in all nonattainment Therefore, we intend to undertake any
the banking provisions, will steadily areas in affected downwind states. Id. In future broad, multi-state rulemakings
reduce SO2 emissions over time, the June supplemental proposal, we under section 110(a)(2)(D) regarding
achieving reductions in advance of the requested comment on a further transported emissions only when, as
cap dates; and the 2009 and 2015 NOX refinement of this concept—i.e., here, they produce substantial air
reductions will be timely for many whether a source category should be quality benefits across a broad area and
downwind nonattainment areas. included in a broad regional rule have beneficial air quality impacts on a
Although many of today’s promulgated pursuant to section significant number of downwind
nonattainment areas will attain before 110(a)(2)(D) only if the proposed level of nonattainment areas, including bringing
all the reductions required by CAIR will additional control of that category many areas into attainment. We do not
be achieved, it is clear that CAIR’s would meet a specified threshold. at this time anticipate the need for any
reductions will still be needed through Under that approach, EPA said it might such rulemakings in the future. We
2015 and beyond. The EPA has determine, for example, that in the believe that today’s action, coupled with
determined that each upwind State’s context of a broad multi-state SIP call, current and upcoming national rules
2010 and 2015 emissions reductions emissions reductions from particular and local or subregional programs
will be necessary because, for purposes source category are ‘‘highly cost adopted by States, will be sufficient to
of both PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone, we effective’’ only if emissions reductions address the remaining nonattainment
reasonably predict that a downwind from that source category would result problems.
receptor linked to that upwind State in at least 0.5 percent of U.S. counties In evaluating whether to undertake
will either: (i) Remain in nonattainment and/or parishes coming into attainment national or regional transport
and continue to experience significant with a NAAQS. The EPA noted that, rulemakings in the future, we believe it
contribution to nonattainment from the given the number of counties and is not only appropriate but necessary to
upwind State’s emissions; or (ii) attain parishes in the United States, this consider the effectiveness of the
the relevant NAAQS but later revert to requirement would be met if at least 16 proposed emissions reductions in
nonattainment due, for example, to counties were brought into attainment improving downwind air quality. We
believe it will be reasonable to initiate A. What Is the Basis for EPA’s Decision suggest that regional SO2 reductions are
a broad multi-state rulemaking under To Require Reductions in Upwind effective at reducing sulfate and
section 110(a)(2)(D) based on a Emissions of SO2 and NOX To Address associated ammonium, and, therefore,
determination that particular emissions PM2.5 Related Transport? PM2.5. Under certain conditions
reductions are highly cost effective only reductions in particulate ammonium
1. How Did EPA Determine Which sulfates can release ammonia as a gas,
when those reductions will bring a Pollutants Were Necessary To Control
significant number of downwind areas which then reacts with gaseous nitric
To Address Interstate Transport for acid to form nitrate particles, a
into attainment. In adopting this PM2.5?
approach for determining whether a phenomenon called ‘‘nitrate
a. What Did EPA Propose Regarding replacement.’’ In such conditions SO2
future broad, multi-state SIP call is
This Issue in the NPR? reductions would be less effective in
appropriate, we note that other CAA
Section II of the January 2004 reducing PM2.5, unless accompanied by
mechanisms, such as SIP disapproval reductions in NOX emissions to address
authority and State petitions under proposal summarized key scientific and
technical aspects of the occurrence, the potential increase in nitrates.
section 126, are available to address (4) Reductions in ammonia can
more isolated instances of the interstate formation, and origins of PM2.5, as well
reduce the ammonium, but not the
transport of pollutants. as findings and observations relevant to
sulfate portion of sulfate particles. The
formulating control approaches for
The EPA projects that control of SO2 relative efficacy of reducing nitrates
reducing the contribution of transport to
and NOX through CAIR will bring 72 through NOX or ammonia control varies
fine particle problems (69 FR 4575–87). with atmospheric conditions; the
counties into attainment with the PM2.5 Key concepts and provisional
and ozone NAAQS. The total number highest particulate nitrate
conclusions drawn from this discussion concentrations in the East tend to occur
represents approximately 3 percent of can be summarized as follows: 17
the counties/parishes in the United in cooler months and regions. At
(1) Fine particles (measured as PM2.5 present, our knowledge about sources,
States, and is clearly a significant for the NAAQS) consist of a diverse emissions, control approaches, and
number of areas. What will be mixture of substances that vary in size, costs is greater for NOX than for
considered a significant number of areas chemical composition, and source. The ammonia. Existing programs to reduce
in any future cases will need to be PM2.5 includes both ‘‘primary’’ particles NOX from stationary and mobile sources
determined on a case-by-case basis. that are emitted directly to the are well underway. From a chemical
atmosphere as particles, and perspective, as NOX reductions
III. Why Does This Rule Focus on SO2 ‘‘secondary’’ particles that form in the
and NOX, and How Were Significant accumulate relative to ammonia, the
atmosphere through chemical reactions atmospheric chemical system would
Downwind Impacts Determined? from gaseous precursors. The major move towards an equilibrium in which
This section discusses the basis for components of fine particles in the ammonium nitrate reductions become
EPA’s decision to require reductions in Eastern U.S. can be grouped into five more responsive to further NOX
categories: carbonaceous material reductions relative to ammonia
upwind emissions of SO2 and NOX to
(including both primary and secondary reductions.
address PM2.5 transport and to require
organic carbon and black carbon), (5) Much less is known about the
reductions in upwind emissions of NOX sulfates, nitrates, ammonium, and
to address ozone-related transport. In sources of regional transport of
crustal material, which includes carbonaceous material. Key
addition, this section discusses how suspended dust as well as some other uncertainties include how much of this
EPA determined which States are directly emitted materials. The major material is due to biogenic as compared
subject to today’s rule because their gaseous precursors of PM2.5 include to anthropogenic sources, and how
sources’ emissions will significantly SO2, NOX, ammonia (NH3), and certain much is directly emitted as compared to
contribute to nonattainment of the PM2.5 volatile organic compounds. formed in the atmosphere.
or 8-hour ozone standards, or interfere (2) Examination of urban and rural (6) Observational evidence suggests
with maintenance of those standards, in monitors indicate that in the Eastern that the substantial reductions in SO2
downwind States. The EPA assessed U.S., sulfates, carbonaceous material, emissions in the eastern U.S. since 1990
individual upwind States’ ambient nitrates, and ammonium associated with have indeed caused observed reductions
impacts on downwind States and sulfates and nitrates are typically the in PM2.5 sulfate. The relatively small
established a threshold value to identify largest components of transported historical reductions in NOX emissions
those States whose impact constitutes a PM2.5, while crustal material tends to be do not allow observations to be used
significant contribution to air quality only a small fraction. similarly to test the effectiveness of NOX
violations in the downwind States. The (3) Atmospheric interactions among reductions.
EPA used air quality modeling of particulate ammonium sulfates and Based on the understanding of current
emissions in each State to estimate the nitrates and gas phase nitric acid and scientific and technical information, as
ambient impacts. The technical issues ammonia vary with temperature, well as EPA’s air quality modeling, as
concerning the modeling platform and humidity, and location. Both ambient summarized in the January 30 proposal,
approach are discussed in section VI, observations and modeling simulations EPA concluded that it was both
Air Quality Modeling Approach and appropriate and necessary to focus on
17 More complete discussions of the key scientific
control of SO2 and NOX emissions as the
Results. Also, EPA considered the underpinnings that form the basis of these most effective approach to reducing the
potential for upwind state emissions to conclusions in the proposal and the discussion of
these issues in this seciton of today’s notice can be contribution of interstate transport to
interfere with maintenance of the PM2.5
found in the recently completed EPA Criteria PM2.5.
and 8-hour ozone NAAQS in downwind Document (USEPA, National Center for The EPA proposed not to control
areas. Environmental Assessment, Air Quality Criteria for emissions that affect other components
Particulate Matter, October 2004) and the NARTSO
assessment of fine participles (NARSTO, Particulate
of PM2.5, noting that ‘‘current
Matter Science for Policy Makers—A NARSTO information relating to sources and
ASSESSMENT, February 2003). controls for other components identified
in transported PM2.5 (carbonaceous (3) The focus on SO2 may be the current PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA found
particles, ammonium, and crustal appropriate, but the basis for requiring that there was ample evidence to
materials) does not, at this time, provide NOX control is not clear. associate various health effects with the
an adequate basis for regulating the measured mass concentration of
ii. Summary of EPA’s Response to the
regional transport of emissions particles smaller than a nominal 2.5
Major Comments on This Issue micrometers (um), termed PM2.5. The
responsible for these PM2.5
components.’’ (69 FR 4582). For all of The following subsections summarize EPA recognizes that the toxicity of
these components, the lack of both key comments and EPA’s different chemical components of PM2.5
knowledge of and ability to quantify responses organized by the major may vary, and that the observed effects
accurately the interstate transport of categories outlined above. As noted in may be the result of the mixture of
these components limited EPA’s ability Section I, EPA has developed and particles and gases. While research is
to include these components in this placed in the rulemaking docket a underway to better identify whether
rule. detailed response to these and other some chemical components are more
public comments. responsible for health effects than
b. How Does EPA Address Public others, results now available from such
Comments on Its Proposal To Address (a) SO2 and NOX May Be Less Important
research are limited and inconclusive. A
SO2 and NOX Emissions and Not Other to Health Than Other Transport-Related
number of studies included in the
Pollutants? Components
recent EPA PM criteria document 19
Comment: Several commenters argued have found effects to be associated with
i. Overview of Comments on This Issue
that the proposed focus on SO2 and NOX one or more of the major components
A large number of commenters was premature, citing the potential for and sources of PM2.5, including sulfates,
including states, affected industries, differential toxicity of various PM2.5 nitrates, organic materials, PM2.5 mass,
environmental groups, academics, and components, and in some cases coal combustion, and mobile sources.
other members of the public agreed with advancing evidence (e.g., the Electric The criteria document concludes that
EPA’s proposal to require cost-effective Power Research Institute Aerosol these studies suggest that many different
multipollutant reductions of SO2 and Research and Inhalation Studies chemical components of fine particles
NOX to address interstate transport [ARIES]) 18 that other components such and a variety of different types of source
contributions to PM2.5 problems. Fewer as organic particles appear to be more categories are all linked to premature
commenters who supported controlling responsible for health effects of particles mortality and other serious health
SO2 and NOX commented on inclusion than sulfates and nitrates. Several effects, either independently or in
of additional pollutants, but several also argued that the relative contribution of combinations, but that it is not possible
agreed that it would be premature at this components to health impacts is an to reach clear conclusions about
time to require control of emissions of important uncertainty that should be differential effects of PM components.
other chemical components and researched more carefully before Accordingly, individual studies or
precursors to address such transport. proposing to control only SO2 and NOX. groups of studies such as ARIES cannot
These commenters suggested that SO2 Response: Today’s rulemaking be used to single out any particular
and NOX emissions from EGUs and establishes requirements for SIP component of PM2.5 as wholly
other sources indeed contribute submissions under section 110(a)(2)(D). responsible (or not at all responsible) for
significantly to downwind PM2.5. They Those SIP submissions must prohibit the array of health effects that have been
argued that control of other components emissions that contribute significantly found to be associated with various
is premature because of a lack of to nonattainment of a NAAQS in a chemical and mass indicators of fine
downwind State. The EPA determined particles. Other Federal agencies and
knowledge, either about the interstate
in the 1997 rulemaking promulgating EPA continue to promote and support
contributions of other components or of
the PM2.5 NAAQS that specified levels the epidemiological and toxicological
control measures for these components.
of PM2.5 adversely affect human health, studies needed to better understand the
Generally, EPA accepts and agrees with
and that sulfates and nitrates are effects of different chemical components
these conclusions.
components of PM2.5 (62 FR 38652, July and different size particles on health
A number of commenters disagreed to 18, 1997). SO2 and NOX, in turn, are effects.
varying degrees with part or all of EPA’s precursors to fine particulate sulfates In the meantime, EPA believes that,
proposed focus on SO2 and NOX. The and nitrates. Comments that sulfates given the substantial evidence of
main points raised by these commenters and nitrates do not cause adverse health significant health effects of fine
can be grouped as follows: effects are more appropriately raised in particles, it is important to move
(1) The focus on SO2 and NOX is not the context of past or ongoing reviews forward expeditiously to address both
appropriate because sulfates and of the PM NAAQS. Because today’s transported and local sources of all the
nitrates may not be (or are not) the most action forms part of implementing and major components of fine particles in an
important determinants of the health not establishing the PM NAAQS, effort to implement and attain the PM2.5
effects of PM2.5. comments relating to the evidence standards. Today’s rule is focused on
supporting or not supporting health the contribution of interstate transport
(2) The EPA should mandate, or at of nitrate and sulfates to PM2.5 in
effects of all or portions of pollutants
least permit, states to control other
regulated by the PM2.5 NAAQS are not nonattainment areas. However, EPA has
precursors and particle emissions in
germane to this rulemaking. already adopted other rules that are
addition to, or instead of, SO2 and NOX.
Nevertheless, we discuss briefly reducing emissions and exposures to
Commenters sometimes made specific
EPA’s current response regarding the these and other major components of
recommendations with respect to
contributions of different components of fine particles on a national, regional,
additional pollutants, including
PM2.5 to health effects. In establishing and local basis. Recent national mobile
carbonaceous (including organic)
particles and precursors, ammonia, and 18 R. J. Klemm, et al., ‘‘Daily Mortality and Air 19 USEPA, National Center for Environmental
other direct emissions, including crustal Pollution in Atlanta: Two Year of Data from ARIES’’ Assessment, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate
material. (accepted, Inhalation Toxicology). Matter, October 2004.
rules and programs, in particular, have addition, emissions contributing to organic particles.21 Current models are
focused on carbonaceous materials these components in one state likely do not, however, capable of quantifying
emitted from gasoline and both highway affect PM2.5 concentrations in other such potential benefits.
and non-road diesel powered mobile states to some extent. However, the While EPA does not believe that
sources (65 FR 6698; 66 FR 5002; 69 FR extent of those downwind contributions enough is known about the relative
38958). States with nonattainment areas to nonattainment has not been effectiveness or costs of reducing
will also be required to address local quantified adequately and current anthropogenic sources of carbonaceous
sources of PM2.5 in order to meet scientific understanding makes such a particles on transported PM2.5, EPA
progress and attainment requirements. determination more uncertain than is agrees that control of known source
Together, the collective effect of these the case for SO2 and NOX. Responses to categories of these materials can have a
programs ensures a balanced approach recommendations for including each of significant benefit in reducing the
to reducing all of the major components these three classes in the transport rule significant local contribution. For this
of PM2.5 from transported and local are summarized below. reason, EPA has already enacted other
sources. national rules that will reduce
(i) Carbonaceous Material emissions of primary carbonaceous
(b) Inclusion of Other PM2.5 Precursors For carbonaceous material, PM2.5 from mobile sources, the largest
and Components uncertainties in both the quantity and contributor to such emissions. In
Comment: A number of commenters origins of emissions contributing to both addition to reducing PM2.5 in
recommended that EPA either mandate primary and secondary carbonaceous nonattainment areas, these regulations
or at least permit controls on the material on regional scales (including will also have the benefit of reducing a
emissions that cause interstate transport emissions from fires and from biogenic large measure of whatever interstate
of other components of PM2.5, in sources) limit the quality of regional transport of carbonaceous PM2.5 occurs.
addition to or as a substitute for, SO2 scale modeling of carbonaceous PM2.5.
and NOX controls. Several commenters This in turn causes substantial (ii) Ammonia
recommended that EPA include uncertainties in determining the amount While current models are able to
emissions reductions related to the of interstate transport from address the major chemical mechanisms
components of PM2.5 other than sulfate carbonaceous material and of the costs involving particulate ammonium
and nitrate. While many commenters and effectiveness of emission controls. compounds, regional-scale ammonia
suggested addressing all of the Modeling and monitoring the relative emissions, particularly from agricultural
important contributors to PM2.5, amount of organic particles that come sources, are highly uncertain.22 Given
including those not regulated under this from the formation of secondary organic the relative lack of experience in
Rule, others highlighted only one or two particles, versus primary organic controlling such sources, the costs and
additional components as most particles, is also highly uncertain. effectiveness of actions to reduce
important to include. Of the PM2.5 In addition, comparison of urban and regional ammonia emissions are not
components, direct emissions and nearby rural PM composition adequately quantified at present. As
precursors to carbonaceous PM2.5 and monitors 20 in the eastern U.S. find a noted above, ammonium would not
ammonia emissions were the omitted significantly larger amount of exist in PM2.5 if not for the presence of
contributors most frequently discussed. carbonaceous materials in urban areas sulfuric acid or nitric acid; hence,
Some of these commenters argued as compared to rural areas, suggesting decreases in SO2 and NOX can be
that, by limiting the rule to SO2 and that a substantial fraction of expected ultimately to decrease the
NOX and excluding other sources of carbonaceous particles in urban areas ammonium in PM2.5 as well. The
ambient PM2.5, EPA would be limiting come from local sources. By contrast, additional regional limits on SO2 and
the choices that states have to address urban and non-urban monitors in the NOX emissions outlined in today’s
their downwind interstate transport East show greater homogeneity for notice added to those reductions
contributions. These commenters regional sulfate concentrations as provided under current programs would
argued that this limitation is contrary to compared to carbonaceous materials, likewise be expected to reduce the PM2.5
the CAA, which generally gives states suggesting regional sources are most effectiveness of any ammonia control
the discretion to choose their own important for sulfates. Results for initiative.23 Unlike ammonium, sulfuric
emission control strategies. Commenters nitrates suggest both a mixture of acid has a very low vapor pressure and
further asserted that the roles of other regional and local sources. Furthermore, would exist in the particle with or
components in PM2.5 are sufficiently as noted above and in the proposal (69 without ammonia. Therefore, while SO2
well understood that they should be FR 4577–78), while the relative reductions would reduce particulate
included in state SIPs for PM2.5 contributions of different sources to ammonium, changes in ammonia would
transport, and could partially satisfy the regional sulfate and nitrates can be
PM2.5 reductions anticipated by this quantified with certainty, the 21 Jang, M; Czoschke, N.M.; Lee, S.: Kamens, R.M.,
rule. contributions of different sources to Heterogeneous Atmospheric Aerosol Production by

Response: The three main classes of carbonaceous materials on a regional Acid-Catalzyed Particle Phase Reactions, Science,
2002, 298: 814–817.
PM2.5 precursors that are not included scale are less clear. Moreover, as noted 22 Battye, W., V.P. Aneja, and P.A. Roelle,
in this rulemaking are carbonaceous in the NPR preamble, some research Evaluation and improvement of ammonia emissions
material (including both primary into mechanisms of formation of organic inventories, Atmospheric Environment, 2003, 37:
emissions and VOC emissions that form particles suggests that both NOX and 3873–3883.
23 As pointed out by one commenter, a
secondary organic aerosol), ammonia, SO2 reductions might be of some benefit
hypothetical new program resulting in major
and crustal material. As noted in the in lowering the amount of secondary regional reductions of ammonia would reduce the
proposal(69 FR 4576) and as mentioned effectiveness of NOX controls. However, given the
in several comments, these components 20 V. Rao, N. Frank, A. Rush, F. Dimmick. uncertainties in emissions, the dispersed nature of
comprise a measurable faction of PM2.5 Chemical Speciation of PM2.5 in Urban and Rural ammonia sources and the lack of present controls,
Area, in The Proceedings of the Air & Waste an effort to develop a new regional ammonia
throughout the Eastern U.S., and the Management Association Symposium on Air program would likely take significantly longer than
contribution of carbonaceous material, Quality Measurement Methods and Technology, the additional NOX reductions EPA is adopting
in particular, is often substantial. In San Francisco, November 13–1, 2002. today.
be expected to have very little effect on air quality models is in some cases poor PM2.5 components not addressed under
the sulfate concentration. in comparison with current CAIR. To assist future air quality
In addition to the above understanding of SO2 and NOX (most management decisions, EPA is actively
considerations, because ammonium notably for sources and amounts of supporting research into better
nitrates are highest in the winter, when secondary organic aerosol production.24 understanding the emissions,
ammonia emissions are lowest, reducing Consequently, quantification of the atmospheric processes, long range
wintertime NOX emissions may interstate transport of these components transport, and opportunities for control
represent a more certain path towards is significantly more uncertain than for of these PM2.5 components.
reducing this winter peak than ammonia SO2 and NOX emissions. Given these
reductions. Moreover, reductions in uncertainties in regional emissions and (d) Justification for Including NOX in
ammonia emissions alone would also interstate transport of these Determining Significant Contributions
tend to increase the acidity of PM2.5 and components, EPA has determined that it and for Regulating NOX Emissions for
of precipitation. As noted in the would be premature to quantify PM2.5 Transport
proposal, this might have untoward interstate impacts of these emissions Some commenters questioned the
environmental or health consequences. through zero-out modeling, as was done EPA’s basis for requiring emissions
Some commenters highlighted for SO2 and NOX emissions. reductions of NOX, in addition to SO2,
ammonia as an important pollutant with In addition, the costs of control for the purposes of controlling interstate
multiple effects on the environment, measures, their effectiveness at reducing transport of PM2.5. These comments, and
including its contributions to PM2.5. emissions, as well as their ultimate EPA’s response, are discussed below.
These commenters highlighted that effectiveness at reducing PM2.5 Other comments addressing EPA’s basis
ammonia emissions are not currently concentrations at downwind receptors for requiring NOX for ozone are
regulated extensively, and suggested are all uncertain. The EPA does not addressed in a subsequent section.
that EPA strengthen its efforts to better believe it could reasonably evaluate
Like SO2, NOX emissions are
understand the many effects of whether such State emissions
understood to affect PM2.5 on regional
ammonia emissions and better research contributed significantly to transport, or
scales, due in part to the time needed to
options for controlling ammonia, so that what level of control would address the
convert NOX emissions to nitrate. Like
it can be regulated where appropriate in significant contribution. Commenters
SO2 but unlike precursors of other
the future programs. Generally, EPA have not provided us specific data and
components of PM2.5, emissions of NOX
agrees with these commenters. information to allow such assessments.
The EPA also disagrees with are well quantified for EGUs and with
(iii) Crustal Material commenters who argue that EPA reasonable accuracy for other urban and
The contributions of crustal materials should, for the purposes of this rule, regional sources, and the transport of
to PM2.5 nonattainment are usually permit the States to substitute controls NOX and PM2.5 derived from NOX can
small, and the interstate transport of of sources of any of these other three also be quantified with a fair degree of
crustal materials is even smaller. components for the required limits on certainty. In addition, SO2 and NOX
Emissions of crustal materials on SO2 and NOX. Given the greater interact as part of the same chemical
regional scales are uncertain, highly uncertainties in estimating the system in the atmosphere. Controlling
variable in space and time, and may not contribution of alternative source SO2 emissions without concurrently
be easily controlled in some cases, emissions, States would have difficulty controlling NOX emissions can lead to
suggesting significant uncertainties in developing, and EPA would have nitrate replacement whereby SO2
quantifying emissions and the costs and difficulty in approving, SIPs that, by emissions reductions will be less
effectiveness of control actions. controlling these components, purport effective than expected. Finally, SO2
Emissions reductions of SO2 and NOX to reduce an upwind State’s impact on and NOX share common sources in
will likely reduce some of the direct downwind PM2.5 nonattainment by an fossil fuel combustion. As such,
emissions of PM2.5 from EGUs and other equivalent amount to that required in controlling emissions of both precursors
industries, which are responsible for a today’s final rule. in a coordinated way presents
portion of the ‘‘crustal material’’ As explained in the proposal, a opportunities to reduce the overall cost
measured downwind at receptors. decision not to regulate these of the control program.25
components of PM2.5 in the present Commenters questioned EPA’s
(c) Summary of Response To Requiring methodology of evaluating whether an
rulemaking does not preclude state or
or Allowing Reductions in Other upwind State contributes significantly
local PM2.5 implementation plans from
Pollutants to PM2.5 nonattainment by considering
reducing emissions of carbonaceous
After reviewing public comments in material, ammonia, or crustal material, (through the ‘‘zero-out’’ air quality
light of the current understanding of in order to achieve attainment with modeling technique) SO2 and NOX
alternative pollutants as summarized PM2.5 standards, in cases where there is emissions simultaneously. These
above, EPA disagrees with those evidence that such controls will be commenters argued that zeroing out SO2
commenters who suggested that the effective on a local basis. Although and NOX emissions simultaneously
final Clean Air Interstate Rule should uncertainties exist in addressing long- precludes determining the contribution
require states to address the interstate range transport of these pollutants, state of each component to downwind
transport of carbonaceous material and local air quality management nonattainment. Because sulfates
(including VOCs), ammonia, and/or agencies will need to evaluate generally comprise a greater fraction of
crustal material in the present reasonable control measures for sources PM2.5 than nitrates in the Eastern U.S.,
rulemaking. of these pollutants in developing SIPs these commenters argued that the basis
At present, the sources and emissions due in 2008. We expect continuous for requiring NOX controls is weaker
contributing to these components on improvements will be made in our than for SO2, and has not been
regional scales are not sufficiently understanding of source emissions and determined directly by EPA.
quantified. In addition, the
representation of atmospheric physics 24 EPA OAQPS CMAQ Evaluation for 2001 25 NARSTO, Particulate Matter Science for Policy
and chemistry for these components in Docket # OAR–2003–0053–1716. Makers—A NARSTO Assessment, February 2003.
The EPA’s multi-pollutant approach multi-state region. Accordingly, EPA PM2.5 nonattainment, but improving
of modeling SO2 and NOX contributions considers that the phenomenon of public health, reducing regional haze,
at the same time is consistent both with ‘‘collective contribution’’ is associated and addressing multimedia
sound science and with the with PM2.5 as well. environmental concerns including acid
requirements of CAA section In the CAIR NPR, EPA selected SO2 deposition and nutrient loadings in
110(a)(2)(D), as EPA interpreted and and NOX as the appropriate precursors sensitive coastal estuaries in the East.27
applied them in the NOX SIP Call. This to be controlled for PM2.5 transport, for Some commenters argued that the
provision requires each State to submit several reasons presented above. As in benefits of combining NOX with SO2
a SIP to prohibit ‘‘any source or other the NOX SIP Call, today’s rulemaking, reductions, if any, would be small, and
type of emissions activity within the under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D), further argued that the effect of any
State from emitting any air pollutant in requires EPA to evaluate whether a nitrate reductions in the environment
amounts which will * * * contribute particular upwind State must submit a would be further diminished by
significantly to nonattainment’’ SIP that prohibits ‘‘any source or other measurement losses that can occur in
downwind. As discussed in section II type of emissions activity within the the filter in the method used to measure
above, in the NOX SIP Call, a State from emitting any air pollutant in PM2.5. In so doing, they questioned the
rulemaking in which EPA regulated amounts which will * * * contribute scientific basis for nitrate replacement,
NOX emissions as precursors for ozone, significantly to nonattainment’’ suggesting that this response to changes
EPA found that ozone resulted from the downwind. In making this in SO2 emissions may not happen in all
combined contributions of many determination, EPA considers the effects places and at all times. The commenters
emitters over a multistate region, a of all of the appropriate precursors— referenced a study in the Southeastern
phenomenon that EPA termed here, both SO2 and NOX—from all of the U.S. by Blanchard and Hidy,28 which
‘‘collective contribution’’ (63 FR 57356– State’s sources on downwind PM2.5 they claim calls into question whether
86). As a result, EPA evaluated each nonattainment. If that collective nitrate replacement actually occurs. In
State’s contribution to nonattainment contribution to downwind PM2.5 fact, the study finds evidence that
downwind by considering the impact of nonattainment is sufficiently high, then nitrate replacement occurs: ‘‘the sulfate
the entirety of that State’s NOX EPA requires the upwind State to decreases were an input to the model
emissions on downwind nonattainment. eliminate those precursors to the extent calculations, but their effect on fine PM
Once EPA determined the State’s entire of the availability of highly cost- mass was modified by concomitant
NOX emissions inventory to have at effective controls. decreases in ammonium and increases
least a minimum downwind impact, The EPA’s approach to evaluating a in nitrate.’’ A second study by the same
then EPA required the State to eliminate State’s impact on downwind authors, using essentially the same
the portion of those emissions that nonattainment by considering the dataset and methods, and referenced
could be reduced through highly cost- entirety of the State’s SO2 and NOX both by EPA in the NPR and by the
effective controls. The EPA considered emissions is also consistent with the commenters, gives very strong support
this approach to be consistent with the chemical interactions in the atmosphere for the existence of nitrate replacement,
section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements. of SO2 and NOX in forming PM2.5. The as well as for coordinating SO2 and NOX
In a companion rulemaking, the contributions of SO2 and NOX emissions reductions, as indicated by the
section 126 Rule, EPA found that are generally not additive, but rather are following conclusions: ‘‘reductions in
certain, individual NOX emitters must interrelated due to the nitrate sulfate through SO2 reduction at
be subject to Federal regulation due to replacement phenomenon, as well as constant NOX levels would not result in
their impact on downwind other complex chemical reactions that proportional reduction in PM2.5 mass
nonattainment (65 FR 2674). The EPA can include organic compounds as well. because particulate nitrate
based this finding on the same notion of As commenters point out, the nature of concentrations would increase.
‘‘collective contribution,’’ that is, NOX these reactions can vary with location However, if both NOX and SO2
emissions from those individual sources and time. The non-linear nature of some emissions are reduced, then it may be
were part of the upwind State’s total of these reactions can produce differing possible to achieve sulfate reductions
NOX inventory, the total NOX inventory results depending on the relative without concomitant nitrate increases
had a sufficiently high impact on amount of reductions and copollutants. * * *’’ 29
downwind nonattainment, and therefore Reductions in sulfates can increase Nitrate replacement is well
the individual NOX emitters should be nitrates and, in some conditions, modest documented in the scientific literature
subject to control without any separate reductions in nitrates can increase as a possible response of PM2.5 to
determination as to their individual sulfates although through different changes in SO2 emissions.30 While these
impacts on downwind nonattainment. mechanisms. Large regional reductions commenters are correct that nitrate
The DC Circuit accepted EPA’s in both pollutants, however, are more replacement is not expected to occur at
collective contribution approach likely to result in a significant all places and at all times, even where
upholding most of the NOX SIP Call reductions in fine particles.26 average conditions are not favorable for
regulation, in Michigan v. EPA, 213 F.3d Based on its current understanding of
663 (DC Cir. 2000), cert. denied 532 U.S. regional air pollution and modeling 27 ‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final
904 (2001). Similarly, the DC Circuit results, EPA believes that adopting a Clean Air Interstate Rule (March 2005).’’
upheld most aspects of EPA’s Section broad new program of regional controls 28 Blanchard, C.L., and G.M. Hidy (2004) Effects
126 Rule, including the collective of projected utility SO2 and NOX emission
to continue the downward trajectory in reductions on particulate nitrate and PM2.5 mass
contribution basis for finding that both SOX and NOX begun in base concentrations in the Southeastern United States,
emissions from the individual sources programs such as the national mobile Report to Southern Company. See CAIR docket.
should be subject to regulation. source rules and Title IV, as well as the 29 Blanchard C.L., and G.M. Hidy (2003). Effects
Appalachian Power Co. v. EPA, 249 of changes in sulfate, ammonia, and nitric acid on
NOX SIP call, will ultimately result in particulate nitrate concentrations in the
F.3d 1032 (DC Cir. 2001) (per curium). significant benefits not only in reducing Southeastern United States, J. Air & Waste Manage.
As discussed elsewhere, PM2.5 is Assoc., 53: 283–290.
similar to ozone in that it is the result 26 NARSTO, Particulate Matter Science for Policy 30 NARSTO, Particulate Matter Science for Policy
of emissions from many sources over a Makers—A NARSTO Assessment, February 2003. Makers—A NARSTO Assessment, February 2003.
nitrate replacement, hourly variability pollutants that affect PM2.5, for the generally more cost-effective. Generally,
in those conditions can create reasons presented here and in the EPA agrees with these commenters.
conditions favorable for nitrate proposal. That is, in today’s action, EPA Other commenters were critical of the
replacement at particular times. Nitrate is requiring states to take steps to local measures analysis, and
replacement theory predicts no control emissions of SO2 and NOX on recommended that EPA should consider
conditions under which SO2 reductions the basis of their contributions to
a more appropriate mix of regional and
would decrease nitrate, and suggests nonattainment of PM2.5 standards in
that nitrate may increase under fairly local controls before requiring
downwind states. The EPA concludes
common conditions.31 Consequently, that we do not now have a sufficient substantial expenditures for controls on
the net effect of SO2 reductions can be basis for including emissions of other power plants or other regional sources
only to increase nitrate or not to have components (carbonaceous material, potentially affected by this rule. These
any effect. The variability of conditions ammonia, and crustal material) that commenters believed that the proposed
occurring over a year means that SO2 contribute to PM2.5 in determining rule did not represent the optimal
reductions would be expected to significant contributions and in emissions reduction strategy. Other
increase nitrate on balance. requiring emission reductions of these commenters believed that the local
Even if the studies referenced by these components. measures analysis underestimated the
commenters showed that nitrate achievable local emissions reductions.
replacement does not occur in some 2. What Is the Role for Local Emissions Some commenters believed that EPA
circumstances, other studies suggest Reduction Strategies?
should include local control measures
that the conditions for nitrate a. Summary of Analyses and in the baseline scenario for the analysis.
replacement are common in the Eastern Conclusions in the Proposal Finally, some commenters questioned
U.S.32 Suggesting that nitrate the feasibility of doing a local measures
replacement does not occur under some In section IV.F of the proposed rule,
we discussed two analyses that were analysis at all, given the uncertainties in
conditions does not imply that NOX
completed to address the impact of local the analysis, the uncertainties regarding
should not be controlled, when it is
control measures relative to regional nonattainment boundaries, and the
known that nitrate replacement occurs
under other common conditions. reductions of SO2 and NOX (69 FR work to be done by State and local areas
The EPA recognizes that the relative 4596–99). In the first analysis, we to identify and evaluate strategies.
reductions in PM2.5 from applied a list of readily identifiable The EPA continues to conclude that it
implementation of the CAIR will be control measures (NPR, Table IV–5) in would be difficult if not impossible for
greater for SO2 than for NOX. the Philadelphia, Birmingham, and many nonattainment areas to reach
Nevertheless, overall costs for reducing Chicago urban primary metropolitan attainment through local measures
NOX in the CAIR region are much lower statistical areas (PMSA) counties. In the
alone, and EPA finds no information in
than SO2 because a large portion of the second analysis, we applied a similar
the comments to alter this conclusion.
region has already installed NOX list of control measures to 290 counties
While recognizing the uncertainties in
controls for ozone in the summer representing the metropolitan areas we
projected to contain any nonattainment conducting such an analysis (as noted in
months. Our revised modeling the preamble to the proposed rule), we
approaches took into account the county in 2010 in the baseline scenario.
The three-city analysis estimated that continue to believe that the two local
differences commenters note between
these local measures would result in measures scenarios represent a highly
actual nitrate concentrations in the
atmosphere and what is measured as ambient PM2.5 reductions of about 0.5 ambitious set of measures and emissions
PM2.5. Nevertheless emissions of both µg/m3 to about 0.9 µg/m3, which is less reductions that may in fact be difficult
pollutants clearly contribute to than needed to bring any of the cities to achieve in practice. This analysis was
interstate transport of ambient fine into attainment in 2010. The 290-county not intended to precisely identify local
particles, and EPA concludes that the study, which included enough counties measures that may be available in a
best approach in this situation is to to produce regional as well as local particular area. The EPA believes that a
provide highly cost effective reductions reductions, found that while some of the strategy based on adopting highly cost
for both pollutants. Moreover, in 2010 nonattainment areas would be effective controls on transported
warmer conditions when apparent projected to attain, many would not. pollutants as a first step would produce
nitrate changes from NOX reductions as Moreover, much of the PM2.5 reduction a more reasonable, equitable, and
measured on PM2.5 monitors are small, in the 290-county study resulted from optimal strategy than one beginning
the actual reductions in particulate and assuming reduction in sulfates due to with local controls. The local measures
gaseous nitrates in the ambient SO2 reductions on utility boilers in the analyses we conducted were not,
environment are larger; accordingly, urban counties. Accordingly, we however, intended to develop a specific
NOX reductions combined with SO2 concluded that for a sizable number of or ‘‘optimal’’ regional and local
reductions can be expected to reduce PM2.5 nonattainment areas it will be attainment strategy for any given area.
health risk, visibility impairment, and difficult if not impossible to reach Rather, the analysis was intended to
other environmental damages. attainment unless transport is reduced evaluate whether, in light of available
to a much greater degree than by the
c. What Is EPA’s Final Determination? local measures, it is likely to be
simultaneous adoption of controls
After considering the public necessary to reduce significant regional
within only the nonattainment areas.
comments, EPA concludes that it should transport from upwind states. We
adopt the approach it proposed for b. Summary and Response to Public continue to believe that the two local
addressing interstate transport of Comments measures analyses that were conducted
A number of commenters supported for the proposal rule strongly support
31 Ibid.
EPA’s conclusion that regional the need for regional reductions of SO2
32 For example, West, J.J., A.S. Ansari, and S.N.
reductions are necessary given the and NOX.
Pandis (1999) Marginal PM2.5, nonlinear aerosol
mass response to sulfate reductions in the Eastern difficulty in achieving local emission
U.S., J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc., 49: 1415–1424. reductions, and given that they are
B. What Is the Basis for EPA’s Decision pollutants formed through atmospheric The EPA proposed to reaffirm this
To Require Reductions in Upwind reactions over large regions. The most conclusion in this rulemaking, and
Emissions of NOX To Address Ozone- recent authoritative assessments of proposed to address only NOX
Related Transport? ozone control approaches 33, 34 have emissions for the purpose of reducing
concluded that, for reducing regional interstate ozone transport.
1. How Did EPA Determine Which Some commenters suggested that in
Pollutants Were Necessary To Control scale ozone transport, a NOX control
strategy would be most effective, this rulemaking EPA should require
To Address Interstate Transport for regional reductions in VOC emissions as
Ozone? whereas VOC reductions are most
effective in more dense urbanized areas. well as NOX emissions in this
In the notice of proposed rulemaking, Studies conducted in the 1970s rulemaking.38 The EPA continues to
EPA provided the following established that ozone occurs on a believe based on the OTAG and
characterization of the origin and regional scale (i.e., 1000s of kilometers) NARSTO reports cited earlier, and the
distribution of 8-hour ozone air quality over much of the Eastern U.S., with modeling completed as part of the
problems: elevated concentrations occurring in analysis for this rule, that NOX
The ozone present at ground level as rural as well as metropolitan areas.35, 36 emissions are chiefly responsible for
a principal component of While progress has been made in regional ozone transport, and that NOX
photochemical smog is formed in sunlit reducing ozone in many urban areas, the reductions will be most effective in
conditions through atmospheric Eastern U.S. continues to experience reducing regional ozone transport. This
reactions of two main classes of elevated regional scale ozone episodes understanding was considered an
precursor compound: VOCs and NOX in the extended summer ozone season. adequate basis for controlling NOX
(mainly NO and NO2). The term ‘‘VOC’’ emissions for ozone transport in the
Regional 8-hour ozone levels are
includes many classes of compounds NOX SIP call, and was upheld by the
highest in the Northeast and Mid-
that possess a wide range of chemical courts. As a result, EPA is requiring
Atlantic areas with peak 2002 (3-year
properties and atmospheric lifetimes, NOX reductions and not VOC reductions
average of the 4th highest value for all
which helps determine their relative in this rulemaking.
sites in the region) ranging from 0.097
importance in forming ozone. Sources of However, EPA agrees, that VOCs from
to 0.099 parts per million (ppm).37 The
VOCs include man-made sources such some upwind States do indeed have an
Midwest and Southeast States have
as motor vehicles, chemical plants, impact in nearby downwind States,
refineries, and many consumer slightly lower peak values (but still
above the 8-hour standard in many particularly over short transport
products, but also natural emissions distances. The EPA expects that States
from vegetation. Nitrogen oxides are urban areas) with 2002 regional averages
ranging from 0.083 to 0.090 ppm. will need to examine the extent to
emitted by motor vehicles, power which VOC emissions affect ozone
plants, and other combustion sources, Regional-scale ozone levels in other
regions of the country are generally pollution levels across State lines, and
with lesser amounts from natural identify areas where multi-state VOC
processes including lightning and soils. lower, with 2002 regional averages
ranging from 0.059 to 0.082 ppm. strategies might assist in meeting the 8-
Key aspects of current and projected hour standard, in planning for
inventories for NOX and VOC are Nevertheless, some of the highest urban
8-hour ozone levels in the nation occur attainment. This does not alter the basis
summarized in section IV of the for the CAIR ozone requirements in this
proposal notice and EPA websites (e.g., in southern and central California and
the Houston area. rule; EPA’s modeling supports the
http://www.w.gov/ttn/chief.) The conclusion that NOX emissions from
relative importance of NOX and VOC in In the notice of proposed rulemaking,
EPA noted that we continue to rely on upwind states will significantly
ozone formation and control varies with contribute to downwind nonattainment
local- and time-specific factors, the assessment of ozone transport made
in great depth by the OTAG in the mid- and interfere with maintenance of the 8-
including the relative amounts of VOC hour ozone standard.
and NOX present. In rural areas with 1990s. As indicated in the NOX SIP call
high concentrations of VOC from proposal, the OTAG Regional and Urban 2. How Did EPA Determine That
biogenic sources, ozone formation and Scale Modeling and Air Quality Reductions in Interstate Transport, as
control is governed by NOX. In some Analysis Work Groups reached the Well as Reductions in Local Emissions,
urban core situations, NOX following conclusions: Are Warranted To Help Ozone
concentrations can be high enough A. Regional NOX emissions Nonattainment Areas To Meet the
relative to VOC to suppress ozone reductions are effective in producing 8-Hour Ozone Standard?
formation locally, but still contribute to ozone benefits; the more NOX reduced, a. What Did EPA Say in Its Proposal
increased ozone downwind from the the greater the benefit. Notice?
city. In such situations, VOC reductions B. Controls for VOC are effective in
are most effective at reducing ozone reducing ozone locally and are most In the NPR, EPA noted that the
within the urban environment and advantageous to urban nonattainment Agency promulgated the NOX SIP call in
immediately downwind. areas. (62 FR 60320, November 7, 1997). 1998 to address interstate ozone
The formation of ozone increases with transport problems in the Eastern U.S.
temperature and sunlight, which is one 33 Ozone Transport Assessment Group, OTAG The EPA noted that it made sense to re-
reason ozone levels are higher during Final Report, 1997. evaluate whether the NOX SIP call was
the summer. Increased temperature
34 NARSTO, An Assessment of Tropospheric adequate at the same time that the
Ozone Pollution—A North American Perspective, Agency was assessing the need for
increases emissions of volatile man- July 2000.
made and biogenic organics and can 35 National Research Council, Rethinking the
emissions reductions to address
indirectly increase NOX as well (e.g., Ozone Problem in Urban and Regional Air interstate PM2.5 problems because of
increased electricity generation for air Pollution, 1991. overlap in the pollutants and relevant
36 NARSTO, An Assessment of Tropospheric
conditioning). Summertime conditions
Ozone Pollution—A North American Perspective, 38 Other commenters confirmed that the control of
also bring increased episodes of large- July 2000. NOX emissions is critical for interstate ozone
scale stagnation, which promote the 37 U.S. EPA, Latest Findings on National Air transport, and supported EPA’s decision not to
build-up of direct emissions and Quality, August 2003. include VOC emissions in this rule.
sources, and the timetables for States to areas, and that further regional contribution of 24 percent or more of
submit local attainment plans. The EPA reductions are warranted. the ambient ozone concentrations, and
presented a new analysis of the extent (2) that 16 of 38 counties are projected
b. What Did Commenters Say?
of residual 8-hour ozone attainment to have a transport contribution of more
projected to remain in 2010, and the The Need for Reductions in Interstate than 50 percent.
extent and severity of interstate Ozone Transport: Some commenters In addition, EPA received multiple
pollution transport contributing to argued that EPA should not conduct comments from State associations and
downwind nonattainment in that year. another rulemaking to control interstate individual States strongly agreeing that
The proposal notice said that based contributions to ozone because local further reductions in interstate ozone
on a multi-part assessment, EPA had contributions in nonattainment regions transport are warranted to promote
concluded that: appear, according to the commenters, to attainment with the 8-hour standard, to
• ‘‘Without adoption of additional have larger impacts than regional NOX protect public health, and to address
emissions controls, a substantial emissions. The commenters cited EPA’s equity concerns of downwind states
number of urban areas in the central and sensitivity modeling of hypothetical 25 affected by transport. For example,
eastern regions of the U.S. will continue percent reductions as supporting this comments from the Maryland
to have levels of 8-hour ozone that do view. Department of the Environment stated,
not meet the national air quality The EPA disagrees that comparing the
‘‘Our 15 year partnership with
standards. sensitivity modeling and the CAIR
researchers from the University of
• * * * EPA has concluded that control modeling is a valid way to
Maryland has produced data that shows
small contributions of pollution compare the effectiveness of local and
on many summer days the ozone levels
transport to downwind nonattainment regional controls. The two scenarios do
floating into Maryland area are already
areas should be considered significant not reduce emissions by equal tonnage
amounts, equal percentages of the at 80 to 90 percent of the 1-hour ozone
from an air quality standpoint, because
inventory, or equal cost. These scenarios standard and actually exceed the new 8-
these contributions could prevent or
therefore do not support an assessment hour ozone standard before any
delay downwind areas from achieving
the standards. of the relative effectiveness of local and Maryland emissions are added. * * *
• * * * EPA has concluded that regional controls. While EPA in general Serious help is needed from EPA and
interstate transport is a major agrees that emissions reductions in a neighboring states to solve Maryland’s
contributor to the projected (8-hour nonattainment area will have a greater air pollution problems. * * * Local
ozone) nonattainment problem in the effect on ozone levels in that area than reductions alone will not clean up
eastern U.S. in 2010. * * * (T)he similar reductions a long distance away, Maryland’s air.’’ The comments of the
nonattainment areas analyzed receive a EPA does not agree that the modeling Ozone Transport Commission stated
transport contribution of more than 20 supports the conclusion that all that even after levels of control
percent of the ambient ozone additional controls to promote envisioned by EPA in 2010 (under the
concentrations, and 21 of 47 had a attainment with the 8-hour standard Clear Skies Act), interstate transport
transport contribution of more than 50 should be local. The level of reduction from other states would continue to
percent. assumed was a hypothetical level, not a affect the Ozone Transport Region
• Typically, two or more States level determined to be reasonable cost created by the CAA (Connecticut,
contribute transported pollution to a nor a mandated level of reduction. The Delaware, the District of Columbia,
single downwind area, so that the commenters provided no evidence that Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New
‘‘collective contribution’’ is much larger reasonable local controls alone would Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
than the contribution of any single result in attainment throughout the East. Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont,
State. However, EPA did receive comments and Virginia). ‘‘Our modeling
Also, EPA concluded that highly cost- that such a level would result in costly demonstrates that even in the extreme
effective reductions in NOX emissions controls and might not be feasible in example of zero anthropogenic
were available within the eastern region some areas that have previously emissions within the OTR (Ozone
where it determined interstate transport imposed substantial controls. Transport Region), 145 of 146 monitors
was occurring, and that requiring those The EPA believes it is clear that show a significant (>25%) increment of
highly cost effective reductions would further reductions in emissions the 8-hour standard taken up by
reduce ozone in downwind contributing to interstate ozone transport from outside the OTR.’’
nonattainment areas. transport, beyond those required by the Comments from the North Carolina
In addition, the proposal examined NOX SIP Call, are warranted to promote Department of Environment and Natural
the effect of hypothetical across-the- attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard Resources stated, ‘‘The reductions
board emissions reductions in in the eastern U.S. As explained proposed in [EPA’s rule] in the other
nonattainment areas. The notice stated elsewhere in this final rule, EPA states are needed to ensure that North
that EPA had conducted a preliminary analyzed interstate transport remaining Carolina can attain and maintain the
scoping analysis in which hypothetical after the NOX SIP Call, and health-based air quality standards for
total NOX and VOC emissions determined—considering both the * * * 8-hour ozone.’’
reductions of 25 percent were applied in impact of interstate transport on Magnitude of Ozone Reductions
all projected nonattainment areas east of downwind nonattainment, and the Achieved: Commenters stated that NOX
the continental divide in 2010, yet potential for highly cost effective reductions should not be pursued
approximately 8 areas were projected to reductions in upwind States—that 25 because the 8-hour ozone reductions in
have ozone levels exceeding the 8-hour States significantly contribute to 8-hour projected nonattainment counties
standard. Based on experience with ozone nonattainment downwind. The resulting from the required NOX
state plans for meeting the one-hour importance of transport is illustrated, as reductions are too small—1–2 ppb in
ozone standard, EPA said this scenario mentioned above, by EPA’s findings for only certain areas. According to
was an indication that attaining the 8- the final rule that (1) all the 2010 commenters, these benefits are smaller
hour standard will entail substantial nonattainment counties analyzed were than the threshold for determining
cost in a number of nonattainment projected to receive a transport significant contribution.
The EPA disagrees with the notion impacts on terrestrial and wetland for reductions beyond those required by
that if air quality improvements would systems such as changes in species the NOX SIP Call in order for upwind
be limited, then nothing further should composition and diversity. states to be in compliance with section
be done to address interstate transport. EPA’s Authority To Require Controls 110(a)(2)(D). The EPA thus disagrees
Based on the difference between the Beyond the NOX SIP Call: Commenters with commenters’ assertions that the
base case and CAIR control case emphasized that in the NO X SIP Call, provisions of section 110(a)(2)(D)
modeling results, EPA has concluded EPA determined the States whose prevent EPA from conducting further
that interstate air quality impacts are emissions contribute significantly to evaluation of upwind contributions to
significant from an air quality nonattainment, EPA mandated NOX downwind nonattainment at this time.
standpoint, and that highly cost emissions reductions that would The EPA also notes that the NOX SIP
effective reductions are available to eliminate those significant Call, a 1998 rulemaking, promulgated a
reduce ozone transport. State comments contributions, and EPA indicated that it set of requirements intended to
have corroborated EPA’s conclusion that would reconsider the matter in 2007. eliminate significant contribution to
a number of areas will face high local This commenter argued that for the downwind ozone nonattainment at the
control costs, or even be unable to attain States included in the NOX SIP Call, time of implementation, which EPA
the 8-hour ozone standard, without EPA may not, as a legal matter, conduct identified on the basis of modeling for
further reductions in interstate further rulemaking at this time because the year 2007 (although implementation
transport. Therefore, EPA believes it is the affected States are no longer was required to occur several years
important for upwind states to modify contributing significantly to earlier). In today’s action, EPA is
their SIPs so that they contain adequate nonattainment downwind. In any event, reviewing the transport component of 8-
provisions to prohibit significant the commenters said, EPA should abide hour ozone nonattainment for the
contributions to downwind by its statement that it would revisit the period beginning in 2010, consistent
nonattainment or interference with matter in 2007, and EPA should not do with the criteria in the NOX SIP Call as
maintenance as the statute requires. The so earlier. applied to present circumstances,
EPA has established an amount of Sound policy considerations support concluding that even with
required emissions reductions based on re-examining interstate ozone transport implementation of the NOX SIP Call
controls that are highly cost effective. at this time. At the time of the NOX SIP controls, upwind States will contribute
The resulting improvements in Call, EPA anticipated reassessing in significantly to downwind ozone
downwind ozone levels are needed for 2007 the need for additional reductions nonattainment and interfere with
attainment, public health and equity in emissions that contribute to interstate maintenance at a point after 2007. No
reasons. transport, but EPA has accelerated that provision of the CAA prohibits this
The 2 ppb significance threshold that date in light of various circumstances, action.
commenters cite is part of the test that including the fact that we are
undertaking similar action with the Commenters added that the purpose
EPA used to identify which States
PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, in light of of the CAIR rulemaking seemed to be to
should be evaluated for inclusion in a
overlap in the pollutants, States, and account for the fact that control costs
rule requiring them to reduce emissions
sources likely to be affected, it is have changed since the date of the NOX
to reduce interstate transport. (See
prudent to coordinate action under the SIP Call. The commenters said that
section VI.) This 2 ppb threshold is
8-hour ozone standard. The EPA notes control costs will frequently fluctuate,
based on the impact on a downwind
area of eliminating all emissions in an that evaluating PM2.5 transport and but that such fluctuations should not
upwind State. The ozone reductions ozone transport together at this time merit revised rulemaking.
from CAIR will improve public health will enable States to consider the In response, we would note that EPA
and will decrease the extent and cost of resulting rules in devising their PM2.5 conducted an updated analysis for air
local controls needed for attainment in and 8-hour ozone attainment plans, and quality impacts, not only costs, in
some areas. In addition, base case will enable States and sources to plan determining that further reductions in
modeling for this rule shows that of the emissions reductions knowing their interstate ozone transport are warranted.
40 counties projected in nonattainment transport-related reduction That air quality analysis showed a
in 2010, 16 counties are within 2 ppb requirements for both standards. substantial, continuing interstate
of the standard, 6 counties are within 3 CAA section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that transport problem for areas after
ppb, and 3 counties are within 4 ppb. State SIPs contain ‘‘adequate implementation of the NOX SIP Call.
In 2015, projected base case ozone provisions’’ prohibiting emissions that The EPA does have the legal authority
concentrations in over 70 percent of significantly contribute to to reconsider the scope of the area that
nonattaining counties (i.e., 16 of 22 nonattainment areas in, or interfere with significantly contributes and the level of
counties) are within 5 ppb of the maintenance by, other States. Over time, control determined to be ‘‘highly cost-
standard. emissions of ozone precursors, the effective’’ based on new information.
Reducing NOX emissions has multiple (projected) non-attainment status of Updated information shows that lower
health and environmental benefits. receptors, the modeling tools that EPA NOX burners and SCR achieve better
Controlling NOX reduces interstate and the states use to conduct their performance than previously estimated
transport of fine particle levels as well analyses, the data available to the states and as a result are more cost effective
as ozone levels, as discussed elsewhere or EPA and other analytic tools or than previously anticipated. This rule
in this notice. Although EPA is not conditions may change. The EPA has follows the NOX SIP Call by six years;
relying on other benefits for purposes conducted an updated analysis of EPA does not believe that this
for setting requirements in this rule, upwind contribution to downwind represents a too-frequent re-evaluation,
reducing NOX emissions also helps to nonattainment of 8-hour ozone particularly given the stay of the 8-hour
reduce unhealthy ozone and PM levels nonattainment areas after the NOX SIP basis for the NOX SIP Call (See, e.g.,
within a State, as well as reduce acid Call, including updated emissions CAA section 109(d)(1) requiring EPA to
deposition to soils and surface waters, projections, updated air quality reevaluate the NAAQS themselves every
eutrophication of surface and coastal modeling, and updated analysis of five years.) So both updated air quality
waters, visibility degradation, and control costs. This has revealed a need and cost information supports further
NOX controls to reduce interstate States would have exceeded our required) in each area in advance of
transport. significant contribution thresholds. final implementation rules interpreting
Some commenters argued that EPA We reject any notion that in the Act’s requirements for PM2.5 and 8-
should delay imposing control determining the need for transport hour ozone, and before the state
obligations on upwind States for the 8- controls in upwind states, EPA should implementation plan process. Subpart 2
hour ozone NAAQS until after EPA has assume that the affected downwind provisions that apply to certain ozone
implemented local control areas must ‘‘go all the way first’’—that nonattainment areas are quite specific
requirements, and after all of the NOX is, assume that downwind areas put on regarding some mandatory measures; we
SIP Call control requirements are local in-state controls sufficient to reach believe the CAIR baseline for the most
implemented and evaluated. Others said attainment, or assume that downwind part captures these measures. (See
EPA should not impose requirements on states with nonattainment areas Response to Comments document in the
non-SIP-Call States until after all 8-hour implement statewide control measures. docket.) As noted above, the choice of
controls—NOX SIP Call and local—are The EPA does not believe these are a single analytical year of 2010 was
implemented. appropriate assumptions. The former made to reflect baseline conditions at a
We agree that the NOX SIP Call assumption would eviscerate the date at or near the attainment dates for
should be taken into account in meaning of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D). different pollutants and classes of areas.
evaluating the need for further interstate The latter assumption would make the Because the attainment date for many
transport controls. We have taken the downwind state solely responsible for ozone areas is 2009 or earlier, it should
NOX SIP Call into account by including reductions in any case where a be noted that the analyses in 2010 may
the effect of the NOX SIP Call in the base downwind state could attain through in- slightly overestimate the benefits of a
case used for the CAIR analysis, and by state controls alone, even if the upwind number of national rules for mobile
conducting analyses to confirm that state contribution was significantly sources that grow with time. As noted
CAIR will achieve greater ozone-season contributing to nonattainment problems elsewhere, these differences are unlikely
reductions than the SIP Call. The EPA in the downwind state. We do not to be significant.
disagrees that the Agency should wait believe that this approach would be
for implementation of local controls consistent with the intent of section D. What Criteria Should Be Used To
before determining transport controls. 110(a)(2)(D), which in part is to hold Determine Which States Are Subject to
There is no legal requirement that EPA upwind states responsible for an This Rule Because They Contribute to
wait to determine transport controls appropriate share of downwind PM2.5 Nonattainment?
until after local controls are nonattainment and maintenance 1. What Is the Appropriate Metric for
implemented. The EPA’s basis for this problems, and to prevent scenarios in Assessing Downwind PM2.5
legal interpretation is explained in which downwind states must impose Contribution?
section II.A. above. In addition, the costly extra controls to compensate for
a. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Agency believes it is important to significant pollution contributions from
address interstate transport uncontrolled or poorly controlled In the NPR, we proposed as the metric
expeditiously for public health. sources in upwind states. In addition, for identifying a State as significantly
this approach could raise costs of contributing (depending upon further
C. Comments on Excluding Future Case consideration of costs) to downwind
Measures From the Emissions Baselines meeting air quality standards because
highly cost effective controls in upwind nonattainment, the predicted change,
Used To Estimate Downwind Ambient due to the upwind State’s emissions, in
Contribution States would be foregone.
Rather, in the particular PM2.5 concentration in the downwind
The EPA received comments that the circumstances presented here, we think nonattainment area that receives the
2010 analytical baseline for evaluating the adoption of regional controls at this largest ambient impact. The EPA
whether upwind emissions meet the air time under section 110(a)(2)(D) is proposed this metric in the form of a
quality portion of the ‘‘contribute consistent with sound policy and range of alternatives for a ‘‘bright line,’’
significantly’’ standard should reflect section 110. Based on our analysis, the that is, ambient impacts at or greater
local control measures that will be states covered by CAIR make a than the chosen threshold level
required in the downwind significant contribution to downwind indicated that the upwind State’s
nonattainment areas, or broader nonattainment and the required emissions do contribute significantly
statewide measures in downwind states, reductions are highly cost effective. The (depending on cost considerations), and
to attain the PM2.5 or 8-hour ozone reductions will reduce regional that ambient impacts below the
NAAQS by the relevant attainment pollution problems affecting multiple threshold mean that the upwind State’s
dates, many of which are (or are downwind areas, will make it possible emissions do not contribute
anticipated to be) 2010 or earlier. This for States to determine the extent of significantly to nonattainment. As
single target year was chosen both to local control needed knowing the detailed in section VI below, EPA
address analytical tool constraints and reductions in interstate pollution that conducted the analysis through air
to reasonably reflect future conditions are required, will address interstate quality modeling that removed the
in or near the initial attainment years for equity issues that can hamper control upwind State’s anthropogenic SO2 and
both ozone and PM nonattainment efforts in downwind States, and reflect NOX emissions, and determined the
areas. The EPA did include in the considerations discussed in detail in difference in downwind ambient PM2.5
baseline most of the specifically section VII. levels before and after removal. The
required measures that can be identified Although some commenters modeling results indicate a wide range
at this time, but did not include any advocated specifically including of maximum downwind nonattainment
further measures that would be needed statutorily mandated future impacts from the 37 States that we
for satisfying ‘‘rate of progress’’ nonattainment area controls in the evaluated. The largest maximum
requirements or for attainment of the analytical baseline, it would be difficult contribution is 1.67 micrograms per
PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone standards. If as a practical matter to predict the cubic meter (µg/m3), from Ohio to both
EPA had included further local controls, extent of local controls that will be Allegheny and Beaver counties in
the commenters contend, fewer upwind required (beyond controls previously Pennsylvania.
b. Comments and EPA’s Responses section 110(a)(2)(D) provisions 2. What Is the Level of the PM2.5
The EPA proposed to use the regarding significant contribution to Contribution Threshold?
maximum contribution on any nonattainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS. a. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
downwind nonattainment area for Another commenter suggested EPA In the NPR, EPA proposed to establish
assessing downwind PM2.5 use the maximum annual average a State-level annual average PM2.5
contributions. Many commenters impact, as we proposed, but add the contribution threshold from
expressed agreement with our proposed maximum daily PM2.5 contribution. The anthropogenic SO2 and NOX emissions
metric, however, many others disagreed. commenter notes that this additional that was a small percentage of the
One group of these commenters metric would indicate whether specific annual air quality standard of 15.0 µg/
indicated that EPA should distinguish meteorological events drive the m3. The EPA based this proposal on the
the relative contribution from States concentration change or whether there general concept that an upwind State’s
using two parameters: (1) How many is a consistent pattern of transport from contribution of a relatively low level of
downwind nonattainment receptors one area to another. It is not clear to ambient impact should be regarded as
they contribute to, and (2) how much significant (depending on the further
EPA how the single data point of the
they contribute to each such receptor. assessment of the control costs). We
maximum daily contribution indicates a
The commenters indicated that this based our reasoning on several factors.
consistent pattern of transport from one
approach would avoid inequities The EPA’s modeling indicates that at
created by the disproportionate impact area to another since it is a measure
from only a single day. Further, EPA least some nonattainment areas will find
of some upwind contributors on their it difficult or impossible to attain the
downwind neighbors. The EPA does not agree that multiple days of
standards without reductions in upwind
interprets these comments to suggest a impact is a relevant criterion for
emissions. In addition, our analysis of
metric that collectively includes both of evaluating whether a State contributes ‘‘base case’’ PM2.5 transport shows that,
these parameters, such as the sum of all significantly to nonattainment, since in in general, PM2.5 nonattainment
downwind impacts on all affected theory, a single high-contribution event problems result from the combined
receptors. This metric would result in could be the cause or a substantial impact of relatively small contributions
higher values for States contributing to element of nonattainment of the annual from many upwind States, along with
multiple receptors and at relatively high average PM2.5 standard. Because we contributions from in-State sources and,
levels, and lower values for States currently do not observe nonattainment in some cases, substantially larger
contributing to fewer receptors and at of the daily average PM2.5 standard in contributions from a subset of particular
relatively low levels. Eastern areas, nonattainment of the upwind States. In the NOX SIP Call
The EPA’s proposed metric does annual average PM2.5 standard is the rulemaking, we termed this pattern of
address how much each State relevant evaluative measure. contribution—which is also present for
contributes to a downwind neighbor; ozone nonattainment—‘‘collective
Some commenters suggested
however, EPA does not believe that contribution.’’
multiple downwind receptors need to separately evaluating the NOX- and SO2-
In the case of PM2.5, we have found
be impacted in order for a particular related impacts (i.e., particulate nitrate collective contribution to be a
state to be required to make emissions and particulate sulfate) on pronounced feature of the PM2.5
reductions under CAA section nonattainment. As discussed in section transport problem, in part because the
110(a)(2)(D). Under this provision, an II of this notice, EPA’s approach to annual nature of the PM2.5 NAAQS
upwind State must include in the SIP evaluating a State’s impact on means that throughout the entire year
adequate provisions that prohibit that downwind nonattainment by and across a range of wind patterns—
State’s emissions that ‘‘contribute considering the entirety of the State’s rather than during just one season of the
significantly to nonattainment in * * * SO2 and NOX emissions is consistent year or on only the few worst days
any other State * * *.’’ (Emphasis with the chemical interactions in the during the year which may share a
added.) Our interpretation of this atmosphere of SO2 and NOX in forming prevailing wind direction—emissions
provision is that the emphasized terms PM2.5. The contributions of SO2 and from many upwind States affect the
make clear that the upwind State’s NOX emissions are generally not downwind nonattainment area.
emissions must be controlled as long as additive, but rather are interrelated due As a result, to address the transport
they contribute significantly to a single to complex chemical reactions. affecting a given nonattainment area,
nonattainment area. many upwind States must reduce their
One commenter agreed with EPA’s c. Today’s Action emissions, even though their individual
use of maximum annual average contributions may be relatively small.
The EPA continues to believe that for
downwind contribution, but suggested Moreover, as noted above, EPA’s air
each upwind State analyzed, the change
that EPA consider additional metrics quality modeling indicates that at least
such as: (a) Contributions to adverse in the annual PM2.5 concentration level some nonattainment areas will find it
health and welfare effects from short- in the downwind nonattainment area difficult or impossible to attain the
term PM2.5 concentrations; (b) that receives the largest impact is a standards without reductions in upwind
contributions to worst 20 percent haze reasonable metric for determining emissions. In combination, these factors
levels in Class 1 areas; and (c) whether a State passes the ‘‘air quality’’ suggest a relatively low value for the
contributions to adverse effects of sulfur portion of the ‘‘contribute significantly’’ PM2.5 transport contribution threshold is
and nitrogen deposition to acid test, and therefore that State should be appropriate. For reasons specified in the
sensitive surface waters and forest soils. considered further for emissions NPR (69 FR 4584), EPA initially
The EPA appreciates that these metrics reductions (depending upon the cost of proposed a value of 0.15 µg/m3 (1% of
all have merit in their focus on the achieving those reductions). This single the annual standard) for the significance
health and environmental consequences concentration-based metric is adequate criterion, but also presented analyses
of emissions, however, in determining a to capture the impact of SO2 and NOX based on an alternative of 0.10 µg/m3
metric for significant contributions, we emissions on downwind annual PM2.5 and called for comment on this
must focus on implementation of CAA concentrations. alternative as well as on ‘‘the use of
higher or lower thresholds for this that focuses on the contribution of digits beyond the decimal place, while
purpose’’ (69 FR 4584). upwind areas to downwind areas that the NAAQS specifies only one. The EPA
The EPA adopted a conceptually are above 15.0 µg/m3, relatively low agrees that specification of a threshold
similar approach to that outlined above contributions to levels above the annual value of 0.15 µg/m3 does suggest an
for determining that the significance PM2.5 standard are highly relevant to overly precise test that might need to
level for ozone transport in the NOX SIP public health protection. take into account modeled difference in
Call rulemaking should be a small Many commenters offered alternative PM2.5 values as low as 0.001 µg/m3.
number relative to the NAAQS. The DC thresholds higher than 0.15 µg/m3, Other commenters indicated that
Circuit Court, in generally upholding citing previous EPA rules or policies as modeling ‘‘noise’’—that is,
the NOX SIP Call, viewed this approach justification for the alternative level. imprecision—is a relevant consideration
as reasonable. Michigan v. EPA, 213 Some suggested the PM2.5 threshold for establishing a threshold whose
F.3d 663, 674–80 (DC Cir. 2000), cert. should be equivalent in percentage evaluation depends on air quality
denied, 532 U.S. 904 (2001). After terms to the threshold employed for modeling analysis. These commenters
describing EPA’s overall approach of assessing maximum downwind 8-hour indicated that a threshold of 5 percent
establishing a significance level and ozone contributions. The threshold for of the NAAQS (i.e., 0.75 µg/m3) is more
requiring States with impacts above the maximum downwind 8-hour ozone reasonable considering modeling
threshold to implement highly cost- concentration impact used in the NOX sensitivity. The commenters were not
effective reductions, the Court SIP Call, and proposed for use in the clear about what they mean by modeling
explained: ‘‘EPA’s design was to have a CAIR, is 2 parts per billion (ppb), or ‘‘noise’’ and did not explain how it
lot of States make what it considered about 2.5 percent of the standard level relates to the use of a threshold metric
modest NOX reductions * * *. ’’ Id. at of 80 ppb. Applying the 2.5 percent in the context of the CAIR.
675. Indeed, the Court intimated that criterion to the 15.0 µg/m3 annual PM2.5 In responding to the comment, we
EPA could have established an even standard would yield a significance have considered some possible
lower threshold for States to pass the air threshold of 0.35 µg/m3. contributors to what the commenter
quality component: The EPA disagrees with the comment describes as ‘‘noise.’’ There is the
The EPA has determined that ozone has some
that the thresholds for annual PM2.5 and possibility that the air quality model has
adverse health effects—however slight—at 8-hour ozone should be an equivalent a systematic bias in predicting
every level [citing National Ambient Air percentage of their respective NAAQS. concentrations resulting from a given set
Quality Standards for Ozone, 62 FR 38856 Both the forms and averaging times of of emissions sources. The EPA uses the
(1997)]. Without consideration of cost it is the two standards are substantially model outputs in a relative, rather than
hard to see why any ozone-creating different, with 8-hour ozone based on an absolute, sense so that any modeling
emissions should not be regarded as fatally the average of the 4th highest daily 8- bias is constrained by real world results.
‘‘significant’’ under section hour maximum values from each of 3 As described further in section VI, EPA
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).’’
years, and PM2.5 based on the average of conducts a relative comparison of the
213 F.3d at 678 (emphasis in original). annual means from 3 successive years. results of a base case and a control case
We believe the same approach applies These fundamental differences in time to estimate the percentage change in
in the case of PM2.5 transport. scales, and thus in the patterns of ambient PM2.5 from the current year
transport that are relevant to base case, holding meteorology, other
b. Comments and EPA’s Responses
contributing to nonattainment, do not source emissions, and other factors
Many commenters indicated that EPA suggest a transparent reason for contributing to uncertainty constant.
did not adequately justify the proposed presuming that the contribution With this technique, any absolute
annual average PM2.5 contribution thresholds should be equivalent. As modeling bias is cancelled out because
threshold level of 0.15 µg/m3. Some discussed above, when more States the same model limitations and
commenters favor the alternative 0.10 make smaller individual contributions uncertainties are present in each set of
µg/m3 proposed by EPA, citing their because of the annual nature of the runs.
agreement with EPA’s rationale for 0.10 PM2.5 standard, it makes sense to have Another possible source of noise is in
µg/m3 while criticizing as arbitrary a threshold for PM2.5 that is a smaller the relative comparison of two model
EPA’s rationale for 0.15 µg/m3. percentage of its NAAQS. runs conducted on different computers.
Some commenters argued that the Other commenters suggested that in Since the computers used by EPA to run
public health impact portion of EPA’s setting the maximum downwind PM2.5 air quality models do not have any
rationale for establishing a relatively threshold, EPA should take into significant variability in their numerical
low-level threshold was not relevant. consideration the measurement processes, two model runs with
The commenters said that EPA precision of existing PM2.5 monitors. identical inputs result in outputs that
previously determined, in establishing The commenters assert that such are identical to many significant digits.
the PM2.5 NAAQS, that ambient levels at measurement carries ‘‘noise’’ in the On the other hand, EPA believes it is
or above 15.0 µg/m3 were of concern for range of 0.5—0.6 µg/m3. Because many not appropriate or necessary to carry
protecting public health, not the much daily average monitor readings are such results to a level of precision that
lower levels that EPA proposed as the averaged to calculate the annual is beyond that required by the PM2.5
thresholds. In the NPR, we stated that average, the precision of the annual NAAQS itself 39.
we considered that there are significant average concentration is better than the Many commenters noted that EPA’s
public health impacts associated with figures cited by the commenters. Indeed, proposed threshold of 0.15 µg/m3, or
ambient PM2.5, even at relatively low the annual standard is expressed as 15.0 one percent of the annual PM2.5 NAAQS
levels. In generally upholding the NOX µg/m3, rounded to the nearest 1⁄10 µg, of 15.0 µg/m3, is lower than the single-
SIP Call, the DC Circuit noted a similar because such small differences are source contribution thresholds
reason for establishing a relatively low meaningful on an annual basis. While
39 In attainment modeling for the annual PM
threshold for ozone impacts. Michigan disagreeing with the specific amounts 2.5
NAAQS, results are carried to the second place
v. EPA, 213 F.3d 663, 678 (DC Cir. suggested by commenters, EPA beyond the decimal, in contrast to the three places
2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 904 (2001). recognizes that the PM2.5 threshold beyond decimal noted above for the proposed
The EPA notes that by using a metric specified in the proposal contains two threshold.
employed for PM10 in certain other standards and not standards that may be The air quality modeling approach we
regulatory contexts. Commenters cited considered in the future. proposed to quantify the impact of
several different thresholds, including upwind emissions includes two
c. Today’s Action
thresholds governing the applicability of different methodologies: Zero-out and
the preconstruction review permit The EPA continues to believe that the source apportionment. As described in
program and the emissions reduction threshold for evaluating the air quality section VI, EPA applied each
requirement for certain major new or component of determining whether an
methodology to estimate the impact of
modified stationary sources located in individual State’s emissions ‘‘contribute
all of the upwind State’s NOX emissions
attainment or unclassified areas;40 and significantly’’ to downwind
nonattainment of the annual PM2.5 on each downwind nonattainment
thresholds in the PSD rules that may areas.
relieve proposed sources from standard, under CAA section
performing comprehensive ambient air 110(a)(2)(D) should be very small The EPA’s first step in evaluating the
quality analyses.41 compared to the NAAQS. We are, results of these methodologies was to
however, persuaded by commenters remove from consideration those States
Since the thresholds referred to by the arguments on monitoring and modeling whose upwind contributions were very
commenters serve different purposes that the precision of the threshold low. Specifically, EPA considered an
than the CAIR threshold for significant should not exceed that of the NAAQS. upwind State not to contribute
contribution, it does not follow that they Rounding the proposal value of 0.15, the significantly to a downwind
should be made equivalent. The nearest single digit corresponding to
implication of the thresholds cited by nonattainment area if the State’s
about 1% of the PM2.5 annual NAAQS maximum contribution to the area was
the commenters is not that single-source is 0.2 µg/m3. The final rule is based on
contributions below these levels either (1) less than 2 ppb, as indicated
this threshold. The EPA has decided to by either of the two modeling
indicate the absence of a contribution. apply this threshold such that any
Rather, these thresholds address techniques; or (2) less than one percent
model result that is below this value of total nonattainment in the downwind
whether further more comprehensive, (0.19 or less)indicates a lack of
multi-source review or analysis of area.44
significant contribution, while values of
appropriate control technology and 0.20 or higher exceed the threshold.42 If the upwind State’s impact exceeded
emissions offsets are required of the Using this metric for determining these thresholds, then EPA conducted a
source. A source with estimated impacts whether a State ‘‘contributes further evaluation to determine if the
below these levels is recognized as still significantly’’ (before considering cost) impact was high enough to meet the air
affecting the airshed and is subject to to PM2.5 nonattainment, our updated quality portion of the ‘‘contribute
meeting applicable control modeling shows that Kansas, significantly’’ standard. In doing so,
requirements, including best available Massachusetts, New Jersey, Delaware, EPA organized the outputs of the two
control technology, designed to and Arkansas (all included in the modeling techniques into a set of
moderate the source’s impact on air original proposal) no longer exceed the ‘‘metrics.’’ The metrics reflect three key
quality. The purpose of the CAIR 0.2 µg/m3 annual average PM2.5 contribution factors:
threshold for PM2.5 is to determine contribution threshold. Of these states,
whether the annual average contribution only Arkansas would exceed the • The magnitude of the contribution
from a collection of sources in a State threshold of 0.15 µg/m3 that was (actual amount of ozone contributed by
is small enough not to warrant any included in the proposal. emissions in the upwind State to
additional control for the purpose of nonattainment in the downwind area);
E. What Criteria Should Be Used To
mitigating interstate transport, even if • The frequency of the contribution
Determine Which States Are Subject to
that control were highly cost effective. (how often contributions above certain
This Rule Because They Contribute to
One commenter suggested that EPA Ozone Nonattainment? thresholds occur); and
also establish and evaluate a threshold • The relative amount of the
for a potential new tighter 24-hour PM2.5 1. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
contribution (the total ozone
standard (e.g., 1 percent of 30 µg/m3). In assessing the contribution of contributed by the upwind State
The EPA must base its criteria on upwind States to downwind 8-hour compared to the total amount of
evaluation of the current PM2.5 ozone nonattainment, EPA proposed to nonattainment ozone in the downwind
follow the approach used in the NOX area).
40 See 40 CFR 51.165(b)(2). New or modified SIP Call and to employ the same
major sources in attainment or unclassifiable areas contribution metrics, but with an The specific metrics on which EPA
must undergo preconstruction permit review, adopt updated model and updated inputs that proposed to rely are the same as those
best available control technology, and obtain used in the NOX SIP Call. Table III–1
emissions offsets if they are determined to ‘‘cause reflect current requirements (including
or contribute’’ to a violation of the NAAQS. ‘‘Cause the NOX SIP Call itself).43 lists them for each of the two modeling
or contribute’’ is defined as an impact that exceeds techniques, and identifies their
5 µg/m3 (3.3 percent) of the 150 µg/m3 24-hour 42 This truncation convention for PM
2.5 is similar relationship to the three key
average PM10 NAAQS , or 1 µg/m3 (2 percent) of to that used in evaluating modeling results in contribution factors.
the annual average PM10 NAAQS. applying the ozone significance screening criterion
41 See 40 CFR 51.166(i)(5)(i). Proposed new of 2 ppb in the NOX SIP call and the CAIR proposal
sources or existing-source modifications that would (Technical Support Document for the Interstate Air SIP Call (which EPA finalized in 1998) to reevaluate
contribute less than 10 µg/m3 (or 5.3%) of the 150 Quality Rule Air Quality Modeling Analyses’’, interstate ozone contributions by 2007. See 63 FR
µg/m3 PM10 24-hour average NAAQS, estimated January 2004. Docket # OAR–2003–0053–0162), as 57399; October 27, 1998.
using on a screening model, may avoid the well as today’s final action. 44 See the CAIR Air Quality Modeling TSD for
requirement of collecting and submitting ambient 43 Today’s action, including the updated description of the methodology used to calculate
air quality data. modeling, fulfills EPA’s commitment in the NOX these metrics.
TABLE III–1.—OZONE CONTRIBUTION FACTORS AND METRICS

Modeling technique
Factor
Zero-out Source apportionment
Magnitude of Contribution .................... Maximum contribution ............................................. Maximum contribution; and Highest daily average
contribution (ppb and percent).
Frequency of Contribution .................... Number and percent of exceedances with con- Number and percent of exceedances with con-
tributions in various concentration ranges. tributions in various concentration ranges.
Relative Amount of Contribution .......... Total contribution relative to the total exceedance Total average contribution to exceedance hours in
ozone in the downwind area; and. the downwind area.
Population-weighted total contribution relative to
the total population-weighted exceedance ozone
in the downwind area.
In the NPR, EPA proposed threshold the NPR modeling, and is described in of ozone when ozone concentrations are
values for the metrics. An upwind State more detail in section VI below. predicted to be above the NAAQS. To be
whose contribution to a downwind area found a significant contributor, an
2. Comments and EPA Responses
exceeded the threshold values for at upwind State must be above the
least one metric in each of at least two Some commenters submitted threshold for both the zero-out-based
of the three sets of metrics was comments specifically on the 8-hour metric and the source-apportionment-
considered to contribute significantly ozone metrics. One commenter asserted based metric. Thus, our approach to
(before considering cost) to that that in calculating the ‘‘Relative Amount considering the significance of interstate
downwind area. To reiterate, the three of Contribution’’ metric, EPA treats the ozone transport captures both
sets of metrics reflect the factors of modeled reductions from zeroing out a approaches for examining the relative
magnitude of contribution, frequency of State’s emissions as impacting only the amount of contribution and does not
contribution, and relative percentage on portion of the downwind receptor’s favor one approach over the other, as
nonattainment. ambient ozone level that exceeds the 8- discussed above.
In fact, EPA noted in the NPR that for hour average 84 ppb level. The
each upwind State, the modeling commenter asserted that this approach 3. Today’s Action
disclosed at least one linkage with a falsely treats the upwind state’s The EPA is finalizing the
downwind nonattainment area in which emissions as contributing to the amount methodology proposed in the NPR, and
all factors (magnitude, frequency, and of ozone that exceeds the NAAQS, and discussed above, for evaluating the air
relative amount) were found to indicate thus inflates the ambient impact of quality portion of the ‘‘contribute
large and frequent contributions. In those emissions. The commenter significantly’’ standard for ozone.
addition, EPA noted in the NPR that concluded that it would be more
each upwind State contributed to appropriate to treat the upwind F. Issues Related to Timing of the CAIR
nonattainment problems in at least two emissions as impacting all of the Controls
downwind States (except for Louisiana downwind ozone level (not just the 1. Overview
and Arkansas which contributed to portion greater than 84 ppb). We
nonattainment in only 1 downwind interpret this comment to mean that in A number of commenters questioned
State). expressing an upwind State’s the need for CAIR requirements
In addition, EPA noted in the NPR contribution as a percentage, the considering that cap dates of 2010 and
that for most of the individual linkages, denominator of the percentage should 2015 are later than the attainment dates
the factors yield a consistent result be the downwind area’s total ozone that, in the absence of extensions,
across all three sets of metrics (i.e., contribution, rather than the downwind would apply to certain downwind PM2.5
either (i) large and frequent area’s ozone excess above the NAAQS, areas and ozone nonattainment areas.
contributions and high relative but that the same threshold should be Other commenters, noting that states
contributions or (ii) small and used to evaluate contribution. This will be required to adopt controls in
infrequent contributions and low would tend to result in fewer upwind local attainment plans, questioned
relative contributions). In some States being found to be significant with whether CAIR controls would still be
linkages, however, not all of the factors respect to this metric. needed to avoid significant contribution
are consistent. The EPA believes that We believe that it is important to to downwind nonattainment, or
each of the factors provides an examine the ozone contribution relative whether the controls would still be
independent, legitimate measure of to the amount of ozone above the needed to the extent required by the
contribution. NAAQS as well as the amount relative rule.
In the NPR, EPA applied the to total nonattainment ozone. Both Of course, CAIR will achieve
evaluation methodology described approaches have merit. The intent of the substantial reductions in time to help
above to each upwind-downwind relative contribution metric, as many nonattainment areas attain the
linkage to determine which States calculated for the zero-out modeling, is standards by the applicable attainment
contribute significantly (before to view the contribution of the upwind dates. The design of the SO2 program,
considering cost) to nonattainment in State relative to the amount that the including the declining caps in 2010
the 40 downwind counties in downwind area is in nonattainment; and 2015 and the banking provisions,
nonattainment for ozone in the East. that is, the amount of ozone above the will steadily reduce SO2 emissions over
The analysis of the metrics for each NAAQS. However, our relative amount time, achieving reductions in advance of
linkage was presented in the AQMTSD metric for the source apportionment the cap dates; and the 2009 and 2015
for the NPR. The modeling analysis modeling does treat the amount of NOX reductions will be timely for many
supporting the final rule is an update to contribution relative to the total amount downwind nonattainment areas.
Although many of today’s maintenance in every area initially from sources in that State.46 On the
nonattainment areas will attain before modeled to be in nonattainment. other hand, if controls on sources in the
all the reductions required by CAIR will We also note that considering the upwind State are not more cost-effective
be achieved, it is clear that CAIR’s emission controls needed for in terms of cost per increment of
reductions will still be needed through maintenance, along with the controls improvement in air quality, then the
2015 and beyond. The EPA’s air quality Agency would not take action under
needed to reach attainment in the first
modeling has demonstrated that upwind sections 126 or 110(a)(2)(D); rather, the
place, is consistent with the goal of
States have a sufficiently large impact downwind State would need to meets
on downwind areas to require promoting a reasonable balance between
its attainment and maintenance needs
reductions in 2010 and 2015 under CAA upwind state controls and local
by controlling sources within its own
section 110(a)(2)(D). Under this (including all in-state) controls to attain jurisdiction. Of course, factors other
provision, SIPs must prohibit emissions and maintain the NAAQS. As discussed than efficiency, such as equity or
from sources in amounts that ‘‘will in section IV of this notice, in the ideal practicality, also might affect the
contribute significantly to * * * world, the states and EPA would have decision.
nonattainment’’ or ‘‘will interfere with enough information (and powerful Unfortunately, we do not have
maintenance’’.45 The EPA has evaluated enough analytical tools) to allow us to adequate information or analytical tools
the attainment status of the downwind identify a mix of control strategies that (ideally a detailed linear programming
receptors in 2010 and 2015, and has would bring every area of the country model that fully integrates both control
determined that each upwind State’s into attainment at the lowest overall costs and ambient impacts of sources in
2010 and 2015 emissions reductions are cost to society. Under such an approach, each State on each of the downwind
necessary to the extent required by the we would evaluate the impact of every receptors) to allow us to undertake the
rule because a downwind receptor emissions source on air quality in all analysis described above at this time.
linked to that upwind State will either nonattainment areas, the cost of However, the Agency believes that CAIR
(i) remain in nonattainment and different options for controlling those is consistent with this basic approach
continue to experience significant sources, and the cost-effectiveness of and will result in upwind States and
contribution to nonattainment from the those controls in terms of cost per downwind States sharing appropriate
upwind State’s emissions; or (ii) attain increment of air quality improvement. responsibility for attainment and
the relevant NAAQS but later revert to Such an approach would obviously maintenance of the relevant NAAQS,
nonattainment due, for example, to make it easier for a state to develop an considering efficiency, equity and
continued growth of the emissions appropriate set of control requirements practical considerations. Under CAIR,
inventory. for sources located in that state based on the required reductions in upwind
The argument that the CAIR (1) the need to bring its own States (including those projected to
reductions are justified, in part, by the nonattainment areas into attainment and occur after 2015) are highly cost
need to prevent interference with (2) its responsibility under section effective, measured in cost-per-ton of
maintenance, is a limited one. The EPA 110(a)(2)(D) to prevent significant emissions reduction, as documented in
does not believe that the ‘‘interfere with contribution to nonattainment in section IV. This suggests that, regardless
maintenance’’ language in section downwind States and interference with of whether the CAIR reductions assist
110(a)(2)(D) requires an upwind state to downwind areas in achieving
maintenance in those States.
eliminate all emissions that may have attainment or in subsequently
some impact on an area in a downwind Such an approach would also make it
maintaining the relevant NAAQS, the
state that is (or once was) in much easier for the Agency to decide on
upwind controls will be reasonable in
nonattainment and that, therefore, will efficiency grounds whether to take
cost relative to a further increment of
need (or now needs) to maintain its action under section 126 (or under
local controls that, in most cases, will
attainment status. Instead, we believe section 110(a)(2)(D) if a State failed to
have a substantially higher cost per
that CAIR emission reductions are meet its obligations under that section)
ton—particularly in areas that need
needed beyond 2010 and 2015, in part, for purposes of either attainment or greater local reductions and require
to prevent upwind states from maintenance of a NAAQS in another reductions from a variety of source
significantly interfering with State. In the simplest example, we might types.47 Thus, we believe that CAIR is
maintenance in other states because our need to consider a case in which a consistent with the goal of attaining and
analysis shows it is likely that, in the downwind State with a nonattainment maintaining air quality standards in an
absence of the CAIR, a current or area is seeking reductions from an efficient, as well as equitable, manner.
projected attainment area will revert to upwind State based on the claim that Another reason for considering both
nonattainment due to continued emissions from the upwind state are attainment and maintenance needs at
emissions growth or other relevant contributing significantly to the this time is EPA’s expectation that most
factors. We are not taking the position nonattainment problem in the nonattainment areas will be able to
that CAIR controls are automatically downwind State. In such a case, the first
justified to prevent interference with question is whether the upwind state 46 This does not mean that the upwind state
should be required to take any action at would be responsible for making all the reductions
45 As in the NO SIP Call rulemaking, EPA
X all, and in the ideal world, it would be necessary to bring the downwind State’s
interprets the ‘‘interfere with maintenance’’ nonattainment area into attainment; how much
statutory requirement ‘‘much the same as the term
simple to answer this question. If would be required of each State is a separate
‘contribute significantly’ ’’, that is, ‘‘through the emission reductions from sources in the question. Again in the ideal world, we would be
same weight-of-evidence approach.’’ 63 FR at upwind State are more cost-effective able to find the right mix of controls in both states
57379. Furthermore, we believe the ‘‘interfere with so that attainment would be achieved at the lowest
than emission reductions in the total cost.
maintenance’’ prong may come into play only in
circumstances where EPA or the State can downwind State—in terms of cost per 47 Tables describing cost effectiveness of various
reasonably determine or project, based on available increment of improvement in air quality control measures and programs are provided in
data, that an area in a downwind state will achieve in the downwind nonattainment area— section IV. These show that the cost per ton of non-
attainment, but due to emissions growth or other power-sector control options that states might
relevant factors is likely to fall back into
then the upwind State would need to consider for attainment purposes typically is higher
nonattainment. Id. take some action to control emissions than for CAIR controls.
attain the PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone nonattainment of this severity. Tables VI–8. Given the reasonable potential for
standards within the time periods VI–10 and VI–11. Thus, there is a continued nonattainment, it is
provided under the statute. Considering reasonable likelihood that CAIR controls reasonable to require 2015 CAIR
both types of downwind needs shows will be needed from all of the upwind controls from each upwind state to
that there is a strong basis for CAIR’s states to prevent significant contribution prevent significant contribution to
requirements despite the potential for to these downwind receptors’ nonattainment.
most receptor areas to attain before all nonattainment. Moreover, even with 2015 CAIR
the emission reductions required by Nor is the amount of reduction in controls (but not attainment SIP
CAIR are achieved. excess of what is needed for attainment. controls), almost all of the upwind
We project that even with CAIR states remain linked with at least one
2. By Design, the CAIR Cap and Trade controls, almost all of the upwind states downwind receptor that would not
Program Will Achieve Significant in 2010 remain linked with at least one attain by at least this same substantial
Emissions Reductions Prior to the Cap downwind receptor that would not margin (at least 1.26 µg/m3). Id. This
Deadlines attain by the same substantial margin shows that the 2015 CAIR controls are
The EPA notes that Phase I of CAIR exceeding the average of aggressive local not more than are necessary to attain the
is the initial step on the slope of controls. Tables VI–10 and VI–8. This NAAQS (and also shows the necessity
emissions reduction (i.e., the ‘‘glide not only indicates that the 2010 CAIR for local controls in order to attain).
path’’) leading to the final control levels. controls are not excessive, but that local Thus, we conclude that the further
Because of the incentive to make early controls will still be necessary for PM2.5 reductions achieved by the second
emission reductions that the cap and attainment. phase cap will likely be needed to
trade program provides, reductions will In addition, there is potential for assure all relevant areas reach
begin early and will continue to residual nonattainment in 2015 in view attainment by applicable deadlines.
increase through Phases I and II. of the severity of PM2.5 levels in some Even if some of these areas make more
Therefore, all the required Phase II areas, uncertainties about the levels of progress than we predict, many
emission reductions will not take place reductions in PM2.5 and precursors that downwind receptor areas would be
on January 1, 2015, the effective date of will prove reasonable over the next likely in 2010 and 2015 to continue to
the second phase cap. Rather, these decade, the potential for up to two 1- have air quality only marginally better
reductions will accrue throughout the year extensions for areas that meet than the standard, and be at risk of
implementation period, as the sources certain air quality levels in the year returning to nonattainment. Air quality
install controls and start to test and preceding their attainment date, and is unlikely to be appreciably cleaner
operate them. The resulting glide path historical examples in which areas did than the standard because many areas
of reductions with CAIR Phase II will not meet their statutory attainment dates will need steep reductions merely to
provide important reductions to areas for other NAAQS. attain, given that we project
coming into attainment over the 2010 to With respect to the argument that nonattainment by wide margins (as
2014 period.48 phase II emission reductions that will be explained above).
achieved after 2015 are not needed Moreover, we project that without
3. Additional Justification for the SO2
because all receptors will have attained CAIR, PM2.5 levels would worsen in 19
and NOX Annual Controls
before 2015, we think it likely that some downwind receptor counties between
Our modeling indicates that it is very PM2.5 nonattainment areas may qualify 2010 and 2015, reflecting changes in
plausible that a significant number of for 2014 attainment dates and local and upwind emissions. Air
downwind PM2.5 receptors are likely to eventually, one-year attainment date Quality Modeling Technical Support
remain in nonattainment in 2010 and extensions, and that there may be Document, November, 2004. This
beyond. As noted below (Preamble residual nonattainment in 2015. We suggests a reasonable likelihood that,
Table VI–10), the Agency has evaluated continue to project that nearly half the without CAIR, these areas would return
a wide range of emission control options downwind receptors in the 2015 base to nonattainment. See 63 FR at 57379–
and found that the average ambient case will be in nonattainment by 80 (finding in NOX SIP Call that upwind
reduction in PM2.5 concentrations amounts exceeding the average ambient emissions interfere with maintenance of
achievable through aggressive but reduction (again, 1.26 µg/m3) 8-hour ozone standard under section
feasible local controls is 1.26 µg/m3. In attributable to local controls we believe 110(a)(2)(D)(i) where increases in
the 2010 base case (which does not would be aggressive but feasible for emissions of ozone precursors are
consider potential local controls or 2010 2010. Table VI–11. The history of projected due to growth in emissions
CAIR controls, but does consider all progress in development of emission generating activity, resulting in
other emission controls required to be in reduction strategies and technologies receptors no longer attaining the
effect as of that date), nearly half the indicates that greater local reductions standard). These downwind receptors
receptor counties would be in could be achieved by 2015 than in 2010; link to all but two of the upwind states,
nonattainment by more than this nonetheless, this potential and the remaining two upwind states
amount. This indicates that nonattainment is of sufficient severity to are linked to receptors where projected
nonattainment is of sufficient severity to make it plausible that at least some of PM2.5 levels between 2010 and 2015
make it likely that, in the absence of these areas will need an extension. In improve only slightly, leaving their air
CAIR, many of these areas would need such cases, this would eliminate the quality only marginally in attainment.
an attainment date extension of at least issue of timing raised by commenters, Response to Comments, section III.C. In
one year. since CAIR controls would no longer be light of documented year-to-year
Our base case modeling further shows following attainment dates. variations in PM2.5 levels, these
that every upwind state is linked to at Our modeling further shows that, in receptors would have a reasonable
least one receptor area projected to have the 2015 base case (which does not probability of returning to
include CAIR controls), all the upwind nonattainment in the absence of CAIR.
48 A similar glide path will occur prior to the
effective date of the Phase I SO2 cap because this

states in the CAIR region are linked to Emissions trends after 2015 give rise
cap will complement and extend the cap that areas projected to exceed the standard to further maintenance concerns.
currently exists under the Acid Rain program. by at least 2 µg/m3. Tables VI–11 and Between 2015 and 2020, emissions of
PM2.5 and certain precursors are more, and 20 upwind states are linked variability is mostly attributable to
projected to rise. We do not have air to counties projected to exceed the 8- changing weather conditions (which
quality modeling for 2020. However, for hour standard by more than 4 ppb. significantly affect the rate at which
PM2.5 and every precursor, the 2015– These two sets of linkages show that ozone is formed in the atmosphere and
2020 emission trend is less favorable under a scenario in which several of the movement of ozone after it is formed),
than the 2010–2015 emission trend. receptors with the highest ozone levels rather than variability in the emissions
Given the PM2.5 increases our air quality did not attain, CAIR reductions would inventory. Thus, absent the second
modeling found for 19 counties between be justified to prevent significant phase CAIR cap, these receptors remain
2010 and 2015, the emission trends contributions from many of the upwind vulnerable to falling back into
suggest greater maintenance concerns in states in the CAIR ozone region. nonattainment. The receptors for which
the 2015–2020 period than during the The fact that receptors show this is the case link to each of the
2010–2015 period. See Response to significant nonattainment even after upwind States in the ozone CAIR
Comments section III.C. implementation of the phase II CAIR region.
Accordingly, we believe that given reductions, as shown in Table VI–13,
these projected trends, and the indicates that these reductions would IV. What Amounts of SO2 and NOX
likelihood of only borderline not be more than necessary to prevent Emissions Did EPA Determine Should
attainment, CAIR controls from every significant contribution to Be Reduced?
upwind state in the CAIR region are nonattainment in residual areas. Even if In today’s rule, EPA requires annual
needed to prevent interference with all ozone nonattainment areas in the SO2 and NOX emissions reductions and
maintenance of the PM2.5 standard. The CAIR region could achieve reductions ozone-season NOX emissions reductions
projected upwards pressure on PM2.5 sufficient to meet the level of the 8-hour to eliminate the amount of emissions
concentrations in most receptor areas ozone standard in 2009 49 based on local that contribute significantly to
indicates that the amount of upwind controls, 2009 CAIR NOX reductions, nonattainment of the NAAQS for PM2.5
reductions is not more than necessary to and existing programs, we believe that and ozone. The NOX reductions are
prevent interference with maintenance numerous downwind receptor areas phased in beginning in 2009, the SO2
of the standards, again given the would remain close enough to the reductions beginning in 2010, and both
likelihood of initial attainment by standard to be at risk of falling back into caps are lowered in 2015. In this section
narrow margins. nonattainment for the reasons discussed of the preamble, EPA explains its
below. These receptor areas are linked analysis of the cost portion of the
4. Additional Justification for Ozone
NOX Requirements to all states in the CAIR ozone region. contribute-significantly test, which
First, it is highly unlikely that the determines the amount of required
We believe that most 8-hour ozone receptor areas will be able to attain by emissions reductions. The cost portion
areas will be able to attain by their a wide margin. This is primarily requires analysis of whether the control
attainment deadlines through existing because many of those areas will need program under review is highly cost
measures, 2009 CAIR NOX reductions, substantial emissions reductions merely effective, and other factors that are
and additional local measures. to attain. This is supported by modeling discussed below in section IV.A.
However, we also believe that a limited showing that in the 2010 base case, 30 In section IV.A of today’s preamble,
number of downwind receptor areas percent of the receptors are projected to EPA explains its methodology for
will remain in nonattainment with the be in nonattainment by the wide margin determining the amounts of SO2 and
ozone standard after 2010. This is due of 6 ppb or more, indicating the steep NOX emissions that must be eliminated
to the severity of projected ozone levels emissions reductions necessary just to for compliance with the CAIR. Section
in certain areas, uncertainties about the come into attainment. Table VI–12. We IV.A is divided into IV.A.1, IV.A.2,
levels of emissions reductions in that recognize that, unlike the trend in key IV.A.3, and IV.A.4. In IV.A.1, EPA
will prove reasonable over the next PM receptor areas, our modeling explains the methodology that the
decade, and historical difficulties with projects that the ozone levels in ozone Agency used to model control costs for
attaining the 1-hour ozone standard. receptor areas will improve somewhat evaluation of cost effectiveness. In
For ozone, the historic difficulties that between 2010 and 2015 due chiefly to IV.A.2, EPA describes the methodology
many areas, particularly large urban downward trends in NOX emissions that was proposed in the NPR for
areas, have experienced in attaining the projected under existing requirements. determining the amounts of emissions
ozone NAAQS raises the possibility that Nonetheless, as shown in detail in the that must be eliminated, including an
some areas may not attain by their Response to Comments, the projected overview of the proposed methodology,
attainment dates, and may request a improvements in ozone levels in the a description of the NOX SIP Call
voluntary bump up to a higher receptor areas are less (often regulatory history in relation to the
classification pursuant to section considerably less) than historic proposed methodology, and a
181(b)(2) to gain an extension, or may variability in monitored 8-hour ozone description of EPA’s proposed criteria
fail to attain by the attainment date and design values from one three year for determining emission reduction
be bumped up under section 181(b)(2). period to the next.50 We believe this requirements. Section IV.A.3
These authorities were used in the
summarizes some comments received
course of implementing the 1-hour 49 Attainment deadlines for moderate ozone areas
regarding the proposed methodology.
ozone NAAQS. are to be no later than June 2010; an approvable
Section IV.A.4 describes EPA’s
Our base case modeling (without attainment plan must demonstrate the reductions
needed for attainment will be achieved by the evaluation of highly cost-effective SO2
CAIR, and without state controls
ozone season in the preceding year. and NOX emissions reductions based on
implementing the 8-hour standard) 50 We recognize that in the absence of substantial
controlling EGUs.
projects geographically widespread evidence, variability alone would not be a sufficient Section IV.A.4 is further divided into
nonattainment with the 8-hour ozone basis for applying the ‘‘interfere with maintenance’’
prong of section 110(a)(2)(D). Here, however, where IV.A.4.a and IV.A.4.b, which address
NAAQS in 2015. Tables VI–12 and VI–
there is a substantial body of historical data
13. Five counties that link to 14 upwind documenting the variability in ozone emission reductions from upwind states are
states have projected ozone levels that concentrations, we believe it is appropriate to necessary to prevent interference with maintenance
exceed the 8-hour standard by 6 ppb or consider variability in determining whether of the ozone standard in downwind states.
SO2 and NOX emission reduction costs and, more broadly, analyze the 2010 run year. Model outputs for 2015
requirements, respectively. Section projected impact of environmental are from the 2015 run year.
IV.A.4.a describes EPA’s evaluation of policies on the electric power sector in The EPA used the IPM to conduct the
highly cost-effective SO2 reduction the 48 contiguous States and the District cost-effectiveness analysis for the
requirements, beginning with a of Columbia. The IPM is a multi- emissions control program required by
summary of the proposal and then regional, dynamic, deterministic linear today’s action. The model was used to
describing today’s final determination. programming model of the U.S. electric project the incremental electric
In IV.A.4.b., EPA describes its power sector. The EPA used the IPM to generation production costs that result
evaluation of highly cost-effective NOX evaluate the cost and emissions impacts from the CAIR program. These estimates
reduction requirements, also beginning of the policies required by today’s are used as the basis for EPA’s estimate
with a summary of the proposal and action to limit annual emissions of SO2 of average cost and marginal cost of
then describing today’s final and NOX and ozone season emissions of emissions reductions on a per ton basis.
determination. Section IV.A.4.b first NOX from the electric power sector (on The model was also used to project the
addresses annual NOX reductions, and the assumption that all affected States marginal cost of several State programs
then addresses ozone season NOX choose to implement reductions by that EPA considers as part of its base
reductions. The final regionwide CAIR controlling EGUs using the model cap case.
SO2 and NOX control levels are and trade rule). In modeling the CAIR with the IPM,
provided within section IV.A, while a The EPA conducted analyses for the EPA assumes interstate emissions
more detailed description of today’s final CAIR using the 2004 update of the trading. While EPA is not requiring
final emission reduction requirements is IPM, version 2.1.9. Documentation States to participate in an interstate
presented in section IV.D. describing the 2004 update is in the trading program for EGUs, we believe it
In section IV.B of today’s preamble, CAIR docket and on EPA’s Web site. is reasonable to evaluate control costs
EPA discusses other (non-EGU) sources Some highlights of the 2004 update assuming States choose to participate in
that the Agency considered in include: Updated inventory of electric such a program since that will result in
developing today’s rule. generating units (EGUs) and installed less expensive reductions. The EPA’s
Section IV.C of today’s preamble pollution control equipment; updated IPM analyses for the CAIR includes all
explains the schedule for implementing State emission regulations; updated coal fossil fuel-fired EGUs with generating
today’s SO2 and NOX emissions choices available to generating units; capacity greater than 25 MW.
reductions requirements. This section updated natural gas supply curves; The EPA’s IPM modeling accounts for
begins with an overview of the schedule updated SCR and SNCR cost the use of the existing title IV bank of
(see section IV.C.1), then provides a assumptions; updated assumptions on SO2 allowances. The projected EGU SO2
detailed discussion of the engineering performance of NOX combustion emissions in 2010 and 2015 are above
factors that affect timing for control controls; updated title IV SO2 bank the cap levels, because of the use of the
retrofits (section IV.C.2). Within IV.C.2, assumptions; updated heat rates and title IV bank. The annual SO2 emissions
EPA first describes the NPR discussion SO2 and NOX emission rates; and, reductions that are achieved in 2010
of engineering factors including the updated repowering costs. and 2015 are based on the caps that EPA
availability of boilermaker labor as a The National Electric Energy Data determined to be highly cost effective,
limitation (IV.C.2.a), then presents some System (NEEDS) contains the generation including the existence of the title IV
comments received (IV.C.2.b) and EPA’s unit records used to construct model bank.
responses (IV.C.2.c). In section IV.C.3, plants that represent existing and The final CAIR requires annual SO2
EPA discusses the financial stability of planned/committed units in EPA and NOX reductions in 23 States and the
the power sector in relation to the modeling applications of the IPM. The District of Columbia, and also requires
schedule for the CAIR. NEEDS includes basic geographic, ozone season NOX reductions in 25
Section IV.D of today’s preamble operating, air emissions, and other data States and the District of Columbia.
provides a detailed description of the on all the generation units that are Many of the CAIR States are affected by
final CAIR emission reduction represented by model plants in EPA’s both the annual SO2 and NOX reduction
requirements. Regionwide SO2 and NOX v.2.1.9 update of the IPM. requirements and the ozone season NOX
control levels, projected base case The IPM uses model run years to requirements.
emissions and emissions after the CAIR, represent the full planning horizon The EPA initially conducted IPM
and projected emissions reductions are being modeled. That is, several years in modeling for today’s final action using
presented. Section IV.D begins with a the planning horizon are mapped into a a control strategy that is similar but not
description of the criteria used to representative model run year, enabling identical to the final CAIR
determine final control requirements the IPM to perform multiple-year requirements.52 Many of the analyses for
and provides the details of the final analyses while keeping the model size the final CAIR are based on that initial
requirements. manageable. Although the IPM reports modeling, as explained further below.
results only for model run years, it takes The control strategy that EPA initially
A. What Methodology Did EPA Use To
into account the costs in all years in the modeled included three additional
Determine the Amounts of SO2 and NOX
planning horizon. In EPA’s v.2.1.9 States (Arkansas, Delaware and New
Emissions That Must Be Eliminated?
update of the IPM, the years 2008 Jersey) within the region required to
1. The EPA’s Cost Modeling through 2012 are mapped to run year make annual SO2 and NOX reductions.
Methodology 2010, and the years 2013 through 2017 However, these three States are not
The EPA conducted analysis using the are mapped to run year 2015.51 Model required to make annual reductions
Integrated Planning Model (IPM) that outputs for 2009 and 2010 are from the under the final CAIR. (In the ‘‘Proposed
indicates that its CAIR SO2 and NOX Rules’’ section of today’s Federal
51 An exception was made to the run year
reduction requirements are highly cost
mapping for an IPM sensitivity run that examined 52 The EPA began our emissions and economic
effective. Cost effectiveness is one the impact of a NOX Compliance Supplement Pool analyses for the CAIR before the air quality analysis,
portion of the contribute-significantly (CSP). In that run the years 2009 through 2012 were which affects the States covered by the final rule,
test. The EPA uses the IPM to examine mapped to 2010 and 2008 was mapped to 2008. was completed
Register, EPA is publishing a proposal Also, the 2009 and 2015 projected TABLE IV–2.—PROPOSED ANNUAL
to include Delaware and New Jersey in annual NOX emissions in the region ELECTRIC GENERATING UNIT SO2
the CAIR region for annual SO2 and encompassing the States that are AND NOX EMISSIONS CAPS IN THE
NOX reductions.) The addition of these affected by the final CAIR annual NOX CAIR REGION
three States made a total of 26 States requirements are virtually identical
and the District of Columbia covered by [Million Tons] 1
when compared between the two model
annual SO2 and NOX caps for the initial runs (difference between projected NOX 2015 and
model run. The initial model run also emissions is less than 1 percent for 2009 Pollutant 2010–2014 later
included individual State ozone season and less than 2 percent for 2015). In
NOX caps for Connecticut and addition, the 2010 and 2015 projected SO2 ................... 3.9 2.7
Massachusetts, and did not include annual SO2 emissions in the region NOX .................. 1.6 1.3
ozone season NOX caps for any other encompassing the States that are 1 CAIR Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (69
States. affected by the final CAIR annual SO2 FR 4618, January 30, 2004). The proposed
The Agency conducted revised final annual SO2 and NOX caps covered a 27-State
requirements are virtually the same
IPM modeling that reflects the final (AL, AR, DE, FL, GA, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA,
when compared between the two runs MD, MA, MI, MN, MO, NJ, NY, NC, OH, PA,
CAIR control strategy. The final IPM
(difference between projected SO2 SC, TN, TX, VA, WV, WI) plus DC region. In
modeling includes regionwide annual addition, we proposed an ozone-season only
emissions is less than 1 percent for 2010
SO2 and NOX caps on the 23 States and cap for Connecticut.
the District of Columbia that are and less than 2 percent for 2015). These
required to make annual reductions, and comparisons confirm EPA’s belief that In the NPR, EPA evaluated the
includes a regionwide ozone season the initial IPM run very closely amounts of SO2 and NOX emissions in
NOX cap on the 25 States and the represents the final CAIR program. upwind States that contribute
District of Columbia that are required to The IPM output files for the model significantly to downwind PM2.5
make ozone season reductions. The EPA runs used in CAIR analyses are available nonattainment and the amounts of NOX
modeled the final CAIR NOX strategy as in the CAIR docket. A Technical emissions in upwind States that
an annual NOX cap with a nested, Support Document in the CAIR docket contribute significantly to downwind
separate ozone season NOX cap. entitled ‘‘Modeling of Control Costs, ozone nonattainment. That is, EPA
In this section of today’s preamble, Emissions, and Control Retrofits for Cost determined the amounts of emissions
the projected CAIR costs and emissions Effectiveness and Feasibility Analyses’’ reductions that must be eliminated to
are generally derived from the final IPM further explains the IPM runs used in help downwind States achieve
run reflecting the final CAIR. However, the analyses for section IV of the attainment, by applying highly cost-
some of EPA’s analyses are based on the preamble. effective control measures to EGUs and
initial IPM run, described above, which determining the emissions reductions
reflected a similar but not identical 2. The EPA’s Proposed Methodology To that would result.
control strategy to the final CAIR. Determine Amounts of Emissions That From past experience in examining
Analyses that are presented in this Must be Eliminated multi-pollutant emissions trading
section of the preamble that are based programs for SO2 and NOX, EPA
a. Overview of EPA Proposal for the
on the initial IPM run include: IPM recognized that the air pollution control
Levels of Reductions and Resulting retrofits that result from a program to
sensitivity runs that examine the effects Caps, and Their Timing
of using the Energy Information achieve highly cost-effective reductions
Administration (EIA) natural gas price In the NPR, the amounts of SO2 and are quite significant and can not be
and electricity growth assumptions; NOX emissions reductions that EPA immediately installed. Such retrofits
marginal cost effectiveness curves proposed could be cost effectively require a large pool of specialized labor
developed using the Technology eliminated in the CAIR region in 2010 resources, in particular, boilermakers,
Retrofitting Updating Model; estimates and 2015, and the amount of the the availability of which will be a major
of average annual SO2 and NOX control proposed EGU emissions caps for SO2 limiting factor in the amount and timing
costs and average non-ozone season and NOX that would exist if all affected of reductions.
NOX control costs, and projected control States achieved those reductions by Also, EPA recognized that the
retrofits used in the feasibility analysis. capping EGU emissions, appear in regulated industry will need to secure
The air quality analysis in section VI of Tables IV–1 and IV–2, respectively. large amounts of capital to meet the
today’s preamble and the benefits control requirements while managing an
analysis in section X, as well as the already large debt load, and is facing
TABLE IV–1.—PROJECTED SO2 AND other large capital requirements to
analyses presented in the Regulatory
Impact Analysis (RIA), are based on
NOX EMISSION REDUCTIONS IN THE improve the transmission system.
emissions projections from the initial CAIR REGION IN 2010 AND 2015 Furthermore, allowing pollution control
IPM run. FOR THE PROPOSED RULE retrofits to be installed over time
The EPA believes that the differences [Million Tons] 1 enables the industry to take advantage
between the initial IPM run that the of planned outages at power plants
Agency used for many of the analyses Pollutant 2010 2015 (unplanned outages can lead to lost
for the CAIR, and the final IPM run revenue) and to enable project
reflecting the final CAIR requirements, SO2 ................... 3.6 3.7 management to learn from early
have very little impact on projected NOX .................. 1.5 1.8 installations how to deal with some of
control costs and emissions. For the two 1 CAIR Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (69 the engineering challenges that will
IPM runs, projected marginal costs of FR 4618, January 30, 2004). The proposed exist, especially for the smaller units
CAIR annual NOX reductions in 2009 annual SO2 and NOX caps covered a 27-State that often present space limitations.
and 2015 are identical. In addition, for (AL, AR, DE, FL, GA, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, Based on these and other
MD, MA, MI, MN, MO, NJ, NY, NC, OH, PA, considerations, EPA determined in the
the two IPM runs, projected marginal SC, TN, TX, VA, WV, WI) plus DC region. In
costs of CAIR annual SO2 reductions in addition, we proposed an ozone-season only NPR that the earliest reasonable
2010 and 2015 are almost identical. cap for Connecticut. deadline for compliance with the final
highly cost-effective control levels for Call controls under consideration. In [I]ncremental cost effectiveness helps to
reducing emissions was 2015 (taking addition, EPA considered several other identify whether a more stringent control
into consideration the existing bank of factors, including the fact that option imposes much higher costs relative to
the average cost per ton for further control.
title IV SO2 allowances). First, the downwind nonattainment areas had
The use of an average cost effectiveness
Agency confirmed that the levels of SO2 already implemented ozone controls but measure may not fully reveal costly
and NOX emissions it believed were upwind areas generally had not, the fact incremental requirements where control
reasonable to set as annual emissions that some otherwise required local options achieve large reductions in emissions
caps for 2015 lead to highly cost- controls would be less cost-effective (relative to the baseline) (63 FR 57399).
effective controls for the CAIR region. than the regional controls, and the Examination of marginal cost
Once EPA determined the 2015 overall ambient effects of the reductions effectiveness—which examines what the
emissions reductions levels, the Agency required in the NOX SIP Call (63 FR cost would be of the next ton of
determined a proposed first (interim) 57399–57403; October 27, 1998). reduction after the defined control
phase control level that would
commence January 1, 2010, the earliest i. Highly Cost-Effective Controls level—would fill this gap. However, for
the Agency believed initial pollution the NOX SIP Call rulemaking, adequate
In the NOX SIP Call, EPA presented information concerning marginal cost
controls could be fully operational (in control costs in 1990 dollars (1990$).
today’s final action, the first NOX effectiveness was not available.
For the electric power industry, these For the NOX SIP Call, to determine
control phase commences in 2009 expenditures were the increase in the average cost effectiveness that
instead of in 2010, as explained in detail annual electric generation production should be considered to be highly cost
in section IV.C). The first phase would costs in the control region that result effective, EPA developed a ‘‘reference
be the initial step on the slope of from the rule. In the CAIR NPR, SNPR,
emissions reductions (the glide-path) list’’ of NOX emissions controls that are
and today’s final action, EPA presents available and of comparable cost to
leading to the final (second) control the same type of electric generation as
phase to commence in 2015. The EPA other recently undertaken or planned
well as other costs in 1999$, and rounds NOX measures. The EPA explained that
determined the first phase based on the all values related to the cost per ton of
feasibility of installing the necessary ‘‘the cost effectiveness of measures that
air emissions controls to the nearest 100 EPA or States have adopted, or
emission control retrofits, as described dollars.
in section IV.C. proposed to adopt, forms a good
Although EPA’s primary cost- In the NOX SIP Call, EPA’s decision reference point for determining which
effectiveness determination is for the on the amount of required NOX of the available additional NOX control
2015 emissions reductions levels, the emissions reductions was that this measures can most easily be
Agency also evaluated the cost amount must be computed on the implemented by upwind States whose
effectiveness of the first phase control assumption of implementing highly emissions impact downwind
levels to ensure that they were also cost-effective controls. The nonattainment problems.’’ (63 FR
highly cost effective. Throughout this determination of what constituted 57400). The EPA explained that the
preamble section, EPA reports both the highly cost effective controls was measures on the reference list had
2015 and 2010 (and 2009 for NOX) cost- described as a two-part process: (1) The already been implemented or were
effectiveness results, although the first setting of a dollar-limit upper bound of planned to be implemented, and
phase levels were determined based on highly cost-effective emissions therefore could be assumed to be less
feasibility rather than cost effectiveness. reductions; and (2) a determination of expensive than other measures to be
The 2015 emissions reductions include what level of control below this upper- implemented in the future. The EPA
the 2010 (and 2009 for NOX) emissions bound was appropriate based upon found that the costs of the measures on
reductions as a subset of the more achievability and other factors. the reference list approached but were
stringent requirements that EPA is With respect to setting the upper below $2,000 per ton (1990$). The EPA
imposing in the second phase. bound of potential highly cost-effective concluded that ‘‘controls with an
controls, EPA determined this level on average cost effectiveness [of] less than
b. Regulatory History: NOX SIP Call the basis of average cost effectiveness $2,000 [1990$, or $2,500 (1999$)] per
In the NPR, EPA generally followed (the average cost per ton of pollutant ton of NOX removed [should be
the statutory interpretation and removed). The EPA explained that it considered] to be highly cost-effective.’’
approach under CAA section relied on average cost effectiveness for (63 FR 57400). Notably, the reference
110(a)(2)(D) developed in the NOX SIP two reasons: costs were taken from the supporting
Call rulemaking. Under this Since EPA’s determination for the core analyses used for the regulatory actions
interpretation, the emissions in each group of sources is based on the adoption of covering the NOX pollution controls—
upwind State that contribute a broad-based trading program, average cost they are what regulatory decision
significantly to nonattainment are effectiveness serves as an adequate measure makers and the public believed were the
identified as being those emissions that across sources because sources with high control costs.
can be eliminated through highly cost- marginal costs will be able to take advantage Mindful of this $2,000 limit [1990$, or
effective controls. of this program to lower their costs. In $2,500 (1999$)], EPA considered a
In the NOX SIP Call, EPA relied addition, average cost-effectiveness estimates control level that would have resulted
primarily on the application of highly are readily available for other recently in estimated average costs of
adopted NOX control measures (63 FR
cost-effective controls in determining 57399).
approximately $1,800 (1990$) per ton.
the amount of emissions that the However, EPA concluded that because
affected States were required to At that time, EPA acknowledged that the corresponding level of controls—
eliminate. Specifically, EPA developed average cost effectiveness did not nominally a 0.12 lb/mmBtu control
a reference list of the average cost directly address the fact that certain level—was not well enough established,
effectiveness of recently promulgated or units might have higher costs relative to EPA was ‘‘not as confident about the
proposed controls, and compared the the average cost of reduction (e.g., units robustness’’ of the cost estimates.
cost effectiveness of those controls to with lower capacity factors tend to have Moreover, EPA expressed concern that
the cost effectiveness of the NOX SIP higher costs): its ‘‘level of comfort’’ was not as high as
it would have liked that the nominal As another factor, EPA generally from title IV levels (i.e., 4.5 million tons
0.12 lb/mmBtu control level ‘‘will not considered ‘‘the cost effectiveness of nationwide) in 2010. For NOX, EPA
lead to installation of SCR technology at additional local reductions in the * * * initially looked at ozone season and
a level and in a manner that will be ozone nonattainment areas.’’ The EPA non-ozone season caps. Commencing in
difficult to implement or result in included in the record information that 2000, the ozone season emissions cap
reliability problems for electric power nationally, on average, additional local would be based on an emission rate of
generation’’ (63 FR 57401). measures would cost more than the cost 0.20 lb/mmBtu, and in 2005, the ozone
Accordingly, EPA selected the next of the upwind controls required under season cap would be reduced to a level
control level that it had evaluated—a the NOX SIP Call. This consideration based on 0.15 lb/mmBtu (these cap
nominal 0.15 lb/mmBtu level—which further indicated that the regional levels would be similar to the phased
would result in an average cost of controls under the NOX SIP Call were caps adopted by the Ozone Transport
approximately $1,500 [1990$, or $1,900 highly cost effective (63 FR 57404). Commission (OTC) States). The non-
(1999$)] per ton. The EPA determined In addition, EPA conducted air
quality modeling to determine the ozone season cap would be based on the
that this control level did not present proposed title IV phase II NOX rule. The
the uncertainty concerns associated impact of the controls, and found that
they benefitted the downwind areas EPA also considered other options in
with the 0.12 level. The EPA added, in
without being more than necessary for the CAPI study, including setting NOX
this 1998 rule: ‘‘With a strong need to
those areas to attain (63 FR 57403— caps based on emission rates of 0.20 lb/
implement a program by 2003 that is
recognized by the States as practical, 57404). mmBtu and 0.25 lb/mmBtu; setting NOX
necessary, and broadly accepted as caps based on rates of 0.15 lb/mmBtu
c. Proposed Criteria for Emissions and 0.20 lb/mmBtu but lowering the
highly cost-effective, the Agency has Reduction Requirements
decided to base the emissions budgets SO2 allowance cap by 60 percent
for EGUs on a 0.15 * * * level.’’ (63 FR i. General Criteria instead of 50 percent; and, keeping a
57401—57402). The EPA summarized In the CAIR NPR, EPA proposed NOX cap based on a rate of 0.15 lb/
its approach as determining ‘‘the criteria for determining the appropriate mmBtu but lowering the SO2 allowance
required emission levels * * * based on levels of annual emissions reductions cap by 50 percent in 2005 instead of in
the application of NOX controls that for SO2 and NOX and ozone-season 2010.
achieve the greatest feasible emissions emissions reductions for NOX. The EPA The EPA did a follow-up study in
reduction while still falling within a stated that it considers a variety of 1999 and discussed those results with
cost-per-ton reduced range that EPA factors in evaluating the source various stakeholder groups, as well.54
considers to be highly cost- categories from which highly cost- That study considered a variety of SO2
effective.* * *’’ (63 FR 57399). effective reductions may be available emission caps ranging from a 40 percent
The bulk of the cost for reducing NOX and the level of reduction assumed from reduction from title IV cap levels in
emissions for EGUs is in the capital that sector. These include: 2010 to a 55 percent reduction from title
investment in the control equipment, • The availability of information,
• The identification of source IV cap levels in 2010. The 1999 study
which would be the same whether did not consider additional reductions
controls are installed for ozone season categories emitting relatively large
amounts of the relevant emissions, in NOX emissions beyond those
only, or for annual controls. The
• The performance and applicability required under the NOX SIP Call.
increased costs to run the equipment
annually instead of only in the ozone of control measures, In the last several years, EPA has
season is relatively small. Although the • The cost effectiveness of control performed significant additional
NOX SIP Call is an ozone season NOX measures, and analysis in support of the proposed
reduction program, most of the NOX • Engineering and financial factors Clear Skies Act.55 That legislation,
control costs on the reference list are for that affect the availability of control proposed in 2002 and 2003, would
annual reductions. If the NOX SIP Call measures (69 FR 4611).
include nationwide SO2 caps of 4.5
Further, EPA stated that overall, ‘‘We
were an annual program instead of million tons in 2010 and 3.0 million
are striving * * * to set up a reasonable
seasonal, its average control costs would tons in 2018 (i.e., 50 percent and 67
balance of regional and local controls to
be lower, relative to the annual control percent reductions from title IV cap
provide a cost-effective and equitable
costs in the reference list. levels). The Clear Skies Act also
governmental approach to attainment
ii. Other Factors with the NAAQS for fine particles and includes a two-phase, two-zone NOX
ozone.’’ (69 FR 4612) emission cap program, with the first
In the NOX SIP Call, although The EPA has used these types of phase in 2008 and the second phase in
considering air quality and cost to be criteria in a number of efforts to develop 2018. In the 2003 legislation, the first
the primary factors for determining regional and national strategies to phase NOX caps would result in
significant contribution, EPA identified reduce interstate transport of SO2 and effective NOX emissions rates of 0.16 lb/
several other factors that it generally
NOX. Starting in 1996, EPA performed mmBtu in the east and 0.20 lb/mmBtu
considered. As one factor, EPA
analysis and engaged in dialogue with in the west, and the second phase
reviewed ‘‘overall considerations of
power companies, States, environmental would result in effective emission rates
fairness related to the control regimes
groups and other interested groups in of 0.12 lb/mmBtu in the east and 0.20
required of the downwind and upwind
the Clean Air Power Initiative (CAPI).53 lb/mmBtu in the west.
areas,’’ particularly, the fact that the
In that study of national emission
major urban nonattainment areas in the
reduction strategies, EPA initially 54 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
East had implemented controls on
considered an emissions cap based on a of Air and Radiation, Analysis of Emission
virtually all portions of their inventory
50 percent reduction in SO2 emissions Reduction Options for the Electric Power Industry,
of ozone precursors, but upwind sources March 1999.
had not implemented reductions 53 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office 55 EPA’s Clear Skies Act analysis is on the web
intended to reduce their impacts of Air and Radiation, EPA’s Clean Air Power at: http://www.epa.gov/air/clearskies/
downwind (63 FR 57404). Initiative, October 1996. technical.html.
ii. Reliance on Average and Marginal under the CAIR, as discussed in more surprisingly, no commenter presented to
Cost Effectiveness detail below. EPA the analytic tools, which we would
In the CAIR NPR, EPA supported the expect would consist of a complex,
3. What Are the Most Significant
conclusion that its emissions caps are computerized program that could
Comments That EPA Received About Its
highly cost effective based upon ‘‘(1) integrate, on a State-by-State basis, both
Proposed Methodology for Determining
comparison to the average cost control costs and ambient impacts by
the Amounts of SO2 and NOX Emissions
effectiveness of other regulatory actions each State on each of its downwind
That Must Be Eliminated, and What Are
and (2) comparison to the marginal cost receptors under the CAIR control
EPA’s Responses?
effectiveness of other regulatory scenario.
Some commenters took issue with In the absence of a scientifically
actions.’’ (69 FR 4585). We EPA’s reliance on cost-per-ton-of- defensible, practicable method for
supplemented these comparisons of emissions-reductions as the metric for implementing a program design
cost-effectiveness tables with an determining cost effectiveness. These approach based on the cost-per-ambient-
auxiliary evaluation of the marginal commenters observed that this metric impact of emissions reductions, EPA is
costs curves, which allowed us to show does not take into account that any not able to employ such an approach.
that the selected control levels would be given ton of pollutant reduction may However, EPA believes it appropriate to
‘‘below the point at which there would have different impacts on ambient continue to examine ways to develop
be significant diminishing returns on concentration and human exposure. such an approach for future use.
the dollars spent for pollution control.’’ Some of these commenters advocated A few commenters suggested that EPA
(69 FR 4614). use of a metric based on cost per unit should use a cost-benefit analysis for
Although in the NOX SIP Call, EPA of pollutant concentration reduced. determining reduction levels. One noted
based the required controls on average Another stated that EPA should account that cost-benefit analysis can help find
cost alone, in today’s rule, EPA uses for cost effectiveness based on the reduction levels that maximize
both average and marginal costs, geographical location relative to the area societal net benefit (benefits minus
including an evaluation of the marginal of nonattainment. costs), and suggested the Agency should
cost curves. At the time of the NOX SIP Still other commenters took a compare the marginal cost of each ton
Call, marginal cost information was not contrasting view. They argued that a of pollutant reduced to the marginal
as readily available. Today, such metric based on cost-per-ambient- benefit achieved, as well as compare the
information is available for both SO2 impact might be useful in justifying total costs to the total benefits. Another
and NOX controls, although marginal control cost effectiveness for source stated that an optimal allocation of
cost information remains more limited categories within an individual resources is where the marginal cost
and EPA has had to specifically develop nonattainment area as part of an equals the marginal benefit, and
marginal cost estimates for use in this attainment SIP, but not for evaluating observed that comparing the average
rulemaking. costs of controlling long-range transport. cost to the average benefit of the
Marginal costs are a useful measure of These commenters stated that it is controls proposed in the CAIR NPR
cost effectiveness because they indicate impractical to calculate cost yields an average benefit significantly
how much any additional level of effectiveness of control on the basis of higher than the average cost. This
control at the margin will cost relative cost per unit reduction in ambient commenter concluded that EPA should
to other actions that are available. Using concentration. One queried: ‘‘Where require controls beyond the controls
both average and marginal control costs, would the ambient reduction be described in the NPR as highly cost
provides a more complete picture of the measured? 100 miles downwind? 1,500 effective.
costs of controls than using average miles downwind?’’ Although EPA strongly agrees that
costs alone. Average costs provide a The EPA agrees that optimally, the examination of costs and benefits is very
means for a straightforward comparison cost-per-ambient-impact of controls useful, in today’s rulemaking, EPA does
between the CAIR and other emissions could play a major role in determining not interpret CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)
reductions programs for which average upwind control obligations (although to base the amount of emissions
costs are generally the only type of costs equitable considerations and other reductions on benefits other than
available. Where marginal cost factors identified in the NOX SIP Call progress towards attainment of the PM2.5
information is available, it enables EPA rulemaking and today’s action may also or the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The EPA’s
to compare the costs of the CAIR at the play a role). The EPA recognized the interpretation does, however, use cost
stringency level being considered to the potential importance of this factor effectiveness per ton of pollutant
costs of the last increment of control in during the NOX SIP Call rulemaking and reduced, and we are using that analytic
other programs. Moreover, evaluation of endeavored to develop technical tool for setting SO2 and NOX emission
marginal cost curves allows us to information to support it. However, in reduction requirements. Additionally,
corroborate that the selected level of that rulemaking, EPA was not able to EPA has prepared a cost-benefit analysis
stringency of the selected program stops develop an approach to quantify, with to inform the Agency and public of the
short of the point where the returns sufficient accuracy, cost-per-ambient many other important impacts of this
begin to diminish significantly. impact because the NOX SIP Call region rulemaking.
Projected marginal cost information was large—covering approximately half A few commenters suggested that the
for controlling emissions from EGUs is of the continental U.S. and including Agency should set its NOX and SO2
now available for some State programs, approximately half the States—and reduction requirements based on Best
because EPA includes the programs in many upwind States with different Available Control Technology (BACT)
its base case power sector modeling emissions inventories had widely varied emission rates for EGUs. Although not
using the IPM to develop the impacts on many different clearly stated, the commenters appear to
incremental costs of electricity nonattainment areas downwind. suggest BACT level controls for both
production for the CAIR. Marginal EGU This problem—the complexity of the existing and new units.
control costs from State programs task and the dearth of analytic tools— The emission reduction requirements
modeled using the IPM were compared remains today for both PM2.5 and 8-hour that EPA determined are based on the
to projected marginal EGU control costs ozone regional transport. Not application of highly cost-effective
controls that are a step that the Agency noticeably higher rate—appears to start proposed SO2 controls based on the
is taking at this time to eliminate above $1,200 per ton (69 FR 4613— Energy Information Administration’s
emissions that contribute significantly 4615). projections for electricity growth and
to nonattainment of the ozone and fine In the NPR, EPA then provided natural gas prices. These sensitivity
particle NAAQS. As explained further analysis of a two-phase SO2 analyses showed marginal SO2 control
elsewhere, this step is reasonable in reduction program. The final (second) costs of $900 per ton and $1,100 per ton
light of the current status of phase, in 2015, would reduce SO2 for years 2010 and 2015, respectively.
implementation for those NAAQS. emissions in the CAIR region by the The EPA proposed to consider the SO2
Basing emission reduction amount that results from making a 65 emissions reductions proposed in the
requirements on a presumption of BACT percent reduction from the title IV NPR as highly cost effective because
emission rates across the board would Phase II allowance levels (taking into they were consistent with the lower end
require scrubbers and SCRs on all coal- consideration the existing bank of title of the reference list range of cost per ton
fired units and SCRs on all gas-fired and IV SO2 allowances). The first phase, in of SO2 reduction for controls on both an
oil-fired units. The cost of these controls 2010, would reduce SO2 emissions in average and a marginal cost basis (69 FR
would vary considerably from source to the CAIR region by a lesser amount, i.e., 4613—4615).
source, be expensive for many sources, a 50 percent reduction from title IV
Phase II allowance levels (again, taking ii. Analysis of SO2 Emission Reduction
and may cause substantial fuel
into consideration the banked title IV Requirements for Today’s Final Rule
switching to natural gas and closure of
smaller coal-fired units. Having SO2 allowances). The EPA developed (I) Reference Lists of Cost-Effective SO2
considered this suggestion for deeper this target SO2 control level for further Controls
regional reductions that would not be as evaluation because, based on all of the
earlier work performed on multi- For today’s action, EPA updated the
cost effective as the highly cost-effective
pollutant power plant reduction reference list of controls included in the
reductions in today’s rule, EPA believes
programs and general consideration, NPR of the average and marginal costs
that a more tailored approach, such as
with technical support, of overall per ton of recent SO2 control actions.
the CAIR level control as well as local
emissions reductions, costs to industry The EPA systematically developed a list
controls under SIPs (where necessary),
and the general public, ambient of cost information from both recent
is a more reasonable approach to
improvement, and consistency with the actions and proposed actions. The EPA
achieving the level of ambient
emerging PM2.5 implementation compiled cost information for actions
improvement needed for attainment
program, we believed it would meet the taken by the Agency, and examined the
throughout the United States.
criteria set forth above. public comments submitted after the
4. The EPA’s Evaluation of Highly Cost- Then, EPA conducted cost analyses of NPR was published, to identify all
Effective SO2 and NOX Emissions this control level using the IPM as well available control cost information to
Reductions Based on Controlling EGUs as additional analysis of the provide the updated reference list for
a. SO2 Emissions Reductions implications of this control level to today’s preamble. The updated
Requirements determine if it did indeed meet those reference list includes both average and
criteria. The IPM analysis considered marginal costs of control, to which EPA
i. CAIR Proposal for SO2 compares the CAIR control costs, and
the increase in annual electric
The NPR focused primarily on generation production costs in the CAIR the list represents what regulatory
determining highly cost-effective region that result from the rule. The decision makers and/or the public
amounts of emissions reductions based EPA evaluated the cost effectiveness of believes are the control costs.56
on, as in the NOX SIP Call, comparison the final phase (2015) cap to determine Table IV–3 provides average costs of
to reference lists of the cost if it is highly cost effective; and, we also SO2 controls. This table includes
effectiveness of other regulatory evaluated the cost effectiveness of the average costs for recent BACT
controls. In the NPR, EPA developed 2010 cap. The EPA used the IPM to permitting decisions for SO2. Under
reference lists for both the average cost estimate cost effectiveness of the CAIR EPA’s New Source Review (NSR)
effectiveness and the marginal cost in the future. The IPM incorporates program, if a company is planning to
effectiveness of those other controls. projections of future electricity demand, build a new plant or modify an existing
These reference lists indicated that the and thus heat input growth. The EPA’s plant such that a significant net increase
average annual costs per ton of SO2 IPM analyses for the CAIR includes all in emissions will occur, the company
removed ranged from $500 to $2,100; fossil fuel-fired EGUs with capacity must obtain a NSR permit that addresses
and marginal costs of SO2 removal greater than 25 MW. A description of controls for air emissions. BACT is the
ranged from $800 to $2,200. the IPM is included elsewhere in this type of control required by the NSR
Moreover, EPA further considered the preamble, and a detailed model program for existing sources in
cost effectiveness of alternative documentation is in the docket. attainment areas. The BACT decisions
stringency levels for this regulatory The SO2 annual control costs that are determined on a case-by-case basis,
proposal. That is, EPA examined were presented in the CAIR NPR were usually by State or local permitting
changes in the marginal cost curve at average costs of $700 per ton and $800 agencies, and reflect consideration of
varying levels of emissions reductions. per ton for years 2010 and 2015, average and incremental cost
The EPA determined in the NPR that the respectively, and marginal costs of $700 effectiveness. These decisions are
‘‘knee’’ in the marginal cost- per ton and $1,000 per ton for years relevant for EPA’s reference list of
effectiveness curve—the point at which 2010 and 2015. In addition, the NPR average costs of SO2 controls, because
the marginal cost per ton of SO2 included the results of sensitivity they represent cost-effective controls
removed begins to increase at a analyses that examined costs of the that have been demonstrated.
56 The updated reference list includes estimated best available retrofit technology (BART) requirements. The BART rule was proposed and has
average costs for SO2 reductions from EGUs under not been finalized (69 FR 25184; May 5, 2004).
TABLE IV–3.—AVERAGE COSTS PER TON OF ANNUAL SO2 CONTROLS

Average cost per
SO2 control action ton
Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Determinations ......................................................................................................... 1 $400–$2,100
Nonroad Diesel Engines and Fuel ................................................................................................................................................ 2 $800
Proposed Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) for Electric Power Sector ........................................................................ 3 $2,600–$3,400
1 These numbers reflect a range of cost-effectiveness data entered into EPA’s RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse (RBLC) for add-on SO con-
2
trols (www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/). We identified actions in the data base for large, utility-scale, coal-fired boiler units for which cost effectiveness data
were reported. The range of costs shown here is for boilers ranging from 30 MW to an estimated 790 MW (we used a conversion factor of 10
mmBtu/hr = 1 MW for units for which size was reported in mmBtu/hr). Emission limits for these actions ranged from 0.10 lb/mmBtu to 0.27 lb/
mmBtu. Add-on controls reported for these units are dry or wet scrubbers (in one case with added alkali and in one case with a baghouse).
Where the dollar-year was not reported we assumed 1999 dollars. The cost range presented in the NPR was $500–$2,100–today’s range in-
cludes additional BACT costs that were entered into the clearinghouse after the NPR was published.
2 Control of Emissions of Air Pollution From Nonroad Diesel Engines and Fuel; Final Rule (69 FR 39131; June 29, 2004). The value in this
table represents the long-term cost per ton of emissions reduced from the total fuel and engine program (cost per ton of emissions reduced in
the year 2030). 1999$ per ton.
3 The EPA IPM modeling 2004, available in the docket. The EPA modeled the Regional Haze Requirements as source specific limits (90 per-
cent SO2 reduction or 0.1 lb/mmBtu rate; except the five state WRAP region for which we did not model SO2 controls beyond what is done for
the WRAP cap in the base case modeling). Estimated average costs based on this modeling are $2,600 per ton in 2015 and $3,400 per ton in
2020. 1999$ per ton.
Table IV–4 provides the marginal cost

per ton of recent State and regional
decisions for annual SO2 controls.
TABLE IV–4.—MARGINAL COSTS PER TON OF ANNUAL SO2 CONTROLS

Marginal cost per
SO2 control action ton
New Hampshire Rule ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1 $600
WRAP Regional SO2 Trading Program ......................................................................................................................................... 2 $1,100–$2,200
1 The EPA IPM base case modeling August 2004, available in the docket. (1999$ per ton). We modeled New Hampshire’s State Bill ENV-
A2900, which caps SO2 emissions at all existing fossil steam units.
2 ‘‘An Assessment of Critical Mass for the Regional SO Trading Program,’’ prepared for Western Regional Air Partnership Market Trading
2
Forum by ICF Consulting Group, September 27, 2002, available in the docket. This analysis looked at the implications of one or more States
choosing to opt-out of the WRAP regional SO2 trading program. (1999$ per ton)
(II) Cost Effectiveness of the CAIR The EPA also updated its analysis of sensitivity analyses. As a result, EPA
Annual SO2 Reductions the sensitivity of the marginal cost wanted to examine the marginal costs
results to assumptions of higher electric that would occur under the scenarios
In the NPR, EPA evaluated an annual growth and natural gas prices than we
SO2 control strategy based on a modeled in the sensitivity analyses to
used in the base case. These sensitivity see how they differed from the costs
specified level of emissions reductions analyses were based on the Energy
from EGUs. Available information using EPA’s assumptions.
Information Administration’s Annual
indicated that emissions reductions Table IV–5 provides the average and
Energy Outlook for 2004.57
from this industry would be the most marginal costs of annual SO2 reductions
cost effective. (As noted elsewhere, EPA In determining whether our control under the CAIR for 2010 and 2015.
considered control strategies for other strategy is highly cost effective, EPA (When presenting estimated CAIR
source categories, but concluded that believes it is important to account for
control costs in section IV of this
they would not qualify as highly cost- the variable levels of cost effectiveness
preamble, EPA uses ‘‘Main Case’’ to
effective controls.) Of course, under that these sensitivity analyses indicate
indicate the primary CAIR IPM
today’s rule, although EPA calculates may occur if electricity demand or
natural gas prices are appreciably higher analyses, as differentiated from other
the amount of emissions reductions IPM analyses such as sensitivity runs
States must achieve by evaluation of the than assumed in the IPM. Those two
factors are key determinants of control used to examine the impacts of varying
EGU control strategy, States remain free assumptions about natural gas price and
to achieve those reductions by costs and, over the relatively long
implementation period provided under electric growth.)
implementing controls on any sources
they wish. today’s action, a meaningful degree of
risk arises that these factors may well TABLE IV–5.—ESTIMATED COSTS PER
For today’s action, EPA updated the TONS OF SO2 CONTROLLED UNDER
vary to the extent indicated by the
predicted annual SO2 control costs
included in the NPR. The EPA analyzed
CAIR, CAP LEVELS BEGINNING IN
the costs of the CAIR using an updated
57 The EPA used the difference between EIA’s 2010 AND 2015 1
estimates for well-head natural gas prices and
version of the IPM (documentation for minemouth coal prices to determine the sensitivity
Type of cost effectiveness 2010 2015
the IPM update is in the docket). of IPM’s results to higher natural gas prices. The
Further, EPA modified the modeling to EPA describes this sensitivity analysis as ‘‘EIA
natural gas prices’’. For electric demand, we Average Cost—Main Case $500 $700
match the final CAIR strategy (see replaced EPA’s assumed annual growth of 1.6 Marginal Cost—Main Case 700 1,000
section IV.A.1 for a description of EPA’s percent with EIA’s projection of annual growth of
CAIR IPM modeling). 1.8 percent.
TABLE IV–5.—ESTIMATED COSTS PER The cost of the SO2 reductions programs), States will develop plans
TONS OF SO2 CONTROLLED UNDER required under today’s action—if the designed to achieve the standards in
CAIR, CAP LEVELS BEGINNING IN States choose to implement those their local nonattainment areas. The
2010 AND 2015 1—Continued reductions through EGUs, for which the EPA has not yet promulgated rules
most cost-effective reductions are interpreting the CAA’s requirements for
Type of cost effectiveness 2010 available—on average and at the margin,
2015 SIPs for PM2.5 and ozone nonattainment
are at the lower end of the range of cost areas,59 nor have States developed plans
Sensitivity Analysis: Mar- effectiveness of other, recent SO2 to demonstrate attainment. As a result,
ginal Cost Using EIA control requirements.58 This is true for there are significant uncertainties
Electric Growth and Nat- our analysis of both the costs EPA regarding potential reductions and
ural Gas Prices ............. 800 1,200 generally expects as well as the control costs associated with State
1 The EPA IPM modeling 2004, available in somewhat higher costs that would result plans. We believe that some areas are
the docket. $1999 per ton. from higher than expected electricity likely to attain the standards in the near
demand and natural gas prices, as term through early CAIR reductions and
These estimated SO2 control costs indicated in the sensitivity analyses that local controls that have costs per ton
under the CAIR reflect annual EGU SO2 EPA has done. similar to the levels we have determined
caps of 3.6 million tons in 2010 and 2.5 Specifically, the average cost to be highly cost effective. We expect
million tons in 2015 within the CAIR effectiveness of the SO2 requirements is that other areas with higher PM2.5 or
region. Based on IPM modeling, EPA $700 per ton removed in 2015. This ozone levels will determine through the
projects that SO2 emissions in the CAIR amount falls toward the low end of the attainment planning process that they
region will be about 5.1 million tons in reference range of average costs per ton need greater emissions reductions, at
2010 and 4.0 million tons in 2015. The removed of $400 to $3,400. Similarly, higher costs per ton, to reach attainment
projected emissions are above the cap the marginal cost effectiveness of the within the CAA’s timeframes. For those
levels because of the use of the existing SO2 requirements ranges from $1,000 to areas, States will need to assess targeted
title IV bank of SO2 allowances. Average $1,200 for 2015 (with the higher end of measures for achieving local attainment
costs shown for 2015 are an estimate of the range based on the sensitivity in a cost-effective (but not necessarily
the average cost per ton to achieve the analyses). These amounts fall toward highly cost-effective) manner, in
total difference in projected emissions the lower end of the reference range of combination with the CAIR’s significant
between the base case conditions and marginal cost per ton removed of $600 reductions. Given the uncertainties that
the CAIR in the year 2015 (the 2015 to $2,200. exist at this early stage of the
average costs are not based on the The EPA believes that selecting as implementation process, EPA believes
increment in reductions between 2010 highly cost-effective amounts toward this rule is a rational approach to
and 2015). (A more detailed description the lower end of our average and determining the highly cost-effective
of the final CAIR SO2 and NOX control marginal cost ranges for SO2 and NOX reductions in PM2.5 and ozone
requirements is provided below in control is appropriate because today’s precursors that should be required for
today’s preamble.) rulemaking is an early step in the interstate transport purposes.
process of addressing PM2.5 and 8-hour As discussed above, the Agency
(III) SO2 Cost Comparison for CAIR
ozone nonattainment and maintenance believes this approach is consistent with
Requirements
requirements. The CAA requires States our action in the NOX SIP Call. While
The EPA believes that if an SO2 to submit section 110(a)(2)(D) plans to the cost level selected for the NOX SIP
control strategy has a cost effectiveness address interstate transport, and overall Call was not at the low end of the
that is at the low end of the updated attainment plans to ensure the NAAQS reference range of costs, if the NOX SIP
reference tables, the approach should be are met in local areas. By taking the Call costs were for annual rather than
considered to be highly cost effective. early step of finalizing the CAIR, we are seasonal controls they would have been
The costs in the reference range should requiring a very substantial air emission lower relative to the annual control
be considered to be cost effective reduction that addresses interstate costs on the list. This would make the
because they represent actions that have transport of PM2.5 as well as a further relationship between the cost of the
already been taken to reduce emissions. reduction in interstate transport of NOX SIP Call and the reference costs
In deciding to require these actions, ozone beyond that required by the NOX used in that rulemaking, more similar to
policymakers at the local, State and relative costs of CAIR compared to its
SIP Call Rule. Much of the air quality
Federal levels have determined them to reference lists. Also, significant local
improvement resulting from reduced
be cost-effective reductions to limit or controls for meeting the 1-hour ozone
transport is likely to occur through
reduce emissions. Thus, costs at the standard had already been adopted in
broad and deep emissions reductions
bottom of the range must necessarily be many areas.
from the electric power sector, which Although EPA’s primary cost-
considered highly cost effective. has been a major part of the transport effectiveness determination is for the
Today’s action requires SO2 emissions problem. Other air quality benefits will 2015 emissions reductions levels, the
reductions (or an EGU emissions cap) in occur as the result of Federal mobile Agency also evaluated the cost
2015. The EPA has determined that source regulations for new sources, effectiveness of the interim phase
those emissions reductions are highly which cover passenger vehicles and control levels to ensure that they were
cost effective. In addition, today’s action light trucks, heavy-duty trucks and also highly cost effective. For the SO2
requires that some of those SO2 buses, and non-road diesel equipment. requirements for 2010, the average cost
emissions reductions (or a higher EGU Against this backdrop of Federal effectiveness is $500 per ton removed,
emissions cap) be implemented by 2010. actions that lower air emissions (as well and the marginal cost effectiveness
The EPA has examined the cost as some substantial State control
effectiveness of implementing those 59 EPA did promulgate Phase I of the ozone
58 The updated reference list of average SO
earlier emissions reductions (or cap) by 2 implementation rule in April 2004 (69 FR 23951;
control costs includes estimated average EGU costs April 30, 2004) but has not issued Phase II of the
2010, and determined that they are also under BART. The BART rule has been proposed but rule, which will interpret CAA requirements
highly cost effective. not finalized (69 FR 25184; May 5, 2004). relating to local controls (e.g., RACT, RACM, RFP).
ranges from $700 to $800. The 2010 (IV) Cost Effectiveness: Marginal Cost its conclusion concerning the cost
costs indicate that the interim phase Curves for SO2 Control effectiveness of the selected levels of
CAIR reductions are also highly cost- control:
As noted above, the Agency also
effective. considered another factor to corroborate
The cost effectiveness of alternative at about $2,000 per ton of SO2. (As assumptions would look different,
stringency levels for today’s action. discussed above, the projected marginal therefore it would not be appropriate to
Specifically, EPA examined changes in costs of SO2 reductions for the CAIR are compare the curves here to the marginal
the marginal cost curve at varying levels $700 per ton in 2010 and $1,000 per ton costs based on the IPM modeling
of emissions reductions for EGUs. in 2015.) The EPA used the Technology sensitivity run that used EIA
Figure IV–1 shows that the ‘‘knee’’ in Retrofitting Updating Model (TRUM), a assumptions.) These results make clear
the 2010 marginal cost-effectiveness spreadsheet model based on the IPM, for that this rule is very cost effective
curve—the point where the cost of this analysis. (The EPA based these because the control level is below the
controlling a ton of SO2 from EGUs is marginal SO2 cost-effectiveness curves point at which the cost begins to
increasing at a noticeably higher rate— on the electric growth and natural gas increase at a significantly higher rate.
appears to occur at about $2,000 per ton price assumptions in the main CAIR In this manner, these results
of SO2. Figure IV–2 shows that the IPM modeling run. Marginal cost corroborate EPA’s findings above
‘‘knee’’ in the 2015 marginal cost- effectiveness curves based on other concerning the cost effectiveness of the
effectiveness curve also appears to occur electric growth and natural gas price emissions reductions.60
60 EPA is using the knee in the curve analysis information, and not other considerations. We note NAAQS or to achieve benefits that exceed costs. It
solely to show that the required emissions that it might be reasonable in a particular regulatory should be noted that similar analysis for other
reductions are very cost effective. The marginal cost action to require emissions reductions past the knee source categories may yield different curves.
ER12my05.000</GPH>
curve reflects only emissions reduction and cost of the curve to reduce overall costs of meeting the
b. NOX Emissions Reductions emissions rates for fossil fuel-fired mmBtu). The NOX SIP Call is based on
Requirements EGUs. For historical heat input, EPA an emission rate of 0.15 lb/mmBtu.
proposed determining the highest heat The methodology described in the
i. The CAIR Proposal for NOX and
input from units affected by the Acid NPR is best understood as the means for
Subsequent Analyses for Regionwide
Rain Program for each affected State for developing the target 2015 annual NOX
Annual and Ozone Season NOX Control
the years 1999–2002. The EPA then control level (or emissions budget) for
Levels
summed this heat input for all of the further evaluation through IPM. The
In this section, EPA describes its States affected for annual NOX EPA developed this level mindful of its
proposed method for determining reductions. For 2015, EPA calculated a experience to date with the NOX SIP
regionwide NOX control levels and the proposed regionwide annual NOX Call and the earlier work EPA has
method used for the final CAIR. budget by multiplying this heat input by performed on multi-pollutant power
In the CAIR NPR, EPA updated the an emission rate of 0.125 lb/mmBtu, and plant reduction programs. The EPA also
reference list included in the NOX SIP for 2010 by multiplying by 0.15 lb/ considered available technical
Call for the average annual cost mmBtu. information on pollution controls, costs
effectiveness of recent or proposed NOX In developing the CAIR NPR, when to industry and the general public,
controls, and determined that these EPA considered the appropriate amount ambient air improvement, and
amounts ranged from approximately of annual SO2 emissions reductions, consistency with the emerging PM2.5
$200 to $2,800. In addition, in the NPR, EPA relied on the existing title IV implementation program, in developing
EPA developed a reference list for annual SO2 cap as a starting point. its target control level.
marginal annual cost effectiveness for However, in considering the appropriate Recent advances in combustion
NOX controls, and determined that these amount of NOX reductions, the situation control technology for NOX reductions,
amounts ranged from approximately is different because title IV does not cap as well as widespread use of selective
$1,400 to $3,000 (69 FR 4614—4615). NOX emissions. Therefore, EPA and the catalytic reduction (SCR) on U.S. coal-
In the NPR, EPA proposed a two- States have focused on emissions caps fired EGU boilers achieving NOX
phased annual NOX control program, based on a combination of heat input emission rates of 0.06 lb/mmBtu and
with a final phase in 2015 and a first and NOX emission rates. Emission rates below, provide evidence that even lower
phase in 2010. The regionwide similar to the rates used to develop the average NOX emission rates are more
emissions reduction requirements that CAIR NPR have been considered in the highly cost-effective than rates
EPA proposed—and the budget levels past. For example, the CAPI 1996 study, considered in the past (based on
that would apply if all States chose to noted above, contemplated NOX caps analyzing EGUs), possibly on the order
implement the reductions from EGUs— based on an emission rate of 0.15 lb/ of 0.12 lb/mmBtu or less. The EPA
were based on using a combination of mmBtu (and other options based on developed the target annual NOX
ER12my05.001</GPH>
recent historical heat input and NOX NOX rates of 0.20 lb/mmBtu and 0.25 lb/ control level (or emissions budget) with
the understanding that the evaluation of yield an average effective NOX emission historic heat input used to develop the
that level might indicate that average rate (considering all EGUs potentially target emissions budgets, and the
emission rates on the order of 0.12 lb/ affected by CAIR for annual reductions, projected NOX emission rates in 2010
mmBtu or less might be highly cost not only the Acid Rain units, and and 2015 are lower than the 0.15 lb/
effective for the final (2015) control considering growth in heat input) mmBtu and 0.125 lb/mmBtu rates that
phase, and an interim level resulting in somewhat less than 0.125 lb/mmBtu. were used to develop the budgets. IPM
an average emission rate of less than Likewise, multiplying the approximate determined the costs of meeting these
0.15 lb/mmBtu might be feasible for the recent heat input by 0.15 lb/mmBtu to average future NOX emission rates of
first phase. develop a regionwide annual 2010 NOX 0.14 lb/mmBtu and 0.11 lb/mmBtu. The
The EPA did evaluate the target cap could reasonably be expected to EPA considers these emission rates to be
annual NOX control levels (or emissions yield an average effective NOX emission highly cost-effective and feasible.
budgets) using the IPM. The EPA rate for all CAIR units of about 0.15 lb/ In the NPR, EPA proposed an interim
confirmed that the 2015 level is highly mmBtu or less. (Phase I) annual NOX phase in 2010 and
cost effective. The Agency also Although EPA calculated—in essence, a final (Phase II) annual NOX phase in
evaluated the cost effectiveness of the as a target level for further evaluation— 2015. However, in today’s final rule,
proposed 2010 cap to assure that the the proposed regionwide annual NOX EPA is promulgating a Phase I for NOX
interim phase reductions would also be control levels (or emissions budgets) in 2009 (with the Phase II for NOX in
highly cost effective. The EPA’s IPM based on heat input from only Acid 2015, as proposed). The EPA
analyses for the CAIR includes all fossil Rain Program units, the Agency determined the regionwide NOX control
fuel-fired EGUs with generating capacity evaluated the cost effectiveness of the levels for 2009 and 2015 for today’s
greater than 25 MW. control levels using heat input from all final action using the same methodology
The proposed cap for the first phase EGUs that potentially would be affected as we used to determine proposed
was developed taking into consideration by the proposed CAIR. The EPA levels. The Agency evaluated the cost
how much pollution control for NOX evaluated cost effectiveness using the effectiveness of the final reduction
and SO2 could be installed without IPM, which includes both Acid Rain requirements (and average NOX
running into a shortage of skilled labor, units and non-Acid Rain units. Further, emission rates) using IPM and
in particular boilermakers (EPA’s the IPM incorporates assumptions for determined them to be highly cost-
assumptions regarding boilermaker electricity demand growth, and thus effective, assuming controls on EGUs.
labor are described in section IV.C.2 of heat input growth. The EPA’s evaluation of the cost
this preamble). The Agency focused on Specifically, EPA evaluated these effectiveness of the emission reduction
providing substantial reductions of both target annual NOX caps on EGUs for strategy we assumed in establishing the
SO2 and NOX emissions at the outset of 2010 and 2015—and therefore the final CAIR control levels is discussed
the proposed program, leading to associated regionwide emissions further below.
significant retrofits of Flue Gas reductions—using the IPM, which, in The average NOX emission rates in the
Desulfurization units (FGD) for SO2 effect, demonstrated that these proposed first and second phases of CAIR will be
control and SCR for NOX control. NOX emissions cap levels can be met lower than the nominal emission rate on
In the NPR, EPA explained that using using highly cost-effective controls with which the NOX SIP Call was based,
the highest Acid Rain Program heat the expected levels of electricity which was 0.15 lb/mmBtu. In the NOX
input for each State to develop a demand in 2010 and 2015, respectively. SIP Call, EPA also considered a control
regionwide heat input amount, rather Those expected levels of electricity level based on a lower nominal
than the average Acid Rain Program demand are higher than the electricity emission rate, 0.12 lb/mmBtu. However,
heat input, provided a cushion that demand during the 1999 to 2002 years at that time the use of SCR was not
represented a reasonable adjustment to upon which EPA based heat input; and sufficiently widespread to allow EPA to
reflect that there are some non-Acid as a result, the amount of heat input conclude that the controls necessary to
Rain units that operate in these States necessary to meet the projected meet a tighter cap could be installed in
that will be subject to the proposed electricity demand is expected to be the required timeframe, without causing
CAIR emission reduction levels. The higher than the amount that EPA reliability problems for the electric
EPA explained that it did not use heat developed for evaluation purposes power sector. Now, through the
input data from non-Acid Rain units in through the method described above. experience gained from the NOX SIP
the proposal because it did not have all The projected average future emissions Call, EPA has confidence that with SCR
the necessary data available at the time rates that would be associated with the technology average emissions rates
the NPR was developed.61 Using the 2010 and 2015 heat input levels needed lower than the NOX SIP Call nominal
highest of recent years’ Acid Rain to meet electricity demand (coupled emission rate can be achieved on a
Program heat input provided an with the NOX emissions budgets regionwide basis.
approximation of the regionwide heat developed through the methodology In the CAIR NPR, after determining
input, although it did not include heat described above) would be about 0.14 the regionwide control level and
input from non-Acid Rain sources. lb/mmBtu and 0.11 lb/mmBtu in 2010 evaluating it to assure that it is highly
Multiplying the approximate recent heat and 2015, respectively.62 These average cost-effective, the Agency then
input by 0.125 lb/mmBtu to develop a rates would be for all units affected by apportioned the regionwide budgets to
proposed regionwide annual 2015 NOX annual NOX controls under CAIR, the affected States. The EPA proposed to
including non-Acid Rain units. Thus, apportion regionwide NOX budgets to
cap could reasonably be expected to
the heat input is projected to be higher individual States on the basis of each
61 The EPA does not collect annual heat input in 2010 and 2015 than the recent State’s share of recent average heat
data from these non-Acid Rain units. EIA does input. In the NPR, EPA used the average
collect heat input from such units, however there 62 These projected average NO emissions rates
X share of Acid Rain Program heat input.
are some limitations to the data. First, there are no are from updated IPM modeling done in 2004. The However, as discussed in the SNPR and
requirements specifying how the data should be IPM modeling done prior to the NPR also projected
collected or quality assured. Second, the data is similar average emission rates, about 0.15 lb/
the NODA, in order to distribute more
collected on a plant-wide basis rather than on a mmBtu and 0.11 lb/mmBtu in 2010 and 2015, equitably to States their share of the
unit-by-unit basis. respectively. regionwide NOX budgets, EPA then
considered each State’s proportional significantly to downwind PM2.5 $1,700 per ton and $2,200 per ton for
share of recent average heat input using nonattainment, and requires ozone 2010 and 2015, respectively.63
data from non-Acid Rain Program season NOX reductions in all States In the NPR, EPA also presented the
sources as well as Acid Rain Program determined to contribute significantly to average cost effectiveness for ozone
sources. The EPA obtained EIA heat downwind ozone nonattainment (many season-only NOX control of $1,000 per
input data reported for non-Acid Rain of the CAIR States are affected by both ton and $1,500 per ton for 2010 and
sources and combined the EIA heat annual and ozone season NOX reduction 2015, respectively, and a marginal cost
inputs with Acid Rain heat inputs to requirements). The final CAIR ozone for ozone season-only control of $2,200
determine each State’s share of season NOX reductions are required in per ton and $2,600 per ton for 2010 and
combined average recent heat input. two phases, with Phase I commencing 2015. The EPA also presented average
The fact that EPA distributed the in 2009 and Phase II in 2015, the same costs for the non-ozone season
regionwide budget to individual States years as the annual NOX reduction (remaining seven months of the year)
based on their proportional share of heat requirements. control of $700 per ton and $500 per ton
input from Acid Rain and non-Acid As described above, the Agency in 2010 and 2015, respectively. (As
Rain units combined does not affect the proposed ozone season NOX reduction noted above, the capital costs of
determination of the regionwide budgets requirements for Connecticut, and did installing NOX control equipment
themselves. The regionwide budgets not propose separate ozone season would be largely identical whether the
were determined to be highly cost- reduction requirements in any other equipment will be operated during the
effective when tested for all units—both State. For today’s final rule, EPA ozone season only or for the entire year.
non-Acid Rain units as well as Acid requires ozone season reductions in all However, the amount of reductions
Rain units—that would be affected by States contributing significantly to would be less if the control equipment
CAIR. (The EPA’s method for downwind ozone nonattainment. The were operated only during the ozone
apportioning regionwide NOX budgets EPA determined regionwide ozone season compared to annual operation.)
to States is discussed in more detail season NOX control levels for the final The EPA proposed the conclusion
elsewhere in today’s preamble. That CAIR using the same methodology as that these costs met the criteria for
discussion includes an explanation of was used for the annual NOX reduction highly cost-effective emissions
the differences between the State requirements (which is the same reductions for NOX (69 FR 4613–4615).
budgets that were presented in the NPR, method that was proposed for As with SO2, EPA also considered the
the SNPR, and the NODA. In addition, Connecticut’s ozone season budget). cost effectiveness of alternative
see the TSD entitled ‘‘Regional and State That is, EPA determined the highest stringency levels for this regulatory
SO2 and NOX Emissions Budgets.’’) (ozone season) heat input from Acid proposal (examining changes in the
In the NPR, EPA proposed that Rain Program units for the years 1999– marginal cost curve at varying levels of
Connecticut contributed significantly to
2002 for each State, then summed this emission reductions).
downwind ozone nonattainment, but
heat input for all of the States affected
not to PM2.5 nonattainment. Thus, the ii. What Are the Most Significant
for ozone season NOX reductions. For
Agency proposed that Connecticut Comments That EPA Received About
the final 2015 control level, EPA
would not be subject to an annual NOX Proposed NOX Emission Reduction
calculated a regionwide ozone season
control requirement and was not Requirements, and What Are EPA’s
NOX budget by multiplying this heat
included in the region proposed for Responses?
input by an emission rate of 0.125 lb/
annual controls. We proposed that Some commenters expressed concern
mmBtu, and for 2009 by multiplying by
Connecticut would be affected by an that EPA did not account for growth of
0.15 lb/mmBtu. The Agency evaluated
ozone season-only NOX control level, heat input in calculating regionwide
and proposed to calculate Connecticut’s the cost effectiveness of these ozone
season NOX control levels (and average NOX emissions budgets, noting that
ozone season control level in a parallel
NOX emission rates) using IPM and growth was used in the calculation of
way to how the regionwide annual NOX
determined them to be highly cost- the regional budget for the NOX SIP
control levels were calculated. That is,
effective, assuming controls on EGUs. Call. Commenters suggest that, by not
EPA selected the highest of the same 4
The EPA’s evaluation of the cost taking heat input growth into account,
years of (ozone season-only) heat input
effectiveness of the final CAIR control EPA developed regionwide budgets that
used for the regionwide budget
requirements is discussed further below. are unduly stringent.
calculation, and multiplied that heat
Based on EPA’s analysis of proposed On the other hand, some commenters
input by the same NOX emission rates
annual NOX control levels, in the NPR noted that they supported EPA’s
used to calculate the regionwide control
levels. Connecticut is the only State for the Agency presented average costs for proposal to base regionwide budgets on
which an ozone season budget was annual NOX control of $800 per ton and historical heat input and did not want
proposed. $700 per ton for 2010 and 2015, and EPA to use growth projections for
The EPA used the same methodology marginal costs of $1,300 per ton and calculating regionwide NOX emissions
for developing regionwide budgets for $1,500 per ton for 2010 and 2015. In the budgets. Some stated that using actual,
today’s final rule as was proposed in the NPR, EPA also presented marginal costs historic heat input numbers would be
NPR. For the final CAIR, EPA found that of annual NOX control from sensitivity more straightforward than using growth
23 States and the District of Columbia analyses that used EIA assumptions for projections, and some pointed to
contribute significantly to downwind electricity growth and natural gas complications with the growth
PM2.5 nonattainment and found that 25 prices. Those marginal control costs projection methodologies used in the
States and the District of Columbia were $1,300 per ton and $1,600 per ton NOX SIP Call.
contribute significantly to downwind for 2010 and 2015, respectively. The The EPA recognizes that it employed
ozone nonattainment (section III in EPA also presented costs from a a growth factor in the NOX SIP Call.
today’s preamble describes the sensitivity model run that used EIA
63 The control costs for this model sensitivity that
significance determinations). CAIR assumptions for electricity growth and
were presented in the NPR were in error (69 FR
requires annual NOX reductions in all natural gas price and higher SCR costs. 4615). The corrected costs from the sensitivity are
States determined to contribute These marginal control costs were as shown here.
There, EPA determined the amount of input growth is the amount determined was not intended to be a precise
the regional emissions reductions and by IPM, a state-of-the-art model of the methodology for determining the NOX
budgets by applying a growth factor to electricity sector (detailed caps; rather, it was a reasonable method
a historic heat input baseline. The DC documentation for IPM is in the docket). for selecting a target level to be
Circuit, after first remanding that growth Some commenters suggested that EPA evaluated further. Upon evaluation of
methodology for a better explanation, adjust the NOX regionwide budget the target level, EPA determined that it
upheld it. West Virginia v. EPA, 362 amounts to include heat input from can be achieved using highly cost-
F.3d 861 (DC Cir., 2004). See 67 FR 21 non-Acid Rain units. For example, some effective controls for all affected EGUs,
868 (May 1, 2002). suggested adding the non-Acid Rain including non-Acid Rain units.
For CAIR, as described above, EPA unit heat input amounts that EPA used
developed a target level for the in apportioning regionwide NOX iii. Analysis of NOX Emission Reduction
proposed NOX regionwide cap based on budgets to the States, to the total Requirements for Today’s Final Rule
recent historic heat input and assumed regionwide heat inputs that EPA used to (I) Reference Lists of Cost-Effective
emission rates of 0.125 lb/mmBtu and calculate regionwide NOX budgets. Controls
0.15 lb/mmBtu for 2015 and 2010, The regionwide budgets determined
respectively. The EPA evaluated these in the NPR were target levels developed For today’s action, EPA updated the
target NOX emissions levels using IPM, as a starting point for further evaluation. reference list of controls included in the
which indicated that those target caps— The regionwide heat input amounts and NPR of the average and marginal costs
in conjunction with expected electricity NOX emission rates used to develop per ton of recent NOX control actions.
demand for 2015 and 2010—would target budget levels were inherently The EPA systematically developed a list
result from higher heat input levels and imprecise. As discussed above, IPM of cost information from recent actions
lower average emissions rates (about modeling indicates that the projected and proposed actions. The Agency
0.11 lb/mmBtu and 0.14 lb/mmBtu for future heat input amounts (based on sought cost information for actions
2015 and 2010, respectively) than the electricity growth) are greater than the taken by EPA, and examined the
amounts assumed in developing the recent historic regionwide amount used comments submitted after the NPR was
target NOX caps. Most importantly, IPM to develop the target budget levels, and published, to identify all available
indicated the cost levels associated with the future average emission rates for all control cost information to provide the
those projected 2015 and 2010 average units affected by CAIR annual NOX updated reference list for today’s
NOX emission rates, and EPA has controls (including non-Acid Rain preamble. The updated reference list
determined that those cost levels are units) are less than the rates used to includes both average and marginal
highly cost-effective. For the final rule, develop the target budget levels. IPM costs of control to which EPA compares
EPA revised its analyses to reflect the indicates that the target regionwide NOX the CAIR control costs, although the
2009 initial NOX control phase, and budget levels (and corresponding future Agency has limited information on
determined that the final CAIR average NOX emission rates and heat marginal costs of other programs.
requirements are highly cost-effective. input levels) are highly cost-effective for The EPA’s updated summary of
The EPA’s methodology, in which the all CAIR units, including non-Acid Rain average costs of annual NOX controls are
CAIR emissions reductions are units. The EPA does not believe it is shown in Table IV–6. The results of this
predicted to be cost-effective under necessary to adjust the target regionwide reexamination show that costs of recent
conditions of projected electricity budget levels to include the relatively actions are generally very similar to
growth that, in turn, projects heat input small additional amount of heat input those identified in the NOX SIP Call.
growth, in effect accounts for heat input from non-Acid Rain units. The method The cost figures are presented in 1999
growth. Moreover, the amount of heat the Agency used to develop target levels dollars.64
TABLE IV–6.—AVERAGE COSTS PER TON OF ANNUAL NOX CONTROLS

Average cost
NOX control action per ton
Marine Compression Ignition Engines .............................................................................................................................................. Up to $200 2

Off-highway Diesel Engine ............................................................................................................................................................... $400–$700 2
Nonroad Diesel Engines and Fuel ................................................................................................................................................... $600 1
Marine Spark Ignition Engines ......................................................................................................................................................... $1,200–$1,800 2
Tier 2 Vehicle Gasoline Sulfur .......................................................................................................................................................... $1,300–$2,3002
Revision of New Source Performance Standards for NOX Emissions-EGUs ................................................................................. $1,700 3
2007 Highway Heavy Duty Diesel Standards .................................................................................................................................. $1,600–$2,100 2
National Low Emission Vehicle ........................................................................................................................................................ $1,900 2
Tier 1 Vehicle Standards .................................................................................................................................................................. $2,100–$2,800 2
Revision of New Source Performance Standards for NOX Emissions-Industrial Units ................................................................... $2,200 3
On-board Diagnostics ....................................................................................................................................................................... $2,300 2
Texas NOX Emission Reduction Grants FY 2002–2003 ................................................................................................................. $300–$12,700 4
Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) for Electric Power Sector ............................................................................................ $800 5
1 Control of Emissions of Air Pollution From Nonroad Diesel Engines and Fuel; Final Rule (69 FR 39131; June 29, 2004). The value in this
table represents the long-term cost per ton of emissions reduced from the total fuel and engine program (cost per ton of emissions reduced in
the year 2030). This value includes the cost for NOX plus NMHC reductions. 1999$ per ton.
2 Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Re-
quirements; Final Rule (66 FR 5102; January 18, 2001). The values shown for 2007 Highway HD Diesel Stds are discounted costs. Costs shown
in this table include a VOC component. 1999$ per ton.
64 The updated reference list includes estimated

rule has been proposed but not finalized (69 FR
25184; May 5, 2004).
average NOX control costs under BART. The BART
3 Proposed Revision of Standards of Performance for Nitrogen Oxide Emissions From New Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam Generating Units; Pro-
posed Revision to Reporting Requirements for Standards of Performance for New Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam Generating Units; Proposed Rule (62
FR 36953; July 9, 1997), Table 4 (the Agency’s estimate of average control costs was unchanged for the NSPS revisions final rule, published
September 5, 1998). In the CAIR NPR, we included a value from the range of NOX controls for coal-fired EGUs from Table 2 in the proposed
NSPS proposed rule (62 FR 36951). 1999$ per ton.
4 Costs shown in this table are the range of project costs reported for projects that were FY 2002–2003 recipients of the TERP Emission Re-
ductions Incentive Grants Program. These costs may not be in 1999 dollars. (www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/oprd/sips/grants.html)
5 The EPA IPM modeling 2004 of the proposed BART for the electric power sector (69 FR 25184, May 5, 2004), available in the docket. The
EPA modeled the Regional Haze Requirements as a source specific 0.2 lb/mmBtu NOX emission rate limit. Estimated average costs based on
this modeling are $800 per ton in 2015 and 2020. 1999$ per ton.
Table IV–7 presents modeled

marginal costs for recent State annual
NOX rules.
TABLE IV–7.—MARGINAL COSTS PER TON OF REDUCTION, RECENT ANNUAL NOX RULES
Marginal cost per
NOX control action ton
Texas Rules ................................................................................................................................................................................... $2,000–$19,600 1

1The EPA IPM base case modeling August 2004, available in the docket. 1999$ per ton. We modeled Senate Bill 7 and Ch. 117, which im-
pose varying NOX control requirements in different areas of the State; the range of marginal costs shown here reflects the range of
requirements.
The EPA does not believe that it has controlled in order to meet applicable for attainment with the air quality
sufficient information, for today’s emission and air quality requirements. standards, Table IV–8 presents
rulemaking, to treat controls on source This means that some States may choose estimated average costs for potential
categories other than certain EGUs as to meet their CAIR obligations by local mobile source NOX control
providing highly cost-effective imposing control requirements on actions. The EPA received these cost
emissions reductions. The CAA Section sources other than EGUs. data during the public comments on the
110 permits States to choose the sources As examples of cost-effective actions NPR.
and source categories that will be that States can take in efforts to provide
TABLE IV–8.—AVERAGE COSTS OF POTENTIAL LOCAL MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL ACTIONS TO REDUCE NOX EMISSIONS
[$ per Ton] 1
Average cost per

Source category ton
MWCOG Analysis: Mobile Source, Bicycle racks in DC ............................................................................................................... $9,000

MWCOG Analysis: Mobile Source, Telecommuting Centers ........................................................................................................ 7,300
MWCOG Analysis: Mobile Source, Government Action Days (ozone action days) ..................................................................... 5,000
MWCOG Analysis: Mobile Source, Permit Right Turn on Red ..................................................................................................... 1,200
MWCOG Analysis: Mobile Source, Employer Outreach ............................................................................................................... 3,500
MWCOG Analysis: Mobile Source, Mass Marketing Campaign ................................................................................................... 2,900
MWCOG Analysis: Mobile Source, Transit Prioritization .............................................................................................................. 8,500
1 Washington DC Metro Area MWCOG Analysis of Potential Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM). Projects determined to be ‘‘Pos-
sible’’ by MWCOG but not RACM because benefits from the possible control measures do not meet the 8.8 tpd NOX or 34.0 tpd VOC threshold
necessary for RACM. These costs may not be in 1999 dollars. (www.mwcog.org/uploads/committee-documents/z1ZZXg20040217144350.pdf)
Comments submitted to the EPA CAIR docket from the Clean Air Task Force et al., dated March 30, 2004, included costs from the MWCOG
analysis.
(II) Cost Effectiveness of CAIR Annual compliance with the annual NOX As with SO2 marginal costs, EPA
NOX Reductions reduction requirements. The CSP is considered the sensitivity of the NOX
Table IV–9 provides the average and discussed in detail later in this marginal cost results to assumptions of
marginal costs of annual NOX preamble. The EPA used IPM to model higher electric growth and future
reductions under CAIR for 2009 and marginal costs of CAIR with the CSP. natural gas prices than the Agency used
2015. These costs are updated from the The magnitude of the NOX CSP is in the base case, as shown in Table IV–
NPR figures—the EPA analyzed the relatively small compared to the annual 9.
costs of the CAIR using an updated NOX budget,65 thus the CSP does not
version of IPM (documentation for the significantly impact the marginal costs TABLE IV–9.—ESTIMATED COSTS PER
IPM update is in the docket). Further, (see Table IV–9). TON OF ANNUAL NOX CONTROLLED
EPA modified the modeling to match UNDER CAIR 1
the final CAIR strategy (see section 65 The CSP consists of 200,000 tons, which is
IV.A.1 for a description of EPA’s CAIR apportioned to each of the 23 States and the District Type of cost effectiveness 2009 2015
IPM modeling). of Columbia that are required by CAIR to make
CAIR provides for a Compliance annual NOX reductions, as well as the 2 States Average Cost—Main Case $500 $700
Supplement Pool (CSP) of NOX (Delaware and New Jersey) for which EPA is Marginal Cost—Main Case 1,300 1,600
allowances that can be used for proposing to require annual NOX reductions.
TABLE IV–9.—ESTIMATED COSTS PER closely matches the region affected by under $200 to thousands of dollars
TON OF ANNUAL NOX CONTROLLED CAIR. (Table IV–6). The 2015 estimated
UNDER CAIR 1—Continued average costs for CAIR annual NOX
TABLE IV–10.—PREDICTED COSTS control of $700 are consistent with the
Type of cost effectiveness 2009 2015 PER TON OF NON-OZONE SEASON lower end of this range.
NOX CONTROLLED UNDER CAIR 1 Less information is available for the
Marginal Cost—With Com-
marginal costs of controls than for
pliance Supplement Type of cost effectiveness 2009 2015
Pool (CSP) .................... 1,300 1,600 average costs. Looking at the available
Sensitivity Analysis: Mar- Average Cost .................... $500 $500 marginal costs (Table IV–7), the 2015
ginal Cost Using Alter- CAIR marginal costs for annual NOX
1 The
EPA IPM modeling 2004, available in
nate Electricity Growth controls are at the lower end of the
and Natural Gas Price the docket. 1999$ per ton.
range. The EPA also evaluated the cost
Assumptions .................. 1,400 1,700 The estimated non-ozone season NOX effectiveness of the 2009 cap, and
1 The EPA IPM modeling 2004, available in costs, like the annual NOX costs, are on concluded that the 2009 requirements
the docket. 1999$ per ton. the low end of the cost effectiveness are highly cost-effective.
range described in Table IV–6. The EPA
These estimated NOX control costs considers the 2015 and also the 2009 (IV) Cost Effectiveness: Marginal Cost
under CAIR reflect annual EGU NOX costs to represent highly cost-effective Curves for Annual NOX Control
caps of 1.5 million tons in 2009 and 1.3 controls.
million tons in 2015 within the CAIR Environmental Defense reached As with SO2 controls, EPA also
annual NOX control region (the 23 similar conclusions regarding the cost considered the cost effectiveness of
States and DC that must make annual effectiveness of non-ozone season NOX alternative stringency levels for NOX
reductions). In both the main IPM reductions, as described in their report control for today’s action by examining
modeling case and the modeling case ‘‘A Plan for All Seasons: Costs and changes in the marginal cost curve at
that includes the CSP, projected annual Benefits of Year-Round NOX Reductions varying levels of emissions reductions.
NOX emissions in the CAIR region will in Eastern States (2002).’’ As stated in Figure IV–3 shows that the ‘‘knee’’ in
be about 1.5 million tons in 2009 and that report, ‘‘[As Figure 4 shows,] the 2010 marginal cost effectiveness
1.3 million tons in 2015. The projected extending NOX reductions throughout curve for EGUs—the point where the
emissions are very similar in both the year results in dramatic decreases in cost of controlling a ton of NOX begins
modeling cases because the CSP is the per-ton costs of NOX emission to increase at a noticeably higher rate—
relatively small compared to the annual reductions for the 19 NOX SIP Call appears to occur at over $1,700 per ton
NOX budget. States. This is because the bulk of the of NOX. Although EPA conducted this
Average costs shown for 2015 are cost for reducing NOX emissions from marginal cost curve analysis based on
based on the amount of reductions that power plants lies in the capital an initial NOX control phase in 2010,
would achieve the total difference in investment in the control equipment. the results would be very similar for
projected emissions between the base Once the primary investment has been 2009, which is the initial NOX phase in
case conditions and CAIR in the year made, it costs relatively little to the final CAIR. Figure IV–4 shows that
2015. These costs are not based on the continue running the control equipment the ‘‘knee’’ in the 2015 marginal cost
increment in reductions between 2009 beyond the summer months required by effectiveness curve for EGUs appears to
and 2015. (A more detailed description EPA’s NOX SIP Call.’’ Environmental occur at over $1,700 per ton of NOX.
of the final CAIR SO2 and NOX control Defense based these conclusions on (The EPA based these marginal NOX
requirements is provided later in today’s analysis conducted by Resources for the cost effectiveness curves on the
preamble.) Future (RFF). In an RFF paper, ‘‘Cost- electricity growth and natural gas price
Most of the States subject to today’s Effective Reduction of NOX Emissions assumptions in the main CAIR IPM
PM2.5 control requirements have been from Electricity Generation (July 2001),’’ modeling run. Marginal cost
subject to the NOX SIP Call RFF draws similar conclusions. effectiveness curves based on other
requirements. Some sources in these (III) NOX Cost Comparison for CAIR electric growth and natural gas price
States have installed SCRs, and run Requirements assumptions would look different,
them during the ozone season. These therefore it would not be appropriate to
The EPA believes that selecting as compare the curves here to the marginal
sources might comply with the PM2.5 highly cost-effective amounts at the
annual NOX requirements by, at least in costs based on the IPM modeling
lower end of these average and marginal sensitivity run that used EIA
part, running the SCR controls for the cost ranges is appropriate for reasons
remaining months of the year. Under assumptions.) The EPA used the
explained above in this section of the Technology Retrofitting Updating Model
these circumstances, the compliance preamble.
costs for the PM2.5 SIP requirements are (TRUM), a spreadsheet model based on
As discussed above, although in the
lower. IPM, for this analysis. These results
NOX SIP Call the cost level selected was
Table IV–10 provides estimated costs make clear that this rule is very cost-
not at the low end of the reference range
per ton of NOX for non-ozone season effective because the control level is
of costs, if the NOX SIP Call costs were
reductions under CAIR. These figures below the point at which the cost begins
for annual rather than seasonal controls
are updated from the NPR they would have been lower relative to to increase at a significantly higher rate.
calculations—the EPA analyzed the the other control costs on the reference In this manner, these results
costs of the CAIR using an updated list which were mostly for annual corroborate EPA’s findings above
version of IPM (documentation for the programs. concerning the cost effectiveness of the
IPM update is in the docket) and For annual NOX, the range of average emissions reductions.66
modeled controls on a region that more cost effectiveness extends broadly, from BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
66 EPA is using the knee in the curve analysis
solely to show that the required emissions

reductions are very cost effective. The marginal cost
curve reflects only emissions reduction and cost
information, and not other considerations. We note
that it might be reasonable in a particular regulatory
action to require emissions reductions past the knee
of the curve to reduce overall costs of meeting the
NAAQS or to achieve benefits that exceed costs. As
in the case of SO2 controls, described above, it
ER12MY05.002</GPH>
should be noted that similar analysis for other

source categories may yield different curves.
(V) Cost Effectiveness of Ozone Season $2,000 (1990$)) as highly cost- both programs, the same controls
NOX Reductions effective.67 The estimated average costs achieving annual reductions for PM
The CAIR requires ozone season NOX of regionwide ozone season NOX control purposes will achieve ozone season
emissions reduction for all States under CAIR are $1,800 per ton in 2015 reductions for ozone purposes; this is
determined to contribute significantly to and $900 per ton in 2009. Thus, with not reflected in our cost-per-ton
ozone nonattainment downwind (25 respect to average costs the controls for estimates.
States and the District of Columbia). The the final phase (2015) cap, which are As with SO2 controls, and annual
EPA used IPM to model average and below the $2,500 identified in the NOX NOX controls, EPA also considered the
marginal costs of the ozone season SIP Call, are also highly cost-effective, cost effectiveness of alternative
reductions assuming EGU controls. In as are those for the 2009 cap. In stringency levels for CAIR NOX
this modeling case, EPA modeled an addition, the estimated average costs of reductions for ozone purposes by
ozone season NOX cap for the region CAIR ozone season NOX control are at examining changes in the marginal cost
affected by CAIR for downwind ozone the lower end of the reference range of curve at varying levels of emissions
nonattainment, but did not include the average annual NOX control costs (the reductions. Figure IV–5 shows that the
CAIR annual SO2 or NOX caps. Based on reference list of average annual NOX ‘‘knee’’ in the 2010 marginal cost
that modeling, Table IV–11 provides control costs is presented above). effectiveness curve for ozone season
estimated average and marginal costs of Similarly, the estimated marginal NOX reductions from EGUs—the point
regionwide ozone season NOX costs 68 of ozone season CAIR NOX where the cost of controlling an ozone
reductions for 2009 and 2015. Table IV– controls are within EPA’s reference season ton of NOX begins to increase at
11 shows the estimated cost range of marginal costs, at the lower end a noticeably higher rate—appears to
effectiveness of today’s ozone season of the range (the reference list of occur somewhere between $3,000 and
NOX control requirements for 8-hour marginal annual NOX control costs is $4,000 per ton of NOX. Although EPA
transport SIPs. presented above). We note that the conducted this marginal cost curve
marginal costs in the reference range are analysis based on an initial NOX control
TABLE IV–11.—ESTIMATED COSTS for annual NOX reductions, and would phase in 2010 the results would be very
PER TON OF OZONE SEASON NOX likely be higher for ozone season only similar for 2009, which is the initial
CONTROLLED UNDER CAIR 1 programs. Considering both average and NOX phase in the final CAIR. Figure IV–
marginal costs, the CAIR ozone season 6 shows that the ‘‘knee’’ in the 2015
Type of cost effectiveness 2009 2015 control level is highly cost-effective. marginal cost effectiveness curve for
For purposes of estimating costs of ozone season NOX reductions from
Average Cost .................... $900 $1,800 ozone season control under CAIR, EPA
EGUs appears to occur somewhere
Marginal Cost ................... 2,400 3,000 set up this modeling case with CAIR
between $3,000 and $4,000 per ton of
1 The EPA IPM modeling 2004, available in ozone season NOX requirements but NOX. The EPA used the Technology
the docket. 1999$ per ton. without the annual NOX requirements. Retrofitting Updating Model (TRUM), a
These estimated NOX control costs are The Agency believes that the cost of the spreadsheet model based on the IPM, for
based on ozone season EGU NOX caps ozone season CAIR requirements will this analysis. These results make clear
of 0.6 million tons in 2009 and 0.5 actually be lower than the costs that CAIR NOX reductions for ozone
million tons in 2015 within the CAIR presented here because interactions will purposes are very cost-effective because
ozone season NOX control region. occur between the CAIR annual and the control level is below the point at
Average costs shown for 2015 are based ozone season NO X control which the cost begins to increase at a
on the amount of reductions that would requirements. In addition, for States in
69
significantly higher rate.
achieve the total difference in projected 67 For both the NO SIP Call and CAIR, the NO In this manner, these results
X X
emissions between the base case control costs on the reference lists are generally for corroborate EPA’s findings above
conditions and CAIR in the year 2015. annual reductions. The EPA compared the costs of concerning the cost effectiveness of the
These costs are not based on the ozone season reductions under the NOX SIP Call,
emissions reductions.70
increment in reductions between 2009 as well as ozone season CAIR NOX reductions, to
the annual reduction programs on the reference
and 2015. (A more detailed description lists. operated only during the ozone season compared to
of the final CAIR SO2 and NOX control 68 In the NO SIP Call EPA used average, not
X annual operation.
requirements is provided later in today’s marginal, costs to evaluate cost effectiveness. For 70 EPA is using the knee in the curve analysis
preamble.) the reasons discussed above we are evaluating both solely to show that the required emissions
The EPA believes that selecting as average and marginal costs for CAIR. reductions are very cost effective. The marginal cost
69 Estimated costs for regionwide CAIR NO curve reflects only emissions reduction and cost
X
highly cost-effective amounts at the controls during the ozone season are higher than information, and not other considerations. We note
lower end of the average and marginal the average and marginal costs for CAIR annual that it might be reasonable in a particular regulatory
cost ranges is appropriate for reasons NOX controls. This is because, as noted above, the action to require emissions reductions past the knee
explained above in section IV in this capital costs of installing NOX control equipment of the curve to reduce overall costs of meeting the
would be largely identical whether the SCR will be NAAQS or to achieve benefits that exceed costs. As
preamble. operated during the ozone season only or for the in the case of SO2 controls, described above, it
In the NOX SIP Call, EPA identified entire year. However, the amount of reductions should be noted that similar analysis for other
average costs of $2,500 (1999$) (or would be less if the control equipment were source categories may yield different curves.
B. What Other Sources Did EPA effective controls on certain EGUs. The or area sources.’’ No comments were
Consider When Determining Emission EPA has reviewed other source received suggesting that mobile or area
Reduction Requirements? categories, but concludes that for sources should be controlled. Therefore,
purposes of today’s rulemaking, there is in developing emission reduction
1. Potential Sources of Highly Cost-
insufficient information to conclude requirements, EPA is not assuming any
Effective Emissions Reductions
that highly cost-effective controls are emissions reductions from mobile or
In today’s rulemaking, EPA available for other source categories. area sources.
ER12MY05.004</GPH>
determines the amount of regionwide

emissions reductions required by a. Mobile and Area Sources b. Non-EGU Boilers and Turbines
determining the amount of emissions In the NPR (69 FR 4610), EPA The largest single category of
reductions that could be achieved explained that ‘‘it did not identify stationary source non-EGUs are large
ER12MY05.003</GPH>
through the application of highly cost- highly cost-effective controls on mobile non-EGU boilers and turbines. This
source category emits both SO2 and from non-EGUs in these non-SIP call this, by itself, provides any basis for
NOX. In the CAIR NPR, EPA proposed States affected by the CAIR. While EPA determining that in the context of this
not to include any potential SO2 or NOX has incorporated State-submitted rule emissions reductions from non-
emissions reductions from non-EGU emissions inventory data for 1999 into EGUs should be determined to be highly
boilers and turbines as constituting its analysis for the CAIR, even this data cost-effective. As discussed above, EPA
‘‘highly cost-effective’’ reductions and is generally lacking information on fuel, believes it is necessary to have more
thus to be taken into account in sulfur content, and existing controls. reliable emissions data and better
establishing emissions requirements Without this data, it is very difficult to control cost information for these
because EPA believed it had insufficient assess the emission reduction sources before assuming reductions
information on their control costs, opportunities available for non-EGU from them in the CAIR. The EPA is
particularly costs associated with the boilers and turbines. Furthermore, with working to improve its inventory of
integration of NOX and SO2 controls. In regards to NOX, many non-EGU boilers emissions and control cost information
addition, based on information EPA and turbines are making reductions for non-EGU boilers and turbines.
does have, projected base case (without using low NOX burners (the control Specifically, we are assessing the
the CAIR) emissions of SO2 and NOX technology EPA assumed in making the emission inventory submittals for 2002
from these sources are significantly cost-effectiveness determinations in the made by States in response to the
lower than projected EGU emissions. NOX SIP Call). Since these controls are relatively new requirements of 40 CFR
The EPA projects that in 2010 under operated year-round, annual emissions part 51 (the Consolidated Emission
base case conditions, EGUs would reductions are already being obtained Reporting Rule), and we will work with
contribute 70 percent of SO2 in the from many of these units. Additional States whose submissions appear to
CAIR region compared to 15 percent reductions would likely be less cost have gaps in required data. We also note
from non-EGU boilers and turbines in effective. that EPA provides financial and
the CAIR region. The Agency also Another commenter stated that non- technical support for the efforts of the
predicts that in 2010 under the base EGU ‘‘major sources’’ are subject to the five Regional Planning Organizations to
case, EGUs would contribute 25 percent requirements of title V of the CAA and, coordinate among and assist States in
of NOX emissions in the CAIR region therefore, EPA should have adequate improving emission inventories.
compared to 16 percent from non-EGU emissions data provided as part of the Another commenter expressed
boilers and turbines in the CAIR region. sources’ permitting obligations. concern that if the decision whether to
Thus, simply on an absolute basis, non- However, title V simply requires that a control large industrial boilers is left to
EGU emissions are relatively less source’s permit include the substantive the States, the result may be inequitable
significant than emissions from EGUs. requirements (such as emission treatment of EGUs on a State-by-State
The EPA is finalizing its proposed monitoring requirements) imposed by basis, particularly with respect to
approach to these sources and has not other sections of the CAA and does not allowances, and therefore it would make
based today’s requirements on any itself impose any substantive sense to require NOX and SO2
presumed availability of highly cost- requirements. Thus, the mere fact that a reductions from large industrial boilers.
effective emissions reductions from source is a major source required to Section 110 of the CAA leaves the
non-EGU boilers and turbines. have a title V permit does not mean that ultimate choice of what sources to
A number of commenters believe EPA the source is monitoring and submitting control to the States, and EPA cannot
should determine that emissions emissions, fuel, and control device data. require States to control non-EGUs.
reductions from non-EGUs should be Many such sources do not, in fact, Even if EPA had included reductions
taken into account in establishing provide such data. from non-EGUs in determining the total
emission requirements because, they One commenter submitted cost amount of reductions required under
believe, highly cost-effective controls information for FGD technology the CAIR, EPA could not have required
are available for these sources. These applications on industrial boilers. any State to achieve those reductions
commenters argued that highly cost- However, the information submitted by through emission limitations on non-
effective controls are available for these the commenter was based on the use of EGUs.
sources and that EPA should have a limited number of technologies and The recent economic circumstances
sufficient emissions and control cost for a limited number of boiler sizes. The faced by the manufacturing sector
information because the same sources EPA does not believe that the limited accentuates EPA’s concerns about the
were included in the NOX SIP Call. information demonstrates that SO2 lack of reliable emissions data and
In addition, while it is true that these emissions from these sources could be control information regarding non-
sources were included in the NOX SIP controlled in a highly cost-effective EGUs. We note that the U.S.
Call, EPA only addressed NOX manner across the entire sector in manufacturing sector was adversely
reductions from these sources. Neither question, or to what level the emissions affected by the latest business cycle
SO2 reductions nor monitoring of SO2 could be controlled. slowdown. As noted in the 2004
emissions is required by the NOX SIP Some commenters recommended Economic Report of the President, the
Call. As a result, for these sources, EPA including non-EGU boilers and turbines manufacturing sector was hit earlier,
has less reliable SO2 emissions data and because in the future, after reductions longer, and harder than other sectors of
very little information on the integration from EGUs are made, the relative the economy. The 2004 Report also
of NOX and SO2 controls. Although EPA contribution of non-EGU boilers and points out that, although manufacturing
has more information on NOX emissions turbines to the total NOX and SO2 output has dropped much more than the
from these sources because of the NOX emissions will increase. The EPA agrees real gross domestic product (GDP)
SIP Call (and other programs in the that the relative contribution of non- during past business cycles, the latest
northeastern U.S.), the geographic EGUs to total NOX and SO2 emissions recovery has been unusual because it
coverage of the CAIR includes some will increase in the future if States has been weaker for the manufacturing
States that were not included in the choose to meet their CAIR emissions sector than the recovery in the real GDP.
NOX SIP Call, some of which States reduction obligations solely by way of The disparity across sectors (and even
contain significant amounts of industry. emission reductions made by EGUs. within individual sectors) in the
The EPA has even less emissions data However, EPA does not believe that economic condition of firms reinforces
EPA’s concerns about moving forward demonstrated to be cost effective, and controls of choice are low NOX burners
to consider emission controls on non- questioned EPA’s assertion that and mid-kiln firing. Low NOX burners
EGUs at this time. insufficient information is available. (LNB) are a permanent part of the kiln,
As explained elsewhere in this Finally, some commenters believe EPA so that the kiln will operate year-round
preamble, although the CAIR does not should have, at a minimum, required with LNB. Mid-kiln firing is a kiln
require that States achieve the required that controls for NOX SIP Call sources— modification for which a solid and slow
emissions reductions by controlling including large IC engines and cement burning fuel (typically tires) is injected
particular source categories, we expect kilns—should be extended from the in the mid-kiln area. Due to tipping fees
that States will meet their CAIR ozone season to the entire year. and fuel credits, mid-kiln firing results
obligations by requiring emissions We believe it likely that inclusion in in an operating cost savings. After this
reductions from EGUs because such today’s requirements of reductions from system is installed, year-round
reductions are highly cost effective. We any highly cost-effective controls—if operation is expected.
believe the States are in the best available—for these categories would
position to make decisions regarding have very small effects. First, most of C. Schedule for Implementing SO2 and
any additional control requirements for the States included in the CAIR rule NOX Emissions Reduction Requirements
non-EGU sources. In making such were also included in the NOX SIP Call, for PM2.5 and Ozone
decisions, States may take into so that many of the emissions 1. Overview
consideration all relevant factors and reductions that would be available from
information, such as differences across these sources have already occurred due In the NPR, EPA proposed a two-
States in the need for control, to implementation of the NOX SIP Call. phased schedule for implementing the
differences in relative contribution of Second, in the States included in the CAIR annual emission reduction
various sources, and differences in the CAIR rule, but which were not covered requirements: implementation of the
operating and economic conditions by the NOX SIP Call, only a small first phase would be required by January
across sources. portion of NOX emissions come from 1, 2010 (covering 2010–2014), and that
cement kilns and IC engines compared for the second phase by January 1, 2015
c. Other Non-EGU Stationary Sources (covering after 2014). The EPA based its
to EGUs. Moreover, in some parts of this
In the NPR and in the technical geographic area, in particular for Texas, proposal on its analysis of engineering,
support document entitled many sources in these source categories financial, and other factors that affect
‘‘Identification and Discussion of are already regulated under ozone the timing for installing the emission
Sources of Regional Point Source NOX nonattainment plans (including SIPs for controls that would be most cost-
and SO2 Emissions Other Than EGUs the Texas cities of Houston, Galveston, effective—and are therefore the most
(January 2004),’’ EPA applied a similar and Dallas). likely to be adopted—for States to meet
rationale for non-EGU stationary sources Regarding the commenters’ the CAIR requirements. Those air
other than boilers and turbines. For SO2, recommendation that extending NOX pollution controls are primarily
EPA noted that the emissions from such SIP Call control requirements to a year- retrofitted FGD systems (i.e., scrubbers)
sources were a relatively small part of round basis for large IC engines and for SO2 and SCR systems for NOX on
the emissions inventory, and we also cement kilns should be considered to be coal-fired power plants.
noted the lack of information on costs. highly cost effective, EPA believes that The EPA’s projections showed a
For NOX, we explained that more few emissions reductions would be significant number of affected sources
information was available than for SO2. achieved from doing so. The types of installing these controls. The proposed
This is because the NOX SIP Call controls that were applied in the NOX two-phased schedule allowed the
included consideration of emissions SIP Call States, while required to be in implementation of as much of the
control measures for internal place only during the ozone season, controls as feasible by an early date,
combustion (IC) engines and cement will, as a practical matter, be applied on with a later time for the remaining
kilns, and developed cost estimates for a year-round basis, whether or not so controls.
other NOX-emitting categories such as required by today’s rule. Most, if not all, The EPA received detailed, technical
process heaters and glass of the NOX SIP Call States have comments from commenters who
manufacturing. However, we believed— developed regulations to control NOX argued that the controls could not be
as for boilers and turbines, discussed emissions from IC engines and cement implemented until later than proposed,
above—that insufficient information on kilns during the ozone season. The and from other commenters who argued
emission control options and costs, was control of choice to meet these that the controls could be implemented
available to apply these measures to the reductions from large lean burn IC sooner than proposed. The EPA has
entire geographic area covered by the engines is low emission combustion reviewed the comments and has
proposed rule. (LEC), which for retrofit applications is conducted additional research and
No adverse comments were received a substantial equipment modification of analyses to verify availability of
suggesting inclusion of SO2 emissions the engine’s combustion system. The adequate industrial resources, including
reductions from non-EGU stationary engine will operate with LEC year round boilermakers, for constructing the
sources other than boilers and turbines. because this modification is a emission control retrofits required by
Accordingly, EPA has determined not to permanent change to the engine. Most, CAIR. These analyses are based on
consider SO2 reductions from these if not all, new large lean-burn IC engines conservative assumptions, including
other non-EGU stationary sources. have LEC. In addition, year-round those suggested by the commenters, to
Several commenters suggested that emissions controls are already required ensure that the requirements imposed
EPA should have been able to consider for rich-burn engines greater than 500 by CAIR do not result in shortages of the
NOX emissions reductions from non- hp which will likely install nonselective required resources that could
EGU categories other than boilers and catalyst reduction to comply with the substantially increase construction costs
turbines, such as internal combustion recently adopted hazardous air for pollution controls and reduce the
(IC) engines and refinery fluid catalytic pollutant standards (see final rule for cost effectiveness of this program.
cracking units. These commenters reciprocating IC engines, 69 FR 33474, Today, EPA is taking final action to
believed such reductions were June 15, 2004). For cement kilns, the require the annual emissions reductions
on the same two-phase schedule as requirements). We estimated the total following specific points in support of
proposed. However, the requirements boilermaker-years required for installing their concerns:
for the first phase include two separate these controls at 12,700, which was • The time allowed for completing
compliance deadlines: Implementation based on the boilermakers being utilized various activities from planning to
of NOX reductions are required by over a period of 18 months during the startup of the required controls was not
January 1, 2009 (covering 2009–2014) installation process. Also, based on the sufficient. Other related activities,
and for SO2 reductions by January 1, projected boilermaker population in the including project financing and
2010 (covering 2010–2014). The timeframe relevant to the installation of obtaining a landfill permit for the
compliance deadline requirements for these controls, we estimated that 14,700 scrubber waste, could also require more
the second phase are the same as boilermaker-years were available over time than what the rule allowed. In
proposed. The EPA believes that its the same 18-month period. The addition, the short implementation
action is consistent with the Agency’s availability of approximately 15 percent period would require simultaneous
obligations under the CAA to require more boilermaker-years than required, outages of too many units to tie the new
emission reductions for obtaining as shown by these estimates, confirms equipment into the existing systems,
NAAQS to be achieved as soon as the adequacy of this critical resource for which would affect the reliability of the
practicable. The EPA applied the same CAIR and EPA assumed this to be a electrical grid.
criterion in implementing the NOX SIP reasonable contingency factor. • Implementation of controls to the
Call, which was based on a single- The EPA also determined that required large number of units would
phased schedule.71 installation of the projected amounts of cause shortages in the supply of critical
FGD and SCR retrofits could be industrial resources, especially
2. Engineering Factors Affecting Timing boilermakers. An analysis performed by
for Control Retrofits completed within the three-year period
a commenter showed a shortfall in the
available for CAIR. This determination
a. NPR supply of boilermaker labor during the
was based on a previous report prepared
In the NPR, EPA identified the construction period relevant to CAIR
by EPA for the proposed Clear Skies
availability of boilermakers as an retrofits. This commenter anticipated
Act, ‘‘Engineering and Economic Factors
important constraint for the installation that certain key variables would be
Affecting the Installation of Control
of significant amounts of SCR and FGD greater in value than those used by EPA
Technologies for Multi-Pollutant
retrofits. Boilermakers are skilled and based their analysis on higher SCR
Strategies,’’ (docket no. OAR–2003–
laborers that perform various prices, EIA-projected higher natural gas
0053–0106). According to this report, an
specialized construction activities, prices and electricity demand factors,
average of 21 months are required to
including welding and rigging, for and more stringent boilermaker duty
install SCR on one unit, and 27 months rates (boilermaker-year/MW) and
boilers and high pressure vessels. The to install a scrubber on one unit. For
air pollution control devices, such as availability factors.
multiple units within the same plant, Commenters who favored more
scrubber and SCR vessels, require installation of controls would normally
boilermakers for their construction. stringent compliance deadlines argued
be staggered to avoid operational that the required controls could be
Apprentices with no prior work-related disruptions. The EPA projected that the
experience complete a four-year training installed in less time and more controls
maximum number of multiple-unit could be built in early years. These
program, to become full boilermakers. controls required for each affected
For apprentices with relevant commenters raised the following
facility could all be installed within specific points in support of their
experience, this training period could be three years.The NPR proposal included
shorter. For example, union members concerns.
a second phase, with a compliance • The compliance deadlines for the
representing the shipbuilding trade deadline of January 1, 2015. The EPA’s
could be expedited into the boilermaker two phases did not support the ozone
projections showed power plants and fine particulate (PM2.5) attainment
division within a year. installing 19.1 GW of FGD and 31.7 GW
The boilermaker constraint was dates mandated by the CAA. The Phase
of SCR retrofits by 2015, which I deadline should be accelerated to meet
considered more important for the included retrofits for CAIR as well as
initiation of the first phase of CAIR, these attainment dates. Sufficient
retrofits for base case policies (i.e., industrial resources, including
since the NOX SIP Call experience had retrofits for existing regulatory
shown that many sources would be boilermakers, would be available to
requirements). Availability of support such an acceleration. While
adverse to committing significant funds boilermaker labor was not an important
to install controls until after SIPs were some commenters supported an earlier
constraint for this phase. Phase I deadline of January 1, 2008, the
finalized. With the States required to
finalize SIPs in 18 months after the b. Comments others supported a deadline of January
signing of the final rule, the sources 1, 2009. Some of these commenters also
The EPA received several comments suggested that the Phase I deadline be
would have three years in which to
relating to the requirements for the two- accelerated only for NOX.
complete purchasing, construction, and
startup activities associated with these
phased implementation program, the • The EPA’s estimates for the
emission caps and compliance deadline boilermaker availability were too
controls, to meet the proposed CAIR
for each phase, and resources required conservative. A boilermaker labor
deadline.
The EPA’s projections showed power to install necessary controls. The analysis performed by one commenter
plants installing 51.4 gigawatts (GW) of commenters offered opposing showed an adequate supply of this
FGD and 28.2 GW of SCR retrofits viewpoints, which can be broadly resource to support installation of all
during the first CAIR phase. These categorized as follows. Phase I and II controls by the start of the
projections include retrofits for CAIR as Several commenters indicated that the first phase (by 2010), thereby
well as retrofits for base case policies compliance deadline of 2010 for the first eliminating the need for two phases.
(i.e., retrofits for existing regulatory phase was not attainable and argued • The time allowed for installing
that EPA should either extend the controls for Phase II was excessive. The
71 The NO SIP Call Rule allowed approximately
X
deadline, or set higher emission caps for initiation of this phase could be moved
31⁄2 years for implementation of all NOX Controls. this phase. The commenters raised the forward.
Several commenters supported EPA’s on these assumptions and the proposal, EPA projects an average
assumptions used in support of the information received from these sources single-unit installation time of 21
adequacy of the implementation period is available in the docket to this months for SCR and 27 months for a
and resources to build the required rulemaking as a technical support scrubber. Our revised IPM analysis for
CAIR controls. These assumptions document (TSD), entitled ‘‘Boilermaker the final rule shows that many facilities
included the overall construction Labor and Installation Timing Analysis, would install controls on multiple units
schedule durations for SCR and FGD (docket no. OAR–2003–0053–2092).’’ (a maximum of six for SCR and five for
systems and boilermaker unit rates. The responses to the most significant FGD) at the same plant. We expect these
comments on these issues are facilities to stagger these installations to
c. Responses
summarized in the following sections. minimize operational disruptions.
The EPA reviewed the above The EPA also projects that SCRs and
comments and performed additional i. Issues Related to Compliance scrubbers could be installed on the
research and analyses, including new Deadline Extension multiple units in the available time
IPM runs that incorporated higher SCR (I) Adequacy of Phase I Implementation periods of 21⁄4 and 31⁄4 years,
and natural gas costs and greater electric Period respectively. The issues related to the
demand. We also found that more units availability of boilermakers and the
had installed SCR under the NOX SIP Today’s action initiates State
ability of the plants requiring multiple-
Call and other regulatory actions than activities in conjunction with EPA to set
unit controls to stagger their
what our records previously showed. up the administrative details of CAIR.
installations during these periods are
This increase in the number of existing With the first phase compliance
discussed later in this preamble.
SCR installations was also incorporated deadline of January 1, 2009, for NOX As compared to projections in the
into these IPM runs. In addition, the and January 1, 2010, for SO2, the NPR proposal, earlier signing of the
number of existing FGD installations affected sources would have final rule adds approximately three
was also revised slightly downward, for approximately 33⁄4 and 43⁄4 years for the additional months to the overall
the same reason. implementation of the overall implementation periods for SO2
The revised IPM analyses for today’s requirements for this phase, controls. Furthermore, EPA’s
final action show that the amounts of respectively. The final SIPs would be projections for the final rule show fewer
controls that need to be put on for Phase submitted at the end of the first 18 Phase I NOX and SO2 controls being
I are 39.6 GW of FGD and 23.9 GW of months of these implementation added than the projections in the NPR
SCR. These amounts represent a periods. The remaining 21⁄4 and 31⁄4 proposal. Since the compliance
reduction from the estimates for the years would be available for the sources deadline for NOX has been moved up a
NPR. For Phase II, the amount of the to complete activities required for the year from the proposal, a three-month
required controls are 32.4 GW of FGD procurement and installation of NOX earlier rule promulgation provides more
and 26.6 GW of SCR. These amounts and SO2 controls, respectively. For the time for implementing SO2 controls
represent an increase from the estimates reasons outlined below, EPA believes only. However, since it does allow use
for the NPR. The amounts shown for that these deadlines provide enough of critical resources, such as
both phases reflect all retrofits required time to install the required Phase I boilermakers, for SO2 controls to be
for the CAIR and base case (non-CAIR) controls. spread over a longer period of time, the
policies. The retrofit projections for the (A) Engineering/Construction net effect would be to make more of
base case policies are included, since Schedule Issues these resources available for both SO2
some of the available boilermaker labor The EPA notes that, for CAIR, the and NOX controls (as compared to a
would be consumed in building these States would finalize the SIPs in 18 scenario where promulgation was not
retrofits during the CAIR time-frame. months after the rule is signed, and that three months earlier). This is especially
The EPA also contacted the until then, the majority of sources true since the implementation periods
International Brotherhood of required to install controls may not for both NOX and SO2 controls would
Boilermakers (IBB), U.S. Bureau of initiate activities that require start at the same time and the plants
Labor Statistics (BLS), and National commitment of major funds. However, installing these controls would be
Association of Construction Boilermaker some activities, such as planning, competing for the same resources until
Employers (NACBE) to verify its preparation of conceptual designs, January 1, 2009, the compliance
assumptions on boilermakers selection of technologies, and contacts deadline for NOX. The EPA, therefore,
population, percentage of boilermakers with equipment suppliers can be started believes that 21⁄4- and 31⁄4-year time
available to work on the control retrofit or completed prior to the finalization of periods provide reasonable amounts of
projects, and average annual hours of SIPs, at least for major sources expected time from the approval of State
boilermaker employment. Except for the to require longer implementation programs by September 2006, until the
boilermaker population, the information periods. In addition, other activities, commencement of compliance
received as a result of these such as permitting and financing can be deadlines for meeting the NOX and SO2
investigations validated EPA’s started after the rule is finalized. This is emission requirements.
assumptions. IBB also confirmed that based on the NOX SIP Call experience. Certain commenters have provided
the boilermaker population would at After the SIPs are finalized, the their own estimates of schedule
least be maintained at the current level sources would have approximately 21⁄4 requirements for installing the required
of 26,000 members, during the period and 31⁄4 years in which to complete controls. In some cases, these estimates
relevant to construction of CAIR purchasing, detailed design, fabrication, are longer than those determined by
retrofits. It did not want to forecast construction, and startup of the required EPA. For scrubbers, including spray
growth and historically has not done so. NOX and SO2 controls, respectively. dryer and wet limestone or lime type
Therefore, instead of the 28,000 This assumes that activities, such as systems, the control implementation
boilermaker forecasted population used planning and selection of technologies, requirements provided by the
in the NPR, we have conservatively have already been started or completed, commenters range from 30 to 54 months
used a boilermaker population of 26,000 prior to the start of these 21⁄4- and 31⁄4- for the overall project and 18 to 36
for the final CAIR. A detailed discussion year periods. As discussed in the NPR months for the phase following
equipment awards. In this case, the landfill permit for scrubber waste. We may use the allowance-trading
lowest 18-month schedule requirement note that not all scrubber installations provisions of CAIR to defer
cited applies to spray dryers, whereas would require landfills, as some implementation of controls.
the shortest schedule cited for wet scrubber designs produce saleable waste
(D) Electrical Grid Reliability Issue
scrubbers for the activities following the products, such as gypsum.
equipment awards is 24 months. For Specifically, EPA contacted Georgia, Based on available data for the NOX
SCR, the control implementation Ohio, Indiana, Alabama, Pennsylvania, SIP Call, approximately 68 GW of SCR
requirements cited by the commenters West Virginia, Tennessee, and retrofits were started up during the
range from 24 to 36 months for the Kentucky.73 Except for Kentucky, all years from 2001 to 2003. This included
overall project and 17 to 25 months for States indicated that their permit approximately 42 GW of SCRs in 2003
the phase following the equipment approval periods ranged from 12 to 27 alone, which exceeds the combined
awards. months. Some of these States indicated capacity of SCR and FGD retrofits for
One commenter has pointed out that that permit approval may require more CAIR that we expect to be started up in
the construction schedule requirements time than 27 months, but only for the any one year. The EPA projects that
for the FGD and SCR retrofit projects cases in which major landfill design startup of the 23.9 GW of SCR and 39.6
have shortened, because of the lessons issues persist or the permit applicant GW of FGD capacity required for Phase
learned from a significant number of has not provided complete and proper I would be spread over a period of two
such projects completed during the last information with the permit application. years (2008 and 2009). The total
few years. The EPA notes that a recent The Kentucky Department of capacity of units starting up in each year
announcement for a new 485 MW Environmental Protection indicated is therefore expected to be
limestone scrubber facility indicates a that, based on their historical records, approximately 32 GW (half of the
construction schedule duration (from the average permit approval period was combined SCR and FGD capacity of 63.5
equipment award to startup) of only 18 31⁄2 years. They also stated that the State GW).
months.72 This is well below the was sensitive to an applicant’s time The NOX SIP Call experience shows
schedule requirement cited by the restrictions and the permit approval that outages required to complete
commenters for a wet limestone times had varied depending on the level installation of the large SCR capacity,
scrubber. of urgency surrounding a permit especially during 2003, did not have an
The EPA also notes that most of the application. They further confirmed that adverse impact on the electrical grid
commenters’ schedule estimates are they would work with the industry to reliability. The EPA notes that the
consistent with the time periods meet compliance deadlines, such as outage requirement for SCR usually
available for completing the CAIR- those required by CAIR, as efficiently as exceeds that for scrubbers, since SCR is
related NOX and SO2 projects. Some of possible. located closer to the boiler and it may
the longer schedules submitted by Based on the above investigations, be more intrusive to the existing
commenters would exceed the CAIR EPA notes that the landfill permitting equipment. As shown above, the CAIR
Phase I dates. However, EPA considers requirements quoted by all States fall retrofits are projected to include more
these longer schedules to be speculative, well within the 43⁄4-year scrubbers than SCRs and the capacity of
as these commenters did not justify implementation period for Phase I. Also, these retrofits starting up in any one
them. The major factors that influence landfill permitting activities as well as year is below the capacity of the NOX
schedule requirements include size of its design and construction can be SIP Call units that started up in 2003.
the installation, degree of retrofit accomplished, independent of the Therefore, the overall outage
difficulty, and plant location. The EPA design and construction of the FGD requirement for CAIR would be less
does not expect these factors to make a than that experienced for the NOX SIP
system. The EPA, therefore, believes
difference of more than a few months Call.
that landfill permitting is not a
between the schedule requirements of Based on published industry data, the
constraint for compliance with the rule. planned outage times for coal-fired units
various installations. The commenters
who have cited long schedule (C) Project Financing Issue from 2001–2002 (SCR buildup years)
requirements that fall at the higher end Commenters representing small units decreased by over two percent
of the above ranges have not provided or units owned by the co-operatives compared to the previous two years
any data to support the wide differences raised concerns that arrangement of from 1998–1999.74 The reduction in the
between their schedules and those financing for control retrofits could take overall outage time in the 2001–2002
proposed by others, including EPA. It period also shows that the SCR retrofits
long periods of time. However, EPA’s
should also be noted that EPA’s did not adversely affect the grid
projections show a larger portion of the
schedules are based on information reliability. Therefore, EPA believes that
smaller units installing controls only
from several actual SCR and scrubber the concern regarding electrical grid
during the second phase. These
installations. Therefore, EPA cannot reliability is unwarranted for CAIR
projections also show that only a few
accept the excessive schedule retrofits.
co-operative units would require
requirements proposed by these installation of controls. Therefore, EPA (II) Availability of Boilermaker Labor in
commenters. believes that the Phase I implementation Phase I
(B) Landfill Permit Issue periods of approximately 33⁄4 and 43⁄4 The EPA has performed several
years for NOX and SO2 controls, analyses to verify the adequacy of the
The EPA contacted several key States respectively, provide enough time for
requiring FGD retrofits, to investigate available boilermaker labor for the
completing the financing activity for all installation of CAIR’s Phase I controls.
the amount of time required to obtain a controls. Of course, if individual These analyses were not just based on
72 Reference: Announcement by Wheelabrator Air
sources face difficulties in meeting using EPA’s assumptions for the key
Pollution Control Inc. for award of a wet limestone deadlines to implement controls, they
scrubber system for K.C. Coleman Generating 74 Reference: ‘‘NERC, Generating Availability Data
Station, Western Kentucky Energy Corp., August 2, 73 Summaryof telephone calls with States to System: All MW Sizes—Coal-Fired Generation
2004, and other related documents. (docket no. discuss landfill permit timing (docket no. OAR– Report,’’ http://www.nerc.com/∼filez/gar.html,
OAR–2003–0053–1953) 2003–0053–1927). October 17, 2003.
factors affecting the boilermaker validated or revised through our sufficient labor resources to meet the
availability, but also the assumptions discussions with IBB, BLS, and NACBE. program’s requirements in 2010.
suggested by commenters for these Two other key factors that also have Therefore, EPA has performed a
factors to determine how sure we could an impact on boilermaker availability sensitivity analysis to determine the
be on our key conclusions. If there was include the number of required SCR and required control retrofits resulting from
insufficient labor for the amount of air FGD retrofits and boilermaker duty rates the use of these EIA projections, and
pollution controls that will need to be (boilermaker-year/MW, i.e., the number then used the increased amounts of the
installed, the program would be in of boilermaker years needed to install required control retrofits to determine
jeopardy. For instance, shortages in SCR or FGD on one MW of electric their impacts on the boilermaker
manpower could lead to high wage rates generation capacity). The EPA’s availability.
that could substantially increase projections for the required SCR and The EPA also received comments
construction costs for pollution controls FGD retrofits are based on the IPM suggesting that the SCR costs used in
and reduce the cost effectiveness of this analyses performed for the final rule. our IPM analyses were below the levels
program. During the peak of the NOX The basis for the boilermaker duty rates experienced in recent SCR installations.
SIP Call SCR construction period, the used by EPA is a report prepared by We note that the SCR costs were revised
power industry did experience an EPA for the proposed Clear Skies Act, in the IPM analyses performed for the
increase in the SCR construction costs. ‘‘Engineering and Economic Factors final rule, to reflect recent industry
One of the reasons cited for these higher Affecting the Installation of Control experience. One commenter reported
costs was an increased demand for Technologies for Multi-Pollutant SCR capital costs that exceeded our
boilermaker labor. The EPA strongly Strategies.’’ revised costs. The EPA does not agree
wanted to avoid this possibility for Some commenters have suggested use with these reported costs, as they are
CAIR. The EPA also wanted to be very of EIA’s projections of natural gas prices not supported by the overall cost data
sure that the levels of controls and and electricity demand rates that are submitted by the commenter. However,
timing of the program’s start were higher than EPA’s projections used in to address the concern with the SCR
appropriate. Therefore, EPA tended to the IPM analyses. Use of higher values costs in general, we have performed a
make conservative assumptions and to for these parameters would increase the sensitivity analysis to determine the
test the sensitivity of key assumptions number of required control retrofits. impact of increasing the SCR capital and
that were uncertain. While not agreeing with these fixed O&M costs by 30 percent.
Boilermakers population, percentage commenters that EIA’s projections An increase in the SCR costs would
of boilermakers available to work on the should replace the data that EPA uses, affect the amounts of the required
control retrofit projects, and average we acknowledge that there is reasonable control retrofits. Table IV–12 shows the
annual hours of boilermaker uncertainty concerning these projected Phase I SCR and FGD retrofits
employment are some of the key factors assumptions and that addressing the for the above two alternate cases, based
that affect boilermaker availability. As uncertainty explicitly by considering on using EIA’s projections for natural
discussed previously, EPA’s EIA’s alternative assumptions is gas prices and electricity demand rates
assumptions on these factors were prudent, given the importance of having and higher SCR costs.
TABLE IV–12.—IPM PROJECTIONS FOR TOTAL CAPACITIES OF FGD AND SCR RETROFIT PROJECTS FOR COAL-FIRED
ELECTRIC GENERATION UNITS FOR CAIR PHASE I USING EPA AND COMMENTER ASSUMPTIONS
EIA projections
EPA base case EIA
Retrofit type and higher SCR
assumptions projections 1 costs 2
CAIR FGD, GW ...................................................................................................................... 37 45.4 47.9

Non-CAIR FGD, GW .............................................................................................................. 2.6 3.7 Included Above
CAIR SCR, GW ...................................................................................................................... 18.2 20.6 25.2
Non-CAIR SCR, GW .............................................................................................................. 5.7 4.6 Included Above
1 The required control retrofits shown are based on using EIA projections for natural gas prices and electricity demand rates.
2 The required control retrofits shown are based on using EIA projections for natural gas prices and electricity demand rates as well as 30 per-
cent higher SCR capital and fixed O&M costs.
As shown in Table IV–12 above, the as well as those suggested by this

TABLE IV–13.—BOILERMAKER DUTY
alternate case using just the EIA’s commenter. RATES FOR SCR AND FGD SYS-
projections for natural gas prices and TEMS FOR COAL-FIRED ELECTRIC
electricity demand rates requires the TABLE IV–13.—BOILERMAKER DUTY GENERATION UNITS—Continued
largest amounts of control retrofits. RATES FOR SCR AND FGD SYS-
Therefore, a boilermaker availability TEMS FOR COAL-FIRED ELECTRIC Source FGD SCR
analysis was performed for just this GENERATION UNITS
case. Commenter-suggested,
boilermaker-year/MW 1 .. 0.269 0.343
One commenter has suggested use of Source FGD SCR
higher boilermaker duty rates for both 1 The duty rate values shown are average
SCR and FGD retrofits, based on an EPA’s estimate, boiler- values calculated by using the FGD and SCR
maker-year/MW ............. 0.152 0.175 correlations provided by the commenter along
industry survey they had conducted. with the MW size of individual units projected
Use of higher duty rates would result in by the IPM to require FGD or SCR controls for
more boilermakers being needed to Phase I of CAIR.
install the controls. Table IV–13 shows
the boilermaker duty rates used by EPA
Our review of the limited supporting period was executed by non-union determined for each case, based on the
information submitted by the labor.75 Based on these data, we have amounts of SCR and FGD retrofits being
commenter about their survey for these conservatively assumed that 1,000 installed and the pertinent boilermaker
duty rates shows that they are based on boilermakers from Canada will be availability factors and duty rates. The
data from a small number of available and 10 percent of the retrofits required boilermaker-years were then
installations and represent scope of would be installed by non-union compared to the available boilermaker
work at each power plant that is well boilermakers for Phase I. years to verify adequacy of the
above the average installation Based on EPA data, an average 32 GW boilermaker labor. All sources of
conditions used in determining the duty of new gas-fired, combined cycle boilermakers were considered in these
rates used by EPA. Therefore, EPA generating capacity was being added analyses, including the union
considers these commenter-suggested annually, during the NOX SIP Call SCR boilermakers and the boilermakers from
duty rates to represent the upper end of construction years of 2002 and 2003. A the three additional sources discussed
the range of values that would be substantial number of boilermakers previously.
expected for the SCR and FGD controls were involved in the construction of The EPA’s boilermaker availability
under consideration. This is also these gas-fired projects. Since analyses firmly support CAIR’s Phase I
supported by the average duty rate projections for the timeframe relevant to requirements. Using EPA’s projections
(0.199) submitted by one other CAIR retrofits show only a small of FGD and SCR retrofits installed for
commenter for installing FGDs, which is amount of new electric generating Phase I and EPA’s assumptions for
well below the average duty rate (0.269) capacity being added, the number of boilermaker duty rates, there are ample
suggested by the first commenter. boilermakers involved in the building of boilermakers available with a large
However, EPA also notes that the duty new plants would be smaller and more contingency factor to support the
rate suggested by the second commenter of the boilermaker population would be predicted levels of CAIR retrofits. For
is higher than that (0.152) used by EPA. available to work on the Phase I the most conservative analysis using the
The EPA conducted the boilermaker retrofits. As pointed out by one boilermaker duty rates suggested by one
analysis for the final rule using commenter, the boilermakers available commenter and the EIA’s projections for
alternative assumptions for boilermaker due to this projected drop in the natural gas prices and electricity
duty rates. These alternative building of new generation capacity demand rates, there are sufficient
assumptions yield a range of estimates represents a third additional source of boilermakers available with a
of the amount of control that could boilermakers for CAIR. contingency factor of approximately 14
feasibly be installed. In keeping with The EPA projects only an percent.
EPA’s desire to be very sure that there insignificant amount of new coal-fired In the NPR proposal, EPA estimated
is sufficient boilermaker labor available generating capacity being added during that a contingency factor of 15 percent
during the CAIR’s Phase I construction Phase I. The most recent EIA’s was available to offset any increases in
period, the Agency has considered the projections also do not show any new boilermaker requirements due to
most stringent duty rates suggested by coal fired capacity being added between unforeseen events, such as sick leave,
the first commenter, as well as other 2007 and 2010, the timeframe relevant time lost due to inclement weather, time
duty rates (see Table IV–13), in to boilermaker-related construction lost due to travel between job-sites,
analyzing the impact on the boilermaker activities for CAIR.76 However, EPA’s inefficiencies created due to project
availability. The EPA considers this to projections do show approximately 15 scheduling issues, etc. The EPA had
be a bounding analysis in which the GW of new or repowered gas-fired considered this 15 percent contingency
estimates based on the most stringent capacity being added, during 2007– factor to be adequate for these
duty rates reflect conditions with the unforeseen events. We also note that
2010. The EIA’s projections for new gas-
highest retrofit difficulty level that EPA EPA did not receive any comments
fired capacity addition during Phase I
could realistically expect to occur. We suggesting a need for a higher
are well below those of EPA’s. We used
expect that the average boilermaker duty contingency factor.
the more conservative EPA projections The EPA also notes that the above
rates applicable to the overall boiler for new generating capacity additions
population required to retrofit controls boilermaker labor estimates have not
and the gas-fired capacity additions considered the benefits of the
under this rule would not fall outside of during the NOX SIP Call period to
the values used by EPA and those experiences gained by the U.S.
estimate the additional boilermaker construction industry from the recent
suggested by the first commenter.
labor that would become available for buildup of large amounts of air
In the NPR, only the union
the Phase I retrofits. This estimate pollution controls, including the NOX
boilermakers belonging to the IBB were
considered in the EPA’s availability shows that approximately 28 percent SIP Call SCRs. As pointed out by one
analysis. Some commenters have more boilermakers would be available to commenter, such experiences include
pointed out that additional sources of work on the CAIR retrofits, because of use of modular construction, which can
boilermakers will be available for CAIR. a slowdown in the construction of new result in a significant reduction in the
Two such sources include non-union power plants.77 required boilermaker labor for CAIR
and Canadian boilermakers. IBB has In the boilermaker availability retrofits. Also, as a result of this controls
confirmed that 1,325 Canadian analyses performed by EPA, the buildup, an increased number of
boilermakers were brought in to support required boilermaker-years were experienced designers and construction
the NOX SIP Call SCR work in 2003. The 75 Reference: ‘‘Email from Institute of Clean Air
personnel have become available to the
EPA also projects that approximately 15 Companies,’’ September 15, 2004 (See Appendix B,
industry. Some of these benefits may be
percent of FGDs and 43 percent of SCRs Boilermaker Labor Analysis and Installation offset by factors, such as the increased
will be installed for Phase I in the Timing). level of retrofit difficulty expected for
traditionally non-union States and 76 Reference: ‘‘Annual Energy Outlook 2005
the CAIR retrofits, especially for the
believes there will be nonunion labor (Early Release), Tables A9 and 9,’’ December 2004, small size units. However, we believe
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html.
available in these States. One source has 77 TSD, ‘‘Boilermaker Labor and Installation that the net effect of this experience is
confirmed that a substantial amount of Timing Analysis,’’ (Docket no. OAR–2003–0053– a more efficient use of the boilermaker
SCR retrofit work during the 2000–2002 2092). labor in the construction of the air
pollution control retrofits projects. installation of these controls. As the permit applications at the beginning
Unfortunately, EPA cannot quantify the discussed in the preceding section, FGD of the compliance period and to prepare
value of this experience in determining installation on one unit requires an the landfill area for accepting the waste
its overall impact on boilermaker average 27-month schedule to complete after permit approval. The EPA does not
requirements. purchasing, construction, and startup believe that 3 months is adequate for
Therefore, EPA considers the 14 activities. such activities. These plants would,
percent contingency in the available The sources installing controls on therefore, need the 43⁄4-year
boilermaker-years for the above more than one unit at the same facility implementation period to complete
bounding analysis using commenter- would likely stagger the outage-related activities related to landfills associated
suggested assumptions to be adequate. activities, such as final hookup of the with the FGD systems.
new equipment into the existing plant The EPA also performed an analysis
ii. Issues Related to Compliance
settings and startup, to minimize to verify if the available boilermaker
Deadline Acceleration
operational disruptions and avoid losing labor is adequate to support the January
(I) Acceleration of Phase I Compliance too much generating capacity at one 1, 2009, compliance deadline for both
Deadline time. The EPA projects that an average NOX and SO2. This analysis was
As a result of EPA’s review of the 2-month period is required to complete performed, using commenter-suggested
comments received and further the outage construction activities and a boilermaker duty rates and EIA’s
investigations conducted by the Agency 1-month period to complete the startup assumptions for the natural gas prices
for the final rule, the compliance activities for FGD. Therefore, if back-to- and electricity demand rates. The
deadline for implementing Phase I NOX back outages are assumed for a plant results show that given these
controls has been moved up by one installing FGD on just two units, the 27 assumptions sufficient number of
year. We believe that the affected plants months needed to install FGD on the boilermakers will not be available and
would have sufficient time with this first unit and an additional 3 months that there will be a shortfall of
change to meet the CAIR requirements needed for outage activities on the approximately 32 percent in the
associated with NOX emissions, as long second unit would result in an overall boilermakers available to support Phase
as the compliance deadline for schedule requirement of 30 months. I activities for this case.
implementing SO2 controls is not This 30-month schedule exceeds the Considering the constraints identified
changed. The EPA does not agree that available 27-month implementation in the above analyses for the FGD
accelerating the originally proposed period, if the compliance deadline is installation schedule requirements and
Phase I compliance deadline of January moved up by 1 year. For plants boilermaker labor availability, EPA
1, 2010, for implementing both NOX and installing FGD controls on more than believes that it is not reasonable to move
SO2 controls is possible. These issues two units and performing hookup the Phase I compliance deadline for
are discussed below. construction and startup activities in both NOX and SO2 caps to January 1,
back-to-back outages, an additional 3 2009.
(A) Two-Year Phase I Acceleration for months would be added to the 30-
NOX and SO2 Controls (C) One-Year Phase I Acceleration for
month schedule requirement for each NOX Controls Only
With today’s final action and allowing additional unit.
18 months for the SIPs, sources The EPA notes that certain plants A 1 year acceleration would result in
installing controls would have installing multiple-unit controls may be a compliance deadline of January 1,
approximately 31⁄4 years for able to meet the compliance deadline 2009, for installing Phase I NOX
implementing the rule’s requirements. requirement by using alternative controls. With this change, the affected
Some commenters suggested moving approaches, such as simultaneous unit sources installing these controls would
Phase I forward by 2 years, with a new outages and purchase of allowances to have approximately 21⁄4 years for
compliance deadline of January 1, 2008, defer installation of controls on some implementing the rule’s requirements,
which would reduce the units. However, our projections for the following the approval of State
implementation period to 11⁄4 years. It is final rule show that some facilities programs. However the implementation
recognized that sources generally would would be installing FGD controls on five period for installing FGD controls
not initiate any implementation multiple units at a single site. Moreover, would still be at 31⁄4 years.
activities that require major funding, these projections show 26 plants As shown previously, 21 months
before the final SIPs are available. requiring FGD retrofit on more than one would be required to complete
The EPA’s projections show that, for unit, which represents a major portion purchasing, construction, and startup of
SCR installation on one unit, an average of the total number of plants required to SCR on one unit. For multiple-unit
21-month schedule is required to install such controls under CAIR. We installations with back-to-back unit
complete purchasing, construction, and believe it would not be appropriate to outages for the tie-in construction and
startup activities. For the same activities expect this number of plants to resort to startup, the available 21⁄4-year
for FGD, an average 27-month schedule alternative means to accommodate such implementation period would permit
is required. As can be seen, the total installations, such as simultaneous unit staggering of SCR installations on a
time required for just one SCR or FGD outages or purchasing of allowances. maximum of three units (see the above
installation exceeds the 11⁄4-year For FGD retrofits, some plants would referenced TSD). For a plant requiring
implementation period available for be required to obtain solid waste landfill SCR retrofit on more than three units,
Phase I, if the compliance deadline is permits. As discussed previously, the simultaneous outages of two units
moved to January 1, 2008. time required to obtain these permits would become necessary. However, EPA
could range from one to 31⁄2 years. With notes that there are only six plants
(B) One-Year Phase I Acceleration for the compliance deadline moved up by projected to require SCR installation on
NOX and SO2 Controls one year, the overall implementation more than three units and, therefore, it
If the Phase I compliance deadline for period would be reduced from 43⁄4 to is expected that simultaneous outages of
both NOX and SO2 controls is moved up 33⁄4 years. For those plants subjected to two units at each of these plants would
by 1 year, the affected facilities would a 31⁄2-year permit approval period, only not have an adverse impact on the
have 21⁄4 years or 27 months to complete 3 months would be available to prepare reliability of the electrical grid.
In addition, the plants installing SCR along with completing installation of all the required controls as well as provide
on more than three units at the same site SCRs, 35 percent of the boilermaker them an opportunity to benefit from the
would have two other options to meet labor required to install all FGDs would lessons learned during the first phase.
the rule’s requirements, without having be used in the period prior to January In general, environmental controls
to resort to simultaneous two-unit 1, 2009. This is a conservative resulting from legislative or regulatory
outages. First, these plants would be assumption, since the amount of actions are applied to those units first
able to defer installation of SCRs on boilermaker labor used for this period that offer superior choices from
some of the units by receiving allocated would be greater than 50 percent of the constructability and cost-effectiveness
allowances or purchasing allowances total Phase I boilermaker labor standpoints. Experience gained by the
from the 200,000-ton Compliance requirement. The analysis performed by industry from these installations can
Supplement Pool being made available EPA shows that sufficient boilermakers then be used to develop innovative
as part of CAIR.78 Second, the outage would be available with a contingency solutions for any constructability issues
activities for some of the units at these factor of approximately 14 percent to and to improve cost effectiveness, as
plants could be extended into the first install all SCR controls and 35 percent these technologies are applied to harder-
quarter of 2009, which is beyond the of the FGD retrofit work by January 1, to-control units. The EPA believes that
compliance deadline of January 1, 2009, 2009. This analysis is based on the most this phenomenon applies to the
since these units would not generate conservative assumptions, using the application of the SCR and FGD
NOX emissions during an outage and boilermaker duty rates suggested by one technologies at coal-fired power plants.
therefore not require any allowances to commenter and the EIA’s projections for In the last few years, SCR and FGD
compensate for them. The EPA’s natural gas prices and electricity systems have been added to several
projections show that, of the above six demand rates. Based on the above existing coal-fired units, under the NOX
plants installing SCR on more than three analyses, EPA believes that moving the SIP Call and Acid Rain Program. These
units, four of them require SCR retrofits compliance deadline for Phase I for both were mainly large units that had
on four units each. If it is assumed that NOX and SO2 is not practical. However, features, such as spacious layouts,
these four plants would perform outage a 1-year acceleration in the compliance amenable to the retrofit of the new air
activities on the fourth unit during the deadline for NOX only is feasible. Since pollution control equipment. The units
first quarter of 2009, there would only EPA is obligated under the CAA to installing controls during Phase I of
be two plants left that would be require emission reductions for CAIR would, in general, be smaller in
required to either purchase allowances obtaining NAAQS to be achieved as size and would offer relatively more
or perform work during simultaneous soon as practicable, we have based the difficult settings to accommodate the
outages. final rule on two separate Phase I new equipment. These units would
The EPA also notes that the total compliance deadlines of January 1, certainly benefit from the experience the
schedule requirements for multiple-unit 2009, and January 1, 2010, for NOX and industry has gained from the
plants can be reduced further by SO2, respectively. installations completed in recent years.
performing some of the activities, A large portion of the units (47
especially those related to planning and (II) Implementing All Controls in percent) projected to implement
engineering, prior to the 21⁄4-year Phase I controls during the second phase
period. Also, with the total installation The EPA proposed a phased program consists of even smaller units, less than
time requirement for FGD being more with the consideration that for 200 MW in size. Compared to larger
than that for SCR, EPA expects the engineering and financial reasons, it units, the retrofits for these smaller
outages associated with most Phase I would take a substantial amount of time units would be more difficult to plan,
FGDs to take place after January 1, 2009. to install the projected controls. This design, and build. Historically, smaller
The overall impact of the outages taken program would require one of the most units have been built with less
for these SCR and FGD retrofits would, extensive capital investment and equipment redundancy, smaller
therefore, be minimized. engineering retrofit programs ever capacity margins, and more congested
The EPA also performed an analysis undertaken in the U.S. for pollution layouts. It is likely, therefore, to be more
to determine the impact of an 1-year control. The capital investment for difficult and require additional design
acceleration in the NOX compliance pollution control for CAIR that would efforts to accommodate the new
deadline on Phase I boilermaker labor be installed by 2015 is estimated to be equipment into the existing settings for
requirements. Since the amounts of the approximately 15 billion dollars. By the smaller units. Use of lessons learned
required Phase I NOX and FGD retrofits 2015, close to 340 control unit retrofits by firms constructing these units from
are not affected by this change, the will occur. This is occurring at a time the previous installations, including
overall boilermaker requirements for when the industry also faces another those to be built during the first phase,
this phase will remain the same as major infrastructure challenge— would help streamline this process and
previously reported for the case with the upgrading transmission capacity to maintain the cost effectiveness of these
same compliance deadline for both NOX make the grid more reliable and installations. Moving a large portion of
and SO2. However, with the new NOX economic to operate. This also will cost the retrofits required for these smaller
compliance deadline, installation of all tens of billions of dollars. units to the second phase also provides
NOX retrofits would have to be The proposed program’s objective was more time to complete the required
completed by January 1, 2009, and some to eliminate upwind states’ significant retrofit activities.
of the FGD construction work requiring contribution to downwind Because EPA’s projections for the
boilermakers would also be done during nonattainment, providing air quality second phase include a large proportion
this period. The EPA assumed that, benefits as soon as practicable. A of smaller units, the total number of
phased approach was also considered units requiring NOX and SO2 controls
78 The 200,000-ton Compliance Supplement Pool necessary because more of the difficult- exceeds that in the first phase (186 vs.
is apportioned to each of the 23 States and the to-retrofit and finance, smaller size units 153). Requiring an acceleration of the
District of Columbia that are required by CAIR to
make annual NOX reductions, as well as the 2 States
would be included in the second phase, second phase controls to be completed
(Delaware and New Jersey) for which EPA is which would allow them to complete in the first phase would, therefore, more
proposing to require annual NOX reductions. activities necessary for implementing than double the number of retrofits
required for the first phase from 153 to The EPA believes that moving the The EPA notes that Phase I of CAIR
339. Based on data available from EPA Phase II requirements to the Phase I is the initial step on the slope of
and other sources, the industry period could cause near-term shortages emissions reduction (the glide-path)
completed 95 SCR installations for the in some of the critical resources. This leading to the final control levels.
NOX SIP Call in 2002 and 2003. If the would further increase compliance costs Because of the incentive to make early
2004 projections for the NOX SIP Call and could remove the highly cost- emission reductions that the cap-and-
are added to this number, the total effective nature of these controls and trade program provides, reductions will
number of SCR retrofits over the 2002– lead to a greater demand for natural gas. begin early and will continue to
2004 period would be 140. This is less In addition to the above, financing a increase through Phases I and II. The
than half the number that would be large amount of controls for Phase I may EPA, therefore, does not believe that all
required for CAIR during a similar prove challenging, especially for the of the required Phase II emission
period, if the Phase II requirements are coal plants owned by deregulated reductions would take place on January
implemented along with the Phase I generators. As discussed later in this 1, 2015, the compliance deadline. These
requirements. Also, the combined section, such generators are continuing reductions are expected to accrue
capacity for FGD and SCR retrofits to face serious financial challenges, and throughout the implementation period,
required for Phase I would be 122.5 GW, many have below investment grade as the sources install controls and start
which is approximately 57 percent credit ratings. This significantly to test and operate them.
greater than the installed SIP-Call SCR complicates the financing of costly The EPA also notes that the 5-year
capacity for the 2002–2004 period. Such retrofit controls. Such plants would also implementation period for Phase II is
a change in the rule would therefore not have the certainty of regulatory consistent with other regulations and
amount to imposing a requirement over recovery of investments in pollution statutory requirements, such as title IV
the power industry that is significantly control, and would have to rely on the for SO2 and NOX controls. In addition,
more demanding and burdensome than market to recover their costs. Having a some commenters have cited a need for
what the industry was required to do second phase cap would allow these a 6-year period for obtaining financing
under the NOX SIP Call rule. companies additional time to strengthen for plants owned by the co-operatives.
The EPA notes that critical resources their finances and improve their cash These facilities are likely to commit
other than the boilermakers are needed flow. funds for major activities, only after
for the installation of SCR and FGD financing has been obtained. Therefore,
In the interest of being prudent in
controls, such as construction for such facilities, a period of
evaluating the need to phase in the
equipment, engineering and approximately four years would be
program, EPA also performed an
construction staffs belonging to different available for procuring, installing, and
analysis to determine if the available
trades, construction materials, and startup activities, assuming that the
boilermaker labor would be adequate to
equipment manufacturers. Some financing activities were started right
commenters, based on their experience support installation of all Phase I and II after the rule is finalized. Since the
with NOX SIP Call, also pointed out that controls in 2010. This analysis was plants owned by co-operatives are
the requirement for some of these conservatively based on using usually small in size, they are likely to
resources, especially construction commenter-suggested boilermaker duty require and be benefitted by the extra
equipment (e.g., large cranes used to rates and EIA’s projections for gas prices time allowed to them by this four-year
mount SCR and scrubber vessels above and electricity demand rates. The implementation period.
ground), construction materials, results show that a sufficient number of The EPA also performed an analysis
equipment manufacturing shop boilermakers will not be available and to verify adequacy of the available
capacities, and engineering and that there will be a shortfall of boilermaker labor for pollution control
construction management teams approximately 25 percent in the retrofits the power industry will install
overseeing these projects, is affected boilermakers available to support Phase to comply with the Phase II CAIR
directly by the number of installations. I activities for this case. requirements. A 36-month construction
The greater the requirement is to install Based on the above analyses, EPA period requiring boilermakers was
a large number of retrofits by 2010, the believes that implementation of controls conservatively selected for this analysis.
greater would be the need for all these for both phases in Phase I is impractical. Based on the IPM analysis for the final
resources, which would be limited in We also believe that it is prudent and rule, conservatively, the power industry
the short term, as demands from reasonable in requiring the industry to will build 27.5 GW of FGD and 26.6 GW
equipment vendors, project teams, and undertake this massive retrofit program of SCR retrofits for compliance with
material suppliers ramp up. In the NOX on a two-phase schedule, to be largely lower emission caps that go into effect
SIP Call, this led to shortages and completed in less than a decade. for NOX and SO2 in 2015. The analysis
bottlenecks in projects in certain areas, (III) Acceleration of Phase II Compliance was based on using EIA’s projections for
causing increased project times and Deadline the natural gas prices and electricity
costs. The EPA wants to avoid creating demand rates and the commenter-
a similar situation by requiring too The EPA does not believe that suggested boilermaker duty rates. The
much at once. acceleration of the compliance deadline results show availability of ample
The EPA has also acknowledged the for the second phase is reasonable. As boilermakers with a contingency factor
increase in SCR costs during the NOX pointed out earlier, a large portion of the of 46 percent to support Phase II
SIP Call implementation period, most units projected to install controls during activities.
likely due to an increase in construction the second phase consists of small units, The EPA notes that the retrofits that
costs (resulting from increased demand less than 200 MW in size. Due to the will occur in Phase II will be smaller,
for boilermaker labor) and steel prices. issues related to financing of the retrofit more numerous, and more challenging,
The EPA has revised its estimates of projects for some of these units and since the easiest controls will likely be
SCR capital costs in the IPM runs for the considering that planning and designing installed in Phase I. Therefore, having a
final rule and believes the conservatism of controls for these units is likely to greater contingency factor (as we do) is
in its FGD capital costs also accounts for take longer, EPA does not consider the warranted. This is further supported
this factor. schedule acceleration to be appropriate. when the uncertainty in predicting the
construction activities in the areas bankruptcy of coal-generating merchant deregulated coal capacity makes up
outside of air pollution controls is companies. According to Standard and about a third of all U.S. coal capacity
considered. Notably after 2010, the Poor’s, a leading provider of investment and almost 90 percent of this
excess generation capacity that we have ratings, there were almost ten times deregulated capacity would be affected
today is no longer expected to be more downgrades of utility credit in by CAIR requirements.
present and there may be a shift towards 2002 and 2003 than there were Given the lead times needed to plan
a requirement for increasing generation upgrades. While more recently the and construct such equipment, as well
capacity. Increased construction of new sector has stabilized, a significant as the financial uncertainty many of the
power plants will have a direct impact number of owners of coal-fired capacity plant owners are confronting,
on the availability of boilermakers for in the CAIR region, particularly those companies may find it difficult to install
the Phase II controls. The EPA believes with deregulated capacity, are still at controls at their plants too quickly. The
that a higher contingency factor for below investment-grade credit ratings. EPA believes that the choice of timing
Phase II is desirable to ensure that the In general, EPA believes that of the emission caps in CAIR would
industry will succeed in getting the regulated plants, given appropriate allow firms time to improve their
required reductions at the required time. regulatory requirements, should not face current and near-term financial
Any acceleration of the Phase II significant financial problems meeting difficulties (through reorganization,
compliance deadline will also cause an their obligations under CAIR. While mergers, sales, etc.). Phasing in the more
appreciable reduction in the above EPA recognizes that issues such as the stringent emission caps by 2015 would
estimated contingency factor for expiration of rate caps and the time lags also spread investment requirements
boilermaker labor. For example, based associated with regulatory approval and and resulting cash flow demands, rather
on EPA analysis, an acceleration of one recovery may provide cash flow than forcing firms to finance a large
year is projected to reduce this challenges, regulated electricity rates are spike in investments in a very short
contingency factor to only about one generally seen as a positive factor in time period, while they are still trying
percent. Therefore, EPA believes that credit ratings, as entities are allowed a to recover financially.
acceleration of the Phase II compliance recovery on prudent investment through The timing of controls expected to be
deadline cannot be justified. rate cases (and, in some jurisdictions, installed as a result of CAIR are similar
the recovery of allowance expenditures to that noted in EPA’s analysis of the
3. Assure Financial Stability Clear Skies proposal. The EPA looked in
through fuel adjustment clauses).
The EPA recognizes that the power Deregulated coal capacity (operating detail at the potential financial impact
sector will need to devote large amounts in an environment of market prices of the Clear Skies program (particularly
of capital to meet the control focusing on the deregulated coal sector).
rather than electricity rates set by
requirements of the first phase. The EPA found that some individual
regulators) has no such guarantees, and
Furthermore, over the next 10 years, the deregulated coal plants might be
would need to recover investments in
power sector is facing additional adversely affected, but on average such
pollution control from market prices
financial challenges unrelated to plants would actually experience a
(which in many cases are not set by coal
environmental issues, including small financial improvement under
units). Additionally, deregulated
economic restructuring impacts, Clear Skies. Baseload deregulated coal
entities, because of their more
investments related to domestic security plants would benefit from even slight
aggressive building and borrowing
and investments related to electrical increases in the price of natural gas (
strategies and reliance on market prices
infrastructure. Among the consideration units burning natural gas generally set
of other factors, EPA believes it is (which now reflect the current capacity
the wholesale price of electricity on the
important to take into account the overbuild), have faced more significant
margin in the regions where deregulated
ability of the power sector to finance the financial difficulties (including a
coal is located). These units would also
controls required under CAIR. A number of bankruptcies) and are
be recipients of allocated allowances.
detailed assessment of the status of the currently in a weaker position
Overall, the phased in nature of CAIR,
financial health of the U.S. Utility financially.79 A number of firms that
the fact that most coal plants continue
Industry, particularly of the unregulated have avoided financial distress in the
to be regulated and the fact that sources
sector is offered in the TSD, ‘‘U.S. near term have done so by renegotiating
would also receive allowances, would
Utility Industry Financial Status and their pending debt, postponing
all mitigate the financial impact of this
Potential Recovery.’’ payment. A good portion of this debt is rule.
Commenters have noted that they of a shorter-term nature, and will be The EPA believes that the timing
appreciate EPA’s growing realization coming due in the next five years. requirements finalized today reflect a
that many companies may have Such financial difficulties increase prudent and cautious approach
difficulty securing financing, and the the cost of capital necessary for capital designed to assure that the industry will
agency’s establishment of a two-phase expenditures and affect the availability succeed in implementing this program.
reduction program on both technical of such capital, making required The EPA believes that deferring the
and financial grounds. controls more expensive. Recent second phase to 2015 will provide
Utilities and non-utility generating financial troubles have been cited as the enough time for companies to raise
companies have felt significant financial reason for the deferment or cancellation additional capital needed to install
pressure over the past 5 years. The years of pollution control expenditures. controls. Also, we believe that the
2000 and 2001 saw the escalation and Should interest rates rise in the future, implementation period should account
fallout from the California energy crisis, it will become more difficult and costly (at least broadly) for the possibility that
the bankruptcy of Enron, and a massive for utilities seeking financing. electricity demand or natural gas prices
building program, largely on the side of These problems impact a significant may increase more than assumed, and
the merchant generating sector. segment of coal generators, as therefore that additional control
Subsequent low power margins and 79 In fact, between nine and eleven (depending on
equipment would be needed. Allowing
large debt obligations have led to a the credit agency) of the twenty largest owners of
until 2015 for implementation of the
significant number of credit downgrades deregulated coal capacity in the U.S. currently have more stringent control levels in today’s
of utilities and power generators and the below-investment-grade credit ratings. rule will provide more flexibility in the
event of greater electricity demand and In the CAIR NPR, EPA proposed that the SCR control cost assumptions
will ensure that power plants in the criteria for determining the appropriate that we used in IPM analysis for the
CAIR region will have the ability, both levels of SO2 and NOX emissions NPR were too low. Consequently, we
technical and financial, to make the reductions, and stated that EPA increased the SCR control cost
pollution control retrofits required. considered a variety of factors in assumptions in IPM and conducted cost
Currently, EPA is cooperating with evaluating the source categories from effectiveness modeling for the final
the National Association of Regulatory which highly cost-effective reductions control requirements using these
Utility Commissioners (NARUC) in may be available and the level of updated costs.81 Commenters generally
developing a menu of policy options reduction assumed from that sector (69 supported our FGD control costs
and financial incentives for encouraging FR 4611). The EPA has reviewed assumptions, which are largely
improved environmental performance comments on its NPR, SNPR and NODA unchanged from the NPR modeling to
for generation. A survey of a number of and conducted further analyses with the modeling for today’s final rule.
States was conducted as part of this respect to the proposed criteria, and is And finally, EPA considered
effort, and policies such as pre-approval finalizing its control requirements in engineering and financial factors that
statutes for compliance plans, state today’s action. Following is a brief affect the availability of control
income tax credits, accelerated summary of EPA’s conclusions based on measures. The EPA conducted a
depreciation, and special treatment of the criteria. detailed analysis of engineering factors
allowance transactions were cited as The availability of information, and that affect timing of control retrofits,
examples of such policies 80. Such the identification of source categories including an evaluation of the
policies will ease some of the financial emitting relatively large amounts of the comments received. The EPA’s analysis
pressures of CAIR by providing greater relevant emissions, are two criteria used supports its compliance schedule, a
regulatory certainty and lowering the in EPA’s evaluation of the CAIR two-phase emissions control program
effective costs of controls. program. In the NPR, EPA stated that with the final phase commencing in
EGUs are the most significant source of 2015, and with a first phase
D. Control Requirements in Today’s SO2 emissions and a very substantial commencing in 2010 for SO2 reductions
Final Rule source of NOX in the affected region, and in 2009 for NOX reductions.
1. Criteria Used To Determine Final and further stated that highly cost- Further, EPA’s analysis demonstrates
Control Requirements effective control technologies are that it would not be realistically
available for achieving significant SO2 possible to start the program sooner, or
The EPA’s general approach to and NOX emissions reductions from to impose more stringent emissions caps
developing emission reduction EGUs. We requested comment on in the first phase.
requirements—basing the requirements sources of information for emissions Based on EPA’s review of comments
on the application of highly cost- and costs from other sectors (69 FR and analysis, EPA determined that the
effective controls—was adopted in the 4610). A detailed discussion regarding proposed control requirements are
NOX SIP Call and has been sustained in non-EGU sources is provided above. reasonable with respect to engineering
court. In the NPR, the Agency proposed The EPA has not received additional factors. As discussed above, EPA also
this approach for developing SO2 and information that would change its considered how to avoid creating
NOX emission reduction requirements. proposed control strategy. financial instability for the affected
The majority of commenters accepted Another criterion is the performance sector, and how to ensure the capital
this basic approach for determining and applicability of control measures. needed for the required controls would
reduction requirements. Some The NPR included a detailed discussion be readily available. Assuming States
commenters did suggest other of the performance and applicability of choose to control EGUs, the power
approaches, however, as discussed SO2 and NOX control technologies for sector will need to devote large amounts
above. EGUs. In particular, EPA discussed FGD of capital to meet the CAIR control
Many commenters suggested that the for SO2 removal and SCR for NOX requirements.
CAIR regionwide SO2 and NOX control removal, both of which are fully The EPA explained that implementing
levels should be more or less stringent demonstrated and available pollution CAIR as a two-phase program, with the
than the levels proposed in the NPR. control technologies on coal-fired EGU more stringent control levels
The EPA has determined that the boilers (69 FR 4612). None of the commencing in the second phase, will
control levels that we are finalizing commenters provided information that allow time for the power sector to
today are highly cost-effective and differed from EPA’s assessment of the address any financial challenges. The
feasible, and constitute substantial performance of these control measures. EPA’s evaluation of engineering and
reductions that address interstate In addition, the commenters generally financial factors supports the decision
transport, at the outset of State and EPA supported EPA’s assumptions on the to implement CAIR as a two-phase
efforts to bring about attainment of the applicability of these controls. program, with the final (second)
PM2.5 NAAQS (EPA believes that most The cost effectiveness of control compliance level commencing in 2015
if not all States will obtain CAIR measures is another criterion used in and a first phased-in level starting in
reductions by capping emissions from EPA’s analysis. As discussed in detail 2010 for SO2 reductions and in 2009 for
the power sector). Today, EPA finalizes above, EPA determined that the NOX reductions. A description of the
the use of both average and marginal proposed control levels are highly cost- final CAIR control requirements follows.
cost effectiveness of controls as the basis effective, and is finalizing the levels in
for determining the highly cost-effective today’s action. The EPA used IPM to 81 Detailed documentation of EPA’s IPM update,
amounts. analyze the cost effectiveness of the including updated control cost assumptions, is in
the docket. The SCR control cost assumptions were
proposed and final CAIR control presented in a peer-reviewed paper by Sikander
80 The survey results are in ‘‘A Survey of State requirements. IPM incorporates Khan and Ravi Srivastava, ‘‘Updating Performance
Incentives Encouraging Improved Environmental assumptions about the capital costs and and Cost of NOX Control Technologies in the
Performance of Base-Load Electric Generation Integrated Planning Model,’’ at the Combined
Facilities: Policy and Regulatory Initiatives,’’ at
fixed and variable operations and Power Plant Air Pollution Control Mega
http://www.naruc.org/ maintenance costs of control measures Symposium, August 30–September 2, 2004,
displayindustryarticle.cfm?articlenbr=21826. for EGUs. Several commenters suggested Washington, DC.
2. Final Control Requirements reductions: Alabama, Florida, Illinois, further evaluation, through the
Today’s final rule implements new Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, methodology of determining the highest
annual SO2 and NOX emissions control Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, recent Acid Rain Program heat input
requirements to reduce emissions that Missouri, New York, North Carolina, from years 1999–2002 for each affected
significantly contribute to PM2.5 Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, State, summing the highest State heat
nonattainment. The final rule also Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia and inputs into a regionwide heat input, and
requires new ozone season NOX Wisconsin. multiplying the regionwide heat input
emissions control requirements to Table IV–14 shows the amounts of by 0.15 lb/mmBtu and 0.125 lb/mmBtu
reduce emissions that significantly regionwide annual SO2 and NOX for 2009 and 2015, respectively. The
contribute to ozone nonattainment. emissions reductions under CAIR that EPA determined, through IPM analysis,
The final rule requires annual SO2 EPA projects, if States choose to meet that the resulting regionwide emissions
and NOX reductions in the District of their CAIR obligations by controlling caps (if all States choose to obtain
Columbia and the following 23 States: EGUs. Table IV–15 shows the amounts reductions from EGUs) are highly cost-
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, of regionwide ozone season NOX effective levels.
Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, emissions reductions under CAIR that The emission reductions, EGU
Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, EPA projects, if States choose to meet emissions caps, and emissions shown in
Mississippi, Missouri, New York, North their CAIR obligations by controlling Table IV–14 are for the 23 States and the
Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South EGUs. If all affected States choose to District of Columbia that are required to
Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, implement these reductions through make annual SO2 and NOX reductions
West Virginia, and Wisconsin. (In the controls on EGUs, the regionwide for CAIR. (Table IV–14 does not include
‘‘Proposed Rules’’ section of today’s annual SO2 and NOX emissions caps information for the five States that are
action, EPA is publishing a proposal to that would apply for EGUs are also required to make ozone season
include Delaware and New Jersey in the shown in the Table IV–14, and ozone reductions only.)
CAIR region for annual SO2 and NOX season NOX caps for EGUs are in Table
IV–15. Base case emissions levels for The emission reductions, EGU
reductions.)
In addition, the final rule requires affected EGUs as well as emissions with emissions caps, and emissions shown in
ozone season NOX reductions in the CAIR are also shown in Table IV–14 and Table IV–15 are for the 25 States and the
District of Columbia and the following Table IV–15, based on IPM modeling. District of Columbia that are required to
25 States: Alabama, Arkansas, The EPA is finalizing the regionwide make ozone season NOX reductions for
Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, EGU SO2 emissions caps—if States CAIR. (Table IV–15 does not include
Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, choose to comply by controlling EGUs— information for the three States that are
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, as shown in Table IV–14 82. As required to make annual reductions
Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New indicated above, EPA identified SO2 only.)
York, North Carolina, Ohio, budget amounts, as target levels for The EPA is requiring the CAIR SO2
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, further evaluation, by adding together and NOX emissions reductions in two
Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and the title IV Phase-II allowances for all of phases. For States affected by annual
Wisconsin. the States in the CAIR region, and SO2 and NOX emission reductions
The CAIR requires many of the making a 50 percent reduction for the requirements, the final (second) phase
affected States to reduce annual SO2 and 2010 cap and a 65 percent reduction for commences January 1, 2015, and the
NOX emissions as well as ozone season the 2015 cap. The EPA determined, first phase begins January 1, 2010 for
NOX emissions. However, there are through IPM analysis, that the resulting SO2 reductions and January 1, 2009 for
three States for which only annual regionwide emissions caps (if all States NOX reductions. For States affected by
emission reductions are required choose to obtain reductions from EGUs) ozone season NOX emission reductions
(Georgia, Minnesota and Texas). are highly cost-effective levels. requirements, the final (second) phase
Likewise, there are five States for which Also, EPA is finalizing the regionwide commences May 1, 2015 and the first
only ozone season reductions are EGU annual and ozone season NOX phase starts May 1, 2009. Notably, the
required (Arkansas, Connecticut, emission caps—if States choose to first phase control requirements are
Delaware, Massachusetts, and New comply by controlling EGUs—as shown effective in years 2010 through 2014 for
Jersey). The following 20 States and the in Table IV–14 and Table IV–15.83 As SO2 and in years 2009 through 2014 for
District of Columbia are required to indicated above, EPA identified NOX NOX, and the 2015 requirements are for
make both annual and ozone season budget amounts, as target levels for that year and thereafter.
TABLE IV–14.—FINAL RULE SO2 AND NOX ANNUAL BASE CASE EMISSIONS, EMISSION CAPS, EMISSIONS AFTER CAIR
AND EMISSION REDUCTIONS IN THE REGION REQUIRED TO MAKE ANNUAL SO2 AND NOX REDUCTIONS (23 STATE
AND DC) FOR THE INTERIM PHASE (2010 FOR SO2 AND 2009 FOR NOX) AND FINAL PHASE (2015 FOR SO2 AND
NOX) FOR EGUS
(Million Tons) 84
Base case CAIR emis- Emissions Emissions

emissions sions caps after CAIR reduced
First phase (2010 for SO2 and 2009 for NOX)
SO2 .................................................................................................................................. 8.7 3.6 5.1 3.5

NOX .................................................................................................................................. 2.7 1.5 1.5 1.2
83 For a discussion of the emission reduction

82 For a discussion of the emission reduction requirements if States choose to control sources
requirements if States choose to control sources other than EGUs, see section VII of this preamble.
other than EGUs, see section VII of this preamble.
TABLE IV–14.—FINAL RULE SO2 AND NOX ANNUAL BASE CASE EMISSIONS, EMISSION CAPS, EMISSIONS AFTER CAIR
AND EMISSION REDUCTIONS IN THE REGION REQUIRED TO MAKE ANNUAL SO2 AND NOX REDUCTIONS (23 STATE
AND DC) FOR THE INTERIM PHASE (2010 FOR SO2 AND 2009 FOR NOX) AND FINAL PHASE (2015 FOR SO2 AND
NOX) FOR EGUS—Continued
(Million Tons) 84

emissions sions caps after CAIR reduced
Sum .................................................................................................................................. 11.4 NA 6.6 4.8
Second Phase (2015 for SO2 and NOX)
SO2 .................................................................................................................................. 7.9 2.5 4.0 3.8

NOX .................................................................................................................................. 2.8 1.3 1.3 1.5
Sum .................................................................................................................................. 10.6 NA 5.3 5.3
Notes: Numbers may not add due to rounding.
1. The emission caps that EPA used to make its determination of highly cost-effective controls and the emission reductions associated with
those caps are shown in Table IV–14. For a discussion of the emission reduction requirements if States control source categories other than
EGUs, see section VII in this preamble. Emissions shown here are for EGUs with capacity greater than 25 MW.
2. The District of Columbia and the following 23 States are affected by CAIR for annual SO2 and NOX controls: AL, FL, GA, IA, IL, IN, KY, LA,
MD, MI, MN, MO, MS, NY, NC, OH, PA, SC, TN, TX, VA, WV, WI.
3. The 2010 SO2 emissions cap applies to years 2010 through 2014. The 2009 NOX emissions cap applies to years 2009 through 2014. The
2015 caps apply to 2015 and beyond.
4. Due to the use of the existing bank of SO2 allowances, the estimated SO2 emissions in the CAIR region in 2010 and 2015 are higher than
the emissions caps.
5. Over time the banked SO2 emissions allowances will be consumed and the 2015 cap level will be reached. SO2 emissions levels can be
thought of as on a flexible ‘‘glide path’’ to meet the 2015 CAIR cap with increasing reductions over time. The annual SO2 emissions levels in
2020 with CAIR are forecasted to be 3.3 million tons within the region encompassing States required to make annual reductions, an annual re-
duction of 4.4 million tons from base case levels.
TABLE IV–15.—FINAL RULE NOX OZONE SEASON BASE CASE EMISSIONS, EMISSIONS CAPS, EMISSIONS AFTER CAIR
AND EMISSION REDUCTIONS IN THE REGION REQUIRED TO MAKE OZONE SEASON NOX REDUCTIONS (25 STATES AND
DC) FOR THE INTERIM PHASE (2009) AND FINAL PHASE (2015) FOR ELECTRIC GENERATION UNITS
(Million Tons) 85
Ozone Season NOX

Phase emissions sions caps after CAIR reduced
2009 ................................................................................................................................. 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.1

2015 ................................................................................................................................. 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.2
Notes:
1. The emission caps that EPA used to make its determination of highly cost-effective controls and the emission reductions associated with
2. The District of Columbia and the following 25 States are affected by CAIR for ozone season NOX controls: AL, AR, CT, DE, FL, IA, IL, IN,
KY, LA, MA, MD, MI, MO, MS, NJ, NY, NC, OH, PA, SC, TN, VA, WV, WI.
3. The 2009 NOX emissions cap applies to years 2009 through 2014. The 2015 cap applies to 2015 and beyond.
Table IV–16 shows the estimated States choose to control EGUs (the levels for EGUs in the CAIR region
amounts of regionwide annual SO2 and proposal is published in the ‘‘Proposed (including Delaware and New Jersey) as
NOX emissions reductions that would Rules’’ section of today’s action). In that well as emissions with CAIR are also
occur if EPA finalizes its proposal to case, the estimated regionwide annual shown in the Table, based on IPM
find that Delaware and New Jersey SO2 and NOX emissions caps that would modeling. If EPA finalizes its proposal
contribute significantly to downwind apply for EGUs are as shown in Table to include Delaware and New Jersey for
PM2.5 nonattainment, and if all affected IV–16. Annual base case emissions PM2.5 requirements, then the ozone
84 Table IV–14 includes regionwide information reductions are required. The total projected NOX differ slightly from the values in the RIA (which
for the 23 States and DC that are required by CAIR emission reductions that will result from CAIR—if were based on an earlier and slightly different IPM)
to make annual emission reductions. It does not all States control EGUs—include the annual (see more detailed discussion both earlier in this
include information for the 5 CAIR States that are reductions shown in Table IV–14 (for 23 States and section and in the RIA).
required to make ozone season reductions only. The DC) plus the ozone season reductions in the 5 States 85 Table IV–15 shows regionwide information for
CAIR requires NOX emission reductions in a total required to make ozone season reductions only. The the 25 States and DC that are required to make
of 28 States and DC. For 20 States and DC, both EPA projects the total NOX reductions, in all 28 ozone season emission reductions under CAIR. It
annual and ozone season NOX reductions are CAIR States and DC, to be 1.2 million tons in 2009 does not include information for the 3 States that
required. For 3 States only annual reductions are and 1.5 million tons in 2015. Note that the values are required to make annual emission reductions
required, and for 5 States only ozone season in this table represent the final CAIR policy and only.
season requirements would not change the PM2.5 region (and if all affected States and the District of Columbia that
for States required to make ozone season States choose to control EGUs), the EGU are required to make ozone season NOX
reductions for CAIR. emissions caps and the ozone season reductions, would be as shown in Table
Based on EPA modeling with NOX emissions and emission reductions IV–15, above.86
Delaware and New Jersey included in associated with those caps, for the 25
TABLE IV–16.—SO2 AND NOX ANNUAL BASE CASE EMISSIONS, EMISSIONS CAPS, EMISSIONS AFTER CAIR AND EMIS-
SION REDUCTIONS IN THE REGION REQUIRED TO MAKE ANNUAL SO2 AND NOX REDUCTIONS (25 STATES AND DC)
FOR THE INITIAL PHASE (2010 FOR SO2 AND 2009 FOR NOX) AND FINAL PHASE (2015 FOR SO2 AND NOX) FOR
ELECTRIC GENERATION UNITS IF EPA FINALIZES ITS PROPOSAL TO INCLUDE DELAWARE AND NEW JERSEY FOR PM2.5
REQUIREMENTS
[Million tons] 87
First phase
(2010 for SO2 and 2009 for NOX)
CAIR
Base case Emissions Emissions
emissions
emissions after CAIR reduced
caps
SO2 .................................................................................................................................. 8.8 3.7 5.2 3.6

NOX .................................................................................................................................. 2.8 1.5 1.5 1.2
Sum .................................................................................................................................. 11.5 NA 6.7 4.8
Second phase
(2015 for SO2 and NOX)
Base case CAIR Emissions Emissions

emissions emissions after CAIR reduced
caps
SO2 .................................................................................................................................. 7.9 2.6 4.1 3.9

NOX .................................................................................................................................. 2.8 1.3 1.3 1.5
Sum .................................................................................................................................. 10.7 NA 5.3 5.4
Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding.
1 The emission caps that EPA used to make its determination of highly cost-effective controls and the emission reductions associated with
2 The District of Columbia and the following 25 States would be affected by CAIR for annual SO and NO controls if EPA finalizes its proposal
2 X
to include DE and NJ: AL, DE, FL, GA, IA, IL, IN, KY, LA, MD, MI, MN, MO, MS, NJ, NY, NC, OH, PA, SC, TN, TX, VA, WV, WI.
3 The 2010 SO emissions cap would apply to years 2010 through 2014. The 2009 NO
2 X emissions cap would apply to years 2009 through
2014. The 2015 caps would apply to 2015 and beyond.
4 Due to the use of the existing bank of SO allowances, the estimated SO emissions in the CAIR region in 2010 and 2015 would be higher
2 2
than the emissions caps.
5 Over time the banked SO emissions allowances would be consumed and the 2015 cap level would be reached. SO emissions levels can
2 2
be thought of as on a flexible ‘‘glide path’’ to meet the 2015 CAIR cap with increasing reductions over time. The annual SO2 emissions levels in
2020 with CAIR, within the region of States required to make annual reductions (including Delaware and New Jersey), are forecasted to be 3.3
million tons, an annual reduction of 4.4 million tons from base case levels.
The EPA apportioned the EGU caps— However, the States have flexibility in EGUs. Sources that are subject to the
and associated required regionwide choosing the sources that must reduce emission reduction requirements under
emission reductions—on a State-by- emissions. If the States choose to require title IV continue to be subject to those
State basis. The affected States may EGUs to reduce their emissions, then requirements.
determine the necessary controls on SO2 States must impose a cap on EGU If the States choose to control other
and NOX emissions to achieve the emissions, which would in effect be an sources, then they must employ
required reductions. The EPA’s annual emissions budget. Provisions for methods to assure that those other
apportionment method and the resulting allocating SO2 and NOX allowances to sources implement controls that will
State EGU emissions budgets are individual EGUs—which apply if a yield the appropriate amount of annual
described in Section V in today’s State chooses to control EGUs and elects emissions reduction. See section VII
preamble. to allow them to participate in the (SIP Criteria and Emissions Reporting
interstate cap and trade program—are Requirements) in today’s preamble.
To achieve the required SO2 and NOX presented elsewhere in today’s Implementation of the cap and trade
reductions in the most cost-effective preamble. If a State wants to control program is discussed in section VIII in
manner, EPA suggests that States EGUs, but does not want to allow EGUs today’s preamble.
implement these reductions by to participate in the interstate cap and For convenience, we use specific
controlling EGUs under a cap and trade trade program, the State has flexibility terminology to refer to certain concepts.
program that EPA would implement. in allocating allowances, but it must cap ‘‘State budget’’ refers to the statewide
86 For a discussion of the emission reduction 87 Table IV–16 includes regionwide information does not include information for the 3 States
requirements if States choose to control sources for the 25 States and DC that will be required to (Arkansas, Connecticut, and Massachusetts) that
other than EGUs, see section VII of this preamble. make annual emission reductions if EPA finalizes would be affected by CAIR for ozone season
its proposal to require annual reductions in reductions only.
Delaware and New Jersey under CAIR. The table
emissions that may be used as an A. What Is the Approach for Setting title IV allowances represents a
accounting technique to determine the State-by-State Annual Emissions reasonable approach.
amount of annual or ozone season Reductions Requirements and EGU The EPA believes that basing budgets
emissions reductions that controls may Budgets? on title IV allowances is necessary in
yield. It does not imply that there is a This section presents the final order to ensure the preservation of a
legally enforceable statewide cap on methodologies used for apportioning viable title IV program, which is
emissions from all SO2 or NOX sources. regionwide emission reduction important for reasons discussed in
‘‘Regionwide budget’’ refers to the requirements or budgets to the section IX of this preamble. Such
amount of emissions, computed on a individual States. reasons include the desire to maintain
regionwide basis, which may be used to In the CAIR NPR, EPA proposed the trust and confidence that has
determine State-by-State requirements. methods for determining the SO2 and developed in the functioning market for
It does not imply that there is a legally NOX emission reduction requirements title IV allowances. The EPA believes it
enforceable regionwide cap on or budgets for each affected State. In the is important not to undermine such
emissions from all SO2 or NOX sources. June 2004 SNPR, EPA proposed confidence (which is an essential
‘‘State EGU budget’’ refers to the legally corrections and improvements to the underpinning to a viable market-based
enforceable annual or ozone season proposals in the CAIR NPR. In the system) recognizing that it is a key to
emissions cap on EGUs a State would August 2004 NODA, EPA presented the the success of a trading program under
apply should it decide to control EGUs. corrected NOX budgets resulting from the CAIR.
the improvements proposed in the The title IV program represents a
V. Determination of State Emissions SNPR. logical starting point for assessing
Budgets emissions reductions for SO2, since it is
1. SO2 Emissions Budgets the current effective cap on SO2
The EPA outlined in the NPR and emissions for Acid Rain units, which
a. State Annual SO2 Emission Budget
SNPR its proposals regarding a Methodology make up the large majority of affected
methodology for setting both regional EGU CAIR units. It is from this starting
and State-level SO2 and NOX budgets. As noted elsewhere in today’s preamble, emissions cap, that further CAIR
Section IV explains how the regionwide the regionwide annual budget for 2015 reductions are required. Consequently,
budgets were developed. This section V and beyond is based on a 65 percent EPA proposes State-level reductions
describes how EPA apportions the reduction of title IV allowances based on reductions from the initial
regionwide emissions reductions—and allocated to units in the CAIR States for allocations of title IV allowances to
the associated EGU caps—on a State-by- SO2 control. The regionwide annual SO2 individual units at sources (power
State basis, so that the affected States budget for the years 2010–2014 is based plants) in States covered by the CAIR.
may determine the necessary controls of on a 50 percent reduction from title IV The setting of SO2 budgets differs
SO2 and NOX emissions. allocations for all units in affected from the setting of NOX budgets for the
States. CAIR, in part, because of this difference
In the NPR and SNPR, EPA proposed
annual SO2 and NOX caps for States In the NPR and SNPR, EPA also in starting points—since there is no
contributing to fine particle proposed calculating annual State SO2 existing NOX regional annual cap, and
nonattainment and separate ozone- budgets based on each State’s no currency for emissions, on which
season only caps for States contributing allowances under title IV of the 1990 sources rely. Furthermore, Congress, as
to ozone—but not fine particle— CAA Amendments. We are finalizing part of title IV of the CAA, decided
nonattainment. The EPA is finalizing an this proposed approach for determining upon the allocations of title IV
annual cap for both SO2 and NOX for State annual SO2 budgets. allowances specifically for the control of
State annual budgets for the years SO2, and not for NOX.
States that contribute to fine particle
2010–2014 (Phase I) are based on a 50 Moreover, Congress decided to
nonattainment. In addition, EPA is
percent reduction from title IV allocate title IV allowances in
finalizing an ozone-season only cap for
allocations for all units in the affected perpetuity, realizing that the electricity
NOX for all States that contribute to
State. The State annual budget for 2015 sector would not remain static over this
ozone nonattainment.
and beyond (Phase II) is based on a 65 time period. Congress clearly did not
States have several options for percent reduction of title IV allowances choose a policy to regularly revisit and
reducing emissions that significantly allocated to units in the affected State revise these allocations, believing that
contribute to downwind nonattainment. for SO2 control. its allocations methodology for title IV
They can adopt EPA’s approach of Some commenters criticized EPA’s allowances would be appropriate for
reducing the emissions in a cost- basing State budgets on title IV future time periods.
effective manner through an interstate allocations since these were based The EPA realizes, putting aside
cap and trade program. This approach largely on 1985–1987 historic heat input concerns of linkage to title IV, that there
would, by definition, achieve the data. Commenters argue that the initial are numerous potential methodologies
required cost-effective reductions. allocation was not equitable and that in of dividing up the regional budgets
Alternately, States could achieve all of any event, the electric power sector has among the States. Also, EPA believes,
the necessary emissions reductions from changed significantly. They conclude that while initial allocations of State
EGUs, but choose not to use EPA’s that State budgets should reflect those budgets are important for distributional
interstate emissions trading program. In differences. Commenters have also reasons, under a cap and trade system,
this case, a State would need to commented that tying SO2 allocations to they would not impact the attainment of
demonstrate that it is meeting the EGU title IV also does not let States account the environmental objectives or the
budgets outlined in this section. Finally, for units that are exempt from title IV overall cost of this rule.
States could obtain at least some of their or for new units that have come online Each of the alternate methods also has
required emissions reductions from since 1990. certain shortcomings, many of which
sources other than EGUs. Additional While acknowledging these concerns, have been identified by commenters.
detail on these options is provided in EPA believes, for a number of reasons, Basing allowances on historic
section VII. that setting State budgets according to emissions, for instance, would penalize
States that have already gone through TABLE V–1.—FINAL ANNUAL ELECTRIC State budgets by multiplying heat input
significant efforts to clean up their GENERATING UNITS SO2 BUDG- data by adjustment factors for different
sources. Basing allowances on heat ETS—Continued fuels. In the August NODA, EPA
input has advantages, but cannot presented the corrected annual NOX
[Tons]
accommodate States that have worked budgets resulting from the improved
to improve their energy efficiency. State SO2 State SO2 methodology proposed in the SNPR.
Basing allowances on output would State budget budget b. State Annual NOX Emissions Budget
provide gas-fired units with many more 2010* 2015**
Methodology
allowances than they need, rather than
giving them to the coal-fired units that Maryland ........... 70,697 49,488 Proposed and Discussed NOX Emission
will be incurring the greatest costs from Michigan ........... 178,605 125,024 Budget Methodology
Minnesota ......... 49,987 34,991
the tighter caps. Mississippi ........ 33,763 As noted elsewhere in today’s
23,634
The EPA did look at a number of Missouri ............ 137,214 preamble, EPA determined historical
96,050
allowance outcomes using alternate New York .......... 135,139 94,597
annual heat input data for Acid Rain
potential methods for allocating SO2 North Carolina .. 137,342 96,139
Program units in the applicable States
allowances. These methods included Ohio .................. 333,520 233,464
and multiplied by 0.15 lb/mmBtu (for
allocating on the basis of historic Pennsylvania .... 275,990 193,193
South Carolina .. 57,271
2009) and 0.125 lb/mmBtu (for 2015) to
40,089
emissions, heat input (with alternatives
Tennessee ........ 137,216 determine total annual NOX regionwide
96,051
based on heat input from all fossil
Texas ................ 320,946 budgets for the CAIR region. The EPA
224,662
generation, and heat input from coal-
Virginia .............. 63,478 applied these rates to each individual
44,435
and oil-fired generation only) and
West Virginia .... 215,881 State’s total highest annual heat input
151,117
output (with alternatives based on all Wisconsin ......... 87,264 for any year from 1999 through 2002.
61,085
generation and all fossil-fired
Thus, EPA used the heat input total for
generation). Allocating allowances Total ........... 3,619,196 2,533,434 the year in which a State’s total heat
based on title IV yields results that fall *Annual budget for SO tons covered by al- input was the highest.
within a reasonable range of results lowances for 2010–2014.
2
In the January 2004 proposal, we
obtained from using these alternate **Annual budget for SO tons covered by al-
2 proposed annual NOX State budgets for
methodologies. In fact, calculating State lowances for 2015 and thereafter.
a 28-State (and D.C.) region based on
budgets using title IV allowances yields each jurisdiction’s average heat input—
c. Use of SO2 Budgets
budgets generally at or within the ranges using heat input data from Acid Rain
of budgets calculated using the other These specific levels of the proposed
Program units—over the years 1999
methods in more than two-thirds of the State budgets would actually provide
through 2002. We summed the average
States, which account for over 85 binding statewide caps on EGU
heat input from each of the applicable
percent of the total heat input in the emissions for States that choose to
jurisdictions to obtain a regional total
region from 1999–2002. This analysis is control only EGUs but do not want to
average annual heat input. Then, each
discussed further in the response to participate in the trading program. For
State received a pro rata share of the
comments document. States choosing to participate in the
regional NOX emissions budget based on
trading program, these State budgets
b. Final SO2 State Emission Budget the ratio of its average annual heat input
would not be binding, instead, the
Methodology to the regional total average annual heat
States’ SO2 reductions would be
The EPA is finalizing the budgets as input.
achieved solely through the application
noted in the SNPR, adjusting for the In the SNPR, EPA proposed to revise
of required retirement ratios as
proper inclusion of States covered its determination of State NOX budgets
discussed in section VII of this
under the final CAIR. The final State by supplementing Acid Rain Program
preamble. For States controlling both
budgets are included in Table V–1 unit data with annual heat input data
EGUs and non-EGUs (or controlling
below. Details of the data and from the U.S. Energy Information
only non-EGUs), these State budgets
methodology used to calculate these Administration (EIA), for the non-Acid
would be used to calculate the
budgets are included in the Rain unit data. A number of
emissions reductions requirements for
accompanying ‘‘Regional and State SO2 commenters had suggested that this
non-EGUs and the remaining reduction
and NOX Emissions Budgets’’ Technical requirement for EGUs. This is described would better reflect the heat input of the
Support Document. units that will be controlled under the
in more detail in the section VII
CAIR, and EPA agrees.
discussion on SIP approvability.
TABLE V–1.—FINAL ANNUAL ELECTRIC In the SNPR, EPA asked for, and
2. NOX Annual Emissions Budgets subsequently received, comments on
GENERATING UNITS SO2 BUDGETS
a. Overview determining State budgets by
[Tons] multiplying heat input data by
In this section, EPA discusses the adjustment factors for different fuels.
State SO2 State SO2 apportioning of regionwide NOX annual The factors would reflect the inherently
State budget budget
2010* 2015** emission reduction requirements or higher emissions rate of coal-fired units,
budgets to the individual States. In the and consequently the greater burden on
Alabama ............ 157,582 110,307 January 2004 proposal, we proposed coal units to control emissions.
District of Co- State EGU annual NOX budgets based on
lumbia ............ 708 495 each State’s average share of recent Today’s Rule
Florida ............... 253,450 177,415 historic heat input. In the SNPR, we As noted earlier in the case of SO2,
Georgia ............. 213,057 149,140
proposed the same input-based EPA recognizes that the choice of
Illinois ................ 192,671 134,869
Indiana .............. 254,599 178,219 methodology, but revised the budgets method in setting State budgets, with a
Iowa .................. 64,095 44,866 based on more complete heat input data. given regionwide total annual budget,
Kentucky ........... 188,773 132,141 Also, EPA took comment on an makes little difference in terms of the
Louisiana .......... 59,948 41,963 alternative methodology that determines levels of resulting regionwide annual
SO2 and NOX emissions reductions. If determining State budgets. Likewise, all included in Table V–2 below. Details of
States choose to control EGUs and heat input from gas, whether clean or the numbers and methodology used to
participate in the cap and trade uncontrolled, from a steam-gas unit or calculate these budgets are included in
program, allowances could be freely from a combined-cycle plant, would be the ‘‘Regional and State SO2 and NOX
traded, encouraging least-cost counted equally in determining State Emissions Budgets’’ Technical Support
compliance over the entire region. In budgets. Document.
such a case, the least-cost outcome It is not expected that this decision
would not depend on the relative levels would disadvantage States with TABLE V–2.—FINAL ANNUAL ELECTRIC
of individual State budgets. significant gas-fired generation. One GENERATING UNITS NOX BUDGETS
A number of commenters have stated, reason is that the calculation of the
[Tons]
without supporting analysis or adjusted heat input for natural gas
evidence, that budgets based on heat generation generally includes significant State NOX State NOX
input, (and particularly those that historic heat input and emissions from State budget budget
would use different fuel factors) do not older, less efficient and dirtier steam gas 2009* 2015**
encourage efficiency. Economic theory units. These units’ capacity factors are
indicates that neither a heat input, nor declining and are expected to decline Alabama ............ 69,020 57,517
further over time as new, cleaner and District of Co-
an output-based approach, if allocated lumbia ............ 144 120
once and based on a historical baseline, more efficient combined-cycle gas units Florida ............... 99,445 82,871
would provide any incentives for more increase their generation. Georgia ............. 66,321 55,268
or less efficient generation (changes in It is important to note that the Illinois ................ 76,230 63,525
future behavior would have no impact methodology by which the NOX State Indiana .............. 108,935 90,779
on allocations). The cap and trade budgets are determined need not be Iowa .................. 32,692 27,243
system itself, regardless of how the used by individual States in Kentucky ........... 83,205 69,337
allowances are distributed, provides the determining allocations to specific Louisiana .......... 35,512 29,593
sources. As discussed in section VIII of Maryland ........... 27,724 23,104
primary incentive for more efficient, Michigan ........... 65,304 54,420
cleaner generation of electricity. this document (Model Trading Rule),
Minnesota ......... 31,443 26,203
The EPA is finalizing an approach of EPA is offering States the flexibility to
Mississippi ........ 17,807 14,839
calculating State budgets through a fuel- allocate allowances from their budgets Missouri ............ 59,871 49,892
adjusted heat-input basis. State budgets as they see fit. New York .......... 45,617 38,014
would be determined by multiplying Finally, EPA discussed in the January North Carolina .. 62,183 51,819
historic heat input data (summed by 2004 proposal, a methodology used in Ohio .................. 108,667 90,556
fuel) by different adjustment factors for the NOX SIP Call (67 FR 21868) that Pennsylvania .... 99,049 82,541
the different fuels. These factors reflect applied State-specific growth rates for South Carolina .. 32,662 27,219
heat input in setting State budgets.89 Tennessee ........ 50,973 42,478
for each fuel (coal, gas and oil), the Texas ................ 181,014 150,845
1999–2002 average emissions by State, The EPA, in the SNPR, noted that it is
not proposing to use this method for the Virginia .............. 36,074 30,062
summed for the CAIR region, divided by West Virginia .... 74,220 61,850
average heat input by fuel by State, CAIR because we believe that other
Wisconsin ......... 40,759 33,966
summed for the CAIR region. The methods are reasonable, and that
resulting adjustment factors from this methods involving State-specific growth Total ........... 1,504,871 1,254,061
calculation are 1.0 for coal, 0.4 for gas rates present certain challenges due to
*Annualbudget for NOX tons covered by al-
and 0.6 for oil. The factors would reflect the inherent difficulties in predicting
lowances for 2009–2014.
the inherently higher emissions rate of State-specific growth in heat input over **Annual budget for NO tons covered by al-
X
coal-fired plants, and consequently the a lengthy period, especially for lowances for 2015 and thereafter.
greater burden on coal plants to control jurisdictions that are only a part of a
larger regional electric power dispatch d. Use of Annual NOX Budgets
emissions.
Such an approach provides States region. Several commenters stated their These proposed State budgets would
with allowances more in proportion support for incorporating growth, serve as effective binding caps on State
with their historical emissions. It believing that not taking growth into emissions, if States chose to control
provides for a more equitable budget account would penalize States with only EGUs, but did not want to
distribution by recognizing that higher growth. However, a significant participate in the trading program. For
different States are facing the reduction number of commenters stated their States controlling both EGUs and non-
requirements with different starting opposition to using growth in setting EGUs (or controlling only non-EGUs),
State budgets, noting the problems that these budgets would be compared to a
stocks of generation, with different
arose in the NOX SIP Call. The EPA baseline level of emissions to calculate
starting emission profiles.88 The fuel
believes that setting budgets using a the emissions reductions requirements
burned is a key factor in differentiating
heat input approach, without a growth for non-EGUs and the required caps for
the generation.
However, this approach is not adjustment, is fair, would be simpler EGUs. This process is described in more
equivalent to an approach based strictly and would involve less risk of resulting detail in the section VII discussion on
on historical emissions (which would litigation. SIP approvability.
give fewer allowances to States which c. Final Annual State NOX Emission e. NOX Compliance Supplement Pool
have already cleaned up their coal Budgets As is discussed in section I, EPA is
plants). Under the approach we are The final annual State NOX emission establishing a NOX compliance
finalizing today, heat input from all budgets following this method are supplement pool of 198,494 tons, which
coal, whether clean or uncontrolled,
would result in a total compliance
would be counted equally in 89 With a methodology similar to that used in the
supplement pool of approximately
NOX SIP Call, annual State NOX budgets would be
88 States receiving larger budgets under this set by using a base heat input data, then adjusting
200,000 tons of NOX when combined
approach are generally expected to be those having it by a calculated growth rate for each jurisdiction’s with EPA’s proposed rulemaking to
to make the most reductions. annual EGU heat inputs. include Delaware and New Jersey. The
EPA is apportioning the compliance (as calculated using the State’s base case 2009. This is consistent with the
supplement pool to States based on the emissions and annual NOX budget). The methodology used in the NOX SIP Call.
assumption that a State’s need for EPA is apportioning the 200,000 tons of Table V–3 presents each State’s
allowances from the pool is NOX on a pro-rata basis, based on each compliance supplement pool.
proportional to the magnitude of the State’s share of the total emissions
State’s required emissions reductions reductions requirement for the region in
TABLE V–3.—STATE NOX COMPLIANCE SUPPLEMENT POOLS

[Tons]
Base case 2009 State Reduction Compliance

State 2009 annual NOX requirement supplement
emissions budget pool *
Alabama ........................................................................................................................... 132,019 69,020 62,999 10,166

District of Columbia ......................................................................................................... 0 144 0 0
Florida .............................................................................................................................. 151,094 99,445 51,649 8,335
Georgia ............................................................................................................................ 143,140 66,321 76,819 12,397
Illinois ............................................................................................................................... 146,248 76,230 70,018 11,299
Indiana ............................................................................................................................. 233,833 108,935 124,898 20,155
Iowa ................................................................................................................................. 75,934 32,692 43,242 6,978
Kentucky .......................................................................................................................... 175,754 83,205 92,549 14,935
Louisiana .......................................................................................................................... 49,460 35,512 13,948 2,251
Maryland .......................................................................................................................... 56,662 27,724 28,938 4,670
Michigan ........................................................................................................................... 117,031 65,304 51,727 8,347
Minnesota ........................................................................................................................ 71,896 31,443 40,453 6,528
Mississippi ........................................................................................................................ 36,807 17,807 19,000 3,066
Missouri ............................................................................................................................ 115,916 59,871 56,045 9,044
New York ......................................................................................................................... 45,145 45,617 0 0
North Carolina .................................................................................................................. 59,751 62,183 0 0
Ohio ................................................................................................................................. 263,814 108,667 155,147 25,037
Pennsylvania .................................................................................................................... 198,255 99,049 99,206 16,009
South Carolina ................................................................................................................. 48,776 32,662 16,114 2,600
Tennessee ....................................................................................................................... 106,398 50,973 55,425 8,944
Texas ............................................................................................................................... 185,798 181,014 4,784 772
Virginia ............................................................................................................................. 67,890 36,074 31,816 5,134
West Virginia .................................................................................................................... 179,125 74,220 104,905 16,929
Wisconsin ......................................................................................................................... 71,112 40,759 30,353 4,898
CAIR region subtotal ................................................................................................ .................... .................... .................... 198,494
Delaware .......................................................................................................................... 9,389 4,166 5,223 843

New Jersey ...................................................................................................................... 16,760 12,670 4,090 660
Total .......................................................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 199,997

* Rounding to the nearest whole allowance results in a total compliance supplement pool of 199,997 tons.
B. What Is the Approach for Setting 25 States, plus the District of Columbia, and selecting the single year highest
State-by-State Emissions Reductions are found to contribute significantly to heat input for each State as a whole.
Requirements and EGU Budgets for ozone nonattainment: Alabama, As is the case for the annual NOX
States With NOX Ozone Season Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, State Budgets, EPA is finalizing an
Reduction Requirements? Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, approach of calculating ozone season
1. States Subject to Ozone-Season Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, NOX State budgets through a fuel-
Requirements Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, adjusted heat input basis. State budgets
Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North would be determined by multiplying
In the NPR, EPA proposed that Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South
Connecticut contributes significantly to State-level average historic ozone-
Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West season heat input data (summed by fuel)
ozone nonattainment in another State, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
but not to fine particle nonattainment. by different adjustment factors for the
As a result of subsequent air quality These States are subject to an ozone different fuels (1.0 for coal, 0.4 for gas,
modeling, EPA has also found that season NOX cap, which covers the 5 and 0.6 for oil). The total ozone season
Massachusetts, New Jersey, Delaware months of May through September. The State budgets are then determined by
and Arkansas contribute significantly to EPA is calculating the ozone season cap calculating each State’s share of total
ozone nonattainment in another State, level for the 25 States plus the District fuel-adjusted heat input, and
but not to fine particle nonattainment. of Columbia region by multiplying the multiplying this share by the
In this final rule, EPA is establishing a region’s ozone season heat input by 0.15 regionwide budget.
regionwide ozone-season budget for all lb/mmBtu for 2009 and 0.125 lb/mmBtu
The budgets for these States in 2009
States that contribute significantly to for 2015. Heat input for the region was
and 2015 are included in Table V–4
ozone nonattainment in another State, estimated by looking at reported ozone
below.
regardless of their contribution to fine season Acid Rain heat inputs for each
particle nonattainment. The following State for the years 1999 through 2002,
TABLE V–4.—FINAL SEASONAL ELEC- implementing the regional haze mathematical terms. The modeling
TRICITY GENERATING UNIT NOX requirement for best available retrofit domain used for this analysis covers the
BUDGETS technology (BART). entire continental United States and
We present the air quality models, adjacent portions of Canada and
[Tons]
model configuration, and evaluation; Mexico.
and then the emissions inventories and The EPA applied REMSAD for an
State NOX State NOX
State budget budget meteorological data used as inputs to annual simulation using meteorology
2009 * 2015 ** the air quality models. Next, we provide and emissions for 1996. We used the
the updated interstate contributions for results of this 1996 Base Year model run
Alabama ............ 32,182 26,818 PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone and those States to evaluate how well the modeling
Arkansas ........... 11,515 9,596 that make a significant contribution to system (i.e., the air quality model and
Connecticut ....... 2,559 2,559 input data sets) replicated measured
downwind nonattainment, before
Delaware ........... 2,226 1,855 data over the time period and domain
District of Co- considering cost. Finally, we present the
lumbia ............ 112 94 estimated impacts of the CAIR simulated. We performed a model
Florida ............... 47,912 39,926 emissions reductions on air quality and evaluation for PM2.5 and speciated
Illinois ................ 30,701 28,981 visibility. As described below, our air components (e.g., sulfate, nitrate,
Indiana .............. 45,952 39,273 quality modeling for today’s rule elemental carbon, organic carbon, etc.)
Iowa .................. 14,263 11,886 utilizes the Community Multiscale Air as well as nitrate, sulfate and
Kentucky ........... 36,045 30,587 Quality (CMAQ) model in conjunction ammonium wet deposition, and
Louisiana .......... 17,085 14,238 with 2001 meteorological data for visibility. The evaluation used available
Maryland ........... 12,834 10,695 1996 ambient measurements paired
simulating PM2.5 concentrations and
Massachusetts .. 7,551 6,293 with REMSAD predictions
Michigan ........... 28,971 24,142 associated visibility effects and the
Comprehensive Air Quality Model with corresponding to the location and time
Mississippi ........ 8,714 7,262
Missouri ............ 26,678 22,231 Extensions (CAMx) with meteorological periods of the measured data. We
New Jersey ....... 6,654 5,545 data for three episodes in 1995 for quantified model performance using
New York .......... 20,632 17,193 simulating 8-hour ozone concentrations. various statistical and graphical
North Carolina .. 28,392 23,660 Our approach to modeling both PM2.5 techniques. Additional information on
Ohio .................. 45,664 39,945 and 8-hour ozone involves applying the model evaluation procedures and
Pennsylvania .... 42,171 35,143 these tools (i.e., CMAQ for PM2.5 and results are included in the Notice of
South Carolina .. 15,249 12,707 Proposed Rulemaking Air Quality
CAMx for 8-hour ozone) using updated
Tennessee ........ 22,842 19,035 Modeling Technical Support Document
Virginia .............. 15,994 13,328 emissions inventory data for 2001, 2010,
and 2015 to project future baseline (NPR AQMTSD).
West Virginia .... 26,859 26,525 The EPA received numerous
Wisconsin ......... 17,987 14,989 concentrations, interstate transport, and
the impacts of CAIR on projected comments on various elements of the
Total ........... 567,744 484,506 nonattainment of PM2.5 and 8-hour proposed PM2.5 air quality modeling
ozone. We provide additional approach. The major comments are
* Seasonal budget for NOX tons covered by responded to below. Other comments
allowances for 2009–2014. For States that information on the development of our
are addressed the Response to Comment
have lower EGU budgets under the NOX SIP updated CAIR air quality modeling
Call than their 2009 CAIR budget, table V–4 (RTC) document. Regarding REMSAD,
platform, the modeling analysis
includes their SIP Call budget. For Con- commenters argued that: (1) The
necticut, the NOX SIP Call budget is also used techniques, model evaluation, and
REMSAD model is an inappropriate tool
for 2015 and beyond. results for PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone
for modeling PM2.5; (2) the scientific
** Seasonal budget for NOX tons covered by modeling in the CAIR Notice of Final
allowances for 2015 and thereafter. formulation of the model is simplistic
Rulemaking Emissions Inventory
and outdated and that other models
VI. Air Quality Modeling Approach and Technical Support Document (NFR
with better science are available and
Results EITSD) and the Air Quality Modeling
should be used; and (3) results from
Technical Support Document (NFR
Overview REMSAD are directionally correct but
AQMTSD). better tools should be used as the basis
In this section we summarize the air A. What Air Quality Modeling Platform for the final determinations on transport
quality modeling approach used for the Did EPA Use? and projected nonattainment.
proposed rule, we address major We agree that models with more
comments on the fundamental aspects 1. Air Quality Models refined science are available for PM2.5
of EPA’s proposed approach, and we a. The PM2.5 Air Quality Model and modeling and we have selected one of
describe the updated and improved Evaluation these models, the CMAQ as the tool for
approach, based on those comments, PM2.5 modeling for the final CAIR. The
that we are finalizing today. This Overview CMAQ model is a publicly available,
section also contains the results of In the NPR, we used the Regional peer-reviewed, state-of-the-science
EPA’s final air quality modeling, Model for Simulating Aerosols and model with a number of science
including: (1) Identifying the future Deposition (REMSAD) as the tool for attributes that are critical for accurately
baseline PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone simulating base year and future simulating the oxidant precursors and
nonattainment counties in the East; (2) concentrations of PM2.5. Like most non-linear organic and inorganic
quantifying the contribution from photochemical grid models, the chemical relationships associated with
emissions in upwind States to predictions of REMSAD are based on a the formation of sulfate, nitrate, and
nonattainment in these counties; (3) set of atmospheric specie mass organic aerosols. Several of the
quantifying the air quality impacts of continuity equations. This set of important science aspects of CMAQ that
the CAIR reductions on PM2.5 and 8- equations represents a mass balance in are superior to REMSAD include: (1)
hour ozone; and (4) describing the which all of the relevant emissions, Updated gaseous/heterogeneous
impacts on visibility in Class I areas of transport, diffusion, chemical reactions, chemistry that provides the basis for the
implementing CAIR compared to and removal processes are expressed in formation of nitrates and includes a
current inorganic nitrate partitioning simulated through chemical reactions including reactions for oxidation of SO2
module; (2) in-cloud sulfate chemistry, within the model. Aerosol sulfate is by ozone and oxygen, (5) peroxynitric
which accounts for the non-linear formed in both the gas phase and the acid (PNA) chemistry was added; and
sensitivity of sulfate formation to aqueous phase. The REMSAD model (6) a module for calculating biogenic
varying pH; (3) a state-of-the-science also accounts for the production of and anthropogenic secondary organic
secondary organic aerosol module that secondary organic aerosols through aerosols was developed and integrated
includes a more comprehensive gas- chemistry processes involving volatile into REMSAD. We believe that these
particle partitioning algorithm from organic compounds (VOC) and directly changes adequately respond to the peer
both anthropogenic and biogenic emitted organic particles. Emissions of review comments and have bolstered
secondary organic aerosol; and (4) the non-reactive particles (e.g., elemental the scientific credibility of this model.
full CB–IV chemistry mechanism, which carbon) are treated as inert species
(ii) Use of CMAQ Instead of REMSAD
provides a complete simulation of which are advected and deposited
for PM2.5 Modeling
aerosol precursor oxidants. during the simulation.
However, even though REMSAD does With regard to comments on the Comment: Some commenters claimed
not have all the scientific refinements of micro CB–IV chemical mechanism, that REMSAD is outdated and that other
CMAQ, we believe that REMSAD treats although this mechanism treats fewer models with more sophisticated science
the key physical and chemical processes organic carbon species compared to the are available. Commenters said that EPA
associated with secondary aerosol full CB–IV, the inorganic portion of the should utilize the best available science
formation and transport. Thus, we reduced mechanism is identical to the through use of the most comprehensive
believe that the conclusions based on full chemical mechanism. The intent of photochemical model for simulating
the proposal modeling using REMSAD the CB–IV mechanism is to: (a) Provide aerosols. Commenters specifically stated
are valid and therefore support today’s a faithful representation of the linkages that EPA should use more recently
findings based only on CMAQ that: (1) between emissions of ozone precursor developed models such as the CMAQ
There will be widespread PM2.5 species and secondary aerosol precursor model or the aerosol version of the
nonattainment in the eastern U.S. in species; (b) treat the oxidizing capacity Comprehensive Air Quality Model with
2010 and 2015 absent the reductions of the troposphere, represented Extensions (CAMX–PM).
from CAIR; (2) upwind States in the primarily by the concentrations of Response: The EPA agrees that
eastern part of the United States radicals and hydrogen peroxide; and (c) photochemical models are now
contribute to the PM2.5 nonattainment simulate the rate of oxidation of the available that are more scientifically
problems in other downwind States; (3) nitrogen oxide (NOX) and sulfur dioxide sophisticated than REMSAD. In this
States with high emissions tend to (SO2), which are precursors to regard, and in response to commenters’
contribute more than States with low secondary aerosols. The EPA agrees that recommendations on specific models,
emissions; (4) States close to micro CB–IV is simplified compared to EPA has selected CMAQ as the
nonattainment areas tend to contribute the full CB–IV mechanism. However, modeling tool for the final CAIR
more than other States farther upwind; performance testing of micro CB–IV modeling analysis. As stated above, the
and (5) the CAIR controls will produce indicates that this simplified CMAQ model is a publicaly available,
major benefits in terms of bringing areas mechanism is similar to the full CB–IV peer-reviewed, state-of-the-science
into or closer to attainment. chemical mechanism in simulating model with a number of science
ozone formation and approximates other attributes that are critical for accurately
Comments and Responses simulating the oxidant precursors and
species reasonably well (e.g., hydroxyl
(i) REMSAD Science and Evaluation radical, hydroperoxy radical, the non-linear organic and inorganic
Comment: Some commenters stated operator radical, hydrogen peroxide, chemical relationships associated with
that REMSAD is an inappropriate model nitric acid, and peroxyacetyl nitrate).91 the formation of sulfate, nitrate, and
for use in simulating PM2.5. Other The REMSAD model was subjected to organic aerosols. As listed above, the
commenters said, more specifically, that a scientific peer-review (Seigneur et al., important science aspects of CMAQ that
the chemical mechanism in REMSAD 1999) and EPA has incorporated the are superior to REMSAD include: (1)
(i.e., micro CB–IV) is simplified and not major science improvements that were Updated gaseous/heterogeneous
validated, and that the model has not recommended by the peer-review panel. chemistry that provides the basis for the
been scientifically peer-reviewed. These improvements were included in formation of nitrates and includes a
Response: The EPA disagrees with the version of REMSAD used for the current inorganic nitrate partitioning
comments claiming that REMSAD is an NPR modeling. Specifically, the module; (2) in-cloud sulfate chemistry,
inappropriate tool for modeling PM2.5. following updates have been which accounts for the non-linear
The EPA believes that REMSAD is implemented into REMSAD Version sensitivity of sulfate formation to
appropriate for regional and national 7.06, which was used for the proposed varying pH; (3) a state-of-the-science
modeling applications because the CAIR control strategy simulations: (1) secondary organic aerosol module that
model does include the key physical The nighttime chemistry treatment was includes a more comprehensive gas-
and chemical processes associated with updated to improve the treatment of the particle partitioning algorithm from
secondary aerosol formation and gas phase species NO3 and N2O5; (2) the both anthropogenic and biogenic
transport.90 effects of temperature and pressure secondary organic aerosol; and (4) the
Specifically, REMSAD simulates both dependence on chemical rates were full CB–IV chemistry mechanism, which
gas phase and aerosol chemistry. The added; (3) the MARS–A aerosol provides a complete simulation of
gas phase chemistry uses a reduced- partitioning module was added for aerosol precursor oxidants.
form version of Carbon Bond chemical calculating particle and gas phase (iii) Model Evaluation
mechanism (micro-CB–IV). Formation of fractions of nitrate; (4) aqueous phase
inorganic secondary particulate species, Comment: A number of commenters
formation of sulfate was updated by
such as sulfate and nitrate, are claimed that EPA’s air quality model
91 Whitten, G. memorandum: Comparison of evaluation for 1996 was deficient
90 Even so, EPA acknowledges that REMSAD has REMSAD Reduced Chemistry to Full CB–4. because it lacked sufficient ambient
certain limitations not found in CMAQ. February 19, 2001. measurements, especially in urban
areas, to judge model performance. evaluation should be performed for a in order to be consistent with our use
Commenters said that EPA should: (1) more recent time period in order to of quarterly average PM2.5 species as
Update the evaluation to a more recent address these concerns. Thus, we part of the procedure for projecting
time period in order to take advantage conclude that the 1996 modeling future concentrations, as described
of greatly expanded ambient PM2.5 platform which includes 1996 below in section VI.B.1. In addition, the
species measurements, especially in emissions, 1996 meteorology, and 1996 sampling frequency at the CASTNET,
urban areas; and (2) calculate model ambient data should be updated and IMPROVE, and STN sites may not
performance statistics over monthly improved, as recommended by provide sufficient samples in a 1-month
and/or seasonal time periods using commenters. period to provide a robust calculation of
daily/weekly observed/model-predicted The EPA has developed a new model performance statistics. Details of
data pairs. modeling platform which includes EPA’s model evaluation for CMAQ
Some commenters said that the 1996 emissions, meteorological data, and using the 2001 modeling platform are in
data were so limited that it is not other model inputs for 2001. This the report ‘‘Updated CMAQ Model
possible to determine whether REMSAD platform was used to confirm the ability Performance Evaluation for 2001’’
could be used with confidence to assess of our modeling system to replicate which can be found in the docket for
the effects of emissions changes. Still, ambient PM2.5 and component species today’s rule.
other commenters said that the in both urban and rural areas and, thus, The EPA agrees that there are no
performance of REMSAD for the 1996 establish the credibility of this platform universally accepted performance
modeling platform was poor. for PM2.5 modeling as part of CAIR.92 In
Commenters acknowledged that there criteria for PM2.5 modeling and that
2001, there was an extensive set of performance should be judged by
are no universally accepted or EPA-
ambient PM2.5 measurements including comparison to the performance found
recommended quantitative criteria for
133 urban Speciation Trends Network by other groups in the air quality
judging the acceptability of PM2.5 model
(STN) monitoring sites across the modeling community. In this respect,
performance. In the absence of such
nation, with 105 of these in the East. we have compared our CMAQ 2001
model performance acceptance criteria,
some commenters said that performance This network did not exist in 1996. model performance results to the range
should be judged by comparing EPA’s Also, the number of mainly suburban of performance found in other recent
model performance results to the range and rural monitoring sites in the Clean regional PM2.5 model applications by
of results obtained by other groups in Air Status and Trends Network other groups.94 Details of this
the air quality modeling community (CASTNET) and Interagency Monitoring comparison can be found in the CMAQ
who conducted other recent regional of Protected Visual Environments evaluation report. Below is a summary
PM2.5 model applications. A few (IMPROVE) network has increased to of performance results from other, non-
commenters also identified specific over 200 in 2001, compared to EPA modeling studies, for summer
model performance ranges and criteria approximately 120 operating in 1996. sulfate and winter nitrate. It CAIR.
that they said should be achievable for The EPA evaluated CMAQ for the Overall, the general range of fractional
sulfate and PM2.5, given the current 2001 modeling platform using the bias (FB) and fractional error (FE)
state-of-science for aerosol modeling extensive set of 2001 monitoring data statistics for the better performing
and measurement uncertainty. The for PM2.5 species. The evaluation model applications are as follows:
specific values cited by these included a statistical analysis in which —Summer sulfate is in the range of ¥10
commenters are ±30 percent to ±50 the model predictions and percent to +30 percent for FB and 35
percent for fractional bias, 50 percent to measurements were paired in space and percent to 50 percent for FE; and
75 percent for fractional error, and 50 in time (i.e., daily or weekly to be
consistent with the sampling protocol of —Winter nitrate is in the range of +50
percent for normalized error.
the monitoring network). Model percent to +70 percent for FB and 85
Response: The EPA agrees that the
performance statistics were calculated percent to 105 percent for FE.
limited amount of ambient PM2.5 species
data available in 1996 affected our for each network with separate statistics The corresponding performance
ability to evaluate model performance, for sites in the West and the East.93 In statistics for EPA’s 2001 CMAQ
especially in urban areas, and there response to comments that performance application as well as the 1996
were deficiencies in the performance of statistics should be calculated over REMSAD application used for the
REMSAD using the 1996 model inputs. monthly and/or seasonal time periods, proposal modeling are provided in
Also, EPA agrees that a model we elected to use seasonal time periods Table VI–1.
TABLE VI–1.—SELECTED PERFORMANCE EVALUATION STATISTICS FROM THE CMAQ 2001 SIMULATION AND THE
REMSAD 1996 SIMULATION
CMAQ 2001 REMSAD 1996
Eastern U.S.
FB(%) FE(%) FB(%) FE(%)
Sulfate (Summer):
STN ........................................................................................................................... 14 44 .................... ....................
Improve ..................................................................................................................... 10 42 ¥20 51
CASTNet ................................................................................................................... 3 22 ¥21 59
Nitrate (Winter)
STN ........................................................................................................................... 15 73 .................... ....................
92 The 2001 modeling platform is described in full eastern half of Texas through the eastern half of or episodes, chemical mechanisms, and aerosol
in the NFR EITSD and NFR AQMTSD. North Dakota. modules.
93 For the purposes of this analysis, we have 94 These other modeling studies represent a wide
defined ‘‘East’’ as the area to the east of 100 degrees range of modeling analyses which cover various
longitude, which runs from approximately the models, model configurations, domains, years and/
TABLE VI–1.—SELECTED PERFORMANCE EVALUATION STATISTICS FROM THE CMAQ 2001 SIMULATION AND THE
REMSAD 1996 SIMULATION—Continued
CMAQ 2001 REMSAD 1996
Eastern U.S.
FB(%) FE(%) FB(%) FE(%)
Improve ..................................................................................................................... 21 92 67 103
The results indicate that the episodes for ozone modeling, the documents for PM2.5 modeling 95 and
performance for CMAQ in 2001 is meteorological data for these episodes, ozone modeling.96 The draft guidance
within the range or better than that the spatial resolution of our modeling, for PM2.5 modeling states that 36 km
found by other groups in recent and consistency between ozone and resolution is acceptable for regional
applications. The performance also PM2.5 modeling in terms of methods for scale applications in portions of the
meets the benchmark goals suggested by projecting future air quality domain outside of nonattainment areas.
several commenters. In addition, the concentrations. As described below and For portions of the domain which cover
CMAQ performance is considerably in the RTC document and NFR nonattainment areas, 12 km resolution
improved over that of the REMSAD AQMTSD, we continue to believe that: or less is recommended by the guidance.
1996 performance for summer sulfate (1) The three 1995 episodes are However, as stated in the guidance
and winter nitrate, which were near the representative episodes for regional document, these recommendations were
bounds or outside the range of other modeling of 8-hour ozone; and (2) the based on guidance for 8-hour ozone
recent applications. meteorological data for these episodes modeling because there was a lack of
The CMAQ model performance and spatial resolution are adequate for PM2.5 modeling at different grid
results give us confidence that our use in our modeling for CAIR. Thus, the
resolutions at the time the guidance was
applications of CMAQ using the new ozone air quality assessments in today’s
drafted. In addition, the PM2.5 guidance
modeling platform provide a rule rely on CAMX modeling of
states that exceptions to these
scientifically credible approach for meteorological data for the three 1995
recommendations can be made on a
assessing PM2.5 concentrations for the episodes for the domain and spatial
resolution used for the NPR. As case-by-case basis.
purposes of CAIR.
discussed below, we ran CAMX for the For several reasons, we believe that 36
b. Ozone Air Quality Modeling Platform updated 2001 emissions inventory and km resolution is sufficient for PM2.5
and Model Evaluation the updated 2010 and 2015 base case modeling for the purposes of CAIR.
Overview inventories as part of the process to First, recent analyses that compare 36
project 8-hour ozone for these future km to 12 km modeling of PM2.5 97
The EPA used the CAMX, version 3.10 year scenarios. We revised our method indicate that spatial mean
in the NPR to assess 8-hour ozone of projecting future ozone concentrations of gas phase and aerosol
concentrations and the impacts of ozone concentrations to be consistent with the species at 36 km and 12 km are quite
and ozone precursor transport on method we are using for PM2.5. similar. A comparison of model
elevated levels of ozone across the
c. Model Grid Cell Configuration predictions versus observations
eastern U.S. The CAMX is a publicly
indicates that the model performance is
available Eulerian model that accounts As described in the NPR AQMTSD, similar at 12 km and 36 km in both rural
for the processes that are involved in the the PM2.5 modeling for the proposal was and urban areas. Thus, using 12 km
production, transport, and destruction performed for a domain (i.e., area)
of ozone over a specified three- resolution does not necessarily provide
covering the 48 States and adjacent any additional confidence in the results.
dimensional domain and time period. portions of Canada and Mexico. Within
The CAMX model was run with 1995/ Second, ambient measurements of
this domain, the model predictions were sulfate and to a significant extent
96 base year emissions to evaluate the calculated for a grid network with a
performance of the modeling platform to nitrate, which are the pollutants of most
spatial resolution of approximately 36 importance for CAIR, do not exhibit
replicate observed concentrations km. Our 8-hour ozone modeling for
during the three 1995 episodes. This large spatial differences between rural
proposal was performed using a nested
evaluation was comprised principally of and urban areas, as described elsewhere
grid network. The outer portion of this
statistical assessments of hourly, 1-hour in today’s rule. This implies that it is
grid has a spatial resolution of
daily maximum, and 8-hour daily not necessary to use fine resolution
approximately 36 km. The inner
maximum ozone predictions. As modeling in order to properly capture
‘‘nested’’ area, which covers a large
described in the NPR AQMTSD, model portion of the eastern U.S., has a
performance of CAMX for ozone was resolution of approximately 12 km.
95 U.S. EPA, 2000: Draft Guidance for
judged against the results from previous Demonstrating Attainment of the Air Quality Goals
Comment: Some commenters said that for PM2.5 and Regional Haze; Draft 1.1, Office of Air
regional ozone model applications. This the 36 km grid cell size used by EPA in Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle
analysis indicates that model modeling PM2.5 and the 36 km/12 km Park, NC.
performance was comparable to or grid resolution used for ozone modeling 96 U.S. EPA, 1999: Draft Guidance on the Use of
better than that found in previous Models and Other Analyses in Attainment
are too coarse and are inconsistent with Demonstrations for the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS,
applications and is, therefore, EPA’s draft modeling guidance. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
acceptable for the purposes of CAIR Response: We disagree with these Research Triangle Park, NC.
ozone modeling. comments and continue to believe that 97 VISTAS Emissions and Air Quality Modeling—
The EPA did not receive comments on the grid dimensions for our PM2.5 Phase I Task 4cd Report: Model Performance
Evaluation and Model Sensitivity Tests for Three
the CAMX model or the model modeling and our 8-hour ozone Phase I Episodes. ENVIRON International
performance for ozone. The EPA did modeling are not too coarse nor are they Corporation, Alpine Geophysics, and University of
receive comments on the choice of inconsistent with our draft guidance California at Riverside, September 7, 2004.
the regional concentration patterns of suitable for air quality modeling when Tribal air agencies. This inventory is the
these pollutants. needed for the proposal, we developed latest available quality-assured and
Our draft 8-hour ozone modeling a reasonably representative ‘‘proxy’’ reviewed national emission data set for
guidance recommends using 36 km inventory for 2001. For the EGU, these sectors. The 1999 data for non-
resolution for regional modeling with mobile, and non-road emissions sectors, EGU point and stationary-area sources
nested grid cells not exceeding 12 km 1996-to-2001 adjustment ratios were were projected to represent a 2001
over urban portions of the modeling created by dividing State-level total inventory using State/county-specific
domain. The guidance states that 4 to 5 emissions for each pollutant for 2001 by and sector-specific growth rates. The on-
km resolution for urban areas is the corresponding consistent 1996 road mobile inventory uses MOBILE
preferred, if feasible. In addition, if 12 emissions. These adjustment ratios were version 6.2 and the non-road engines
km modeling is used then plume-in-grid then multiplied by the REMSAD-ready inventory uses the NONROAD2004
treatment for large point sources of NOX 1996 emissions for these two sectors to model, both with updated input
should be considered. produce REMSAD-ready files for the parameters to calculate emissions for
Our modeling for CAIR is consistent 2001 proxy. For non-EGUs and 2001. More detailed information on the
with this guidance in that we use 36 km stationary area sources, linear development of the emissions
resolution for the outer portions of the interpolations were performed between inventories can be found in the NFR
region; 12 km resolution covering nearly the REMSAD-ready 1996 emissions and EITSD.
all urban areas in the domain; and a the REMSAD-ready 2010 base case Comment: Commenters stated that
plume-in-grid algorithm for major NOX emissions to produce 2001 proxy EPA failed to develop an accurate and
point sources in the region. In addition, emissions for these two sectors. Details comprehensive ammonia emission
analyses that compare model 12 km on the creation of the 2001 proxy inventory from soil, fertilizer, and
resolution to 4 km resolution for inventory used for proposal are animal husbandry sources.
portions of our 1995 episodes indicate provided in the NPR AQMTSD. Response: The 2001 inventory used
that the spatial fields predicted at both The NPR future 2010 and 2015 base for the analyses for the final rule
12 km and 4 km have many common case emissions reflect projected includes a new national county-level
features in terms of the areas of high and economic growth and control programs ammonia inventory developed by EPA
low ozone.98 In a comparison of model that are to be implemented by 2010 and using the latest emission rates selected
predictions to observation, the 12 km 2015, respectively. Control programs based on a comprehensive literature
modeling was found to be somewhat included in these future base cases review, and activity levels as provided
more accurate than the finer 4 km include those State, local, and Federal by the U.S. Census of Agriculture for
modeling. measures already promulgated and animal husbandry. The 2001 inventory
other significant measures expected to from fertilizer application sources was
2. Emissions Inventory Data be promulgated before the final rule is compiled from State and local
For the proposed rule, emissions implemented. Future year 2010 and submissions to EPA for 1999,
inventories were created for the 48 2015 base case EGU emissions were augmented as necessary with EPA
contiguous States and the District of obtained from versions 2.1 and 2.1.6 of estimates, and grown to 2001 using
Columbia. These inventories were the Integrated Planning Model (IPM). State/county-specific and category-
estimated for a 2001 base year to reflect Comment: Several commenters stated specific growth rates. With regard to
current emissions and for 2010 and that the emission inventory used for the background soil emissions of NH3, EPA
2015 future baseline scenarios. The ‘‘proxy’’ 2001 base year was not believes that the current state of
inventories were prepared for electric sufficient for the rulemaking, primarily understanding of background soil
because it was developed from a 1996 ammonia releases and sinks is
generating units (EGUs), industrial and
modeling inventory by applying various insufficient to warrant including these
commercial sources (non-EGUs),
adjustment factors. Commenters emission sources in modeling
stationary area sources, on-road
suggested that: (1) More up-to-date inventories at this time.
vehicles, and non-road engines. The Comment: Two commenters indicated
inventories were now available and
inventories contained both annual and that EPA should revise 2010 and 2015
should be used; (2) the most recent
typical summer season day emissions base case emissions by improving the
Continuous Emissions Monitoring
for the following pollutants: oxides of methods for estimating economic
(CEM) data or throughput information
nitrogen (NOX); volatile organic growth and not rely on the Bureau of
should be used to derive a 2001 EGU
compounds (VOC); carbon monoxide Economic Analysis (BEA) data used for
inventory; and (3) EPA should use the
(CO); sulfur dioxide (SO2); direct 2001 MOBILE6 and NONROAD2002 proposal.
particulate matter with an aerodynamic models for estimating on-road mobile Response: In response to these
diameter less than 10 micrometers and non-road engine emissions, comments, EPA has refined its
(PM10) and less than 2.5 micrometers respectively. economic growth projections. In
(PM2.5); and ammonia (NH3). A Response: The EPA believes that the addition to updated versions of the
summary of the development of these base year for modeling should be as MOBILE6, NONROAD, and IPM models,
inventories is provided below. recent as possible, given the availability EPA developed new economic growth
Additional information on the of nationally complete emissions rates for stationary, area, and non-EGU
emissions inventory used for proposal estimates and ambient monitoring data. point sources. For these two sectors, the
can be found in the NPR AQMTSD. For the analyses of the final rule, EPA final approach uses a combination of:
Because the complete 2001 National has used a base year inventory (1) Regional or national fuel-use forecast
Emission Inventory (NEI) and future- developed specifically for 2001. The data from the U.S. Department of Energy
year projections consistent with that base year inventory for the electric for source types that map to fuel use
NEI were not available in a form utility sector now uses measured CEM sectors (e.g., commercial coal, industrial
98 Irwin, J. et al. ‘‘Examination of model
emissions data for 2001. The non-EGU natural gas); (2) State-specific growth
predictions at different horizontal grid resolutions.’’
point source and stationary-area source rates from the Regional Economic
Submitted for Publication to Environmental Fluid sectors are based on the final 1999 NEI Model, Inc. (REMI) Policy Insight
Mechanics. data submittals from State, local, and model, version 5.5; and (3) forecasts by
specific industry organizations and PM2.5 data for this year are included in Response: A peer-reviewed,
Federal agencies. For more detail on the the calculation of the most recent PM2.5 quantitative evaluation of the RAMS
growth methodologies, please refer to design values used for designating PM2.5 model performance for this
the NFR EITSD. nonattainment areas. In view of these meteorological period is provided by
factors, EPA believes that 2001 Hogrefe, et al.100 This analysis was
3. Meteorological Data
meteorology are representative for PM2.5 performed using RAMS predictions for
In order to solve for the change in modeling for the purposes of this rule. June through August of 1995. The
pollutant concentrations over time and The new 2001 meteorological data results show that the RAMS biases and
space, the air quality model requires used for PM2.5 modeling were derived errors are generally in line with past
certain meteorological inputs that, in from an updated version of the MM5 meteorological model simulations by
part, govern the formation, transport, model used for the 1996 meteorology other groups outside EPA. The EPA
and destruction of pollutant material. used for proposal. The version of MM5 remains satisfied that the 1995 RAMS
Two separate sets of meteorological used for the 2001 simulation contains meteorological inputs for the three
inputs were used in the air quality more sophisticated physics options with CAMX ozone modeling episodes are of
modeling completed as part of the NPR. respect to features like cloud sufficient quality and we have
The meteorological input files for the microphysics and land-surface continued to use these inputs for the
proposal PM2.5 modeling were interactions, and more refined vertical ozone analyses for the final rule.
developed from a Fifth-Generation resolution of the atmosphere compared Comment: The EPA received several
NCAR/Pennsylvania State Mesoscale to the version used for modeling 1996 comments on the episodes selected for
Model (MM5) model simulation for the meteorology. While there are currently ozone modeling. There was general
entire year of 1996. The gridded no universally accepted criteria for criticism that the ozone modeling did
meteorological data for the three 1995 judging the adequacy of meteorological not follow EPA’s own guidance for the
ozone episodes were developed using model performance, EPA compared the selection of episodes. Additionally,
the Regional Atmospheric Modeling 2001 MM5 model performance against there was specific criticism that the
System (RAMS). Both of these models the benchmark goals 99 recommended episodes did not provide for a
are publicly-available, widely-used, by some commenters. The benchmark reasonable test of the 8-hour ozone
prognostic meteorological models that goals suggest that temperature bias NAAQS in some areas.
solve the full set of physical and should be within the range of Response: The draft 8-hour ozone
thermodynamic equations which govern approximately ± 0.5 degrees C and guidance recommends, at a minimum,
atmospheric motions. Further, each of errors less than or equal to 2.0 degrees that four criteria be used to select
these specific meteorological data sets C are typical. episodes which are appropriate to
has been utilized in past EPA In general, the model performance model. This guidance is generally
rulemaking modeling analyses (e.g., the statistics for our 2001 meteorological intended for local attainment
Nonroad Land-based Diesel Engines modeling are in line with the above demonstrations, as opposed to regional
Standards). benchmark goals. Specfically, the mean transport analyses, but it does
Comment: Several commenters temperature bias of our 2001 recommend that in applying a regional
claimed that the 1996 meteorological meteorological modeling was model one should choose episodes
modeling data used to support the fine approximately 0.6 degrees C and the meeting as many of the criteria as
particulate modeling were outdated and mean error was approximately 2.0 possible, though it acknowledges there
non-representative. We also received degrees C. The evaluation of the 2001 may be tradeoffs. Given the large
recommendations from commenters on MM5 for humidity (water vapor mixing number of nonattainment areas within
benchmarks to be used as goals for ratio) shows biases of less than 0.5 g/kg
judging the adequacy of meteorological the ozone domain, it would be
and errors of approximately 1 g/kg, extremely difficult to assess the criteria
modeling. which compare favorably to the goals of
Response: The EPA draft PM2.5 on a area-by-area basis. However, from
± 1 g/kg for bias and 2 g/kg or less error. a general perspective, the 1995 episodes
modeling guidance which provides
Model performance for winds in our address all of the primary criteria,
general recommendations on
2001 simulation was also improved which include: (1) A variety of
meteorological periods to model for
compared to what has historically been meteorological conditions; (2) measured
PM2.5 purposes lists three primary
found in MM5 modeling studies. The ozone values that are close to current air
general criteria for consideration: (a)
index of agreement for surface winds in quality; (3) extensive meteorological and
Variety of meteorological conditions; (b)
the 2001 case equaled 0.86, which is far air quality data; and (4) a sufficient
existence of an extensive air quality/
better than the benchmark goal of 0.60. number of days. More detail is provided
meteorological data bases; and (c)
The precipitation evaluation results in the NFR AQMTSD, but here is a brief
sufficient number of days. The approach
show that the model generally replicates description of how each of the four
recommended in the guidance for
the observed data, but is overestimating primary criteria are met by the 1995
modeling annual PM2.5 is to use a single,
precipitation in the summer months. cases.
representative year. Based on the
More information about the model With regard to the criteria of
comments received and the criteria
performance evaluation and the MM5 meteorological variations, we have
outlined in the guidance, EPA
configuration is provided in the NFR completed inert tracer simulations for
developed meteorological data for the
AQMTSD. each of the three 1995 episodes that
entire calendar year of 2001. This year Comment: Several groups criticized
was chosen for the PM2.5 modeling show different transport patterns in all
the lack of quantitative meteorological three cases. For example the June case
platform based on several factors, model evaluation data for the 1995
specifically: (a) It corresponds to the involves east-to-west transport; the July
RAMS meteorological modeling used for case involves west-to-east transport; and
most recent set of emissions data; (b) episodic ozone modeling.
there are considerable ambient PM2.5 100 Hogrefe, C. et al. ‘‘Evaluating the performance
species data for use in model evaluation 99 Environ,
Enhanced Meteorological Modeling of regional-scale photochemical modeling systems:
(as described in section VI.A.1., above); and Performance Evaluation for Two Texas Ozone Part 1-meteorological predictions.’’ Atmospherics
and (c) Federal Reference Method (FRM) Episodes. August 2001. Environment, vol. 35 (2001), pp. 4159–4174.
the August case involves south-to-north EPA by a State. Finally, EPA’s draft were applied to ambient species
transport. In a separate analysis to ozone guidance also indicates as one of measurements in order to project each
determine whether the 1995 modeling four secondary criteria that extra weight species for the future year scenarios. We
days correspond to commonly occurring can be assigned to modeling episodes applied a spatial interpolation to the
and ozone-conducive meteorology, EPA for which there is prior experience in IMPROVE and STN speciation data as a
has applied a multi-variate statistical modeling. The 1995 CAIR ozone means for estimating species
approach for characterizing daily episodes have been successfully used to composition fractions for the FRM
meteorological patterns and drive the air quality modeling monitoring sites. Future year PM2.5 was
investigating their relationship to 8-hour completed for several recent notice-and- calculated by summing the projected
ozone concentrations in the eastern U.S. comment rulemakings (Tier-2, Heavy concentrations of each species. The
Across the 16 sites for which the Duty Engine, and NonRoad). Based on SMAT technical procedures, as applied
analysis was completed, there were five the analyses discussed above and the for the NPR, are contained in the NPR
to six distinct sets of meteorological adherence to the modeling guidance, and NPR AQMTSD.
conditions, called regimes, that EPA is satisfied that the 1995 CAMX As noted above, the procedures for
occurred during the ozone seasons episodes are appropriate for continued determining future year PM2.5
studied. An analysis of the 8-hour daily use. concentrations were applied for each
maximum ozone concentrations for each FRM site. For counties with only one
B. How Did EPA Project Future FRM site, the forecast design value for
of the meteorological regimes was Nonattainment for PM2.5 and 8-Hour
undertaken to determine the that site was used to determine whether
Ozone? or not the county was predicted to be
distribution of ozone concentrations and
the frequency of occurrence of each 1. Projection of Future PM2.5 nonattainment in the future. For
regimes. The EPA determined that Nonattainment counties with multiple monitoring sites,
between 60 and 70 percent of the a. Methodology for Projecting Future the site with the highest future
episode days we modeled are associated PM2.5 Nonattainment concentration was selected for that
with the most frequently occurring, high county. Those counties with future year
In the NPR, we assessed the prospects concentrations of 15.1 µg/m3 (as
ozone potential, meteorological regimes.
for future attainment and nonattainment rounded up from 15.05 µg/m3) or more
These results also provide support that
in 2010 and 2015 of the PM2.5 annual were predicted to be nonattainment.
the episodes being modeled are NAAQS. The approach for identifying
representative of conditions present Based on the modeling performed for
areas expected to be nonattainment for the NPR, 61 counties in the East were
when high ozone concentrations are PM2.5 in the future involved using the
measured throughout the modeling forecast to be nonattainment for the
model predictions in a relative way to 2010 base case. Of these, 41 were
domain. For the second criteria, EPA forecast current PM2.5 design values to
has completed an analysis which shows forecast to remain nonattainment for the
2010 and 2015. The modeling portion of 2015 base case.
that the 1995 episodes contain observed this approach included annual Comment: Some commenters said that
8-hour daily maximum ozone values simulations for 2001 proxy emissions EPA has not established the credibility
that approximate recent ambient and for 2010 and 2015 base case of using models in a relative sense to
concentrations over the eastern U.S. emissions scenarios. As described estimate future PM2.5 concentrations
Additional analyses performed by EPA below, the predictions from these runs and that poor performance of REMSAD
and others have concluded that each of were used to calculate relative reduction for 1996 calls into question the use of
the three episodes involves widespread factors (RRFs) which were then applied models to adequately determine the
areas of elevated ozone concentrations. to current PM2.5 design values from effects of changes in emissions. One
The synoptic meteorological pattern of FRM sites in the East. This approach is commenter said that a mechanistic
the July 1995 episode has been consistent with the procedures in the model evaluation, in which model
identified by one of the commenters as draft of EPA’s PM2.5 modeling guidance. predictions of PM2.5 precursor
representing a classic set of conditions To determine the current PM2.5 air photochemical oxidants are compared
necessary for high ozone over the quality for use in projecting design to corresponding measurements, is an
eastern U.S. While the ozone was not values to the future, we selected the approach for gaining confidence in the
quite as widespread in the June and higher of the 1999–2001 or 2000–2002 ability of a model to provide a credible
August 1995 episodes, these periods design value (the most recent ambient response to emission changes.
also contained exceedances of the 8- data at the time of the proposal) for each Response: The EPA believes the
hour ozone NAAQS in most portions of monitor that measured nonattainment in future year nonattainment projections
the region. 2000–2002. For those sites that were should be based on using model
We believe that there is ample attaining the PM2.5 standard based on predictions in a relative sense. By
meteorological and air quality data their 2000–2002 design value, we used applying the model in a relative way,
available to support an evaluation of the the value from this period as the starting each measured component of PM2.5 is
modeling for these episodes. point for projecting 2010 and 2015 air adjusted upward or downward based on
Specifically, there were over 700 ozone quality at these sites. the percent change in that component,
monitors reporting across the domain The procedure for calculating future as determined by the ratio of future year
for use in model evaluation. As noted year PM2.5 design values is called the to base year model predictions. The EPA
above, the model performance for these Speciated Modeled Attainment Test feels that by using this approach, we are
episodes compares favorably to the (SMAT). The test uses model able to reduce the risk that
recommendations in EPA’s urban predictions in a relative sense to overprediction or underprediction of
modeling guidance. In addition, the estimate changes expected to occur in PM2.5 component species may unduly
modeling period is comprised of 30 each major PM2.5 species. These species affect our projection of future year
days, not including model ramp-up are sulfate, nitrate, organic carbon, nonattainment.
periods which is considerably more elemental carbon, crustal, and un- The EPA agrees with commenters that
than is typically used in an attainment attributed mass. The relative change in one way to establish confidence in the
demonstration modeling submitted to model-predicted species concentrations credibility of this approach is to
determine whether model predictions of details on this analysis can be found in Still, our performance results for these
PM2.5 precursors are generally the CMAQ evaluation report. The species are within the range suggested
comparable to corresponding measured results indicate that for both summer as acceptable by commenters for sulfate
data. In this regard, we compared the and winter ozone, the fractional bias (i.e., ±30 percent to ±60 percent for
CMAQ predictions to observations for and error is within the recommended fractional bias and 50 percent to 75
several precursor gases for which range for urban scale ozone modeling percent for fractional error). Thus,
measurements were available in 2001. included in EPA’s draft guidance for 8- CMAQ is considered appropriate and
These gases include sulfur dioxide, hour ozone modeling. For the other credible for use in projecting changes in
nitric acid, and ozone. species examined, there are limited future year PM2.5 concentrations and the
The results for the East are ambient data and few other studies resultant health/economic benefits due
summarized in Table VI–2. Additional against which to compare our findings. to the emissions reductions.
TABLE VI–2.—CMAQ MODEL PERFORMANCE STATISTICS FOR OZONE, TOTAL NITRATE, AND NITRIC ACID IN THE EAST
CMAQ 2001
Eastern U.S.
FB (%) FE (%)
Ozone:
AIRS (Summer) ........................................................................................................................................................ 13 21
AIRS (Winter) ........................................................................................................................................................... ¥9 31
Sulfur Dioxide:
CASTNet (Summer) ................................................................................................................................................. 31 48
CASTNet (Winter) ..................................................................................................................................................... 39 43
Nitric Acid:
CASTNet (Summer) ................................................................................................................................................. 29 39
CASTNet (Winter) ..................................................................................................................................................... ¥21 55
Comment: Several commenters said the updated SMAT report 101. In brief, 2001–2003. Since the 2001–2003 data is
that EPA’s SMAT approach is flawed we revised the SMAT methodology to now available, we are using it as part of
and suggested alternative methods for take into account several known the current year PM2.5 calculations for
attributing individual species mass to differences between what is measured the final rule.
the FRM measured PM2.5 mass. One by speciation monitors and what is The observation by a commenter that
commenter detailed several different measured on FRM filters. Among the the 2001–2003 data are generally lower
methods to apportion the FRM mass to revisions were calculations to account than in the previous two design value
individual PM2.5 species. They refer to for nitrate, ammonium, and organic periods (i.e., 1999–2001 and 2000–2002)
carbon volatilization, blank PM2.5 mass, leads to the issue of how to reduce the
two different estimation methods as the
particle bound water, the degree of influence of year-to-year variability in
‘‘FRM equivalent’’ approach and the
neutralization of sulfate, and the meteorology and emissions on our
‘‘best estimate’’ approach. estimate of current air quality. As a
uncertainty in estimating organic carbon
Response: The EPA agrees that mass. consequence of this year-to-year
alternative methodologies can be used Comment: Several commenters noted variability in concentrations, relying on
to apportion PM2.5 species fractions to that the future year design values were design values from any single period, as
the FRM data. We believe that revising based on projections of the 1999–2001 in the approach used for proposal, may
SMAT to use a methodology similar to and/or 2000–2002 FRM monitoring data not provide a robust representation of
an ‘‘FRM equivalent’’ methodology, as and that there are more recent design current air quality for use in forecasting
described in the Notice of Data value data available for the 2001–2003 the future. Specifically, the lower PM2.5
Availability (69 FR 47828; August 6, design value period. Commenters also values in 2001–2003 may not be
2004), is warranted. Since noted that the 2001–2003 data shows representative of the current modeling
nonattainment designation lower PM2.5 concentrations at the period. To address the issue of year-to-
determinations and future year majority of sites and therefore, by year variability in the ambient data we
projecting the highest design value, we have modified our methodology to use
nonattainment projections are based on
are overestimating the future year PM2.5 an average of the three design value
measured FRM data, we believe that the
values. periods that straddle the base year
PM2.5 species data should be adjusted to emissions year (i.e., 2001). In this case
best conform to what is measured on the Response: As stated above, the PM2.5
it is the average of the 1999–2001, 2000–
FRM filters. Based on comments, EPA projection methodology in the NPR used
2002, and 2001–2003 design values. The
has revised our technique for projecting the higher of the 1999–2001 or 2000–
average of the three design values is not
current PM2.5 data to incorporate some 2002 PM2.5 design value data. The draft
a straight 5-year average. Rather, it is a
aspects of the commenter’s ‘‘FRM modeling guidance for PM2.5 specifies
weighted average of the 1999–2003
equivalent’’ methodology. As described the use of the higher of the three design
period. That is, by averaging 1999–2001,
in more detail in the NFR AQMTSD, we value periods which straddle the
2000–2002, and 2001–2003, the value
believe our revised methodology to be emissions year. The emissions year is
from 2001 is weighted three times; 2000
the most technically appropriate way of 2001 and therefore the three periods
and 2002 are each weighted twice and
would be 1999–2001, 2000–2002, and
estimating what is measured on the 1999 and 2003 are each weighted once.
FRM filters. 101 Procedures for Estimating Future PM
This approach has the desired benefits
2.5 Values
Full documentation of the revised for the CAIR Final Rule by Application of the
of: (1) weighting the PM2.5 values
EPA SMAT methodology is contained in (Revised) Speciated Modeled Attainment Test towards the middle year of the 5-year
(SMAT), docket number OAR–2003–0053–1907. period, which is the 2001 base year for
our emissions projections; and (2) air quality coupled with the PM2.5 measure nonattainment for the most
smoothing out the effects of year-to-year species from the 2001 Base Year and recent period of available ambient data
variability in emissions and 2010 and 2015 base case CMAQ model (i.e., 2001–2003). In our analysis for the
meteorology that occurs over the full 5- runs. For counties with multiple 2010 base case, there are 62 such
year period. We have adopted this monitoring sites, the site with the counties in the East that are both
method for use in projecting future highest future concentration was ‘‘modeled’’ nonattainment and currently
PM2.5 nonattainment for the final rule selected for that county. Those counties have ‘‘monitored’’ nonattainment. We
analysis. We plan to incorporate this with future year design values of 15.05 refer to these counties as having
new methodology into the next draft µg/m3 or higher were predicted to be ‘‘modeled plus monitored’’
version of our PM2.5 modeling guidance. nonattainment. The result is that, nonattainment. Out of an abundance of
without controls beyond those included caution, we are using only these 62
b. Projected 2010 and 2015 Base Case
in the base case, 79 counties in the East ‘‘modeled plus monitored’’ counties as
PM2.5 Nonattainment Counties are projected to be nonattainment for the downwind receptors in determining
For the final rule, we have revised the the 2010 base case. For the 2015 base which upwind States make a significant
projected PM2.5 nonattainment counties case, 74 counties in the East are contribution to PM2.5 in downwind
for 2010 and 2015 by applying CMAQ projected to be nonattainment for PM2.5. States.
for the entire year (i.e., January through In light of the uncertainties inherent
December) of 2001 using 2001 Base Year in regionwide modeling many years into The 79 counties in the East that we
and 2010 and 2015 future base case the future, of the 79 nonattainment project will be nonattainment for PM2.5
emissions from the new modeling counties projected for the 2010 base in 2010 and the subset of 62 counties
platform, as described in section VI.A.2. case, we have the most confidence in that are also ‘‘monitored’’
The 2010 and 2015 base case PM2.5 our projection of nonattainment for nonattainment in 2001–2003, are
nonattainment counties were those counties that are not only forecast identified in Table VI–3. The 2015 base
determined applying the updated SMAT to be nonattainment in 2010, based on case PM2.5 nonattainment counties are
method using current 1999–2003 PM2.5 the SMAT method, but that also provided in Table VI–4.
TABLE VI–3.—PROJECTED PM2.5 CONCENTRATIONS (µG/M3) FOR NONATTAINMENT COUNTIES IN THE 2010 BASE CASE
State County 2010 Base ‘‘Modeled + Monitored’’
Alabama ............................................................. DeKalb Co ......................................................... 15.23 No.

Alabama ............................................................. Jefferson Co ...................................................... 18.57 Yes.
Alabama ............................................................. Montgomery Co ................................................. 15.12 No.
Alabama ............................................................. Morgan Co ......................................................... 15.29 No.
Alabama ............................................................. Russell Co ......................................................... 16.17 Yes.
Alabama ............................................................. Talladega Co ..................................................... 15.34 No.
Delaware ............................................................ New Castle Co ................................................... 16.56 Yes.
District of Columbia ............................................ ............................................................................ 15.84 Yes.
Georgia ............................................................... Bibb Co .............................................................. 16.27 Yes.
Georgia ............................................................... Clarke Co ........................................................... 16.39 Yes.
Georgia ............................................................... Clayton Co ......................................................... 17.39 Yes.
Georgia ............................................................... Cobb Co ............................................................. 16.57 Yes.
Georgia ............................................................... DeKalb Co ......................................................... 16.75 Yes.
Georgia ............................................................... Floyd Co ............................................................ 16.87 Yes.
Georgia ............................................................... Fulton Co ........................................................... 18.02 Yes.
Georgia ............................................................... Hall Co ............................................................... 15.60 No.
Georgia ............................................................... Muscogee Co ..................................................... 15.65 No.
Georgia ............................................................... Richmond Co ..................................................... 15.68 No.
Georgia ............................................................... Walker Co .......................................................... 15.43 Yes.
Georgia ............................................................... Washington Co .................................................. 15.31 No.
Georgia ............................................................... Wilkinson Co ...................................................... 16.27 No.
Illinois .................................................................. Cook Co ............................................................. 17.52 Yes.
Illinois .................................................................. Madison Co ........................................................ 16.66 Yes.
Illinois .................................................................. St. Clair Co ........................................................ 16.24 Yes.
Indiana ................................................................ Clark Co ............................................................. 16.51 Yes.
Indiana ................................................................ Dubois Co .......................................................... 15.73 Yes.
Indiana ................................................................ Lake Co ............................................................. 17.26 Yes.
Indiana ................................................................ Marion Co .......................................................... 16.83 Yes.
Indiana ................................................................ Vanderburgh Co ................................................ 15.54 Yes.
Kentucky ............................................................. Boyd Co ............................................................. 15.23 No.
Kentucky ............................................................. Bullitt Co ............................................................ 15.10 No.
Kentucky ............................................................. Fayette Co ......................................................... 15.95 Yes.
Kentucky ............................................................. Jefferson Co ...................................................... 16.71 Yes.
Kentucky ............................................................. Kenton Co .......................................................... 15.30 No.
Maryland ............................................................. Anne Arundel Co ............................................... 15.26 Yes.
Maryland ............................................................. Baltimore City .................................................... 16.96 Yes.
Michigan ............................................................. Wayne Co .......................................................... 19.41 Yes.
Missouri .............................................................. St. Louis City ..................................................... 15.10 No.
New Jersey ......................................................... Union Co ............................................................ 15.05 Yes.
New York ............................................................ New York Co ..................................................... 16.19 Yes.
North Carolina .................................................... Catawba Co ....................................................... 15.48 Yes.
North Carolina .................................................... Davidson Co ...................................................... 15.76 Yes.
North Carolina .................................................... Mecklenburg Co ................................................. 15.22 No.
Ohio .................................................................... Butler Co ............................................................ 16.45 Yes.
TABLE VI–3.—PROJECTED PM2.5 CONCENTRATIONS (µG/M3) FOR NONATTAINMENT COUNTIES IN THE 2010 BASE CASE—
Continued
State County 2010 Base ‘‘Modeled + Monitored’’
Ohio .................................................................... Cuyahoga Co ..................................................... 18.84 Yes.

Ohio .................................................................... Franklin Co ........................................................ 16.98 Yes.
Ohio .................................................................... Hamilton Co ....................................................... 18.23 Yes.
Ohio .................................................................... Jefferson Co ...................................................... 17.94 Yes.
Ohio .................................................................... Lawrence Co ...................................................... 16.10 Yes.
Ohio .................................................................... Mahoning Co ..................................................... 15.39 Yes.
Ohio .................................................................... Montgomery Co ................................................. 15.41 Yes.
Ohio .................................................................... Scioto Co ........................................................... 18.13 Yes.
Ohio .................................................................... Stark Co ............................................................. 17.14 Yes.
Ohio .................................................................... Summit Co ......................................................... 16.47 Yes.
Ohio .................................................................... Trumbull Co ....................................................... 15.28 No.
Pennsylvania ...................................................... Allegheny Co ..................................................... 20.55 Yes.
Pennsylvania ...................................................... Beaver Co .......................................................... 15.78 Yes.
Pennsylvania ...................................................... Berks Co ............................................................ 15.89 Yes.
Pennsylvania ...................................................... Cambria Co ........................................................ 15.14 Yes.
Pennsylvania ...................................................... Dauphin Co ........................................................ 15.17 Yes.
Pennsylvania ...................................................... Delaware Co ...................................................... 15.61 Yes.
Pennsylvania ...................................................... Lancaster Co ..................................................... 16.55 Yes.
Pennsylvania ...................................................... Philadelphia Co .................................................. 16.65 Yes.
Pennsylvania ...................................................... Washington Co .................................................. 15.23 Yes.
Pennsylvania ...................................................... Westmoreland Co .............................................. 15.16 Yes.
Pennsylvania ...................................................... York Co .............................................................. 16.49 Yes.
Tennessee .......................................................... Davidson Co ...................................................... 15.36 No.
Tennessee .......................................................... Hamilton Co ....................................................... 16.89 Yes.
Tennessee .......................................................... Knox Co ............................................................. 17.44 Yes.
Tennessee .......................................................... Sullivan Co ......................................................... 15.32 No.
West Virginia ...................................................... Berkeley Co ....................................................... 15.69 Yes.
West Virginia ...................................................... Brooke Co .......................................................... 16.63 Yes.
West Virginia ...................................................... Cabell Co ........................................................... 17.03 Yes.
West Virginia ...................................................... Hancock Co ....................................................... 17.06 Yes.
West Virginia ...................................................... Kanawha Co ...................................................... 17.56 Yes.
West Virginia ...................................................... Marion Co .......................................................... 15.32 Yes.
West Virginia ...................................................... Marshall Co ........................................................ 15.81 Yes.
West Virginia ...................................................... Ohio Co .............................................................. 15.14 Yes.
West Virginia ...................................................... Wood Co ............................................................ 16.66 Yes.
TABLE VI–4.—PROJECTED PM2.5 CONCENTRATIONS (µG/M<>3) FOR NONATTAINMENT COUNTIES IN THE 2015 BASE CASE
State County 2015 Base
Alabama ...................................................................................... DeKalb Co .................................................................................. 15.24

Alabama ...................................................................................... Jefferson Co ............................................................................... 18.85
Alabama ...................................................................................... Montgomery Co ......................................................................... 15.24
Alabama ...................................................................................... Morgan Co ................................................................................. 15.26
Alabama ...................................................................................... Russell Co .................................................................................. 16.10
Alabama ...................................................................................... Talladega Co .............................................................................. 15.22
Delaware ..................................................................................... New Castle Co ........................................................................... 16.47
District of Columbia ..................................................................... .................................................................................................... 15.57
Georgia ....................................................................................... Bibb Co ...................................................................................... 16.41
Georgia ....................................................................................... Chatham Co ............................................................................... 15.06
Georgia ....................................................................................... Clarke Co ................................................................................... 16.15
Georgia ....................................................................................... Clayton Co ................................................................................. 17.46
Georgia ....................................................................................... Cobb Co ..................................................................................... 16.51
Georgia ....................................................................................... DeKalb Co .................................................................................. 16.82
Georgia ....................................................................................... Floyd Co ..................................................................................... 17.33
Georgia ....................................................................................... Fulton Co ................................................................................... 18.00
Georgia ....................................................................................... Hall Co ....................................................................................... 15.36
Georgia ....................................................................................... Muscogee Co ............................................................................. 15.58
Georgia ....................................................................................... Richmond Co ............................................................................. 15.76
Georgia ....................................................................................... Walker Co .................................................................................. 15.37
Georgia ....................................................................................... Washington Co .......................................................................... 15.34
Georgia ....................................................................................... Wilkinson Co .............................................................................. 16.54
Illinois .......................................................................................... Cook Co ..................................................................................... 17.71
Illinois .......................................................................................... Madison Co ................................................................................ 16.90
Illinois .......................................................................................... St. Clair Co ................................................................................ 16.49
Illinois .......................................................................................... Will Co ........................................................................................ 15.12
Indiana ........................................................................................ Clark Co ..................................................................................... 16.37
Indiana ........................................................................................ Dubois Co .................................................................................. 15.66
Indiana ........................................................................................ Lake Co ...................................................................................... 17.27
Indiana ........................................................................................ Marion Co .................................................................................. 16.77
TABLE VI–4.—PROJECTED PM2.5 CONCENTRATIONS (µG/M<>3) FOR NONATTAINMENT COUNTIES IN THE 2015 BASE
CASE—Continued
Indiana ........................................................................................ Vanderburgh Co ......................................................................... 15.56

Kentucky ..................................................................................... Boyd Co ..................................................................................... 15.06
Kentucky ..................................................................................... Fayette Co ................................................................................. 15.62
Kentucky ..................................................................................... Jefferson Co ............................................................................... 16.61
Kentucky ..................................................................................... Kenton Co .................................................................................. 15.09
Maryland ..................................................................................... Baltimore City ............................................................................. 17.04
Maryland ..................................................................................... Baltimore Co .............................................................................. 15.08
Michigan ...................................................................................... Wayne Co .................................................................................. 19.28
Mississippi ................................................................................... Jones Co .................................................................................... 15.18
Missouri ....................................................................................... St. Louis City .............................................................................. 15.34
New York .................................................................................... New York Co .............................................................................. 15.76
North Carolina ............................................................................. Catawba Co ............................................................................... 15.19
North Carolina ............................................................................. Davidson Co .............................................................................. 15.34
Ohio ............................................................................................. Butler Co .................................................................................... 16.32
Ohio ............................................................................................. Cuyahoga Co ............................................................................. 18.60
Ohio ............................................................................................. Franklin Co ................................................................................. 16.64
Ohio ............................................................................................. Hamilton Co ............................................................................... 18.03
Ohio ............................................................................................. Jefferson Co ............................................................................... 17.83
Ohio ............................................................................................. Lawrence Co .............................................................................. 15.92
Ohio ............................................................................................. Mahoning Co .............................................................................. 15.13
Ohio ............................................................................................. Montgomery Co ......................................................................... 15.16
Ohio ............................................................................................. Scioto Co ................................................................................... 17.92
Ohio ............................................................................................. Stark Co ..................................................................................... 16.86
Ohio ............................................................................................. Summit Co ................................................................................. 16.14
Ohio ............................................................................................. Trumbull Co ............................................................................... 15.05
Pennsylvania ............................................................................... Allegheny Co .............................................................................. 20.33
Pennsylvania ............................................................................... Beaver Co .................................................................................. 15.54
Pennsylvania ............................................................................... Berks Co .................................................................................... 15.66
Pennsylvania ............................................................................... Delaware Co .............................................................................. 15.52
Pennsylvania ............................................................................... Lancaster Co .............................................................................. 16.28
Pennsylvania ............................................................................... Philadelphia Co .......................................................................... 16.53
Pennsylvania ............................................................................... York Co ...................................................................................... 16.22
Tennessee .................................................................................. Davidson Co .............................................................................. 15.36
Tennessee .................................................................................. Hamilton Co ............................................................................... 16.82
Tennessee .................................................................................. Knox Co ..................................................................................... 17.34
Tennessee .................................................................................. Shelby Co .................................................................................. 15.17
Tennessee .................................................................................. Sullivan Co ................................................................................. 15.37
West Virginia ............................................................................... Berkeley Co ............................................................................... 15.32
West Virginia ............................................................................... Brooke Co .................................................................................. 16.51
West Virginia ............................................................................... Cabell Co ................................................................................... 16.86
West Virginia ............................................................................... Hancock Co ............................................................................... 16.97
West Virginia ............................................................................... Kanawha Co .............................................................................. 17.17
West Virginia ............................................................................... Marshall Co ................................................................................ 15.52
West Virginia ............................................................................... Wood Co .................................................................................... 16.69
2. Projection of Future 8-Hour Ozone demonstrations. The draft guidance ozone nonattainment in order to follow
Nonattainment specifies the use of the higher of the an approach that is consistent with the
design values from (a) the period that manner in which PM2.5 projections are
a. Methodology for Projecting Future 8-
straddles the emissions inventory base determined. The approach we are using
Hour Ozone Nonattainment
year or (b) the design value period to project PM2.5 for the final rule
The approach for projecting future 8- which was used to designate the area analysis is described in section VI.B.1,
hour ozone concentrations used by EPA under the ozone NAAQS. At the time of above. In order to harmonize the ozone
in the NPR was based on applying the the proposal, 2000–2002 was the design approach with the approach used for
model in a relative sense to estimate the value period which both straddled the PM2.5, we are using the weighted
change in ozone between the base year 2001 base year inventory and was also average of the design values for the
(2001) and each future scenario. the latest period available. periods that straddle the emission base
Projected 8-hour ozone design values in Comment: Commenters noted that the year (i.e., 2001). These periods are
2010 and 2015 were estimated by procedures used by EPA for projecting 1999–2001, 2000–2002, and 2001–2003.
combining the relative change in model future 8-hour ozone concentrations In this approach, the fourth-high ozone
predicted ozone from 2001 to the future differ from the procedures used for value from 2001 is weighted three times,
scenario with an estimate of the base projecting PM2.5. These commenters said 2000 and 2002 are weighted twice, and
year ambient 8-hour ozone design value. that EPA should harmonize the two 1999 and 2003 are weighted once. This
These procedures for calculating future approaches. has the desired effect of weighting the
case ozone design values are consistent Response: In response to comments, projected ozone values towards the
with EPA’s draft modeling guidance for we have made several changes in the middle year of the 5-year period, which
8-hour ozone attainment approach to projecting future 8-hour is the emissions year (2001), while
accounting for the emissions and to episode selection and grid resolution concentration was selected for that
meteorological variability that occurs can be found in section VI.A as well as county. Those counties with future year
over the full 5-year period. The average in the response to comments document. design values of 85 parts per billion
weighted concentration is expected to The EPA remains confident that the (ppb) or higher were predicted to be
be more representative as a starting CAIR 8-hour ozone modeling platform is nonattainment.
point for future year projections than appropriate for assessing potential As a result of our updated modeling
choosing (a) the single design value levels of future nonattainment. we project that, without controls beyond
period that straddles the base year or (b) those in the base case, there will be 40
b. Projected 2010 and 2015 Base Case 8-
the design value used for designations. 8-hour ozone nonattainnment counties
Hour Ozone Nonattainment Counties
We plan to incorporate this new in 2010 and 22 nonattainment counties
methodology into the next draft version For the final rule, we have revised our in 2015. All of the 40 counties that we
of our ozone modeling guidance. projections of ozone nonattainment for are projecting to be nonattainment for
Comment: One commenter claimed the 2010 and 2015 base cases by the 2010 base case are also measuring
that the 2010 and 2015 ozone applying CAMx for the three 1995 ozone nonattainment based on the most recent
projections in the proposal base cases episodes using 2001 Base Year and 2010 design value period (i.e., 2001–2003).
were too optimistic, that is, that the and 2015 future base case emissions We refer to these counties as ‘‘modeled
modeling was underestimating the from the new modeling platform, as plus monitored’’ nonattainment, as
number of areas that may be in described in section VI.A.2. The revised described above in section IV.B.1 for
nonattainment in the future. The 2010 and 2015 base case 8-hour ozone PM2.5. We are using these 40 counties as
commenter urged a more conservative nonattainment counties were the downwind receptors to determine
approach to assessing the future determined by applying the relative which States make a significant
attainment status of areas. change in 8-hour ozone predicted by contribution to 8-hour ozone
Response: The technical basis for the these CAMx model runs to the weighted nonattainment in downwind States.
comment stemmed from the assertion average 1999–2003 8-hour ozone The counties we are projecting to be
that the regional ozone modeling that concentrations as described above and, nonattainment for 8-hour ozone in the
EPA performed for the proposal was not in more detail, in the NFR AQMTSD. 2010 base case and 2015 base case are
of ‘‘SIP-quality.’’ The EPA response to For counties with multiple monitoring listed in Table VI–5 and Table VI–6,
the specific technical issues with regard sites, the site with the highest future respectively.
TABLE VI–5.—PROJECTED 2010 BASE CASE 8-HOUR OZONE NONATTAINMENT COUNTIES AND CONCENTRATIONS (PPB)
Connecticut ................................................................................. Fairfield Co ................................................................................. 92.6

Connecticut ................................................................................. Middlesex Co ............................................................................. 90.9
Connecticut ................................................................................. New Haven Co ........................................................................... 91.6
Delaware ..................................................................................... New Castle Co ........................................................................... 85.0
District of Columbia ..................................................................... .................................................................................................... 85.2
Georgia ....................................................................................... Fulton Co ................................................................................... 86.5
Maryland ..................................................................................... Anne Arundel Co ....................................................................... 88.8
Maryland ..................................................................................... Cecil Co ..................................................................................... 89.7
Maryland ..................................................................................... Harford Co ................................................................................. 93.0
Maryland ..................................................................................... Kent Co ...................................................................................... 86.2
Michigan ...................................................................................... Macomb Co ................................................................................ 85.5
New Jersey ................................................................................. Bergen Co .................................................................................. 86.9
New Jersey ................................................................................. Camden Co ................................................................................ 91.9
New Jersey ................................................................................. Gloucester Co ............................................................................ 91.8
New Jersey ................................................................................. Hunterdon Co ............................................................................. 89.0
New Jersey ................................................................................. Mercer Co .................................................................................. 95.6
New Jersey ................................................................................. Middlesex Co ............................................................................. 92.4
New Jersey ................................................................................. Monmouth Co ............................................................................ 86.6
New Jersey ................................................................................. Morris Co ................................................................................... 86.5
New Jersey ................................................................................. Ocean Co ................................................................................... 100.5
New York .................................................................................... Erie Co ....................................................................................... 87.3
New York .................................................................................... Richmond Co ............................................................................. 87.3
New York .................................................................................... Suffolk Co .................................................................................. 91.1
New York .................................................................................... Westchester Co ......................................................................... 85.3
Ohio ............................................................................................. Geauga Co ................................................................................. 87.1
Pennsylvania ............................................................................... Bucks Co .................................................................................... 94.7
Pennsylvania ............................................................................... Chester Co ................................................................................. 85.7
Pennsylvania ............................................................................... Montgomery Co ......................................................................... 88.0
Rhode Island ............................................................................... Kent Co ...................................................................................... 86.4
Texas .......................................................................................... Denton Co .................................................................................. 87.4
Texas .......................................................................................... Galveston Co ............................................................................. 85.1
Texas .......................................................................................... Harris Co .................................................................................... 97.9
Texas .......................................................................................... Jefferson Co ............................................................................... 85.6
Texas .......................................................................................... Tarrant Co .................................................................................. 87.8
Virginia ........................................................................................ Arlington Co ............................................................................... 86.2
Virginia ........................................................................................ Fairfax Co .................................................................................. 85.7
Wisconsin .................................................................................... Kenosha Co ............................................................................... 91.3
Wisconsin .................................................................................... Ozaukee Co ............................................................................... 86.2
TABLE VI–5.—PROJECTED 2010 BASE CASE 8-HOUR OZONE NONATTAINMENT COUNTIES AND CONCENTRATIONS (PPB)—
Continued
Wisconsin .................................................................................... Sheboygan Co ........................................................................... 88.3
TABLE VI–6.—PROJECTED 2015 BASE CASE 8-HOUR OZONE NONATTAINMENT COUNTIES AND CONCENTRATIONS (PPB)
Connecticut ................................................................................. Fairfield Co ................................................................................. 91.4

Connecticut ................................................................................. Middlesex Co ............................................................................. 89.1
Connecticut ................................................................................. New Haven Co ........................................................................... 89.8
Maryland ..................................................................................... Anne Arundel Co ....................................................................... 86.0
Maryland ..................................................................................... Cecil Co ..................................................................................... 86.9
Maryland ..................................................................................... Harford Co ................................................................................. 90.6
Michigan ...................................................................................... Macomb Co ................................................................................ 85.1
New Jersey ................................................................................. Bergen Co .................................................................................. 85.7
New Jersey ................................................................................. Camden Co ................................................................................ 89.5
New Jersey ................................................................................. Gloucester Co ............................................................................ 89.6
New Jersey ................................................................................. Hunterdon Co ............................................................................. 86.5
New Jersey ................................................................................. Mercer Co .................................................................................. 93.5
New Jersey ................................................................................. Middlesex Co ............................................................................. 89.8
New Jersey ................................................................................. Ocean Co ................................................................................... 98.0
New York .................................................................................... Erie Co ....................................................................................... 85.2
New York .................................................................................... Suffolk Co .................................................................................. 89.9
Pennsylvania ............................................................................... Bucks Co .................................................................................... 93.0
Pennsylvania ............................................................................... Montgomery Co ......................................................................... 86.5
Texas .......................................................................................... Harris Co .................................................................................... 97.3
Texas .......................................................................................... Jefferson Co ............................................................................... 85.0
Wisconsin .................................................................................... Kenosha Co ............................................................................... 89.4
C. How Did EPA Assess Interstate receptor. We followed this process for similar results in terms of the magnitude
Contributions to Nonattainment? each State-by-State zero-out run and and extent of downwind impacts. The
each receptor. For each upwind State, commenter noted that the results
1. PM2.5 Contribution Modeling
we identified the largest contribution suggest that zero-out modeling may
Approach
from that State to a downwind somewhat underestimate the transport
For the proposed rule, EPA performed nonattainment receptor in order to of sulfate.
State-by-State zero-out modeling to determine the magnitude of the Response: The EPA continues to
quantify the contribution from maximum downwind contribution from believe that the zero-out technique is a
emissions in each State to future PM2.5 each State. The maximum downwind credible method for quantifying
nonattainment in other States and to contribution was proposed as the metric interstate PM2.5 contributions. This is
determine whether that contribution for determining whether or not the supported by a commenter’s results
meets the air quality prong (i.e., before contribution was significant. As showing that the zero-out technique and
considering cost) of the ‘‘contribute described in section III, EPA proposed, source apportionment appear to give
significantly’’ test. The zero-out in the alternative, a criterion of 0.10 µg/ similar results. We accept the
modeling technique provides an m3 and 0.15 µg/m3 for determining commenter’s modeling for sulfate source
estimate of downwind impacts by whether emissions in a State make a apportionment results which indicate
comparing the model predictions from significant contribution (before that the zero-out technique does not
the 2010 base case to the predictions considering cost) to PM2.5 overestimate interstate transport.
from a run in which all anthropogenic nonattainment in another State. Details Moreover, EPA rejects the notion that
SO2 and NOX emissions are removed on these procedures can be found in the we should delay needed reductions
from specific States. Counties forecast to NPR AQMTSD. while we await alternative assessment
be nonattainment for PM2.5 in the Comments: Commenters questioned techniques.
proposal 2010 base case were used as the use of zero-out modeling and said
receptors for quantifying interstate that EPA should support the 2. 8-Hour Ozone Contribution Modeling
contributions of PM2.5. For each State- development of a source apportionment Approach
by-State zero-out run we projected the model for PM2.5 contributions. The In the proposal, EPA quantified the
annual average PM2.5 concentration at commenter recommended that EPA impact of emissions from specific
each receptor using the proposed SMAT delay the final rule until such a upwind States on 8-hour ozone
technique, as described in the NPR technique can be used. Another concentrations in projected downwind
AQMTSD. The contribution from an commenter provided results of a sulfate nonattainment areas. The procedures we
upwind State to nonattainment at a source apportionment technique followed to assess interstate ozone
given downwind receptor was currently under development along with contribution for the proposal analysis
determined by calculating the difference modeling results which showed that the are summarized below. We are using
in PM2.5 concentration between the 2010 zero-out technique and source these same procedures along with the
base case and the zero-out run at that apportionment for sulfate provide updated CAMX modeling platform, as
described in section VI.A., to assess exceedance level ozone in the receptor be found significant. In this regard, the
ozone contributions for today’s rule. area (relative amount); and (4) the finding of a significant contribution for
Details on these procedures can be population-weighted total contribution an individual linkage was not based on
found in the NFR AQMTSD. relative to the total population-weighted any single factor. Further, each of the
We applied two different modeling exceedance level ozone in the receptor modeling approaches had to show at
techniques, zero-out and source area (relative amount). For the source least one indicator of a large and/or
apportionment, to assess the apportionment modeling EPA frequent contribution in order for the
contributions of emissions in upwind considered: (5) The maximum linkage to be found significant. The EPA
States on 8-hour ozone nonattainment contribution (magnitude); (6) the highest received several general comments on
in downwind States. The outputs of the daily average contribution (magnitude); the procedures for assessing interstate
two modeling techniques were (7) the number and percentages of contributions of ozone to projected
evaluated in terms of three key exceedances with contributions in residual nonattainment areas, as
contribution factors to determine which certain concentration ranges discussed below.
States make a significant contribution to (frequency); and (8) the total average Comment: A commenter opposed the
downwind ozone nonattainment as contribution to exceedance ozone in the use of population-weighted metrics to
described in section VI.B.2. The zero- downwind area (relative amount). The determine whether an upwind State’s
out and source apportionment modeling values for these metrics were calculated impact on a location in another State is
techniques provide different, but using only those periods during which significant.
equally valid, technical approaches to the model predicted 8-hour average Response: The commenter’s concern
quantifying the downwind impact of ozone concentrations greater than or was that transport contributions to rural
emissions from upwind States. The equal to 85 ppb in at least one of the areas with low populations were not
zero-out modeling analysis provides an model grid cells associated with the being weighted appropriately. This is
estimate of downwind impacts by receptor county in the 2010 base case. not a valid concern because the relative
comparing the model predictions from Grid cells were linked to a specific contribution factor from the zero-out
the 2010 base case and the predictions nonattainment county if any part of the modeling is presumed to be met if either
from a model run in which all grid cell covered any portion of the of the two criteria (population-weighted,
anthropogenic NOX and VOC emissions projected 2010 nonattainment county. or non-population-weighted) show large
are removed from specific States. The The first step in evaluating the contributions.
source apportionment modeling contribution factors was to screen out Comment: Also, EPA received a
quantifies downwind impacts by linkages for which the contributions specific comment on a certain linkage
tracking and allocating the amounts of were clearly small. This initial that was deemed to be significant in the
ozone formed from man-made NOX and screening was based on two criteria: (1) analysis done to support the NPR. The
VOC emissions in upwind States. The maximum contribution had to be commenter objected to the conclusion
Because large portions of the six States greater than or equal to 2 ppb from that Mississippi significantly
along the western border of the either of the two modeling techniques; contributes to residual ozone
modeling domain 102 are outside the and (2) the total average contribution to exceedances near Memphis. The
area covered by our modeling, EPA did exceedance of ozone in the downwind objection resulted from issues with grid
not analyze the contributions to area had to be greater than 1 percent. If resolution, episode selection, and the
downwind ozone nonattainment for either screening test was not met, then fact that the zero-out and source
these States. the linkage was not considered apportionment modeling for Mississippi
In the analysis done at proposal, EPA significant. Those linkages that had included some emissions from
considered three fundamental factors for contributions which exceeded the Tennessee and Arkansas due to the
evaluating whether emissions in an screening criteria were evaluated further irregular State boundaries.
upwind State make large and/or in steps 2 through 4. Response: As noted in section VI.B.2,
frequent contributions to downwind In step 2, we evaluated the Crittenden County, AR is no longer
nonattainment: (1) The magnitude of the contributions in each linkage based on projected to be a nonattainment area in
contribution; (2) the frequency of the the zero-out modeling and in step 3 we the 2010 base case. As a result, the issue
contribution; and (3) the relative evaluated the contributions in each of Mississippi’s contribution to ozone in
amount of the contribution when linkage based on the source
the Memphis area is moot.
compared against contributions from apportionment modeling. In step 4, we
other areas. The factors are the basis for considered the results of both step 2 and D. What Are the Estimated Interstate
several metrics that can be used to step 3 to determine which of the Contributions to PM2.5 and 8-Hour
assess a particular impact. The metrics linkages were significant. For both Ozone Nonattainment?
used in this analysis were the same as techniques, EPA determined whether
1. Results of PM2.5 Contribution
those used in the NOX SIP Call. the linkage is significant by evaluating
Modeling
Within these three factors, eight the magnitude, frequency, and relative
specific metrics were calculated to amount of the contributions. Each In this section, we present the
assess the contribution of each of the 31 upwind State that made relatively large interstate contributions from emissions
States to the residual nonattainment and/or frequent contributions to in upwind States to PM2.5
counties. For the zero-out modeling, nonattainment in the downwind area, nonattainment in downwind
EPA considered: (1) The maximum based on these factors, was considered nonattainment counties. States which
contribution (magnitude); (2) the to contribute significantly to contribute 0.2 µg/m3 or more to PM2.5
number and percentage of exceedances nonattainment in the downwind area. nonattainment in another State are
with contributions in certain The EPA believes that each of the determined to contribute significantly
concentration ranges (frequency); (3) the factors provides an independent (before considering cost). We calculated
total contribution relative to the total measure of contribution, however, there the interstate PM2.5 contributions using
had to be at least two different factors the State-by-State zero-out modeling
102 The six States are Kansas, Nebraska, North that indicated large and/or frequent technique, as indicated above in section
Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Texas. contributions in order for the linkage to VI.C.1. This technique is described in
the NFR AQMTSD. We performed zero- downwind PM2.5 nonattainment TABLE VI–7.—MAXIMUM DOWNWIND
out modeling using CMAQ for each of (Alabama, the District of Columbia, PM2.5 CONTRIBUTION (µG/M3) FOR
37 States individually (i.e., Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, EACH OF 37 STATES—Continued
Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland,
Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Maximum
Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Upwind State downwind
Maryland combined with the District of Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, contribution
Columbia, Massachusetts, Michigan, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West
Virginia, and Wisconsin). In Table VI– Louisiana .................................. 0.25
Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,
Maine ........................................ <0.05
Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, 8, we provide a list of the downwind
Maryland/DC ............................. 0.69
New York, North Carolina, North nonattainment counties to which each Massachusetts .......................... 0.07
Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, upwind State contributes 0.2 µg/m3 or Michigan ................................... 0.62
Rhode Island, South Carolina, South more (i.e., the upwind State-to- Minnesota ................................. 0.21
Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, downwind nonattainment ‘‘linkages’’). Mississippi ................................ 0.23
Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin). Missouri .................................... 1.07
We calculated each State’s TABLE VI–7.—MAXIMUM DOWNWIND Nebraska .................................. 0.07
contribution to PM2.5 in each of the 62 PM2.5 CONTRIBUTION (µG/M3) FOR New Hampshire ........................ <0.05
counties that are projected to be EACH OF 37 STATES New Jersey ............................... 0.13
New York .................................. 0.34
nonattainment in the 2010 base case
Maximum North Carolina .......................... 0.31
(i.e., ‘‘modeled’’ nonattainment) and are North Dakota ............................ 0.11
also ‘‘monitored’’ nonattainment in Upwind State downwind
contribution Ohio .......................................... 1.67
2001–2003, as described in section Oklahoma ................................. 0.12
VI.B.1.b. The maximum contribution Alabama .................................... 0.98 Pennsylvania ............................ 0.89
from each upwind State to downwind Arkansas ................................... 0.19 Rhode Island ............................ <0.05
PM2.5 nonattainment is provided in Connecticut ............................... <0.05 South Carolina .......................... 0.40
Table VI–7. The contributions from each Delaware ................................... 0.14 South Dakota ............................ <0.05
State to nonattainment in each Florida ....................................... 0.45 Tennessee ................................ 0.65
Georgia ..................................... 1.27 Texas ........................................ 0.29
nonattainment county are provided in Illinois ........................................ 1.02
the NFR AQMTSD. Based on the State- Vermont .................................... <0.05
Indiana ...................................... 0.91 Virginia ...................................... 0.44
by-State modeling, there are 23 States Iowa .......................................... 0.28 West Virginia ............................ 0.84
and the District of Columbia 103 which Kansas ...................................... 0.11 Wisconsin ................................. 0.56
contribute 0.2 µg/m3 or more to Kentucky ................................... 0.90
TABLE VI–8.—UPWIND STATE-TO-DOWNWIND NONATTAINMENT COUNTY SIGNIFICANT ‘‘LINKAGES’’ FOR PM2.5.
Upwind Total Downwind counties

states linkages
AL ......... 21 Bibb GA ............................... Cabell WV ........................... Catawba NC ........................ Clark IN.

Clarke GA ............................ Clayton GA .......................... Cobb GA ............................. Davidson NC.
DeKalb GA .......................... Dubois IN ............................ Fayette KY .......................... Floyd GA.
Fulton GA ............................ Hamilton OH ........................ Hamilton TN ........................ Jefferson KY.
Knox TN .............................. Lawrence OH ...................... Scioto OH ............................ Vanderburgh IN.
Walker GA.
FL ......... 7 Bibb GA ............................... Clarke GA ............................ Clayton GA .......................... Cobb GA.
DeKalb GA .......................... Jefferson AL ........................ Russell AL.
GA ........ 17 Butler OH ............................ Cabell WV ........................... Catawba NC ........................ Clark IN.
Davidson NC ....................... Fayette KY .......................... Hamilton OH ........................ Hamilton TN.
Jefferson AL ........................ Jefferson KY ........................ Kanawha WV ...................... Knox TN.
Lawrence OH ...................... Montgomery OH .................. Russell AL ........................... Scioto OH.
Vanderburgh IN.
IL ........... 23 Allegheny PA ....................... Butler OH ............................ Cabell WV ........................... Clark IN.
Cuyahoga OH ..................... Dubois IN ............................ Fayette KY .......................... Franklin OH.
Hamilton OH ........................ Hamilton TN ........................ Jefferson AL ........................ Jefferson KY.
Kanawha WV ...................... Lake IN ................................ Lawrence OH ...................... Mahoning OH.
Marion IN ............................. Montgomery OH .................. Scioto OH ............................ Stark OH.
Summit OH .......................... Vanderburgh IN ................... Wayne MI ............................
IN .......... 46 Allegheny PA ....................... Beaver PA ........................... Berkeley WV ....................... Bibb GA.
Brooke WV .......................... Butler OH ............................ Cabell WV ........................... Cambria PA.
Catawba NC ........................ Clarke GA ............................ Clayton GA .......................... Cobb GA.
Cook IL ................................ Cuyahoga OH ..................... Davidson NC ....................... DeKalb GA.
Fayette KY .......................... Floyd GA ............................. Franklin OH ......................... Fulton GA.
Hamilton OH ........................ Hamilton TN ........................ Hancock WV ....................... Jefferson AL.
Jefferson KY ........................ Jefferson OH ....................... Kanawha WV ...................... Knox TN.
103 As noted above, we combined Maryland and District of Columbia are linked as significant as a significant contributor to nonattainment in the
the District of Columbia as a single entity in our contributors to the same downwind nonattainment District of Columbia and that the District of
contribution modeling. This is a logical approach counties. The EPA received no adverse comment on Columbia is linked as a significant contributor to
because of the small size of the District of Columbia this approach. We also considered these entities nonattainment in Maryland.
and, hence, its emissions and its close proximity to separately, and in view of the close proximity of
Maryland. Under our analysis, Maryland and the these two areas we believe that Maryland is linked
TABLE VI–8.—UPWIND STATE-TO-DOWNWIND NONATTAINMENT COUNTY SIGNIFICANT ‘‘LINKAGES’’ FOR PM2.5.—Continued
Lancaster PA ....................... Lawrence OH ...................... Madison IL ........................... Mahoning OH.

Marion WV .......................... Marshall WV ........................ Montgomery OH .................. Ohio WV.
Russell AL ........................... St. Clair IL ........................... Scioto OH ............................ Stark OH.
Summit OH .......................... Walker GA ........................... Wayne MI ............................ Washington PA.
Westmoreland PA ............... Wood WV.
IA .......... 5 Cook IL ................................ Lake IN ................................ Madison IL ........................... Marion IN.
St. Clair IL.
KY ......... 35 Allegheny PA ....................... Butler OH ............................ Cabell WV ........................... Catawba NC.
Clark IN ............................... Clarke GA ............................ Cobb GA ............................. Cuyahoga OH.
Davidson NC ....................... Dubois IN ............................ Floyd GA ............................. Franklin OH.
Hamilton OH ........................ Hamilton TN ........................ Jefferson AL ........................ Jefferson OH.
Kanawha WV ...................... Knox TN .............................. Lawrence OH ...................... Madison IL.
Mahoning OH ...................... Marion IN ............................. Marion WV .......................... Marshall WV.
Montgomery OH .................. Ohio WV .............................. St. Clair IL ........................... Scioto OH.
Stark OH ............................. Summit OH .......................... Vanderburgh IN ................... Walker GA.
Washington PA ................... Westmoreland PA ............... Wood WV..
LA ......... 2 Jefferson AL ........................ Russell AL.
MD/DC .. 13 Berkeley WV ....................... Berks PA ............................. Cambria PA ......................... Dauphin PA.
Delaware PA ....................... District of Columbia ............. Lancaster PA ....................... New Castle DE.
New York NY ...................... Philadelphia PA ................... Union NJ ............................. Westmoreland PA.
York PA.
MI .......... 36 Allegheny PA ....................... Beaver PA ........................... Berks PA ............................. Brooke WV.
Butler OH ............................ Cabell WV ........................... Cambria PA ......................... Clark IN.
Cook IL ................................ Cuyahoga OH ..................... Dauphin PA ......................... Delaware PA.
Fayette KY .......................... Franklin OH ......................... Hamilton OH ........................ Hancock WV.
Jefferson OH ....................... Lake IN ................................ Lancaster PA ....................... Lawrence OH.
Mahoning OH ...................... Marion IN ............................. Marion WV .......................... Marshall WV.
Montgomery OH .................. New Castle DE .................... Ohio WV .............................. Philadelphia PA.
Scioto OH ............................ Stark OH ............................. Summit OH .......................... Union NJ.
Washington PA ................... Westmoreland PA ............... Wood WV ............................ York PA.
MN ........ 2 Cook IL ................................ Lake IN.
MO ........ 9 Clark IN ............................... Cook IL ................................ Dubois IN ............................ Jefferson KY.
Lake IN ................................ Madison IL ........................... Marion IN ............................. St. Clair IL.
Vanderburgh IN..
MS ........ 1 Jefferson AL.
NY ......... 5 Berks PA ............................. Lancaster PA ....................... New Castle DE .................... New Haven CT.
Union NJ.
NC ........ 7 Anne Arundel MD ................ Baltimore City ...................... Bibb GA ............................... Clarke GA.
District of Columbia ............. Kanawha WV ...................... Knox TN..
OH ........ 51 Anne Arundel MD ................ Allegheny PA ....................... Baltimore City MD ............... Beaver PA.
Berkeley WV ....................... Berks PA ............................. Bibb GA ............................... Brooke WV.
Cabell WV ........................... Cambria PA ......................... Catawba NC ........................ Clark IN.
Clarke GA ............................ Clayton GA .......................... Cobb GA ............................. Cook IL.
Dauphin PA ......................... Davidson NC ....................... DeKalb GA .......................... Delaware PA.
District of Columbia ............. Dubois IN ............................ Fayette KY .......................... Floyd GA.
Fulton GA ............................ Hamilton TN ........................ Hancock WV ....................... Jefferson AL.
Jefferson KY ........................ Kanawha WV ...................... Knox TN .............................. Lake IN.
Lancaster PA ....................... Madison IL ........................... Marion IN ............................. Marion WV.
Marshall WV ........................ New Castle DE .................... New York NY ...................... Ohio WV.
Philadelphia PA ................... Russell AL ........................... St. Clair IL ........................... Union NJ.
Vanderburgh IN ................... Walker GA ........................... Washington PA ................... Wayne MI.
Westmoreland PA ............... Wood WV ............................ York PA.
PA ......... 25 Anne Arundel MD ................ Baltimore City ...................... Berkeley WV ....................... Brooke WV.
Cabell WV ........................... Catawba NC ........................ Clarke GA ............................ Cuyahoga OH.
Davidson NC ....................... District of Columbia ............. Hancock WV ....................... Jefferson OH.
Kanawha WV ...................... Lawrence OH ...................... Mahoning OH ...................... Marion WV.
Marshall WV ........................ New Castle DE .................... New York NY ...................... Ohio WV.
Stark OH ............................. Summit OH .......................... Union NJ ............................. Wayne MI.
Wood WV.
SC ......... 9 Bibb GA ............................... Catawba NC ........................ Clarke GA ............................ Clayton GA.
Cobb GA ............................. Davidson NC ....................... DeKalb GA .......................... Fulton GA.
Russell AL.
TN ......... 23 Bibb GA ............................... Butler OH ............................ Cabell WV ........................... Catawba NC.
Clark IN ............................... Clarke GA ............................ Clayton GA .......................... Cobb GA.
Davidson NC ....................... DeKalb GA .......................... Dubois IN ............................ Fayette KY.
Floyd GA ............................. Fulton GA ............................ Hamilton OH ........................ Jefferson AL.
Jefferson KY ........................ Kanawha WV ...................... Lawrence OH ...................... Russell AL.
Scioto OH ............................ Vanderburgh TN .................. Walker GA.
TX ......... 2 Madison IL ........................... St Clair IL.
VA ......... 13 Anne Arundel MD ................ Baltimore City MD ............... Berkeley WV ....................... Berks PA.
Catawba NC ........................ Dauphin PA ......................... Davidson NC ....................... Delaware PA.
District of Columbia ............. Lancaster PA ....................... New Castle DE .................... Philadelphia PA.
TABLE VI–8.—UPWIND STATE-TO-DOWNWIND NONATTAINMENT COUNTY SIGNIFICANT ‘‘LINKAGES’’ FOR PM2.5.—Continued
York PA.
WV ........ 33 Anne Arundel MD ................ Allegheny PA ....................... Baltimore City MD ............... Beaver PA.
Berks PA ............................. Butler OH ............................ Cambria PA ......................... Catawba NC.
Clarke GA ............................ Cuyahoga OH ..................... Dauphin PA ......................... Davidson NC.
Delaware PA ....................... District of Columbia ............. Fayette KY .......................... Franklin OH.
Hamilton OH ........................ Jefferson OH ....................... Knox TN .............................. Lancaster PA.
Lawrence OH ...................... Mahoning OH ...................... Montgomery OH .................. New Castle DE.
New York NY ...................... Philadelphia PA ................... Scioto OH ............................ Stark OH.
Summit OH .......................... Union NJ ............................. Washington PA ................... Westmoreland PA.
York PA.
WI ......... 4 Cook IL ................................ Lake IN ................................ Marion IN ............................. Wayne MI.
2. Results of 8-Hour Ozone Contribution Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maine, Based on the State-by-State modeling,
Modeling Maryland combined with the District of there are 25 States and the District of
Columbia, Michigan, Minnesota, Columbia 104 which make a significant
In this section, we present the results Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, contribution (before considering cost) to
of air quality modeling to determine New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, 8-hour ozone nonattainment in
which upwind States contribute Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, downwind States (i.e., Alabama,
significantly (before considering cost) to South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, the
8-hour ozone nonattainment in Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin). District of Columbia, Florida, Iowa,
downwind States. The analytical We evaluated the interstate ozone
Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana,
procedures to determine which States contributions from each of the 31
make a significant contribution are Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan,
upwind States and the District of
based on the zero-out and source Columbia to each of the 40 counties that Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New
apportionment modeling techniques are projected to be nonattainment in the York, North Carolina, Ohio,
using CAMX, as described in section 2010 base case (i.e., ‘‘modeled’’ Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
VI.C.2 and in the NFR AQMTSD. We nonattainment) and are also Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and
performed ozone contribution modeling ‘‘monitored’’ nonattainment in 2001– Wisconsin). In Table VI–9, we provide
using both of these techniques for 31 2003, as described in section VI.B.2.b. a list of the downwind nonattainment
States in the East and the District of We analyzed the contributions from counties to which each upwind State
Columbia (i.e., Alabama, Arkansas, upwind States to these counties in terms makes a significant contribution (i.e.,
Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Florida, of various metrics, described above and the upwind State-to-downwind
Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, in more detail in the NFR AQMTSD. nonattainment ‘‘linkages’’).
TABLE VI–9.—UPWIND STATE-TO-DOWNWIND NONATTAINMENT COUNTY SIGNIFICANT ‘‘LINKAGES’’ FOR 8-HOUR OZONE.
Upwind Total Downwind counties

states linkages
AL ......... 3 Fulton GA ............................ Harris TX ............................. Jefferson TX.

AR ......... 3 Galveston TX ...................... Harris TX ............................. Jefferson TX.
CT ......... 2 Kent RI ................................ Suffolk NY.
DE ......... 13 Bucks PA ............................. Camden NJ ......................... Chester PA .......................... Gloucester NJ.
Hunterdon NJ ...................... Mercer NJ ............................ Middlesex NJ ....................... Monmouth NJ.
Montgomery PA .................. Morris NJ ............................. Ocean NJ ............................ Philadelphia PA.
Suffolk NY.
FL ......... 1 Fulton GA
IA .......... 3 Kenosha WI ......................... Macomb MI ......................... Sheboygan WI.
IL ........... 5 Geauga OH ......................... Kenosha WI ......................... Macomb MI ......................... Ozaukee WI.
Sheboygan WI.
IN .......... 5 Geauga OH ......................... Kenosha WI ......................... Macomb MI ......................... Ozaukee WI.
Sheboygan WI..
KY ......... 3 Fulton GA ............................ Geauga OH ......................... Macomb MI. ........................
LA ......... 3 Galveston TX ...................... Harris TX ............................. Jefferson TX.
MA ........ 2 Kent RI ................................ Middlesex NJ.
MD/DC .. 23 Arlington VA ........................ Bergen NJ ........................... Bucks PA ............................. Camden NJ.
Chester PA .......................... District of Columbia ............. Erie NY ................................ Fairfax VA.
Fairfield CT .......................... Gloucester NJ ..................... Hunterton NJ ....................... Mercer NJ.
Middlesex NJ ....................... Monmouth NJ ...................... Montgomery PA .................. Morris NJ.
104 As noted above, we combined Maryland and District of Columbia are linked as significant as a significant contributor to nonattainment in the
the District of Columbia as a single entity in our contributors to the same downwind nonattainment District of Columbia and that the District of
contribution modeling. This is a logical approach counties. The EPA received no adverse comment on Columbia is linked as a significant contributor to
because of the small size of the District of Columbia this approach. We also considered these entities nonattainment in Maryland.
and, hence, its emissions and its close proximity to separately, and in view of the close proximity of
Maryland. Under our analysis, Maryland and the these two areas we believe that Maryland is linked
TABLE VI–9.—UPWIND STATE-TO-DOWNWIND NONATTAINMENT COUNTY SIGNIFICANT ‘‘LINKAGES’’ FOR 8-HOUR OZONE.—
Continued
New Castle DE .................... New Haven CT .................... Ocean NJ ............................ Philadelphia PA.
Richmond NY ...................... Suffolk NY ........................... Westchester NY ..................
MI .......... 19 Anne Arundel MD ................ Bergen NJ ........................... Bucks PA ............................. Camden NJ.
Cecil MD .............................. Chester PA .......................... Erie NY ................................ Geauga OH.
Gloucester NJ ..................... Kent MD .............................. Mercer NJ ............................ Middlesex NJ.
Monmouth NJ ...................... Morris NJ ............................. New Castle DE .................... Ocean NJ.
Philadelphia PA ................... Richmond NY ...................... Suffolk NY ...........................
MO ........ 4 Geauga OH ......................... Kenosha WI ......................... Ozaukee WI ........................ Sheboygan WI.
MS ........ 2 Harris TX ............................. Jefferson TX.
NC ........ 8 Anne Arundel MD ................ Fulton GA ............................ Harford MD .......................... Kent MD.
Newcastle DE ...................... Suffolk NY ........................... Bucks PA ............................. Chester PA.
NJ ......... 10 Erie NY ................................ Fairfield CT .......................... Kent RI ................................ Middlesex CT.
Montgomery PA .................. New Haven CT .................... Philadelphia PA ................... Richmond NY.
Suffolk NY ........................... Westchester NY.
NY ......... 9 Fairfield CT .......................... Kent RI ................................ Mercer NJ ............................ Middlesex CT.
Middlesex NJ ....................... Monmouth NJ ...................... Morris NJ ............................. New Haven CT.
Ocean NJ.
Anne Arundel MD ................ Arlington VA ........................ Bergen NJ ........................... Bucks PA.
OH ........ 28 Camden NJ ......................... Cecil MD .............................. Chester PA .......................... District of Columbia.
Fairfax VA ........................... Fairfield CT .......................... Gloucester NJ ..................... Harford MD.
Hunterton NJ ....................... Kent MD .............................. Kent RI ................................ Macomb MI.
Mercer NJ ............................ Middlesex CT ...................... Middlesex NJ ....................... Monmouth NJ.
Montgomery PA .................. Morris NJ ............................. New Castle DE .................... New Haven CT.
Ocean NJ ............................ Philadelphia PA ................... Suffolk NY ........................... Westchester NY.
PA ......... 25 Anne Arundel MD ................ Arlington VA ........................ Bergen NJ ........................... Camden NJ.
Cecil MD .............................. District of Columbia ............. Erie NY ................................ Fairfax VA.
Fairfield CT .......................... Gloucester NJ ..................... Harford MD .......................... Hunterton NJ.
Kent MD .............................. Kent RI ................................ Mercer NJ ............................ Middlesex CT.
Middlesex NJ ....................... Monmouth NJ ...................... Morris NJ ............................. New Castle DE.
New Haven CT .................... Ocean NJ ............................ Richmond NY ...................... Suffolk NY.
Westchester NY.
SC ......... 1 Fulton GA.
TN ......... 1 Fulton GA.
VA ......... 26 Anne Arundel MD ................ Bergen NJ ........................... Bucks PA ............................. Camden NJ.
Cecil MD .............................. Chester PA .......................... District of Columbia ............. Erie NY.
Fairfield CT .......................... Gloucester NJ ..................... Harford MD .......................... Hunterton NJ.
Kent MD .............................. Kent RI ................................ Mercer NJ ............................ Middlesex CT.
Middlesex NJ ....................... Monmouth NJ ...................... Morris NJ ............................. New Castle DE.
New Haven CT .................... Ocean NJ ............................ Philadelphia PA ................... Richmond NY.
Suffolk NY ........................... Westchester NY.
WI ......... 2 Erie NY ................................ Macomb MI.
WV ........ 25 Anne Arundel MD ................ Bergen NJ ........................... Bucks PA ............................. Camden NJ.
Cecil MD .............................. Chester PA .......................... Fairfax VA ........................... Fairfield CT.
Fulton GA ............................ Gloucester NJ ..................... Harford MD .......................... Hunterton NJ.
Kent MD .............................. Mercer NJ ............................ Middlesex NJ ....................... Monmouth NJ.
Montgomery PA .................. Morris NJ ............................. New Castle DE .................... New Haven CT.
Ocean NJ ............................ Philadelphia PA ................... Richmond NY ...................... Suffolk NY.
Westchester NY.
E. What are the Estimated Air Quality today’s final rule. However, EPA plans from the power generation sector
Impacts of the Final Rule? to include Delaware and New Jersey in include a two-phase cap and trade
the CAIR region for PM2.5 through a program covering the control region
In this section, we describe the air separate regulatory process. Thus, the modeled (i.e., the 23 States plus the
quality modeling performed to estimates are reflective of the total District of Columbia included in today’s
determine the projected impacts on impacts expected for CAIR assuming rule and Arkansas, Delaware, and New
PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone of the SO2 and Delaware and New Jersey will become Jersey).105 Phase 1 of the regional
NOX emissions reductions in the control part of the annual SO2 and NOX trading strategy (the 2010 reductions) is forecast
region modeled. The modeling used to programs. to reduce total EGU SO2 emissions 106 in
estimate the air quality impact of these As discussed in section IV, EPA
reductions assumes annual SO2 and analyzed the impacts of the regional
105 In addition to the SO and NO reductions in
NOX controls for Arkansas, Delaware, emissions reductions in both 2010 and 2 X
these States, we also modeled summer-season only
and New Jersey in addition to the 23- 2015. These impacts are quantified by
EGU NOX controls for Connecticut and
States plus the District of Columbia. comparing air quality modeling results Massachusetts, which significantly contribute to
Since Arkansas, Delaware, and New for the regional control scenario to the ozone, but not to PM2.5 nonattainment in downwind
Jersey are not included in the final CAIR modeling results for the corresponding areas.
region for PM2.5, the modeled estimated 2010 and 2015 base case scenarios. The 106 For the purposes of this discussion, we have
impacts on PM2.5 are overstated for 2010 and 2015 emissions reductions calculated the percent reduction in total EGU
the control region modeled by 40 by 44 percent in 2009. Total NOX concentrations predicted for the 2010
percent in 2010. Phase 2 (the 2015 emissions across the control region (i.e., and 2015 base cases. In brief, we ran the
reductions) is forecast to provide a 48 includes all sources) are 11 percent CMAQ model for the regional strategy in
percent reduction in EGU SO2 emissions lower in the 2010 CAIR scenario both 2010 and 2015. The model
compared to the base case in 2015. compared to the emissions in the 2010 predictions were used to project future
When fully implemented post-2015, we base case. In Phase 2, EGU NOX PM2.5 concentrations for CAIR in 2010
expect this rule to result in more than emissions are projected to decline by 54 and 2015 using the SMAT technique, as
a 70 percent reduction in EGU SO2 percent in 2015 in this region. Total described in section VI.B.1. We
emissions compared to current NOX emissions from all anthropogenic compared the results of the 2010 and
emissions levels. The reductions at full sources are projected to be reduced by 2015 regional strategy modeling to the
implementation occur post-2015 due to 14 percent in 2015. The percent change corresponding results from the 2010 and
the existing title IV bank of SO2 in emissions by State for SO2 and NOX 2015 base cases to quantify the expected
allowances, which can be used under in 2010 and 2015 for the regional impacts of CAIR.
the CAIR program. The net effect of the control strategy modeled are provided
in the NFR EITSD. The impacts of the SO2 and NOX
strategy on total SO2 emissions in the emissions reductions expected from
control region modeled considering all 1. Estimated Impacts on PM2.5 CAIR on PM2.5 in 2010 and 2015 are
sources of emissions, is a 28 percent Concentrations and Attainment provided in Table VI–10 and Table VI–
reduction in 2010 and a 32 percent We determined the impacts on PM2.5 11, respectively. In these tables,
reduction in 2015. of the CAIR regional strategy by running counties shown in bold/italics are
For NOX, Phase 1 of the strategy is the CMAQ model for this strategy and projected to come into attainment with
forecast to reduce total EGU emissions comparing the results to the PM2.5 CAIR.
TABLE VI–10.—PROJECTED PM2.5 CONCENTRATIONS (µG/M3) FOR THE 2010 BASE CASE AND CAIR AND THE IMPACT OF
CAIR REGIONAL CONTROLS IN 2010
2010 Base Impact of
State County 2010 CAIR
case CAIR
Alabama ................................................................ DeKalb Co ............................................................ 15.23 13.97 ¥1.26

Alabama ................................................................ Jefferson Co ......................................................... 18.57 17.46 ¥1.11
Alabama ................................................................ Montgomery Co .................................................... 15.12 14.10 ¥1.02
Alabama ................................................................ Morgan Co ............................................................ 15.29 14.11 ¥1.18
Alabama ................................................................ Russell Co ............................................................ 16.17 15.15 ¥1.02
Alabama ................................................................ Talladega Co ........................................................ 15.34 14.00 ¥1.34
Delaware ............................................................... New Castle Co ..................................................... 16.56 14.84 ¥1.72
District of Columbia .............................................. ............................................................................... 15.84 13.68 ¥2.16
Georgia ................................................................. Bibb Co ................................................................. 16.27 15.17 ¥1.10
Georgia ................................................................. Clarke Co ............................................................. 16.39 14.96 ¥1.43
Georgia ................................................................. Clayton Co ............................................................ 17.39 16.29 ¥1.10
Georgia ................................................................. Cobb Co ............................................................... 16.57 15.35 ¥1.22
Georgia ................................................................. DeKalb Co ............................................................ 16.75 15.70 ¥1.05
Georgia ................................................................. Floyd Co ............................................................... 16.87 15.87 ¥1.00
Georgia ................................................................. Fulton Co .............................................................. 18.02 16.98 ¥1.04
Georgia ................................................................. Hall Co .................................................................. 15.60 14.28 ¥1.32
Georgia ................................................................. Muscogee Co ....................................................... 15.65 14.57 ¥1.08
Georgia ................................................................. Richmond Co ........................................................ 15.68 14.64 ¥1.04
Georgia ................................................................. Walker Co ............................................................. 15.43 14.22 ¥1.21
Georgia ................................................................. Washington Co ..................................................... 15.31 14.22 ¥1.09
Georgia ................................................................. Wilkinson Co ........................................................ 16.27 15.22 ¥1.05
Illinois .................................................................... Cook Co ............................................................... 17.52 16.88 ¥0.64
Illinois .................................................................... Madison Co .......................................................... 16.66 15.96 ¥0.70
Illinois .................................................................... St. Clair Co ........................................................... 16.24 15.54 ¥0.70
Indiana .................................................................. Clark Co ............................................................... 16.51 15.15 ¥1.36
Indiana .................................................................. Dubois Co ............................................................. 15.73 14.37 ¥1.36
Indiana .................................................................. Lake Co ................................................................ 17.26 16.48 ¥0.78
Indiana .................................................................. Marion Co ............................................................. 16.83 15.54 ¥1.29
Indiana .................................................................. Vanderburgh Co ................................................... 15.54 14.26 ¥1.28
Kentucky ............................................................... Boyd Co ................................................................ 15.23 13.38 ¥1.85
Kentucky ............................................................... Bullitt Co ............................................................... 15.10 13.67 ¥1.43
Kentucky ............................................................... Fayette Co ............................................................ 15.95 14.17 ¥1.78
Kentucky ............................................................... Jefferson Co ......................................................... 16.71 15.44 ¥1.27
Kentucky ............................................................... Kenton Co ............................................................ 15.30 13.72 ¥1.58
Maryland ............................................................... Anne Arundel Co .................................................. 15.26 12.98 ¥2.28
Maryland ............................................................... Baltimore city ........................................................ 16.96 14.88 ¥2.08
Michigan ................................................................ Wayne Co ............................................................. 19.41 18.23 ¥1.18
Missouri ................................................................. St. Louis City ........................................................ 15.10 14.40 ¥0.70
New Jersey ........................................................... Union Co .............................................................. 15.05 13.60 ¥1.45
New York .............................................................. New York Co ........................................................ 16.19 14.95 ¥1.24
North Carolina ....................................................... Catawba Co .......................................................... 15.48 14.07 ¥1.41
North Carolina ....................................................... Davidson Co ......................................................... 15.76 14.36 ¥1.40
emissions which includes units greater than and

less than 25 MW.
CAIR REGIONAL CONTROLS IN 2010—Continued
2010 Base Impact of
case CAIR
North Carolina ....................................................... Mecklenburg Co ................................................... 15.22 13.92 ¥1.30

Ohio ...................................................................... Butler Co .............................................................. 16.45 15.03 ¥1.42
Ohio ...................................................................... Cuyahoga Co ....................................................... 18.84 17.11 ¥1.73
Ohio ...................................................................... Franklin Co ........................................................... 16.98 15.13 ¥1.85
Ohio ...................................................................... Hamilton Co .......................................................... 18.23 16.61 ¥1.62
Ohio ...................................................................... Jefferson Co ......................................................... 17.94 15.64 ¥2.30
Ohio ...................................................................... Lawrence Co ........................................................ 16.10 14.11 ¥1.99
Ohio ...................................................................... Mahoning Co ........................................................ 15.39 13.40 ¥1.99
Ohio ...................................................................... Montgomery Co .................................................... 15.41 13.83 ¥1.58
Ohio ...................................................................... Scioto Co .............................................................. 18.13 15.98 ¥2.15
Ohio ...................................................................... Stark Co ............................................................... 17.14 15.08 ¥2.06
Ohio ...................................................................... Summit Co ............................................................ 16.47 14.69 ¥1.78
Ohio ...................................................................... Trumbull Co .......................................................... 15.28 13.50 ¥1.78
Pennsylvania ......................................................... Allegheny Co ........................................................ 20.55 18.01 ¥2.54
Pennsylvania ......................................................... Beaver Co ............................................................ 15.78 13.61 ¥2.17
Pennsylvania ......................................................... Berks Co ............................................................... 15.89 13.56 ¥2.33
Pennsylvania ......................................................... Cambria Co .......................................................... 15.14 12.72 ¥2.42
Pennsylvania ......................................................... Dauphin Co .......................................................... 15.17 12.88 ¥2.29
Pennsylvania ......................................................... Delaware Co ......................................................... 15.61 13.94 ¥1.67
Pennsylvania ......................................................... Lancaster Co ........................................................ 16.55 14.09 ¥2.46
Pennsylvania ......................................................... Philadelphia Co .................................................... 16.65 14.98 ¥1.67
Pennsylvania ......................................................... Washington Co ..................................................... 15.23 12.99 ¥2.24
Pennsylvania ......................................................... Westmoreland Co ................................................. 15.16 12.60 ¥2.56
Pennsylvania ......................................................... York Co ................................................................ 16.49 14.20 ¥2.29
Tennessee ............................................................ Davidson Co ......................................................... 15.36 14.26 ¥1.10
Tennessee ............................................................ Hamilton Co .......................................................... 16.89 15.57 ¥1.32
Tennessee ............................................................ Knox Co ................................................................ 17.44 16.16 ¥1.28
Tennessee ............................................................ Sullivan Co ........................................................... 15.32 14.01 ¥1.31
West Virginia ......................................................... Berkeley Co .......................................................... 15.69 13.43 ¥2.26
West Virginia ......................................................... Brooke Co ............................................................ 16.63 14.42 ¥2.21
West Virginia ......................................................... Cabell Co .............................................................. 17.03 15.08 ¥1.95
West Virginia ......................................................... Hancock Co .......................................................... 17.06 14.89 ¥2.17
West Virginia ......................................................... Kanawha Co ......................................................... 17.56 15.27 ¥2.29
West Virginia ......................................................... Marion Co ............................................................. 15.32 12.90 ¥2.42
West Virginia ......................................................... Marshall Co .......................................................... 15.81 13.46 ¥2.35
West Virginia ......................................................... Ohio Co ................................................................ 15.14 12.81 ¥2.33
West Virginia ......................................................... Wood Co .............................................................. 16.66 14.14 ¥2.52
2015 Base Impact of
case CAIR
Alabama ................................................................ DeKalb Co ............................................................ 15.24 13.46 ¥1.78

Alabama ................................................................ Jefferson Co ......................................................... 18.85 17.36 ¥1.49
Alabama ................................................................ Montgomery Co .................................................... 15.24 13.87 ¥1.37
Alabama ................................................................ Morgan Co ............................................................ 15.26 13.85 ¥1.41
Alabama ................................................................ Russell Co ............................................................ 16.10 14.66 ¥1.44
Alabama ................................................................ Talladega Co ........................................................ 15.22 13.35 ¥1.87
District of Columbia .............................................. ............................................................................... 15.57 13.11 ¥2.46
Georgia ................................................................. Bibb Co ................................................................. 16.41 14.83 ¥1.58
Georgia ................................................................. Chatham Co ......................................................... 15.06 13.86 ¥1.20
Georgia ................................................................. Clarke Co ............................................................. 16.15 14.10 ¥2.05
Georgia ................................................................. Clayton Co ............................................................ 17.46 15.85 ¥1.61
Georgia ................................................................. Cobb Co ............................................................... 16.51 14.67 ¥1.84
Georgia ................................................................. DeKalb Co ............................................................ 16.82 15.29 ¥1.53
Georgia ................................................................. Floyd Co ............................................................... 17.33 15.79 ¥1.54
Georgia ................................................................. Hall Co .................................................................. 15.36 13.48 ¥1.88
Georgia ................................................................. Muscogee Co ....................................................... 15.58 14.06 ¥1.52
Georgia ................................................................. Richmond Co ........................................................ 15.76 14.23 ¥1.53
Georgia ................................................................. Walker Co ............................................................. 15.37 13.65 ¥1.72
Georgia ................................................................. Washington Co ..................................................... 15.34 13.67 ¥1.67
Georgia ................................................................. Wilkinson Co ........................................................ 16.54 15.01 ¥1.53
Illinois .................................................................... Cook Co ............................................................... 17.71 16.95 ¥0.76
Illinois .................................................................... Madison Co .......................................................... 16.90 16.07 ¥0.83
Illinois .................................................................... St. Clair Co ........................................................... 16.49 15.64 ¥0.85
2015 Base Impact of
case CAIR
Illinois .................................................................... Will Co .................................................................. 15.12 14.27 ¥0.85

Indiana .................................................................. Clark Co ............................................................... 16.37 14.79 ¥1.58
Indiana .................................................................. Dubois Co ............................................................. 15.66 14.16 ¥1.50
Indiana .................................................................. Lake Co ................................................................ 17.27 16.36 ¥0.91
Indiana .................................................................. Marion Co ............................................................. 16.77 15.38 ¥1.39
Indiana .................................................................. Vanderburgh Co ................................................... 15.56 14.17 ¥1.39
Kentucky ............................................................... Boyd Co ................................................................ 15.06 12.95 ¥2.11
Kentucky ............................................................... Fayette Co ............................................................ 15.62 13.54 ¥2.08
Kentucky ............................................................... Jefferson Co ......................................................... 16.61 15.13 ¥1.48
Kentucky ............................................................... Kenton Co ............................................................ 15.09 13.26 ¥1.83
Maryland ............................................................... Baltimore city ........................................................ 17.04 14.50 ¥2.54
Maryland ............................................................... Baltimore Co ......................................................... 15.08 12.75 ¥2.33
Michigan ................................................................ Wayne Co ............................................................. 19.28 17.95 ¥1.33
Mississippi ............................................................. Jones Co .............................................................. 15.18 14.06 ¥1.12
Missouri ................................................................. St. Louis city ......................................................... 15.34 14.50 ¥0.84
New York .............................................................. New York Co ........................................................ 15.76 14.33 ¥1.43
North Carolina ....................................................... Catawba Co .......................................................... 15.19 13.45 ¥1.74
North Carolina ....................................................... Davidson Co ......................................................... 15.34 13.61 ¥1.73
Ohio ...................................................................... Butler Co .............................................................. 16.32 14.67 ¥1.65
Ohio ...................................................................... Cuyahoga Co ....................................................... 18.60 16.67 ¥1.93
Ohio ...................................................................... Franklin Co ........................................................... 16.64 14.57 ¥2.07
Ohio ...................................................................... Hamilton Co .......................................................... 18.03 16.10 ¥1.93
Ohio ...................................................................... Jefferson Co ......................................................... 17.83 15.26 ¥2.57
Ohio ...................................................................... Lawrence Co ........................................................ 15.92 13.71 ¥2.21
Ohio ...................................................................... Mahoning Co ........................................................ 15.13 12.94 ¥2.19
Ohio ...................................................................... Montgomery Co .................................................... 15.16 13.33 ¥1.83
Ohio ...................................................................... Scioto Co .............................................................. 17.92 15.55 ¥2.37
Ohio ...................................................................... Stark Co ............................................................... 16.86 14.58 ¥2.28
Ohio ...................................................................... Summit Co ............................................................ 16.14 14.18 ¥1.96
Ohio ...................................................................... Trumbull Co .......................................................... 15.05 13.08 ¥1.97
Pennsylvania ......................................................... Allegheny Co ........................................................ 20.33 17.47 ¥2.86
Pennsylvania ......................................................... Beaver Co ............................................................ 15.54 13.09 ¥2.45
Pennsylvania ......................................................... Berks Co ............................................................... 15.66 12.99 ¥2.67
Pennsylvania ......................................................... Delaware Co ......................................................... 15.52 13.52 ¥2.00
Pennsylvania ......................................................... Lancaster Co ........................................................ 16.28 13.33 ¥2.95
Pennsylvania ......................................................... York Co ................................................................ 16.22 13.46 ¥2.76
Tennessee ............................................................ Davidson Co ......................................................... 15.36 14.02 ¥1.34
Tennessee ............................................................ Hamilton Co .......................................................... 16.82 14.94 ¥1.88
Tennessee ............................................................ Knox Co ................................................................ 17.34 15.61 ¥1.73
Tennessee ............................................................ Shelby Co ............................................................. 15.17 14.19 ¥0.98
Tennessee ............................................................ Sullivan Co ........................................................... 15.37 13.77 ¥1.60
West Virginia ......................................................... Berkeley Co .......................................................... 15.32 12.73 ¥2.59
West Virginia ......................................................... Brooke Co ............................................................ 16.51 14.05 ¥2.46
West Virginia ......................................................... Cabell Co .............................................................. 16.86 14.64 ¥2.22
West Virginia ......................................................... Hancock Co .......................................................... 16.97 14.54 ¥2.43
West Virginia ......................................................... Kanawha Co ......................................................... 17.17 14.66 ¥2.51
West Virginia ......................................................... Marshall Co .......................................................... 15.52 12.87 ¥2.65
West Virginia ......................................................... Wood Co .............................................................. 16.69 13.88 ¥2.81
As described in section VI.B.1, we attainment as a result of the SO2 and In 2015 we are projecting that PM2.5
project that 79 counties in the East will NOX emissions reductions expected in the 74 base case nonattainment
be nonattainment for PM2.5 in the 2010 from the regional controls. Even those counties will be reduced by 1.8 µg/m3,
base case. We estimate that, on average, 28 counties that remain nonattainment on average, as a result of the SO2 and
the regional strategy will reduce PM2.5 in 2010 after implementation of the NOX reductions in the regional strategy.
in these 79 counties by 1.6 µg/m3. In regional strategy will be closer to In over 90 percent of the nonattainment
over 90 percent of the nonattainment attainment as a result of these emissions counties (i.e., 67 of the 74 counties)
counties (i.e., 74 out of 79 counties), we reductions. Specifically, the average concentrations of PM2.5 are predicted to
project that PM2.5 will be reduced by at reduction of PM2.5 in the 28 residual be reduced by at least 1.0 µg/m3. In over
least 1.0 µg/m3. In over 25 percent of the nonattainment counties is projected to 35 percent of the counties (i.e., 27 of the
79 nonattainment counties (i.e., 23 of be 1.3 µg/m3. After implementation of 74 counties), we project the regional
the 79 counties), we project PM2.5 the regional controls, we project that 18 strategy to reduce PM2.5 by more than
concentrations will decline by of more of the 28 residual nonattainment 2.0 µg/m3. As a result of the reductions
than 2.0 µg/m3. Of the 79 counties that counties in 2010 will be within 1.0 µg/ in PM2.5, 56 nonattainment counties are
are nonattainment in the 2010 Base, we m3 of the NAAQS and 12 counties will projected to come into attainment in
project that 51 counties will come into be within 0.5 µg/m3 of attainment. 2015. The remaining 18 nonattainment
counties are projected to be closer to lowering PM2.5 concentrations in these VI.B.1. We compared the results of the
attainment with the regional strategy. residual nonattainment counties. 2010 and 2015 regional strategy
Our modeling results indicate that PM2.5 modeling to the corresponding results
2. Estimated Impacts on 8-Hour Ozone
will be reduced in the range of 0.7 µg/ from the 2010 and 2015 base cases to
Concentrations and Attainment
m3 to 2.9 µg/m3 in these 18 counties. quantify the expected impacts of the
The average reduction across these 18 We determined the impacts on 8-hour regional controls.
residual nonattainment counties is 1.5 ozone of the regional strategy by The results of the regional strategy
µg/m3. running the CAMX model for this ozone modeling are expressed in terms
Thus, the SO2 and NOX emissions strategy and comparing the results to the of the expected reductions in projected
reductions which will result from the ozone concentrations predicted for the 8-hour concentrations and the
regional strategy will greatly reduce the 2010 and 2015 base cases. In brief, we implications for future nonattainment.
extent of PM2.5 nonattainment by 2010 ran the CAMX model for the regional The impacts of the regional NOX
and beyond. These emissions reductions strategy in both 2010 and 2015. The emissions reductions on 8-hour ozone
are expected to substantially reduce the model predictions were used to project in 2010 and 2015 are provided in Table
number of PM2.5 nonattainment future 8-hour ozone concentrations for VI–12 and Table VI–13, respectively. In
counties in the East and make the regional strategy in 2010 and 2015 these tables, counties shown in bold/
attainment easier for those counties that using the Relative Reduction Factor italics are projected to come into
remain nonattainment by substantially technique, as described in section attainment with the regional controls.
TABLE VI–12.—PROJECTED 8-HOUR CONCENTRATIONS (PPB) FOR THE 2010 BASE CASE AND CAIR AND THE IMPACT OF
2010 Base Impact of
case CAIR
Connecticut ........................................................... Fairfield Co ........................................................... 92.6 92.2 ¥0.4

Connecticut ........................................................... Middlesex Co ........................................................ 90.9 90.6 ¥0.3
Connecticut ........................................................... New Haven Co ..................................................... 91.6 91.3 ¥0.3
District of Columbia .............................................. District of Columbia .............................................. 85.2 85.0 ¥0.2
Maryland ............................................................... Cecil Co ................................................................ 89.7 89.5 ¥0.2
Maryland ............................................................... Harford Co ............................................................ 93.0 92.8 ¥0.2
Maryland ............................................................... Kent Co ................................................................ 86.2 85.8 ¥0.4
Michigan ................................................................ Macomb Co .......................................................... 85.5 85.4 ¥0.1
New Jersey ........................................................... Bergen Co ............................................................ 86.9 86.0 ¥0.9
New Jersey ........................................................... Camden Co .......................................................... 91.9 91.6 ¥0.3
New Jersey ........................................................... Gloucester Co ...................................................... 91.8 91.3 ¥0.5
New Jersey ........................................................... Hunterdon Co ....................................................... 89.0 88.6 ¥0.4
New Jersey ........................................................... Mercer Co ............................................................. 95.6 95.2 ¥0.4
New Jersey ........................................................... Middlesex Co ........................................................ 92.4 92.1 ¥0.3
New Jersey ........................................................... Monmouth Co ....................................................... 86.6 86.4 ¥0.2
New Jersey ........................................................... Morris Co .............................................................. 86.5 85.5 ¥1.0
New Jersey ........................................................... Ocean Co ............................................................. 100.5 100.3 ¥0.2
New York .............................................................. Erie Co ................................................................. 87.3 86.9 ¥0.4
New York .............................................................. Richmond Co ........................................................ 87.3 87.1 ¥0.2
New York .............................................................. Suffolk Co ............................................................. 91.1 90.8 ¥0.3
New York .............................................................. Westchester Co .................................................... 85.3 84.7 ¥0.6
Ohio ...................................................................... Geauga Co ........................................................... 87.1 86.6 ¥0.5
Pennsylvania ......................................................... Bucks Co .............................................................. 94.7 94.3 ¥0.4
Pennsylvania ......................................................... Chester Co ........................................................... 85.7 85.4 ¥0.3
Pennsylvania ......................................................... Montgomery Co .................................................... 88.0 87.6 ¥0.4
Rhode Island ......................................................... Kent Co ................................................................ 86.4 86.2 ¥0.2
Texas .................................................................... Denton Co ............................................................ 87.4 86.8 ¥0.6
Texas .................................................................... Galveston Co ........................................................ 85.1 84.6 ¥0.5
Texas .................................................................... Harris Co .............................................................. 97.9 97.4 ¥0.5
Texas .................................................................... Jefferson Co ......................................................... 85.6 85.0 ¥0.6
Texas .................................................................... Tarrant Co ............................................................ 87.8 87.2 ¥0.6
Virginia .................................................................. Arlington Co .......................................................... 86.2 86.0 ¥0.2
Virginia .................................................................. Fairfax Co ............................................................. 85.7 85.4 ¥0.3
Wisconsin .............................................................. Kenosha Co .......................................................... 91.3 91.0 ¥0.3
Wisconsin .............................................................. Ozaukee Co ......................................................... 86.2 85.8 ¥0.4
Wisconsin .............................................................. Sheboygan Co ...................................................... 88.3 87.7 ¥0.6
2015 Base Impact of
case CAIR
Connecticut ........................................................... Fairfield Co ........................................................... 91.4 90.6 ¥0.8
2015 Base Impact of
case CAIR
Connecticut ........................................................... Middlesex Co ........................................................ 89.1 88.4 ¥0.7

Connecticut ........................................................... New Haven Co ..................................................... 89.8 89.1 ¥0.7
Maryland ............................................................... Cecil Co ................................................................ 86.9 85.4 ¥1.5
Maryland ............................................................... Harford Co ............................................................ 90.6 89.6 ¥1.0
Michigan ................................................................ Macomb Co .......................................................... 85.1 84.2 ¥0.9
New Jersey ........................................................... Bergen Co ............................................................ 85.7 84.5 ¥1.2
New Jersey ........................................................... Camden Co .......................................................... 89.5 88.3 ¥1.2
New Jersey ........................................................... Gloucester Co ...................................................... 89.6 88.2 ¥1.4
New Jersey ........................................................... Hunterdon Co ....................................................... 86.5 85.4 ¥1.1
New Jersey ........................................................... Mercer Co ............................................................. 93.5 92.4 ¥1.1
New Jersey ........................................................... Middlesex Co ........................................................ 89.8 88.8 ¥1.0
New Jersey ........................................................... Ocean Co ............................................................. 98.0 96.9 ¥1.1
New York .............................................................. Erie Co ................................................................. 85.2 84.2 ¥1.0
New York .............................................................. Suffolk Co ............................................................. 89.9 89.0 ¥0.9
Pennsylvania ......................................................... Bucks Co .............................................................. 93.0 91.8 ¥1.2
Pennsylvania ......................................................... Montgomery Co .................................................... 86.5 84.9 ¥1.6
Texas .................................................................... Harris Co .............................................................. 97.3 96.4 ¥0.9
Texas .................................................................... Jefferson Co ......................................................... 85.0 84.1 ¥0.9
Wisconsin .............................................................. Kenosha Co .......................................................... 89.4 88.8 ¥0.6
As described in section VI.B.1, we F. What are the Estimated Visibility analysis are contained in the SNPR
project that 40 counties in the East Impacts of the Final Rule? AQMTSD. The better-than-BART
would be nonattainment for 8-hour analysis for the final rule is addressed
1. Methods for Calculating Projected
ozone under the assumptions in the in section IX.C.2 of the preamble.
Visibility in Class I Areas
2010 base case. Our modeling of the Additional information on the visibility
regional controls in 2010 indicates that The NPR contained example future calculation methodology is contained in
3 of these counties will come into year visibility projections for the 20 the NFR AQMTSD.
attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS percent worst days and 20 percent best 2. Visibility Improvements in Class I
and that ozone in 16 of the 40 days at Class I areas that had complete Areas
nonattainment counties will be reduced IMPROVE monitoring data in 1996.
Changes in future visibility were For the NFR we have modeled several
by 1 ppb or more. In addition, our
predicted by using the REMSAD model new CAIR 107 and CAIR + BART cases
modeling predicts that 8-hour ozone to re-examine the better-than-BART
exceedances (i.e., 8-hour ozone of 85 to generate relative visibility changes,
then applying those changes to two-pronged test. We have modeled an
ppb or higher) within nonattainment updated nationwide BART scenario as
measured current visibility data. Details
areas are expected to decline by 5 well as a CAIR in the East/BART in the
of the visibility modeling and
percent in 2010 with CAIR. Of the 37 West scenario. The results were
calculations can be found in the NPR
counties that are projected to remain AQMTSD. An example visibility analyzed at 116 Class I areas that have
nonattainment in 2010 after the regional calculation was given in Appendix M of complete IMPROVE data for 2001 or are
strategy, nearly half (i.e., 16 of the 37 the NPR AQMTSD along with the represented by IMPROVE monitors with
counties) are within 2 ppb of predicted improvement in visibility (in complete data. Twenty-nine of the Class
attainment. deciviews) on the 20 percent best and I areas are in the East and 87 are in the
In 2015, we project that 6 of the 22 worst days at 44 Class I areas. The data West. The results of the visibility
counties which are nonattainment for 8- contained in Appendix M was for analysis are summarized in section
hour ozone in the base case will come informational purposes only and was IX.C.2. Detailed results for all 116 Class
into attainment with the regional not used in the significant contribution I areas are presented in the NFR
strategy. Ozone concentrations in over determination or control strategy AQMTSD.
70 percent (i.e., 16 of 22 counties) of the development decisions. VII. SIP Criteria and Emissions
2015 base case nonattainment counties The SNPR contained visibility Reporting Requirements
are projected to be reduced by 1 ppb or calculations in support of the ‘‘better- This section describes: (1) The criteria
more as a result of the regional strategy. than-BART’’ analysis. The better-than- we will use in determining
Exceedances of the 8-hour ozone BART analysis employed a two-pronged approvability of SIPs submitted to meet
NAAQS are predicted to decline in test to determine if the modeled the requirements of today’s rulemaking;
nonattainment areas by 14 percent with visibility improvements from the CAIR (2) the dates for submittal of the SIPs
regional controls in place in 2015. Thus, cap and trade program for EGU’s were that are required under the CAIR; (3) the
the NOX emissions reductions which ‘‘better’’ than the visibility consequences of either failing to submit
will result from the regional strategy improvements from a nationwide BART such a SIP or submitting a SIP which is
will help to bring 8-hour ozone program. The analysis used the
visibility calculation methodology
nonattainment areas in the East closer to 107 The CAIR scenario modeled for the visibility
detailed in the NPR TSD. Detailed analysis included controls in Arkansas, Delaware,
attainment by 2010 and beyond.
results of the SNPR better-than-BART and New Jersey.
disapproved; and (4) the emissions budget. And, as stated in the CAIR NPR, explained in section VIII, EPA is also
inventory reporting requirements for if States impose control measures on finalizing an ozone season trading
States. non-EGUs, they would be encouraged program that States may use to achieve
but not required to impose an emissions the required emissions reductions. This
A. What Criteria Will EPA Use To
cap on non-EGUs. In the CAIR NPR, we program will subsume the existing NOX
Evaluate the Approvability of a requested comment on the issue of SIP Call trading program. Therefore, any
Transport SIP? requiring States to impose caps on any State that wishes to continue including
1. Introduction source categories that the State chooses its sources in an interstate trading
The approvability criteria for CAIR to regulate. program run by EPA to achieve the
In the CAIR SNPR, we proposed to emissions reductions required by EPA
SIP submissions are finalized today in
modify the hybrid approach and require must modify its SIP to conform with
40 CFR 51.123 (NOX emissions
States that choose to control large this new trading program.
reductions) and in 40 CFR 51.124 (SO2
industrial boilers or turbines (greater The EPA will automatically find that
emissions reductions). Most of the than 250 MMBTU/hr) to impose an
criteria are substantially similar to those a State is continuing to meet its NOX SIP
emissions cap on all such sources Call obligation if it achieves all of its
that currently apply to SIP submissions within their State. This is similar to
under CAA section 110 or part D required CAIR emissions reductions by
EPA’s approach in the NOX SIP Call capping EGUs, it modifies its existing
(nonattainment). For example, each which required States to include an
submission must describe the control NOX SIP Call to require its non-EGUs
emissions cap on such sources as well currently participating in the NOX SIP
measures that the State intends to as on EGUs if the SIP submittals
employ, identify the enforcement Call budget trading program to conform
included controls on such sources. (See to the requirements of the CAIR ozone
methods for monitoring compliance and 40 CFR 51.121(f)(2)(ii).)
managing violations, and demonstrate season NOX trading program with a
A few commenters supported the use trading budget that is the same or tighter
that the State has legal authority to carry of emissions caps on any source
out its plan. than the budget in the currently
category subject to CAIR controls, approved SIP, and it does not modify
This part of the preamble explains including non-EGUs, because it would
additional approvability criteria specific any of its other existing NOX SIP Call
be the most effective way to rules. If a State chooses to achieve the
to the CAIR that were proposed and demonstrate compliance with the
discussed in the CAIR NPR or in the ozone season NOX emissions reduction
budget. A few other commenters requirements of CAIR in another way, it
CAIR SNPR, and are being promulgated opposed the use of an emissions cap on
today. As explained in both the CAIR will also be required to demonstrate that
non-EGUs, saying either that States it continues to meet the requirements of
NPR and the CAIR SNPR, EPA proposed should have the flexibility to determine
that each affected State must submit SIP the NOX SIP Call.
whether to impose a cap, or that such Specific criteria for approval of CAIR
revisions containing control measures a requirement would result in increased
that assure that a specified amount of SIP submissions as promulgated by
costs for non-EGUs including today’s action are described below. The
NOX and SO2 emissions reductions are cogeneration units that are non-EGUs.
achieved by specified dates. criteria are dependent on the types of
No commenter opposing such a sources a State chooses to control.
Although EPA determined the amount requirement provided any information
of emissions reductions required by indicating that such a requirement 2. Requirements for States Choosing To
identifying specific, highly cost- would be ineffective or impracticable. Control EGUs
effective control levels for EGUs, EPA Today EPA is adopting the modified
explained in the CAIR NPR and the a. Emissions Caps and Monitoring
approach, as described in the CAIR
CAIR SNPR that States have flexibility SNPR, that States choosing to control As explained in the CAIR NPR (69 FR
in choosing which sources to control to EGUs or large industrial boilers or 4626), and in the CAIR SNPR (69 FR
achieve the required emissions turbines must do so by imposing an 32691), EPA proposed requiring States
reductions. As long as a State’s emissions cap on such sources, similar to apply the ‘‘budget’’ approach if they
emissions reductions requirements are to what was required in the NOX SIP choose to control EGUs; that is, each
met, a State may impose controls on Call. State must cap total EGU emissions at
EGUs only, on non-EGUs only, or on a Extensive comments were received the level that assures the appropriate
combination of EGUs and non-EGUs. regarding the need for an ozone season amount of reductions for that State. The
The SIP approvability criteria are NOX cap in States identified to be requirement to cap all EGUs is
intended to provide as much certainty contributing significantly to the region’s important because it prevents shifting of
as possible that, whichever sources a ozone nonattainment problems. In utilization (and resulting emissions) to
State chooses to control, the controls proposal, EPA stated that the annual uncapped EGUs. The EGUs are part of
will result in the required amount of NOX cap under CAIR reduced NOX a highly interconnected electricity grid
emissions reductions. emissions sufficiently enough to not that makes utilization shifting likely and
In the CAIR NPR, EPA proposed a warrant a regional ozone season NOX even common. The units are large and
‘‘hybrid’’ approach for the mechanisms cap. Commenters remained very offer the same market product (i.e.,
used to ensure emissions reductions are concerned that the annual NOX cap electricity), and therefore the units that
achieved. This approach incorporates would not aid ozone attainment. While are least expensive to operate are likely
elements of an emissions ‘‘budget’’ EPA feels that the annual NOX limit will to be operated as much as possible. If
approach (requiring an emissions cap on most likely be protective in the ozone capped and uncapped units are
affected sources) and an ‘‘emissions season, a seasonal cap will provide interconnected, the uncapped units’
reduction’’ approach (not requiring an certainty, which EPA agrees is very costs would tend to decrease relative to
emissions cap). In this hybrid approach, important in the effort to help areas the capped units, which must either
if States impose control measures on achieve ozone attainment. Today, EPA reduce emissions or use or buy
EGUs, they would be required to impose is finalizing an ozone season NOX cap allowances, and the uncapped units’
an emissions cap on all EGUs, which for States shown to contribute utilization would likely increase. The
would effectively be an emissions significantly for ozone. As is further cap ensures that emissions reductions
from these interconnected sources are Additionally, commenters cited a need to the regional ozone problem. They are,
actually achieved rather than emissions for an ozone season NOX program. however, required to make annual NOX
simply shifting among sources. The caps The EPA has taken the comments into and SO2 reductions and may choose to
constitute the State EGU Budgets for account and in today’s action agrees to participate in the annual NOX and
SO2 and NOX. Additionally, EPA allow a State identified to contribute annual SO2 trading program to meet
proposed that, if States choose to significantly for PM2.5 (and therefore their CAIR obligations.
control EGUs, they must require EGUs required to make annual SO2 and NOX Except for the special cases of Rhode
to follow part 75 monitoring, reductions) to participate in the EPA- Island and New Hampshire, other States
recordkeeping, and reporting administered CAIR trading program for outside of the CAIR region may not
requirements. Part 75 monitoring and either SO2 or NOX, not necessarily both, participate in the CAIR trading
reporting requirements have been used so long as the State adopts the model programs for either pollutant, because
effectively for determining NOX and SO2 rule for the applicable trading program. they were not shown to contribute
emissions from EGUs under the title IV In response to extensive comments significantly to PM2.5 or ozone
Acid Rain program and the NOX SIP relating to EPA’s proposal to forego a nonattainment in the CAIR region.
Call program and in combination with seasonal NOX cap because EPA Allowing States outside of the CAIR
emissions caps are an integral part of demonstrated that the annual NOX cap region to participate would generally
those programs. (Additional explanation was sufficiently stringent, EPA is create an opportunity—through net
for the need for Part 75 monitoring is finalizing an ozone season NOX trading sales of allowances from the non-CAIR
given in the NPR and SNPR and is program for States identified as States to CAIR States—for emission
incorporated here.) Therefore, today, contributing significantly for ozone. increases in States that have been
EPA adopts the requirements for These States will be subject to an ozone shown to contribute significantly to
emission caps and Part 75 monitoring season NOX cap and an annual NOX cap nonattainment in the CAIR region.108
for EGUs in these States. if the State is also identified as A State may not participate in the
contributing significantly for PM2.5. EPA-administered trading programs if
b. Using the Model Trading Rules Therefore, today’s action includes an they choose to get a portion of CAIR
As proposed, if a State chooses to additional model rule for an ozone reductions from non-EGUs. (This is also
allow its EGUs to participate in EPA- season NOX trading program (40 CFR discussed in Section VIII.) The EPA
administered interstate NOX and SO2 96, subparts AAAA through IIII). The maintains that requiring certain
emissions trading programs, the State States that may use the ozone season consistencies among States in the
must adopt EPA’s model trading rules, NOX trading program but not the annual regionwide trading programs that EPA
as described elsewhere in today’s NOX trading program are those States in has offered to run does not unfairly
preamble and in §§ 96.101–96.176 (for the CAIR region identified as limit States’ flexibility to choose an
NOX) and §§ 96.201–96.276 (for SO2), contributing significantly for ozone only approach for achieving CAIR mandated
set forth below. Additionally, EPA (Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, reductions that is best suited for a
proposed that for the States for which Massachusetts, and New Jersey). particular State’s unique circumstances.
EPA made a finding of significant As discussed in the proposal, EPA is States are free to achieve the reductions
contribution for both ozone and PM2.5, finalizing the option for New Hampshire through whatever alternative
participation in both the NOX and SO2 and Rhode Island to participate in the mechanisms the States wish to design;
trading programs would be required in regional trading program through use of for example, a group of States could
order to be included in the EPA- the CAIR ozone season NOX model rule cooperatively implement their own
administered program. States for which because sources in these States have multi-State trading programs that EPA
the finding was for ozone only could made investments in NOX controls in would not administer.
choose to participate in only the EPA- the past based on the existence of a
administered NOX trading program regional ozone season NOX trading c. Using a Mechanism Other Than the
through adoption of the NOX model program. Additionally, the States’ Model Trading Rules
trading rule. The EPA stated that States combined projected 2010 and 2015 NOX If States choose to control EGUs
adopting EPA’s model trading rules, emissions are less than one-half of one through a mechanism other than the
modified only as specifically allowed by percent of the total CAIR regional NOX EPA-administered NOX and SO2
EPA, will meet the requirement for cap and therefore would not create a emissions trading programs, then the
applying an emissions cap and significant increase in the CAIR cap. All States (i) must still impose an emissions
requirement to use part 75 monitoring, comments received were supportive of cap on total EGU emissions and require
recordkeeping, and reporting for EGUs. this approach and EPA is finalizing it part 75 monitoring, recordkeeping, and
Some commenters opposed EPA’s today. reporting requirements on all EGUs, and
proposal to require participation in both None of these States (Arkansas, (ii) must use the same definition of EGU
the NOX and SO2 trading programs Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, as EPA uses in its model trading rules,
because some States may want to New Hampshire, New Jersey, or Rhode i.e., the sources described as ‘‘CAIR
participate in the EPA-administered Island) has the option to participate in units’’ in § 96.102, § 96.202, and
trading programs for only NOX or only the EPA-administered CAIR SO2 trading § 96.302. A few commenters expressed
SO2. A few commenters claimed that the program nor the annual CAIR NOX concern that these requirements limit
requirement to participate in both trading program because there are no States’ discretion in designing control
programs would limit State flexibility or PM2.5-related emissions reductions measures to meet the CAIR
is an ‘‘all or nothing’’ approach; other required under today’s action in those requirements, but failed to offer any
commenters objected that there was no States. (Of course, sources in these
environmental basis for such a States will still be subject to the Acid 108 Title IV allowances can however be traded
requirement; and one commenter Rain SO2 cap and trade program.) freely across the boundary of the CAIR region
suggested that States not affected by Likewise, Texas, Minnesota and Georgia without any significant, negative environmental
consequence. The potential negative consequences
CAIR but that volunteer to control may not participate in the ozone season have been addressed through other requirements
emissions should be permitted to join NOX program, because they have not discussed below, like the retirement of excess title
the program for one or both pollutants. been shown to contribute significantly IV allowances.
reason why the requirements would be require retirement of the excess title IV EPA is finalizing a specific mechanism
impracticable or ineffective. The EPA allowances through a retirement ratio that States must use.
believes that the requirements are mechanism.
The EPA proposed, as a mechanism i. States Participating in the EPA-
necessary for a number of reasons. The
for removing these additional Administered SO2 Trading Program
requirements to cap all EGUs and to use
the same definition of EGU are allowances and meeting the 50 percent If a State chooses to participate in the
important because they prevent shifting reduction required under phase I (2010– EPA-administered trading program, the
of utilization (and resulting emissions) 2014), that each affected EGU had to State’s excess title IV allowance
from capped to uncapped sources. In hold, and EPA would retire, two vintage retirement mechanism must follow the
this case, not requiring a cap on total 2010–2014 allowances for every ton of provisions of the SO2 model trading rule
EGU emissions in these States is likely SO2 that the unit emits. Further, EPA that requires that vintage 2010 through
to result in increased utilization and proposed that, for phase II (which 2014 title IV allowances be retired at a
consequently increased emissions in begins in 2015) when a 65 percent ratio of two allowances for every ton of
these States. The requirement to use reduction is required, each affected EGU emissions and that vintage 2015 and
part 75 monitoring ensures the accuracy had to hold, and EPA would retire, three beyond title IV allowances be retired at
of monitored data and consistency of vintage 2015 and beyond allowances for a ratio of 2.86 allowances for every ton
reporting among sources (and thus the every ton of SO2 that the unit emits. of emissions. Pre-2010 vintage
certainty that emissions reductions This 3-to-1 ratio would result in slightly allowances would be retired at a ratio of
actually occurred) across all States. more reductions than EPA has one allowance for every ton of
Furthermore, most EGUs are currently determined were necessary to eliminate emissions. (See discussion of the model
monitoring and reporting using part 75 the significant contribution by an SO2 cap and trade rule in section VIII of
so it does not impose an additional upwind State. today’s preamble.) States using the
requirement. Therefore, EPA is In the CAIR SNPR, EPA proposed two model SO2 cap and trade rule satisfy the
finalizing the proposed approach. alternatives for addressing the issue of requirement for retirement of excess
If a State chooses to design its own the additional allowances. Under the title IV allowances.
intrastate or interstate NOX or SO2 first alternative, affected EGUs had to
ii. States Not Participating in the EPA-
emissions trading programs, the State hold, and EPA would retire, vintage
Administered SO2 Trading Program
must, in addition to meeting the 2015 and beyond allowances at a rate of
requirements of the rules finalized in 2.86-to-1 rather than 3-to-1, which In the CAIR NPR, EPA stated that if
today’s action, consider EPA’s guidance, would result in exactly the amount of a State does not choose to participate in
‘‘Improving Air Quality with Economic reductions EPA has determined are the EPA-administered trading programs
Incentive Programs,’’ January, 2001 necessary to eliminate a State’s but controls only EGUs, the State may
(EPA–452/R–01–001) (available on significant contribution. choose the specific method to retire
EPA’s Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/ Alternatively, also in the CAIR SNPR, allowances in excess of its budget. The
ttn/ecas/incentiv.html). The State’s EPA proposed requiring the retirement EPA considered alternative ways for
programs are subject to EPA approval. of 2015 and beyond vintage allowances retiring these excess allowances and, as
The EPA will not administer a State- at a 3-to-1 ratio and permitting States to stated in the CAIR SNPR, believed that
designed trading program. Additionally, convert the additional reductions into the use by different States of different
it should be noted that allowances from allowances in their rules. The EPA also means to address this concern could
any alternate trading program may not suggested that some States may want to undermine the regionwide emissions
be used in the EPA-administered trading use these reserved allowances to create reduction goals of the CAIR rulemaking.
programs. an incentive for additional local The EPA further described its concerns
emissions reductions that will be in section II of the preamble to the CAIR
d. Retirement of Excess Title IV needed to bring all areas into attainment SNPR. (See 69 FR 32686–32688.)
Allowances with the PM2.5 NAAQS. Because of these concerns, in the CAIR
The CAIR NPR proposed As part of today’s final CAIR SNPR, EPA withdrew the CAIR NPR
requirements on SIPs relating to the rulemaking, EPA is finalizing a ratio of proposal on this point and re-proposed
effects of title IV SO2 allowance 2.86-to-one. The ratio ultimately that all States use a 2-for-1 retirement
allocations for 2010 and beyond that are represents a reduction of 65 percent ratio for vintage 2010 through 2014
in excess of the State’s CAIR EGU SO2 from the final title IV cap level, which allowances and a 2.86-for-1 or a 3-for-
emissions budget. The requirements has been found to be highly cost- 1 retirement ratio for vintage 2015 and
were intended to ensure that the excess effective. For a detailed discussion beyond allowances to address concerns
is not used in a manner that would lead regarding EPA’s determination of highly about title IV allowances that exceed
to a significant increase in supply of cost-effective, please refer to Section IV State budgets. The EGUs would have a
title IV allowances, the collapse of the of the final CAIR preamble. As total emissions cap enforced by the
price of title IV allowances, the discussed earlier, EPA must employ a State.
disruption of operation of the title IV uniform ratio across sources to ensure The SNPR described that for sources
allowance market and the title IV SO2 consistency and the same cost- affected by both title IV and CAIR,
cap and trade system, and the potential effectiveness level across sources. allowance deductions and associated
for increased emissions in all States Therefore, EPA will use a Phase II ratio compliance determinations would be
prior to 2010 and in non-CAIR States in of 2.86-to-1 for all States affected by sequential. That is, title IV compliance
2010 and later. These negative impacts CAIR who choose to participate in the would be determined and then CAIR
on the title IV allowance market and on trading program. compliance would be determined. So, in
air quality, which are discussed in Today, EPA is finalizing the general 2010–2014, after surrendering one
detail in section IX.B. below, would requirement that all SIPs must include vintage 2010 through 2014 allowance
undermine the efficacy of the title IV a mechanism to ensure that excess SO2 for each ton of emissions for title IV
program and could erode confidence in allowances are retired. Furthermore, for compliance, the source would then
cap and trade programs in general. To States that participate in the EPA- surrender one additional allowance (for
avoid these impacts, EPA proposed to administered cap and trade program, a total of two allowances for each ton
which meets the CAIR requirement). amount of a State’s annual NOX budget divided by the State’s selected higher
Similarly, in 2015 and beyond, after in Table V–2 and a State’s selected EGU SO2 budget (taking into account
surrendering one vintage 2015 and higher annual EGU NOX budget would non-EGU reductions). The factor could
beyond allowance for each ton of be the amount of annual NOX emissions then be used as the EGU retirement ratio
emissions for title IV compliance, the reductions the State demonstrates it will for compliance purposes in a scenario
source would surrender 1.86 or 2 achieve from non-EGU sources.109 where a State has decided to control
additional allowances and therefore Further, the difference between the SO2 emissions from EGUs through a
meet the CAIR requirement. amount of a State’s seasonal NOX budget mechanism other than the EPA-
Commenters argued that in States where in Table V–4 and a State’s selected administered trading program.
EGUs are not trading under CAIR that higher ozone season EGU NOX budget A simplified example can help
the excess title IV allowances could be would be the amount of ozone season illustrate this. Let us assume a State’s
removed in a variety of ways and that NOX emissions reductions the State sources were allocated a total of 200
EPA did not need to require each State demonstrates it will achieve from non- allowances under title IV. Under CAIR,
do this the same way, only that each EGU sources. in Phase I, the State’s reduction
State ensure that they are removed. requirement would thus be 100 tons.
Special Concerns About SO2 Suppose this State decided that 25 tons
Today, EPA adopts the following
Allowances would be reduced by non-EGUs and the
requirement: If a State does not choose
to participate in the EPA-administered In the case where a State requires a remaining 75 tons would be reduced by
trading programs but controls only portion of its SO2 emissions reductions the EGUs. (The State’s budget for EGUS
EGUs, the State must include in its SIP from non-EGU sources and a portion would increase to 125 tons.) The State
a mechanism for retiring the excess title from EGUs, there remains a concern would also need to retire 75 excess title
IV allowances (i.e., the difference about the impact of excess title IV IV allowances. This could be
between total allowance allocations in allowances above a State’s EGU cap, accomplished by requiring each Acid
the State and the State EGU SO2 particularly on the operation of the title Rain source to surrender a total of 1.6
budget). To meet this requirement, the IV SO2 cap and trade program. vintage 2010 through 2014 allowances
State may use the above-described Consequently, today, we are adopting (200 allowances allocated in the State/
retirement mechanism or may develop a the requirement that these States 125 tons in State EGU budget) per ton
different mechanism that will achieve include a mechanism for retirement of of SO2 emissions. The allowances
the required retirement of excess the allowances in excess of the State’s surrendered would satisfy the Acid Rain
allowances. SO2 budget. Program requirement of surrendering
Like a State choosing to control only one allowance per ton of emissions, as
3. Requirements for States Choosing to EGUs but not to participate in the well as achieving the additional
Control Sources Other Than EGUs trading program, a State that chooses to retirement requirement under CAIR
a. Overview of Requirements control non-EGUs and EGUs must adopt since 200 allowances would be used for
a mechanism for retiring surplus title IV EGUs to emit the EGU budget of 125
As noted in both the CAIR NPR and allowances. The number of title IV tons of SO2. (Pre-2010 allowances
the CAIR SNPR, if a State chooses to allowances that must be retired is equal continue to be available for use on a
require emissions reductions from non- to the difference between the number of one-allowance-per-ton-of-emissions
EGUs, the State must adopt and submit title IV allowances allocated to EGUs in basis here as in other situations.)
SIP revisions and supporting that State and the SO2 budget the State This is consistent with EPA’s overall
documentation designed to quantify the sets for EGUs under this rule. If the approach. If this same State decided to
amount of reductions from the non-EGU State uses a retirement mechanism (as get all reductions (i.e., 100 tons) from
sources and to assure that the controls discussed in VII.A.2.d.) in which a EGUs, the State would require EGUs to
will achieve that amount. Although EPA source surrendering allowances under retire 100 additional allowances by
did not propose in the CAIR NPR that the title IV SO2 cap and trade program surrendering a total of 2 vintage 2010
States be required to impose an surrenders more allowances than through 2014 allowances (200
emissions cap on those sources, but otherwise required under title IV, the allowances allocated in the State/100
instead solicited comment on the issue, total number of allowances surrendered tons in State EGU budget) per ton of SO2
EPA proposed in the CAIR SNPR that per ton of emissions in this case will be emissions.
States be required to impose an less than 2 to 1 in Phase 1 and less than The demonstration of emissions
emissions cap in certain cases on non- 2.86 to 1 in Phase 2. This is because the reductions from non-EGUs is a critical
EGU sources. (See discussion in VII.A.1 non-EGUs will control to achieve a requirement of the SIP revision due
of today’s preamble.) portion of the CAIR SO2 reduction from a State that chooses to control non-
If a State chooses to obtain some, but EGUs. The State must take into account
required, and so there will be a smaller
not all, of its required reductions for the amount of emissions attributable to
surplus of title IV allowances than if all
SO2 or NOX emissions from non-EGUs, the source category in both (i) the base
the required reductions were achieved
it would still be required to set an EGU case, in the implementation years 2010
by EGUs. The appropriate retirement
budget for SO2 or NOX respectively, but and 2015, i.e., without assuming any
factor will equal two times the State’s
it would set such a budget at some level SO2 budget in Phase I or 2.86 times the SIP-required reductions under the CAIR
higher than shown in Tables V–1, V–2, from non-EGUs; and (ii) in the control
State’s SO2 budget in Phase II as noted
or V–4 in today’s preamble, thus case, in the implementation years 2010
in Table V–1 of the budget section,
allowing more emissions from EGUs. and 2015, i.e., assuming SIP-required
The difference between the amount of a 109 In the CAIR SNPR, EPA mistakenly cited the reductions under the CAIR from non-
State’s SO2 budget in Table V–1 and a EGU budget numbers from Tables VI–9 and VI–10 EGUs. We proposed an alternative
State’s selected higher EGU SO2 budget in the CAIR NPR (69 FR 4619–20) when it should methodology for calculating the base
would be the amount of SO2 emissions have cited Tables II–1 and II–2 in the CAIR SNPR. case for certain large non-EGU sources,
The EPA used the correct numbers, however, in the
reductions the State demonstrates it will proposed regulatory text in the CAIR SNPR (69 FR
as described below, but generally the
achieve from non-EGU sources. By the 32729–30 and 69 FR 32733–34 (§§ 51.123(e)(2) and difference between emissions in the
same token, the difference between the 51.124(e)(2)). base case and emissions in the control
case equals the amount of emissions make separate SIP submittals to meet final rule, such as adopted State rules,
reductions that can be claimed from other requirements applicable to non- SIP revisions approved by EPA, and
application of the controls on non- EGUs, e.g., nonattainment SIPs required settlement agreements; and (2) measures
EGUs. (See discussion later in this for areas designated nonattainment adopted or implemented by the Federal
section for criteria applicable to under the PM2.5 or 8-hour ozone government (e.g., EPA or other Federal
development of the baseline and NAAQS or regional haze SIPs. The EPA agencies) as of the date of submission of
projected control emissions noted it is likely that CAIR SIP the SIP revision by the State to EPA,
inventories.) submittals will be due before or at the such as emissions reductions required
States that meet the lesser of their same time as some of these other SIP pursuant to the Federal Motor Vehicle
CAIR ozone season NOX budget or NOX submittals. We therefore proposed that Control Program for mobile sources
SIP Call EGU trading budget using the States relying on reductions from (vehicles or engines) or mobile source
CAIR ozone season NOX trading controls on non-EGUs must commit in fuels, or pursuant to the requirements
program also satisfy their NOX SIP Call the CAIR SIP revisions to replace the for National Emissions Standards for
requirements for EGUs. States may also emissions reductions attributable to any Hazardous Air Pollutants.
choose to include all of their NOX SIP CAIR SIP measure if that measure is This exclusion of credit is consistent
Call non-EGUs in the CAIR ozone subsequently determined to be required with EPA’s approach in the NOX SIP
season NOX program at their NOX SIP to meet any other SIP requirement. Call, although a direct comparison of
Call levels (i.e., the non-EGU trading Some commenters objected to the the creditability requirements in the
budget remains the same). proposed exclusion of credit for CAIR and in the NOX SIP Call is not
To the extent EPA allows through the measures which are mandated under the possible due to the timing and context
Regional Haze Rule and a State then CAA based on the classification of an in which both rules were developed.
chooses to use EPA analysis to show area which has been designated The NOX SIP Call used statewide
that CAIR reductions from EGUs meet nonattainment for a NAAQS, as well as budgets for all sources as an accounting
BART requirements, States that achieve to the proposed requirement that such tool to determine the adequacy of a
a portion of their CAIR reductions from measures must be replaced if they are strategy, while the CAIR takes a
sources other than EGUs and wanting to later determined to be required in different approach in which baseline
show that even with those reductions meeting separate SIP requirements. emission inventories for non-EGU
the EGUs will meet BART requirements These commenters reasoned that such a sectors will, if needed, be developed
must make a supplemental requirement would not be applied to later. The NOX SIP Call did, as does the
demonstration that BART requirements EGUs and would impose unnecessary CAIR, restrict States from taking credit
are satisfied. and costly burdens on non-EGUs, thus for any Federal measures adopted after
b. Eligibility of Non-EGU Reductions creating an incentive for States to avoid promulgation of the rule (63 FR 57427–
controlling non-EGUs and to impose all 28). It also did not allow credit for
In the CAIR SNPR, EPA proposed CAIR reduction requirements on EGUs. already adopted measures, but the
that, in evaluating whether emissions One commenter further objected that, as timing of the NOX SIP Call was such
reductions from non-EGUs would count long as a measure was not included in that nonattainment planning measures
towards the emissions reductions the base case EPA used to determine a would have already likely been adopted
required under the CAIR, States may State’s contribution to other States’ as the SIP deadlines for adoption of
only include reductions attributable to nonattainment under CAA section such measures had passed. In today’s
measures that are not otherwise 110(a)(2)(D), there is no justification for action, nonattainment planning
required under the CAA. Specifically, excluding CAIR credit for such measure, measures adopted after the
EPA proposed that States must exclude and that EPA’s proposed exclusion of promulgation of today’s rule will be
non-EGU reductions attributable to credit for any measure ‘‘otherwise allowed credit under CAIR.
measures otherwise required by the required by the CAA’’ is inconsistent In order to take credit for CAIR
CAA, including: (1) Measures required with the NOX SIP Call. reductions from non-EGUs, the
by rules already in place at the date of In response to these comments, EPA reductions must be beyond what is
promulgation of today’s final rule, such agrees that it is not appropriate to apply required under the NOX SIP Call. That
as adopted State rules, SIP revisions this proposed restriction inconsistently is, a reduction must be in the non-ozone
approved by EPA, and settlement to EGUs and non-EGUs. Thus, EPA is season or it must be beyond what is
agreements; (2) measures adopted and adopting a modified form of the expected in the ozone season. Non-
implemented by EPA (or other Federal proposed criteria for the eligibility of ozone season reductions must also be
agencies) such as emissions reductions non-EGU emissions reductions, beyond what is in the base case,
required pursuant to the Federal Motor eliminating the requirement that States particularly for units that have low NOX
Vehicle Control Program for mobile must exclude non-EGU reductions burners and certain SCRs (e.g., ones
sources (vehicles or engines) or mobile attributable to measures otherwise required to be run annually). The
source fuels, or pursuant to the required by the CAA based on the reductions must be in addition to those
requirements for National Emissions classification of an area which has been already expected. If ozone season
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; designated nonattainment for a NAAQS. reductions are considered, the non-EGU
and (3) specific measures which are Consequently, the final rule allows NOX SIP Call trading budget must be
mandated under the CAA (which may credit for measures that a State later adjusted by the increment of CAIR
have been further defined by EPA adopts in response to requirements reductions beyond the levels in the NOX
rulemaking) based on the classification which result from an area’s SIP Call. This removes the
of an area which has been designated nonattainment classification, such as corresponding allowances from the
nonattainment for a NAAQS, such as reasonably available control technology market and ensures that the emissions
vehicle inspection and maintenance (RACT). With this change, all emissions do not shift to other sources.
programs. reductions are eligible for credit in After evaluating the eligibility of non-
In discussing this proposal, EPA meeting CAIR except: (1) Measures EGU reductions in accordance with the
noted that States required to make CAIR adopted or implemented by the State as requirements discussed here, States
SIP submittals may also be required to of the date of promulgation of today’s must exclude credit for ineligible
measures by (i) including such measures of one or more such sources is assumptions about the effectiveness of
in both the baseline and controlled reasonably interchangeable with that of control measures.
emissions inventory cases, if they have one or more other such sources), the Before describing the specific steps
already been adopted; or (ii) excluding State must demonstrate that it has involved in this quantification process,
them from both the base and control analyzed the potential for shifts in EPA notes that a few commenters
emissions inventory cases if they have production from the regulated sources objected to the proposed requirements
not yet been adopted. (See discussion to unregulated or less stringently as arbitrary restrictions intended to
later in this section regarding regulated sources in the same State as discourage States’ discretion in
development of emissions inventories well as in other States and that the State imposing control measures on non-
and demonstration of non-EGU is not including reductions attributable EGUs since these requirements would
reductions.) to sources that may shift emissions to use what the commenters describe as
such unregulated or less regulated extremely conservative emissions
c. Emissions Controls and Monitoring baseline and emissions reduction
sources.
As noted in section VII.A.1., we estimates. No commenter refuted EPA’s
modified the ‘‘hybrid’’ approach d. Emissions Inventories and explanation, noted above, of the need
described in the CAIR NPR as it applies Demonstrating Reductions for stringent requirements to ensure
to certain non-EGUs, and adopt today To quantify emissions reductions greater accuracy of emission inventories
the approach described in the CAIR attributable to controls on non-EGUs, and greater certainty of reduction
SNPR. Specifically, for States that the States must submit both baseline estimates used in SIPs addressing
choose to impose controls on large and projected control emissions transported pollutants. The EPA
industrial boilers and turbines, i.e., inventories for the applicable maintains that the need for more
those whose maximum design heat implementation years. We have issued accurate inventories and more certain
input is greater than 250 mmBtu/hr, to many guidance documents and tools for reduction estimates justifies the
meet part or all of their emissions preparing such emissions inventories, requirements discussed below. Further,
reductions requirements under the no commenter provided an alternate
some of which apply to specific sectors
CAIR, State rules must include an method of addressing EPA’s concerns
States may choose to control.110 While
emissions cap on all such sources in about the development of such
much of that guidance is applicable to
their State. Additionally, in this inventories and reduction estimates.
today’s rulemaking, there are some key
situation, States must require those large Thus, EPA is finalizing its proposed
differences between quantification of
industrial boilers and turbines to meet approach.
emissions reduction requirements under
part 75 requirements for monitoring and
a SIP designed to help achieve i. Historical Baseline
reporting emissions as well as
attainment with a NAAQS and To quantify non-EGU reductions, as
recordkeeping. This ensures consistency
emissions reduction requirements under the first step, a historical baseline must
in measurement and certainty of
reductions and has been proven a SIP designed to reduce emissions that be established for emissions of SO2 or
technologically and economically contribute significantly to a downwind NOX from the non-EGU source(s) in a
feasible in other programs. State’s nonattainment problem or recent year. The historical baseline
If a State chooses to control non-EGUs interfere with maintenance in a inventory should represent actual
other than large industrial boilers and downwind State. Because States are emissions from the sources prior to the
turbines to obtain the required taking actions as a result of their impact application of the controls. We expect
emissions reductions, the State must on other States, and because the that States will choose a representative
either (i) impose the same requirements, impacted States have no authority to year (or average of several years) during
i.e., an emissions cap on total emissions reduce emissions from other States, the 2002–2005 for this purpose.
from non-EGUs in the source category in emissions reduction estimates become The requirements for estimating the
the State and part 75 monitoring, even more important. (For a complete historical baseline inventory that follow
reporting and recordkeeping discussion, see 69 FR 32693; June 10, reflect EPA’s view that, when States
requirements; or (ii) demonstrate why 2004.) assign emissions reductions to non-EGU
such requirements are not practicable. Specifically, when we review CAIR sources, achievement of those
In the latter case, the State must adopt SIPs for approvability, we intend to reductions should carry a high degree of
appropriate alternative requirements to review closely the emissions inventory certainty, just as EGU reductions can be
ensure that emissions reductions are projections for non-EGUs to evaluate quantified with a high degree of
being achieved using methods that whether emissions reduction estimates certainty in accordance with the
quantify those emissions reductions, to are correct. We intend to review the applicable part 75 monitoring
the extent practicable, with the same accuracy of baseline historical requirements. Because the non-EGU
degree of assurance that reductions are emissions for the subject sources, emissions reductions are estimated by
being quantified for EGUs and non-EGU assumptions regarding activity and subtracting controlled emissions from a
boilers and turbines using part 75 emissions growth between the baseline projected baseline, if the historical
monitoring. This is to ensure that, year and 2010 111 and 2015, and baseline overestimates actual emissions,
regardless of how a State chooses to the estimated reductions could be
meet the CAIR emissions reduction 110 The many EPA guidance documents and tools higher than the actual reductions
requirements, all reductions made by for preparing emission inventory estimates for SO2 achieved.
States to comply with the CAIR have the and NOX are available at the following Web sites: For non-EGU sources that are subject
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/general.html,
same, high level of certainty as that http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiip/techreport/, to part 75 monitoring requirements,
achieved through the cap and trade http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ historical baselines must be derived
approach. Further, if a State adopts publications.html#general, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ from actual emissions obtained from
alternative requirements that do not chief/software/index.html, and http://www.epa.gov/ part 75 monitored data. For non-EGU
ttn/chief/efinformation.html.
apply to all non-EGUs in a particular 111 The 2010 modeling date is relevant for both sources that do not have part 75
source category (defined to include all SO2 and NOX even though NOX requirements begin monitoring data, historical baselines
sources where any aspect of production in 2009. See Section IV for discussion. must be established that estimate actual
emissions in a way that matches or estimates of population and vehicle emission rate limits, technology
approaches as closely as possible the miles traveled developed through requirements, or work practice
certainty provided by the part 75 consultation between State and local requirements. The State’s estimate of the
measured data for EGUs. For these transportation and air quality agencies. effect of the control regulations must be
sources, States must estimate historical However, if these official planning realistic in light of the specific
baseline emissions using source-specific assumptions are themselves provisions for monitoring, reporting,
or category-specific data and inconsistent with official U.S. Census and enforcement and experience with
assumptions that ensure a source’s or projections of population or with energy similar regulatory approaches.
source category’s actual emissions are consumption projections contained in In addition, the State’s analysis must
not overestimated. the most recent Annual Energy Outlook examine the possibility that the controls
To determine the baseline for sources published by the U.S. Department of may cause production and emissions to
that do not have part 75 measured data, Energy, then adjustments must be made shift to unregulated or less stringently
States must use emission factors that to correct the inconsistency, or the SIP regulated sources in the same State or
ensure that emissions are not must demonstrate how the official another State. If all sources of a source
overestimated (e.g., emission factors at planning assumptions are more category (defined to include all sources
the low end of a range when EPA accurate. If the State expects changes in where any aspect of production is
guidance presents a range) or the State production method, materials, fuels, or reasonably interchangeable) within the
must provide additional information efficiency to occur between the baseline State are regulated with the same
that shows with reasonable confidence year and 2010 or 2015, the State must stringency and compliance assurance
that another value is more appropriate account for these changes in the provisions, the analysis of production
for estimating actual emissions. Other projected 2010 and 2015 baseline and emissions shifts need only consider
monitoring or stack testing data can be emissions. For example, if a source has the possibility of shifts to other States.
considered, but care must be taken not publicly announced a change or applied If only a portion of a source category
to overestimate baselines. If a for a permit for a change, it should be within a State is regulated, the analysis
production or utilization factor is part of reflected in the projections. The must also include any in-State shifting.
the historical baseline emissions projection must also reflect any adopted In estimating controlled emissions in
calculation, a factor that ensures that regulations that are ineligible control 2010 and 2015, assumptions regarding
emissions are not overestimated must be measures and that will affect source control measures that are not eligible for
used, or additional data must be emissions. CAIR reduction credit must be the same
provided. Similarly, if a control or rule As stated above, EPA is requiring as in the 2010 and 2015 baseline
effectiveness factor enters into the States to use the lower of historical estimates. For example, a State may not
estimate of historical baseline baseline emissions or projected 2010 or take credit for reductions in the sulfur
emissions, such a factor must be 2015 emissions, as applicable, for a content of nonroad diesel fuel that are
realistic and supported by facts or source category. This is because changes required under the recent Federal
analysis. For these factors, a high value in production method, materials, fuels, nonroad fuel rule (69 FR 38958; June 29,
(closer to 100 percent control and or efficiency often play a key role in 2004). By including the effect of this
effectiveness) ensures that emissions are changes in emissions. Because of factors Federal rule in both the baseline and
not overestimated. such as these, emissions can often stay controlled emissions estimates for 2010
the same or even decrease as and 2015, the State will appropriately
ii. Projections of 2010 and 2015
productivity within a sector increases. exclude this ineligible reduction when
Baselines
These factors that contribute to emission it subtracts the controlled emissions
The second step in quantifying SO2 or decreases can be very difficult to estimates from the baseline emissions
NOX emissions reductions for non-EGUs quantify. Underestimating the impact of estimates.
is to use the historical baseline these types of factors can very easily The method that we are adopting
emissions and project emissions that result in a projection for increased today specifies the 2010 and 2015
would be expected in 2010 and 2015 emissions within a sector, when a emissions reductions which can be
without the CAIR. This step results in correct estimate will result in a counted toward satisfying the CAIR. The
the 2010 and 2015 baseline emissions projection for decreased emissions method requires the use of the historical
estimates. within the sector. A few commenters baseline or the baseline emission
The EPA proposed and requested opposed this methodology as arbitrary estimates, whichever is lower. That is,
comment on two procedures for but failed to explain why EPA’s the reduction is calculated as follows: (i)
estimating the future baselines: one concerns, as described above, are not For 2010, the difference between the
relies on projections based on a number valid. Commenters also failed to lower of historical baseline or 2010
of estimated parameters; the second propose other methodologies for baseline emissions estimates and the
uses the lower of this projection and addressing these concerns. Thus, EPA is 2010 controlled emissions estimates,
actual historical emissions. Today, EPA finalizing the use of this second minus any emissions that may shift to
finalizes the second approach for methodology. other sources rather than be eliminated;
determining 2010 and 2015 emissions and (ii) for 2015, the difference between
baselines. iii. Controlled Emissions Estimates for
the lower of historical baseline or 2015
To estimate future emissions, States 2010 and 2015
baseline emissions estimates and the
must use state-of-the-art methods for The third step is to develop the 2010 2015 controlled emissions estimates,
projecting the source or source and 2015 controlled emissions estimates minus any emissions that may shift to
category’s economic output. Economic by assuming the same changes in other sources rather than be eliminated.
and population forecasts must be as economic output and other factors listed
specific as possible to the applicable above but adding the effects of the new 4. Controls on Non-EGUs Only
industry, State, and county of the source controls adopted for the purpose of Although we stated that we believe it
and must be consistent with both meeting the CAIR. The controls may is unlikely States may choose to control
national projections and relevant official take the form of regulatory only non-EGUs, we proposed in the
planning assumptions, including requirements, e.g., emissions caps, CAIR SNPR provisions for determining
the specified emissions reductions that use of these pre-2010 title IV allowances We believe that this sequence for SIP
must be obtained if States pursue this or pre-2009 NOX SIP Call allowances in submissions to address upwind
alternative, and we adopt those accordance with EPA’s model trading interstate transport and downwind
provisions today. The reason we think rules. nonattainment areas is consistent both
it is unlikely is based on States’ Additionally, States with annual NOX with the applicable provisions of the
emissions profiles. Most SO2 emissions reduction requirements may use CAA and with sound policy objectives.
are from EGUs and therefore it is compliance supplement pool (CSP) The CAA provides for this sequence of
unlikely that a State can achieve the allowances as described in sections V submissions in section 110(a)(1) and
required emissions reductions without and VIII. Distribution of the CSP is (a)(2), which provide that the submittal
regulating EGUs to some degree. In essentially the same as the process used period for SIPs required by section
addition, SO2 emissions reductions from in the NOX SIP Call, through one or both 110(a)(2)(D) runs from the earlier date of
EGUs are highly cost effective. States of two mechanisms. States may the NAAQS revision, and in section
that choose this path must ensure that distribute CSP allowances on a pro-rata 172(b), which provides that the
the amount of non-EGU reductions is basis to sources that implement NOX submittal period for the nonattainment
equivalent to all of the emissions control measures resulting in reductions area SIPs runs from the later date of
reductions that would have been in 2007 or 2008 that are beyond what is designation. Clean Air Act section
required from EGUs had the State required by any applicable State or 110(a)(1) requires each State to submit
chosen to assign all the emissions Federal emissions limitation (early a SIP to EPA ‘‘within 3 years * * * after
reductions to EGUs. For SO2 emissions, reductions). The second CSP the promulgation of a [NAAQS] (or any
this amount in 2010 would be 50 distribution mechanism that a State can revision thereof).’’ Section 110(a)(2)
percent of a State’s title IV SO2 use is to issue CSP allowances based on makes clear that this SIP must include,
allocations for all units in the State and, the demonstration of a need for an among other things, provisions to
for 2015, 65 percent of such allocations. extension of the 2009 deadline for address the requirements of section
For NOX emissions, this amount would implementing emission controls. The 110(a)(2)(D). We read these provisions
be the difference between a State’s EGU demonstration must show unacceptable together to require that each upwind
budget for NOX under the CAIR and its risk either to a source’s own operation State must submit, within 3 years of a
NOX baseline EGU emissions inventory or its associated industry—for EGUs, new or revised NAAQS, SIPs that
as projected in the Integrated Planning power supply reliability, for non-EGUs address the section 110(a)(2)(D)
Model (IPM) for 2010 and 2015, risk comparable to that described for the requirement. By contrast, the schedule
respectively.112 electricity industry. See also 63 FR provided in section 172(b) is only
In addition, the same requirements 57356 for further discussion of these applicable to the nonattainment area SIP
described elsewhere in this part of points. requirements.
today’s preamble regarding the Pre-2010 title IV SO2 allowances, pre- Section 110(a) imposes the obligation
eligibility of non-EGU reductions, 2009 NOX SIP Call allowances and CAIR upon States to make a submission, but
emissions control and monitoring, annual NOX CSP allowances can all be the contents of that submission may
emissions inventories and counted toward a States efforts to vary depending on the facts and
demonstration of reductions, will apply achieve its CAIR reduction obligations circumstances. In particular, the data
to the situation where a State chooses to regardless of whether the CAIR trading and analytical tools available at the time
control only non-EGUs. programs are used or not. the section 110(a)(2)(D) SIP is developed
and submitted to EPA necessarily affect
5. Use of Banked Allowances and the B. State Implementation Plan Schedules the content of the submission. Where, as
Compliance Supplement Pool
1. State Implementation Plan here, the data and analytical tools to
In the CAIR NPR, EPA stated that Submission Schedule identify a significant contribution from
States may allow EGUs to demonstrate In the NPR, we proposed to require upwind States to nonattainment areas in
compliance with the State EGU SO2 States to submit SIPs to address downwind States are available, the
budget by using title IV allowances (i) interstate transport in accordance with State’s SIP submission must address the
that were banked, or (ii) that were the provisions of this rule existence of the contribution and the
obtained in the current year from approximately 18 months from the date emission reductions necessary to
sources in other States (69 FR 4627). of this final rule (69 FR 4624). After eliminate the significant contribution. In
The EPA adopts this provision in careful consideration of the comments other circumstances, however, the tools
today’s action. The EPA adopts a similar we received concerning this issue, we and information may not be available. In
provision for the use of banked NOX SIP have concluded that States should such circumstances, the section
Call allowances (pre-2009) to submit SIPs to satisfy this final rule as 110(a)(2)(D) SIP submission should
demonstrate compliance with the State expeditiously as possible, but no later indicate that the necessary information
EGU ozone season NOX budget. See also than 18 months from the date of today’s is not available at the time the
the CAIR NPR (69 FR 4633). Therefore, action. Under this schedule, upwind submission is made or that, based on the
State rules may allow the use of pre- States’ transport SIPs to meet CAA information available, the State believes
2010 title IV and pre-2009 NOX SIP Call section 110(a)(2)(D) will be due before that no significant contribution to
allowances banked in the title IV and the downwind States’ PM2.5 and 8-hour downwind nonattainment exists. EPA
NOX SIP Call trading programs for ozone nonattainment area SIPs under can always act at a later time after the
compliance in the CAIR. States CAA section 172(b). We expect that the initial section 110(a)(2)(D) submissions
participating in the EPA-administered downwind States’ 8-hour ozone to issue a SIP call under section
CAIR trading programs must allow the nonattainment area SIPs will be due by 110(k)(5) to States to revise their SIPs to
June 15, 2007, and their PM2.5 provide for additional emission controls
112 See ‘‘Technical Support Document for the
nonattainment SIPs will be due by April to satisfy the section 110(a)(2)(D)
Clean Air Interstate Rule Notice of Final
Rulemaking; Regional and State SO2 and NOX 5, 2008.113 obligations if such action were
Emissions Budgets’’ for tables containing
information to calculate these amounts for both SO2 113 By statute, the date for submission of years from the date of nonattainment designation.
and NOX. nonattainment area SIPs is to be no later than 3 Section 172(b).
warranted based upon subsequently- ‘‘within’’ the State, whereas the latter must meet the requirements of section
available data and analyses. This is refers to plans that prevent emissions 110(a)(2)(D).
precisely the circumstance that was that affect nonattainment or By contrast, other requirements of
presented at the time of the NOX SIP maintenance of the NAAQS in places section 110(a)(2) are not triggered by
Call in 1998 when EPA issued a section outside the State. According to the EPA’s promulgation of a new or revised
110(k)(5) SIP call to states regarding commenters, because section 110(a)(1) NAAQS, but rather by EPA’s final
their section 110(a)(2)(D) obligations on SIPs purportedly need not address the designation of nonattainment areas. For
the basis of new information that was interstate transport issues governed by example, section 110(a)(2)(I) by its terms
developed years after the States’ SIPs section 110(a)(2)(D), the States have no indicates that State SIPs must meet that
had been previously approved as current obligation to prevent such requirement not on the schedule of
satisfying section 110(a)(2)(D) without interstate transport and, by extension, section 110(a)(1), but instead on the
providing for additional controls since there is no basis for the CAIR at this schedule of section 172(b).
the information available at the earlier time. The explicit distinction in the statute
point in time did not indicate the need between requirements that States must
The EPA disagrees with the
for such additional controls. meet on the schedule of section
commenters. A State’s SIP must of
Not only is this sequencing consistent 110(a)(1) versus the schedule of section
course provide for ‘‘implementation,
with the CAA, it is consistent with 172(b) reinforces the conclusion that
maintenance, and enforcement’’ of the
sound policy considerations. The States are to meet the initial
NAAQS ‘‘within’’ the State because
upwind reductions required by today’s requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)
States lack authority to impose
action will facilitate attainment within the schedule of section 110(a)(1).
requirements on sources in other States; In this context, it is important to note
planning by the States affected by
i.e., any plan submitted by a State will that the requirements of section
transport downwind. Rather than being
necessarily be applicable to sources 110(a)(1) plans are not limited to areas
‘‘premature’’ as some commenters
‘‘within’’ that State. The CAA, however, designated attainment, nonattainment,
suggested, EPA’s understanding of the
also requires that such SIPs must be or unclassifiable.114 Section 110(a)(1)
data and models leads the Agency to
submitted to EPA no later than three requires each State to develop and
believe that requiring the States to
years after promulgation of a new or submit a plan that provides for the
address the upwind transport
revised NAAQS and must contain implementation, maintenance, and
contribution to downwind
adequate provisions regarding interstate enforcement of the NAAQS in ‘‘each’’
nonattainment earlier in the process as
a first step is a reasonable approach and transport from emission sources within area of the State. Similarly, the
is fully consistent with the statutory the State in compliance with section requirement in section 110(a)(2)(D) that
structure. This approach will allow 110(a)(2)(D). The explicit terms of the SIPs must prohibit interstate transport
downwind States to develop SIPs that statute provide for the State submission of air pollutants that significantly
address their share of emissions with of initial SIPs after promulgation of a contribute to downwind nonattainment
knowledge of what measures upwind new NAAQS, and provide that such is not limited to any particular category
States will have adopted. In addition, SIPs should address interstate transport. of formally designated areas in the State.
most of the downwind States that will Section 110(a)(1) provides that: The provisions apply to emissions
benefit by today’s rulemaking are [e]ach State shall * * * adopt and submit to activities that occur anywhere in a state,
themselves significant contributors to the Administrator, within 3 years (or such regardless of its designation. If, as the
violations of the standards further shorter period as the Administrator may commenters suggested, the requirements
downwind and, thus, are subject to the prescribe) after the promulgation of a of section 110(a)(2)(D) plans are
national primary ambient air quality standard
same requirements as the States further governed not by section 110(a)(1), but
(or any revision thereof) * * * a plan which
upwind. The reductions these provides for implementation, maintenance, rather by the schedule of section 172,
downwind States must implement due and enforcement of such primary standard in that would lead to the absurd result that
to their additional role as upwind States each [area] within such State. upwind States need only reduce
will help reduce their own PM2.5 and 8- emissions from designated
hour ozone problems on the same Section 110(a)(2) provides, in relevant nonattainment areas to prevent
schedule as emissions reductions for the part, that: significant contribution to
upwind States. We believe that [e]ach implementation plan submitted by a nonattainment or interference with
providing 18 months from the date of State under this Act shall be adopted by the maintenance in a downwind State.
today’s action for States to submit the State after reasonable notice and public Given that large portions of many
transport SIPs required by this rule is hearing. Each such plan shall * * * (D) upwind States may be designated as
appropriate and reasonable, for the contain adequate provisions—(i) prohibiting attainment for the NAAQS for local
reasons discussed more fully below. * * * any source or other type of emissions
activity within the State from emitting any
purposes, yet still contain large sources
a. The EPA’s Authority To Require air pollutant in amounts which will—(I) of emissions that affect downwind
Section 110(a)(2)(D) Submissions in contribute significantly to nonattainment in, States through interstate transport, EPA
Accordance With the Schedule of or interfere with maintenance by, any other believes that Congress could not have
Section 110(a)(1) State with respect to [the NAAQS]. intended the prohibitions of section
110(a)(2)(D) to apply only to
A number of commenters objected to By referencing each implementation nonattainment areas in upwind
EPA’s proposal to require States to plan in section 110(a)(2), it is clear that States.115 Indeed, the language of
submit the transport SIPs on the the implementation plans required
schedule set forth in section 110(a)(1). under section 110(a)(1) must satisfy the 114 Under section 107(d), EPA is required to
The commenters argued that section requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D). identify all areas of each State as falling into one
110(a)(1) does not apply to the Thus, the plain meaning of these of these three categories.
115 The EPA notes that under the provisions of
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D), provisions, read together, is that SIP
section 107(d), certain portions of an upwind State
because the former refers to plans that submissions are required within 3 years that are monitoring attainment may be designated
States must adopt ‘‘to implement, of promulgation of a new or revised nonattainment because they contribute to violations
maintain, and enforce’’ the NAAQS NAAQS, and that the SIP submissions of the NAAQS in a ‘‘nearby’’ area. Nevertheless,
section 110(a)(2) itself does not support designations in either upwind or b. The EPA’s Authority To Require
such an interpretation. Therefore, the downwind States, or suggest that Section 110(a)(2)(D) Submissions Prior
alternative schedule provided in section section 110(a)(2)(D) is somehow to Formal Designation of Nonattainment
172(b) applicable only to nonattainment inapplicable until the submission of Areas Under Section 107
areas cannot be the schedule that nonattainment area plans. By its explicit
governs the State submission of A number of commenters argued that
terms, section 110(a)(2)(D) requires
transport SIPs. This leaves the schedule EPA has no authority to require States
States to prohibit emissions from ‘‘any
of section 110(a)(1) as the only to comply with section 110(a)(2)(D)
source or other types of emissions until after EPA formally designates
appropriate schedule in the case of SIPs activity within the State’’ that
following EPA promulgation of new or nonattainment areas for the PM2.5 and 8-
‘‘contribute to nonattainment in, or hour ozone NAAQS.117 These
revised NAAQS. interfere with maintenance by’’ any
The commenters also disputed that commenters claimed that section 107(d)
other State. A plain reading of the and provisions of the Transportation
the schedule of section 110(a)(1) applies
statute indicates that the emissions at Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA–
to the section 110(a)(2)(D) requirement
issue can emanate from any portion of 21) governing the designation of PM2.5
because there are other elements of
an upwind State and that the impacts of and 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas
section 110(a)(2) that States could not
meet on that schedule. As an example, concern can occur in any portion of the preclude EPA from interpreting the
the commenters pointed to section downwind State. CAA to require States to submit SIPs
110(a)(2)(I) which requires States to While EPA agrees that there is overlap that comply with section 110(a)(2)(D) on
meet certain obligations imposed upon between the submission requirements of the schedule contemplated by section
designated nonattainment areas. As sections 110(a)(1) and (a)(2) and section 110(a)(1). In the view of the
formal designation under the generally 172(c), EPA believes that the plain commenters, EPA could not reasonably
applicable provisions of section 107(d) language of these sections requires expect States to determine whether and
could take up to 3 years following States to submit plans that comply with to what extent their in-State sources
promulgation of a new or revised section 110(a)(2)(D) prior to the significantly contributed to
NAAQS, and section 172(b) allows up to deadline for nonattainment area SIPs nonattainment in other States within the
3 additional years for State submission established by section 172, and that initial 3-year timeframe, in advance of
of nonattainment area SIPs, the there is nothing that compels a contrary nonattainment area designations.
commenters concluded that States could According to the commenters, section
conclusion in the language of section
not meet section 110(a)(2)(I) on the 107(d) and TEA–21 negate the timing
172. Section 172(b) provides that State
schedule of section 110(a)(1). From the requirements of section 110(a)(1), so
plans for nonattainment areas must
fact that States could not meet all of the that States have no current obligation to
meet ‘‘the applicable requirements of
elements of the section 110(a)(2) address interstate transport and thus
[section 172(c)] and section 110(a)(2)’’ there is no basis for today’s action.
requirement within 3 years, the (emphasis added). Thus, the statute
commenters inferred that EPA cannot itself explicitly indicates that the State The EPA disagrees with the
require States to meet any of the submissions for nonattainment plans commenters’ view of the interaction of
requirements in section 110(a)(2), must meet those requirements of section section 110 and section 107(d). The
including section 110(a)(2)(D). statute does not require EPA to have
110(a)(2) that are ‘‘applicable,’’ not each
The EPA disagrees with the completed the designations process
commenters’ approach to the requirement regardless of applicability.
before the Agency or a State could
interpretation of the statute. The EPA In the current situation, EPA believes
assess the existence of, or extent of,
agrees that there are certain provisions that it is appropriate to view the CAA
significant contribution from one State
of section 110(a)(2) that are governed as requiring States to make a submission
to another. In addition, the technical
not by the schedule of section 110(a)(1), to meet the requirement of section approach by which EPA determines
but instead by the timing requirement of 110(a)(2)(D) in accordance with the significant contribution from upwind to
section 172(b), e.g., section 110(a)(2)(I). schedule of section 110(a)(1), rather downwind States does not depend upon
Other items in section 110(a)(2), than under the schedule for the prior completion of the designation
however, do not depend upon prior nonattainment SIPs in section 172(b).116 process.
designations in order for States to The EPA believes that the statute does
develop a SIP to begin to comply with 116 As noted earlier, what will be needed to meet
not compel the conclusion that States
them, e.g., section 110(a)(2)(B) section 110(a)(2) may vary, depending upon the
specific facts and circumstances surrounding a new may postpone compliance with section
(pertaining to monitoring); section or revised NAAQS. See, e.g., Proposed 110(a)(2)(D) until some future point
110(a)(2)(E) (stipulating that States must Requirements for Implementation Plans and after completion of the designation
provide for adequate resources); and Ambient Air Quality Surveillance for Sulfur Oxides
process. As discussed above, a reading
section 110(a)(2)(K) (pertaining to (Sulfur Dioxide) National Ambient Air Quality
Standard, 60 FR 12492, 12505 (March 7, 1995). In of the plain language of sections
modeling). the context of a proposed 5-minute NAAQS for S02, 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) indicates that
Most important, section 110(a)(2)(D) EPA tentatively concluded that existing SIP States must adopt and submit a plan to
itself does not apply only to impacts on provisions for the 24-hour and annual S02 NAAQS
were probably sufficient to meet many elements of EPA within 3 years after promulgation
downwind nonattainment areas, and
section 110(a)(2). The EPA did not explicitly of a new or revised NAAQS (the same
thus does not presuppose prior discuss State obligations under section 110(a)(2)(D) time at which designations are generally
for the 5-minute NAAQS in the proposal, but the due under section 107), and that each
there will be portions of upwind States that include nature of the pollutant, the sources, and the
emissions sources that are not in designated proposed NAAQS are such that interstate transport
nonattainment areas, whether because of local would not have been the critical regionwide 117 The EPA notes that the 8-hour ozone
monitored nonattainment, or because of concern that it is for the PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone designations became effective on June 15, 2004, and
contribution to a nearby nonattainment area, yet NAAQS. The EPA does not expect States to make that the PM2.5 designations will become effective on
these portions of the upwind State may contain SIP submissions establishing emission controls for April 5, 2005. The EPA believes that the issue
sources that cause emissions that States must the purpose of addressing interstate transport raised by the commenters is thus moot with respect
address to meet the requirements of section without having adequate information available to to both the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 nonattainment
110(a)(2)(D). them. areas because those designations are now complete.
such plan must meet the applicable States are contributing to violations of of the PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone NAAQS
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D).118 the PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone NAAQS in in 2010 and 2015. In subsequent steps,
Significantly, neither section 110(a)(1) downwind States. EPA analyzed whether the emissions
nor section 110(a)(2)(D) are limited to Following the example of the NOX SIP from upwind States contributed to the
‘‘nonattainment’’ areas. By their explicit Call, EPA has an effective analytical ambient conditions at the monitors
terms, both provisions apply to all areas approach to determine whether that registering NAAQS violations in
within the State, regardless of whether interstate contribution is significant, in downwind States, and thereafter
EPA has formally designated the areas accordance with section 110(a)(2)(D). determined whether that contribution
as attainment, nonattainment, or Thus, EPA currently has the information would be significant pursuant to section
unclassifiable, pursuant to section and tools that it needs to determine 110(a)(2)(D).
107(d). As to causes, section what the initial PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone In none of these steps, however, did
110(a)(2)(D) compels States to address SIPs from upwind States should include EPA need to know the precise
any ‘‘emissions activity within the as appropriate NOX and SO2 emissions boundaries of the nonattainment areas
State,’’ not solely emissions from reductions in order to prevent emissions that may ultimately result from the
formally designated nonattainment that significantly contribute to section 107 designation process. The
areas, nor does it in any other terms nonattainment in downwind States. The determination of attainment status in a
suggest that designations of upwind designation process under section 107 is given county is based primarily upon
areas must first have occurred. As to the means by which States and EPA the monitored ambient measurements of
impacts, section 110(a)(2)(D) refers only decide the precise boundaries of the the applicable pollutant in the county.
to prevention of ‘‘nonattainment’’ in nonattainment areas in the downwind Thus, it is the readings at the monitors
other States, not to prevention of States. Both PM2.5 and ozone are that are the appropriate information for
nonattainment in designated regional phenomena, however, and EPA to evaluate in assessing current and
nonattainment areas or any similar information as to the precise boundaries future interstate transport at that
formulation requiring that designations of nonattainment areas is not necessary monitor in that county, not the exact
for downwind nonattainment areas to implement the requirements of dimensions of the area that may
must first have occurred. By section 110(a)(2)(D) for these pollutants. ultimately comprise the formally
comparison, other provisions of the Consequently, it was not necessary for designated nonattainment area. The
CAA do clearly indicate when they are EPA to wait until after completion of ultimate size of nonattainment areas
applicable to designated nonattainment formal designation of nonattainment will have a bearing on other
areas, rather than simply to area boundaries before undertaking this components of the State’s
nonattainment more generally (e.g., rulemaking. Moreover, EPA believes nonattainment area SIP. The size of
sections 107(d)(1)(A)(i), 181(b)(2)(A), that taking action now will achieve such nonattainment areas, however, is
and 211(k)(10)(D)). Because section public health protections more quickly not meaningful in assessing whether
110(a)(2)(D) refers only to as it will enable States to develop interstate transport from another State
‘‘nonattainment,’’ not to ‘‘nonattainment implementation plans more or States has an impact at a violating
areas,’’ EPA concludes that the section expeditiously and efficiently. monitor, and whether the transport
does not presuppose the existence of The EPA disagrees with the significantly contributes to
formally designated nonattainment commenters’ view of the relationship nonattainment, that the other State or
areas, but rather to ambient air quality between section 110(a)(2) and section States should address to comply with
that does not attain the NAAQS. 107 and their apparent view of the section 110(a)(2)(D). Thus, EPA believes
The EPA believes that this plain method by which EPA analyzes whether that basing the significant contribution
reading of the provisions is also the there is a contribution from an upwind analysis upon the counties with
most logical approach. A reading that State to a downwind State, and whether monitors that register nonattainment,
section 110(a)(2)(D) means that States that contribution is significant. without regard to the precise boundaries
have no obligation to address interstate The EPA has, in this case, used the of the nonattainment areas that may
transport unless and until there are detailed data from the extensive ultimately result from the formal
formally designated nonattainment network of air quality monitors to designation process under section 107,
areas pursuant to section 107 would be identify which States have monitors that is the proper approach.
inconsistent with the larger goal of the are currently showing violations of the For similar reasons, EPA also
CAA to encourage expeditious PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In the disagrees with the commenters’
attainment of the NAAQS. In this NPR, EPA stated that based upon data assertion that the provisions of TEA–21
immediate instance, currently available for the 3-year period from 2000–2002, preclude EPA’s interpretation of the
air quality monitoring data and ‘‘120 counties with monitors exceed the timing requirements of sections
modeling make it clear that many areas annual PM2.5 NAAQS and 297 counties 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2). However, TEA–
of the eastern portion of the country are with monitor readings exceed the 8- 21 did address the need to create a new
in violation of both the PM2.5 and 8-hour hour ozone NAAQS’’ (69 FR 4566, 4581; network of monitors to assess the
ozone NAAQS. Air quality modeling January 30, 2004) (emphasis added). geographic scope and location of PM2.5
studies generally available to the States The geographic distribution of monitors nonattainment. Also, TEA–21 did
demonstrate that, and quantify the with data registering current violations provide that such a network should be
extent to which, SO2 and NOX indicated that there is nonattainment of up and running by December 31, 1999.
emissions from sources in upwind both the PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone TEA–21 did lay out a schedule for the
NAAQS throughout the eastern United collection of data over a period of 3
118 For reasons discussed in more detail above, States and in other portions of the years in order to make subsequent
EPA interprets the requirement of section country including California. For regulatory decisions. From these facts,
110(a)(2)(D) to be among those that Congress analyses of future ambient conditions, the commenters concluded that TEA–21
intended States to meet within the 3-year timeframe EPA used various modeling tools to necessarily contradicts EPA’s position
of section 110(a)(1). The EPA agrees that other
requirements, such as those of section 110(a)(2)(I),
predict that, in the absence of the CAIR, that States must now take action to
are subject to the different timing requirements of there would be counties with monitors address significant contribution to
section 172(b). that would continue to show violations downwind nonattainment in their
initial section 110(a)(1) SIPs, merely their initial recommendations for PM2.5 significant impacts of emissions from
because the initial 3-year period designations by February 15, 2004, and upwind sources on downwind States.
following the promulgation of a new or requires EPA to take action on those Alternatively, the rationale may be that
revised NAAQS specified in section recommendations and make its final EPA should wait until submission of
110(a)(1) has expired. designation decisions no later than upwind State nonattainment area SIPs
The EPA believes that nothing in December 31, 2004. Again, these to discover whether and to what degree
TEA–21 explicitly or implicitly altered requirements pertain only to formal the SIPs address interstate transport to
the timing requirements of section designations, and do not directly affect downwind States.
110(a)(1) for compliance with section the obligations of States to meet other For reasons already discussed more
110(a)(2)(D), although EPA recognizes SIP requirements. Neither TEA–21 nor fully above, EPA does not believe that
that the data from monitoring funded by the 2004 Appropriations Act language the statute requires a ‘‘wait and see’’
that Act contributed to the Agency’s altered the section 110(a)(1) schedule approach to discover what, if anything,
development of the SIP requirements in for compliance with section States may ultimately do to address the
today’s rulemaking. The provisions of 110(a)(2)(D). problem of regional interstate transport.
TEA–21 pertained to the installation of The commenters suggested that Section 110(a)(1) requires ‘‘each’’ State
a network of monitors for PM2.5, and to because Congress provided more time to submit a SIP within 3 years after a
the timing of designation decisions for for making formal designations pursuant new or revised NAAQS addressing the
PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone. To be specific, to section 107, it necessarily follows requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D).
TEA–21 had two primary purposes for that States should not have to meet the When the data and the analyses needed
the new NAAQS: (1) To gather requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) on to establish the existence of interstate
information ‘‘for use in the the schedule of section 110(a)(1). The transport of pollutants and to determine
determination of area attainment or EPA believes that Congress did not, whether there is a significant
nonattainment designations’’ for the through TEA–21 or other actions, alter contribution to nonattainment or
PM2.5 NAAQS; and (2) to ensure that the existing submission schedule for interference with maintenance by one
States had adequate time to consider SIPs to address interstate transport. By State in another State are available, as
guidance from EPA concerning contrast, Congress did explicitly alter here after the monitoring funded by
‘‘drawing area boundaries prior to the schedule for submission of plan TEA–21, EPA believes that it may act
submitting area designations’’ for the 8- revisions to address Regional Haze. upon that information prior to State SIP
hour ozone NAAQS. TEA–21 sections From this, EPA infers that Congress did submissions to ensure that States
6101(b)(1) and (2). The EPA interprets not intend EPA to delay action to address such contribution
the third stated purpose of TEA–21 to address the issue of interstate transport expeditiously, as it is doing in this
refer to ensuring consistency of timing for the 8-hour or PM2.5 NAAQS. Thus, rulemaking. The EPA believes it is a
between the Regional Haze program EPA must still ensure that States submit better policy to assist the States to
requirements and the PM2.5 NAAQS SIPs in accordance with the substantive address the regional component of the
requirements. With respect to timing, requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D). nonattainment problem in a way that is
TEA–21 similarly only referred to the However, because EPA and the States equitable, timely, cost effective, and
dates by which States and EPA should now have the data and analyses to certain.
take their respective actions concerning establish the presence and magnitude of The EPA acknowledges that
designations. For PM2.5, TEA–21 interstate transport, in part through the historically, especially in the case of 1-
provided that States were required ‘‘to monitoring data gathered pursuant to hour ozone, the Agency has not had the
submit designations referred to in TEA–21, the Agency believes that that it data and the analytical tools to help
section 107(d)(1) * * * within 1 year is now appropriate to require States to upwind States to address interstate
after receipt of 3 years of air quality address interstate transport at this time transport as early in the SIP process as
monitoring data.’’ TEA–21 section in the manner set forth in today’s rule. it is doing today for PM2.5 and 8-hour
6102(c)(1). For 8-hour ozone, TEA–21 ozone. The CAA has required States to
c. The EPA’s Authority To Require regulate ozone or its regulatory
required States to submit designation
Section 110(a)(2)(D) Submissions Prior predecessors since 1970. For many
recommendations within 2 years after
to State Submission of Nonattainment years, States and EPA focused on the
the promulgation of the new NAAQS,
Area Plans Under Section 172 adoption and implementation of local
and required EPA to make final
designations within 1 year after that Some commenters suggested that EPA controls to bring local nonattainment
(TEA–21 sections 6103(a) and (b)). In all cannot determine the existence of a areas into attainment. Thus, historically,
of these provisions, TEA–21 only significant contribution from upwind local areas bore the burden of achieving
addresses SIP timing in the context of States to downwind States until EPA attainment through imposition of
the designation process of section actually receives the nonattainment area control measures on local sources. By
107(d). As explained in more detail SIPs from each State and evaluates how comparison, upwind States did not have
above, EPA does not believe that the much ‘‘residual’’ nonattainment to adopt local controls in attainment
timing of section 110(a)(1) and section remains. If the reasoning of these areas and typically did not adopt such
110(a)(2)(D) obligations depend upon commenters were adopted, downwind controls solely to lessen the impact of
the prior designation of areas in States would have to construct SIPs to their emissions on downwind States.
accordance with section 107(d). attain the NAAQS without first knowing Since 1977, the CAA has also imposed
The EPA also notes that legislation what upwind States might ultimately do a series of local control obligations on
subsequent to TEA–21 further supports to reduce interstate transport. 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas, such
this conclusion. In the 2004 Presumably, the theory is that the as RACT for stationary sources,
Consolidated Appropriations Act, downwind States may choose to control inspection and maintenance for mobile
Congress further amended section 107 their own local emissions sources more sources, and other requirements that
to provide specific dates by which aggressively so that sources in upwind became increasingly more stringent,
States and EPA must make PM2.5 States could avoid installation of highly based upon the level of local
designations. 42 U.S.C. 7407 note. The cost-effective emission controls, nonattainment. In spite of these local
Act now requires States to have made notwithstanding the continued control efforts, there continued to be a
widespread problem with to take no action to implement the Regional Haze. See, Section 7(A), 42
nonattainment that resulted, in part, NAAQS until after the next review U.S.C. section 7407 note. From this
from unaddressed interstate transport. A cycle, and that statutes passed by explicit action, one must infer that
lack of information and analytical tools Congress confirm that EPA is to take no Congress could have taken action to
hindered the ability of EPA and the such action. alter the submission date for plans to
States to address the regional interstate The EPA disagrees with the assertion address PM2.5 or 8-hour ozone, had it
transport component of 1-hour ozone that it should take no action to intended to alter the existing statutory
nonattainment, until the NOX SIP Call implement the 1997 PM2.5 and 8-hour scheme. Most importantly, however,
in 1998. While it is thus true that the ozone NAAQS until completion of the Congress did not make any of the
NOX SIP Call postdated the submission next NAAQS review. Section 110(a) changes effected in TEA–21 or the 2004
of nonattainment area SIPs, this should explicitly requires States to begin to Consolidated Appropriations Act
not be construed as evidence that the submit SIPS within 3 years after dependent upon completion of the next
statute precludes the States and EPA promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS review. To the contrary,
from addressing interstate transport NAAQS. The CAA also requires EPA to Congress directed EPA to take certain
earlier in the process for the 8-hour take action upon State SIP submissions actions notwithstanding the fact that
ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. within specific timeframes. States are there were and are ongoing reviews of
Given that EPA and the States likewise explicitly obligated to attain the NAAQS. From this, EPA infers that
indisputably have the requisite existing NAAQS within certain Congress did not intend EPA to defer all
information to identify interstate specified timeframes. None of these action to implement the existing
transport at this stage of SIP basic statutory submission, review, or NAAQS, including today’s action to
development, EPA believes, based upon attainment obligations are stayed or assist States to address the requirements
its experience in implementing the 1- delayed due to the fact that there may of section 110(a)(2)(D).
hour ozone NAAQS, that it is preferable be an ongoing NAAQS review cycle.
to take action under section 110(a)(2)(D) Indeed, under section 109, EPA is to e. The EPA’s Authority To Require
to address the regional transport review all NAAQS on an ongoing basis, States To Make Section 110(a)(2)(D)
component of the PM2.5 and 8-hour every 5 years. If the mere existence of Submissions Within 18 Months of This
ozone nonattainment problem. States, a NAAQS review cycle were grounds to Final Rule
both upwind and downwind, will still suspend implementation of a NAAQS, it Some commenters questioned EPA’s
have an obligation to control emissions would undermine the very goals of the proposal to require States to make SIP
from sources within their boundaries for statute. submissions in response to this action
the purposes of local area attainment The commenters argued that certain as expeditiously as practicable but no
and maintenance of the NAAQS. The statements made by EPA and others in later than within 18 months. A number
EPA does not believe, however, that it guidance memoranda and elsewhere of commenters suggested that this
is either required by the statute, or in preclude EPA from taking any action to schedule is too short because of the
accordance with sound policy, for the implement the PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone magnitude or complexity of the task or
Agency to wait until submission of the NAAQS. The EPA believes that the because of the typical duration of State
nonattainment area SIPs of downwind commenters are misconstruing those rulemaking processes. Other
States to discover whether or not those statements, and that the statements commenters suggested that EPA should
SIPs will control local sources merely reflect the Agency’s assumption follow the example of the NOX SIP Call
sufficiently to provide for eventual that the NAAQS review cycle would more closely and provide a shorter
attainment regardless of continued occur on the normal schedule. It would period than the Agency proposed.
significant contribution through be nonsensical to suggest that, if for any The EPA has concluded that the
interstate transport from upwind States. reason, the NAAQS review cycle were proposed 18-month schedule is
To the contrary, past experience with delayed, that the CAA would permit no reasonable given the circumstances and
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS has implementation of the existing NAAQS. given the scope of the actions that we
demonstrated that delayed action to Such an approach would invite and are requiring States to take. We issued
address the interstate component of encourage inappropriate interference in the PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone NAAQS
nonattainment will potentially lead to the NAAQS review cycle as a means of revisions in July 1997. More than 3
delays in attainment as downwind areas subverting the CAA. years have already elapsed since
struggle to overcome the impacts of The commenters further argued that promulgation of the NAAQS, and States
transport. Indeed, a number of scientific Congress has taken action to prevent have not submitted SIPs to address their
and technical assessments of ozone and implementation of the 8-hour ozone and section 110(a)(2)(D) obligations under
PM2.5 by the NRC and the Ozone PM2.5 NAAQS pending the next NAAQS the new NAAQS. We recognize that
Transport Assessment Group have review cycle. The EPA does not see any litigation over the new PM2.5 and 8-hour
identified addressing interstate such intention on the part of Congress. ozone NAAQS created substantial
transport as a critical issue in In TEA–21 and the 2004 Consolidated uncertainty as to whether the courts
developing SIPs. Appropriations Act, Congress has would uphold the new NAAQS, and
amended section 107 to provide specific that this uncertainty, as a practical
d. The EPA’s Authority To Require dates by which States and EPA must matter, rendered it more difficult for
Section 110(a)(2)(D) Submissions Prior make designations. Significantly, States to develop SIPs. Moreover, in the
to Completion of the Next Review of the Congress did not alter the existing case of PM2.5, additional time was
PM2.5 and 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS statute with respect to any other needed for creation of an adequate
Commenters also asserted that EPA deadlines for SIP submissions, or with monitoring network, collection of at
should not take any action to implement respect to implementation of the PM2.5 least 3 years of data from that network,
the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS, and 8-hour ozone NAAQS generally. By and analysis of those data.
until completion of the next NAAQS contrast, in the 2004 Consolidated In addition, in the NPR, the SNPR,
review cycle. According to the Appropriations Act, Congress did and today’s action, we have provided
commenters, a series of statements by explicitly alter the date by which States States with a great deal of data and
EPA and others indicated an intention must submit plan revisions to address analysis concerning air quality and
control costs, as well as policy Finally, we note that by making proceed with its review to determine
judgments from EPA concerning the findings that States have thus far failed whether the submittal meets the
appropriate criteria for determining to submit SIPs to meet the requirements statutory and regulatory requirements
whether upwind sources contribute of section 110(a)(2)(D) for the 8-hour for approval. Under 40 CFR 51.123 and
significantly to downwind ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA has an 40 CFR 51.124 (the proposed new
nonattainment under section obligation to implement a Federal regulations for NOX and SO2 SIP
110(a)(2)(D). We recognize that States implementation plan (FIP) to address requirements, respectively), a submittal,
would face great difficulties in interstate transport no later than 24 to be complete, must meet the criteria
developing transport SIPs to meet the months after that finding, if the States described in 40 CFR, part 51, appendix
requirements of today’s action without fail to take appropriate action. Given V, ‘‘Criteria for Determining the
these data and policies. In light of these this schedule for the FIP obligation, EPA Completeness of Plan Submissions.’’
factors and the fact that States can no believes that it is reasonable to require These criteria apply generally to SIP
longer meet the original 3-year submittal States to take action to meet the section submissions.
date of section 110(a)(1), we believe that 110(a)(2)(D) obligation with respect to Under CAA section 110(k)(1) and
States need a reasonable period of time the significant contribution identified in section 1.2 of appendix V, EPA must
in which to comply with the today’s rule within no more than 18 notify States whether a submittal meets
requirements of today’s action. months. Such a schedule will allow the requirements of appendix V within
In the comparable NOX SIP Call States adequate time to develop 60 days of, but no later than 6 months
rulemaking, EPA provided 12 months submissions to meet this requirement after, EPA’s receipt of the submittal. If
for the affected States to submit their and will afford EPA adequate time to a completeness determination is not
SIP revisions. One of the factors that we review such submissions before the made within 6 months after submission,
considered in setting that 12-month imposition of a FIP in lieu of a SIP, if the submittal is deemed complete by
period was that upwind States had necessary. operation of law. For rules submitted in
already, as part of the Ozone Transport Thus, EPA has concluded that States response to the CAIR, EPA intends to
Assessment Group process begun 3 should submit SIPs to reduce interstate make completeness determinations
years before the NOX SIP Call transport, as required by this final expeditiously.
rulemaking, been given the opportunity action, as expeditiously as practicable
to consider available control options. but no later than 18 months from 3. When Would EPA Promulgate the
Because today’s action requires affected today’s date. Such a schedule will CAIR Transport FIP?
States to control both SO2 and NOX provide both upwind and downwind
The EPA views seriously its
emissions, and to do so for the purpose States, and those States that are in both
responsibility to address the issue of
of addressing both the PM2.5 and 8-hour positions relative to other States, to
regional transport of PM2.5, ozone, and
ozone NAAQS, we believe it is develop SIPs that will facilitate
precursor emissions. Decreases in NOX
reasonable to allow affected States more expeditious attainment of the PM2.5 and
and SO2 emissions are needed in the
time than was allotted in the NOX SIP the 8-hour ozone standards.
States named in the CAIR to enable the
Call to develop and submit transport
C. What Happens If a State Fails To downwind States to develop and
SIPs.
Another factor that we have Submit a Transport SIP or EPA implement plans to achieve the PM2.5
considered is that under section Disapproves the Submitted SIP? and 8-hour ozone NAAQS and provide
110(k)(5), the CAA stipulates that EPA 1. Under What Circumstances Is EPA clean air for their residents. Thus, EPA
may provide up to 18 months for SIP Required To Promulgate a FIP? intends to promulgate the FIP shortly
submissions to correct substantially after the CAIR SIP submission deadline
Under section 110(c)(1), EPA is for States that fail to submit approvable
inadequate plans. While today’s action required to promulgate a FIP within 2
is not pursuant to section 110(k)(5), we SIPs in order to help assure that the
years of: (1) finding that a State has downwind States realize the air quality
believe that the provision provides an failed to make a required submittal; or
analogy for the appropriate schedule on benefits of regional NOX and SO2
(2) finding that a submittal received reductions as soon as practicable. This
which EPA should expect States to does not satisfy the minimum
make the submission required by is consistent with Congress’ intent that
completeness criteria established under attainment occur in these downwind
today’s action. We believe it would not section 110(k)(1)(A) (40 CFR part 51,
be appropriate to set a longer schedule nonattainment areas ‘‘as expeditiously
appendix V); or (3) disapproving a SIP as practicable’’ (sections 181(a), 172(a)).
for submission of the plan than would submittal in whole or in part. Section
have been possible under section To this end, EPA intends to propose the
110(c)(1) mandates that EPA promulgate FIP prior to the SIP submission
110(k)(5) had the States submitted a a FIP unless the States corrects the
plan on the original 3-year schedule deadline.
deficiency and EPA approves the SIP
contemplated in section 110(a)(1) that The FIP proposal would achieve the
before the time EPA would promulgate
did not provide for the emissions NOX and SO2 emissions reductions
the FIP.
reductions today’s action requires. required under the CAIR by requiring
While the CAA does require States to 2. What Are the Completeness Criteria? EGUs in affected States to reduce
make some SIP submissions on shorter Any SIP submittal that is made with emissions through participation in
schedules, we conclude that the respect to the final CAIR requirements Federal NOX and SO2 cap and trade
complexities of the action required by first would be determined to be either programs. The EPA intends to integrate
today’s rulemaking militate in favor of incomplete or complete. A finding of these Federal trading programs with the
a longer schedule.119 completeness is not a determination that model trading programs that States may
the submittal is approvable. Rather, it choose to adopt to meet the CAIR.
119 See, e.g., section 182(a)(2)(A) (providing a 6-
means the submittal is administratively Although EPA would be proposing FIPs
month schedule for submission of a revision to for all States affected by the CAIR, EPA
provide for RACT corrections); section 189(d) and technically sufficient for EPA to
(providing 12 months for submission of plan
will only issue a final FIP for those
revisions to ensure attainment and required relatively limited in scope, but the latter might jurisdictions that fail to respond
emissions reductions). The former revision could be entail submission of a completely revised SIP. adequately to the CAIR.
The EPA’s goal is to have approvable inventory requirements applicable to Under the NOX SIP Call requirements
SIPs that meet the requirements of the certain areas that were designated in section 51.122, emissions of NOX for
CAIR. We remain ready to work with nonattainment for certain pollutants. a defined 5-month ozone season (May 1
the States to develop fully approvable For example, section 182(a)(3)(A) through September 30) and for work
SIPs, which would eliminate the need required States to submit an emissions weekday emissions for point, area and
for EPA to promulgate a FIP. inventory every 3 years for ozone mobile sources that the State has
nonattainment areas beginning in 1993. subjected to emissions control to
D. What Are the Emissions Reporting
Similarly, section 187(a)(5) required comply with the requirements of the
Requirements for States?
States to submit an inventory every 3 NOX SIP Call, are required to be
The EPA believes that it is essential years for CO nonattainment areas. The reported by the affected States to EPA
that achievement of the emissions EPA, however, did not immediately every year. However, emissions of
reductions required by the CAIR be codify these statutory requirements in sources reporting directly to EPA as part
verified on a regular basis. Emission the CFR, but simply relied on the of the NOX trading program are not
reporting is the principal mechanism to statutory language to implement them. required to be reported by the State to
verify these reductions and to assure the In 1998, EPA promulgated the NOX EPA every year. The affected States are
downwind affected States and EPA that SIP call which requires the affected also required to report ozone season
the ozone and PM2.5 transport problems States and the District of Columbia to emissions and typical summer daily
are being mitigated as required by the submit SIP revisions providing for NOX emissions of NOX from all sources every
rule. Therefore, the final rule establishes reductions to reduce their adverse third year (2002, 2005, etc.) and in 2007.
a small set of new emission reporting impact on downwind ozone This triennial reporting process does not
requirements applicable to States nonattainment areas. (63 FR 57356, have an exemption for sources
affected by the CAIR, covering certain October 27, 1998). As part of that rule, participating in the emissions trading
emissions data not already required codified in 40 CFR 51.122, EPA programs. Section 51.122 also requires
under existing emission reporting established emissions reporting that a number of data elements be
regulations. The rule language also requirements to be included in the SIP reported for each source in addition to
removes a current emission reporting revisions required under that action. ozone season NOX emissions. These
requirement related to the NOX SIP call, Another set of emissions reporting data elements describe certain of the
which we believe is not necessary, for requirements, termed the Consolidated source’s physical and operational
reasons explained below. A number of Emissions Reporting Rule (CERR), was parameters.
other proposed changes in emission promulgated by EPA in 2002, and is Emissions reporting under the NOX
reporting requirements which would codified at 40 CFR part 51 subpart A. SIP Call as first promulgated was
have affected States not subject to the (67 FR 39602, June 10, 2002). These required starting for the emissions
final CAIR are not included in the final requirements replaced the requirements reporting year 2002, the year prior to the
rule, for reasons explained below. We previously contained in subpart Q, start of the required emissions
will repropose these other changes, with expanding their geographic and reductions. The reports are due to EPA
modifications, in a separate proposal to pollutant coverages while simplifying on December 31 of the calendar year
allow additional opportunity for public them in other ways. following the inventory year. For
comment. The principal statutory authority for example, emissions from all sources and
the emissions inventory reporting types in the 2002 ozone season were
1. Purpose and Authority
requirements outlined in this final rule required to be reported on December 31,
Because we are consolidating and is found in CAA section 110(a)(2)(F), 2003. However, because the Court
harmonizing the new emission reporting which provides that SIPs must require which heard challenges to the NOX SIP
requirements promulgated today with ‘‘as may be prescribed by the Call delayed the implementation by 1
two pre-existing sets of emission Administrator * * * (ii) periodic year to 2004, no State was required to
reporting requirements, we review here reports on the nature and amounts of start reporting until the 2003 inventory
the purpose and authority for emission emissions and emissions-related data year. The EPA promulgated a rule to
reporting requirements in general. from such sources.’’ Section 301(a) of subject Georgia and Missouri to the NOX
Emissions inventories are critical for SIP Call with an implementation date of
the CAA provides authority for EPA to
the efforts of State, local, and Federal 2007. (See 69 FR 21604, April 21, 2004.)
promulgate regulations under this
agencies to attain and maintain the We have recently proposed to stay the
provision.120
NAAQS that EPA has established for NOX SIP Call for Georgia (see 70 FR
criteria pollutants such as ozone, PM, 2. Pre-existing Emission Reporting 9897, March 1, 2005). Missouri’s
and CO. Pursuant to its authority under Requirements emissions reporting begins with 2006.
sections 110 and 172 of the CAA, EPA As noted above, prior to this final These emissions reporting requirements
has long required SIPs to provide for the rule, two sections of title 40 of the CFR under the NOX SIP Call affect the
submission by States to EPA of contained emissions reporting District of Columbia and 18 of the 28
emissions inventories containing requirements that are applicable to States affected by the proposed CAIR.
information regarding the emissions of States: Subpart A of part 51 (the CERR) As noted above, the other set of pre-
criteria pollutants and their precursors and section 51.122 in subpart G of part existing emissions reporting
(e.g., VOCs). The EPA codified these 51 (the NOX SIP Call reporting requirements is codified at subpart A of
requirements in subpart Q of 40 CFR requirements). part 51. Although entitled the
part 51, in 1979 and amended them in Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule
1987. 120 Other CAA provisions relevant to this final (CERR), this rule left in place the
The 1990 Amendments to the CAA rule include section 172(c)(3) (provides that SIPs for separate § 51.122 for the NOX SIP Call
revised many of the provisions of the nonattainment areas must include comprehensive, reporting. The CERR requirements were
CAA related to the attainment of the current inventory of actual emissions, including aimed at obtaining emissions
periodic revisions); section 182(a)(3)(A) (emissions
NAAQS and the protection of visibility inventories from ozone nonattainment areas); and
information to support a broader set of
in Class I areas. These revisions section 187(a)(5) (emissions inventories from CO purposes under the CAA than were the
established new periodic emissions nonattainment areas). reporting requirements under the NOX
SIP Call. The CERR requirements apply elements for all three reporting proposed to base the requirement for
to all States. programs (CERR, NOX SIP Call, and point source format reporting on
Like the requirements under the NOX CAIR) as well as provided information whether the source is a major source
SIP Call, the CERR requires reporting of on submittal procedures, definitions, under 40 CFR part 70 for the pollutants
all sources at 3-year intervals (2005, and other generally applicable for which reporting is required, i.e., for
2008, etc.). It requires reporting of provisions. CO, VOC, NOX, SO2, PM2.5, PM10 and
certain large sources every year. Taken together, the pre-existing ammonia but without regard to
However, the required reporting date emissions reporting requirements under emissions of hazardous air pollutants.
under the CERR is 5 months later than the NOX SIP Call and CERR were A number of other proposed changes
under the NOX SIP Call reporting already rather comprehensive in terms would have reduced reporting
requirements. Also, emissions must be of the States covered and the requirements on States or provided
reported for the whole year, for a typical information required. Therefore, the them with additional options. Two of
day in winter, and a typical day in practical impact of the proposed the proposed changes in this category
summer, but not for the 5-month ozone changes would have imposed only three are of special note in understanding the
season as is required by the NOX SIP new requirements. final requirements of today’s rule. (The
Call. Finally, the CERR and the NOX SIP First, in Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, remainder of these changes were
Call differ in what non-emissions data Louisiana, Mississippi, and Wisconsin explained in the SNPR at 69 FR 32697.)
elements must be reported. for which we proposed and are • The NOX SIP Call rule requires the
finalizing a finding of significant affected States to submit emissions
3. Summary of the Proposed Emissions contribution to ozone nonattainment in inventory reports for a given ozone
Reporting Requirements another State but which were not among season to EPA by December 31 of the
On June 10, 2004, EPA published a the 22 States already subject to the NOX following year. The CERR requires
SNPR (69 FR 32684) to EPA’s January SIP Call, the required emissions similar but not identical reports from all
30, 2004 proposal (69 FR 4566). The reporting would be expanded to match States by the following June 1, five
EPA’s main objective with respect to those of the 22 States. The proposed months later. We proposed to move the
emissions reporting was to add limited change would require that they report December 31 reporting requirement to
new requirements for emissions reports NOX emissions during the 5-month the following June 1, the more generally
to serve the additional purposes of ozone season and for a typical summer applicable submission date affecting all
verifying the CAIR-required emissions day, in addition to the existing 50 States. We asked for comment on
reductions. The SNPR also sought to requirement for reporting emissions for whether allowing this 5-month delay is
harmonize the CERR and NOX SIP Call the full year. We proposed that this new consistent with the air quality goals
reporting requirements with respect to requirement begin with the triennial served by the emissions reporting
specific data elements and consolidate inventory year prior to the CAIR requirements. However, we also asked
them entirely in subpart A, and to implementation date. This would be the for comment on the alternative of
reduce and simplify the reporting 2008 inventory year, the report for moving forward to December 31 all or
requirements in several ways. These which would be due to EPA by June 1, part of the June 1 reporting for all 50
latter changes were proposed to be 2010. States. In particular, we solicited
applicable to all States, not just those Second, under the existing CERR, comment on requiring that point
affected by the CAIR emissions yearly reporting is required only for sources be reported on December 31 and
reduction requirements. The major sources whose emissions exceed other sources on June 1.
changes included in the SNPR are specified amounts. The SNPR proposed • We also proposed to eliminate a
described below. that the 28 States and the District of requirement of the NOX SIP Call for a
Amendments were proposed to Columbia subject to the CAIR for special all-sources report by affected
subpart A, which contains § 51.1 reasons of PM2.5 must report to EPA States for the year 2007, due December
through 51.45 and an appendix, and to each year a set of specified data 31, 2008.
§ 51.122. We also proposed to add a new elements for all sources subject to new
§ 51.125. controls adopted specifically to meet the 4. Summary of Comments Received and
• In § 51.122, the NOX SIP Call CAIR requirements related to PM2.5, EPA’s Responses
provisions, we proposed to abolish unless the sources participate in an A number of commenters objected to
certain requirements entirely, and to EPA-administered emissions trading the 45-day comment period as being too
replace certain requirements with a program. We proposed that this new short to allow for full understanding of
cross reference to subpart A so that requirement begin with the 2009 and comment on the emissions
detailed lists of required data elements inventory year, the report for which will reporting changes that EPA had
appeared only in subpart A. As be due to EPA by June 1, 2011. This new proposed. With respect to this issue,
proposed, § 51.122 would then have requirement would have no effect on EPA believes that the comment period
specified what pollutants, sources, and States that fully comply with the CAIR was sufficient for those proposed
time periods the States subject to the by requiring their EGUs to participate in changes that would affect the States
NOX SIP Call must report and when, but the CAIR model cap and trade programs. subject to the emissions reductions
would no longer have listed the detailed Third, in all States, we proposed to
data elements required for those reports. expand the definition of what sources the term ‘‘area source’’ is used in section 112 of the
• The proposed new § 51.125 would must report in point source format, so CAA to indicate a non-major source of hazardous
have been functionally parallel to that fewer sources would be included in air pollutants, which could be a point source. As
emissions inventory activities increasingly
§ 51.122, specifying all the pollutants, non-point source emissions.121 We encompass both NAAQS-related pollutants and
sources, and time periods the States hazardous air pollutants, the differing uses of ‘‘area
subject to the proposed CAIR must 121 We used the term ‘‘non-point source’’ in the source’’ can cause confusion. Accordingly, EPA
report and when, referencing subpart A SNPR to refer to a stationary source that is treated proposed to substitute the term ‘‘non-point source’’
for inventory purposes as part of an aggregated for the term ‘‘area source’’ in subpart A, § 51.122,
for the detailed data elements required. source category rather than as an individual facility. and the new § 51.125 to avoid confusion. We are
• The proposed amended subpart A In the existing subpart A of part 51, such emissions not finalizing this change in terminology in today’s
would have listed the detailed data sources are referred to as ‘‘area sources.’’ However, rule.
requirements of the CAIR and that are to year is appropriate, and we are June 1, 17 months after the end of the
specifically directed at ensuring the finalizing this requirement. Since the reported year, as was proposed. We will
effectiveness of the CAIR, namely: (1) CERR already contains a requirement for address reporting deadlines
The requirement for six more States to every-year reporting of emissions from comprehensively in a separate NPR
report ozone season emissions, and (2) point sources above certain emission which will propose a unified, but
the requirement for all subject States to thresholds, this requirement will have shorter period of time to report to EPA.
report annual emissions from controlled an incremental impact only if States This separate notice will allow for more
sources every year if those sources are choose to control fairly small point public comment on the reporting cycle.
not participating in the emission trading sources or nonpoint or mobile sources The dual approach to reporting due
programs. These proposed changes are as part of their plan for meeting the dates retained in today’s rule will be
easy to understand on their face, and CAIR requirements. combined into unified due dates and
also have close precedents in the NOX The EPA received several comments will be influenced by comments
SIP Call. Moreover, the States affected regarding the elimination of the NOX received in response to our proposal
by these proposed reporting SIP Call special all-sources 2007 when the separate rulemaking is
requirements were identified as being emissions inventory. These comments completed.
subject to the proposed emissions all favored the elimination of the 2007 Regarding elements of the proposed
reduction requirements of the CAIR in emissions inventory, which EPA is requirements beyond these four, i.e., the
the original NPR, and thus they knew to promulgating in today’s rule. We would requirements that would have affected
be alert to the contents of the SNPR. We like to clarify that the NOX SIP Call States not subjected to the CAIR
also consider the comment period contained no requirement that any State emissions reduction requirements as
sufficient with respect to two other make a retrospective demonstration that well as CAIR States, many commenters
specific elements of the proposal, actual statewide emissions of NOX were said that EPA should not have included
namely (3) the proposal to eliminate the within any limit. The requirement for changes to national emissions reporting
2007 inventory reporting requirement the 2007 inventory was for the purpose requirements in a proposed rule placing
under the NOX SIP Call and (4) the of program evaluation by EPA. As emissions reduction requirements on
proposal to change the reporting date for explained in the SNPR, we believe that only certain States. Commenters also
the NOX SIP Call from December 31 (12 in light of the data on 2007 emissions questioned whether EPA had given
months after the end of the reported that will be available from the NOX adequate time for comment on the more
year) to June 1 (17 months after the end trading program and the further detailed revisions in required data
of the reported year). These were also reductions in NOX required by the
elements, definitions, etc. Substantively,
readily understood proposals, and the CAIR, the 2007 inventory submissions
many commenters supported some or
States affected by them were among from the States are not needed for this
all of the proposed changes, but some
those initially identified as subject to purpose.
The EPA also proposed to harmonize commenters objected to some of them.
the CAIR itself. A number of substantive
the report due dates for the NOX SIP The EPA has considered these
comments were received on these four
Call, currently 12 months after the end comments. Without conceding EPA’s
proposed changes. Therefore, we have
concluded that it is appropriate to of the reported year, and for the CERR, legal authority to include these
consider the substantive comments that currently 17 months after the end of the provisions in the final rule in light of
were received on these four elements of reported year. The EPA proposed to the history of proposal, public hearing,
the SNPR, and to take final action on harmonize the dates for both at 17 and comment period, EPA has—in an
them. The disposition of the remaining months, but asked for comments on a abundance of caution—decided to omit
elements of the SNPR is discussed 12-month due date. Several comments these provisions from today’s rule (see
further below. were received, all favoring harmonizing section VIII.D.5 Summary of the
The EPA received one comment from the report due date at 17 months. While Emissions Reporting Requirements
the Mississippi Department of we continue to believe in the efficiency below for the changes which are being
Environmental Quality on the proposed advantage of harmonized submission finalized today). We will repropose
requirement that Mississippi and five date requirements, we are not finalizing them, with modifications, in a separate
other States report ozone season this change. The EPA has reconsidered NPR to allow additional opportunity for
emissions. Mississippi disagreed that this part of the proposed emissions public comment by all affected States
they should be included with the other reporting requirements and believes that and other parties.
States subject to the CAIR provisions, it may be in the interest of the public 5. Summary of the Emissions Reporting
including the emissions reporting to move in the direction of shortening Requirements
provisions. The EPA has concluded that the emissions reporting cycle for all
the analysis performed to support CAIR three reporting requirements (CERR, As a result of the comments received,
and discussed earlier in this preamble NOX SIP Call, and CAIR), rather than EPA has revised the emissions reporting
amply demonstrates that Mississippi accepting the longer CERR cycle for all requirements of today’s rule by limiting
should be included in the CAIR and three reporting requirements. In today’s new requirements to the ones where
subject to the CAIR emissions reporting final rule, we are retaining the 12-month sufficient notice and opportunity for
requirements. submission date requirement of the comment was clearly given in the June
We did not receive comments original NOX SIP Call for the States 10, 2004, SNPR and that either: (1) Are
specifically on the proposal to require already subject to it. For the six States necessary for the monitoring of the
States to report annual emissions every that are newly subject to reporting implementation of the emissions
year from sources controlled to comply ozone season NOX emissions and for the reduction requirements of the CAIR, or
with the CAIR, if those sources are not new requirement for every-year (2) are changes in reporting under the
participating in the emission trading reporting by sources controlled to meet NOX SIP Call linked to the CAIR. Three
programs operated by EPA. While we the CAIR requirements for SO2 and NOX specific emissions reporting provisions
expect the number of such sources to be annual emissions reductions but not that change the pre-existing
small if not zero, we continue to believe included in the trading programs, the requirements are included in today’s
that tracking their emissions from year required reporting date for States will be rule.
1. Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, needs for monitoring the EPA, which administers the program on
Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, implementation of required NOX and behalf of States.
Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, SO2 emissions reductions. This section focuses on the structure
Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, 3. The EPA has determined that the which maintains the existing NOX SIP
Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North requirement in the NOX SIP Call for a Call rules (in part 96, subparts A
Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South special all-sources report by affected through J) while adding parallel rules
Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West States for the year 2007, due December for the CAIR annual NOX (in subparts
Virginia, Wisconsin and the District of 31, 2008, is no longer needed to AA through II), CAIR SO2 (in subparts
Columbia, which are subject to the CAIR administer provisions in the NOX SIP AAA through III), and the CAIR ozone-
for reasons of ozone, are made subject Call. Accordingly, EPA is eliminating season NOX (in subparts AAAA through
to emission reporting requirements for this requirement in today’s rule. IIII) of the model rules. Commenters
NOX that are very similar to the existing The final rule accomplishes these generally supported the proposed
requirements of the NOX SIP Call, changes by making minimal changes to structure of the model rules, as well as
which already affects all but six of these the existing provisions of 40 CFR part the use of the cap and trade approach,
States. For these six States (Arkansas, 51. Subpart A, which contains the CERR which are maintained in the final rules.
Florida, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi requirements, is not amended at all. 40 Later sections of today’s rule discuss
and Wisconsin) a new requirement is CFR 51.122, the section containing specific aspects of the model rules that
that they report NOX emissions during emission inventory reporting have been modified or maintained in
the 5-month ozone season from all requirements for the NOX SIP Call, is response to comment.
sources every three years, in addition to substantively amended only to delete The EPA designed the model rules to
reporting emissions for the full year and the requirement for the 2007 inventory parallel the NOX SIP Call model trading
for a summer day as was already report.122 A new section 40 CFR 51.125 rules (part 96) and to coordinate with
required. This new requirement begins is added to contain the two new the Acid Rain Program. Mirroring the
with the triennial inventory year 2008. emission inventory reporting structure of existing part 96 in the final
For all the listed States, a new requirements specifically related to the CAIR NOX and SO2 model rules will
requirement is to report to EPA for 2009 new CAIR requirements for emissions ease the transition to the CAIR rules as
and each year thereafter the ozone- reductions, regarding ozone-season many States and sources are already
season and summer day NOX emissions, emissions of NOX and every-year familiar with the layout of the NOX SIP
plus a set of specified other data reporting of NOX and SO2 emissions Call rule. In addition, because the EPA
elements, for all sources subject to new from all sources controlled but not proposed new CAIR model trading
controls adopted specifically to meet the participating in the EPA trading rules—separate from the existing NOX
CAIR requirements related to ozone, programs. The new 40 CFR 51.125 refers SIP Call model rule in part 96—States
to 40 CFR subpart A for the other can continue to reference part 96
unless the sources participate in an
specific data elements that must be (subparts A through J) through 2008.
EPA-administered emissions trading
reported. The CAIR ozone-season NOX cap and
program. These reports will be due June
trade program that the EPA has
1 of the second year following the end VIII. Model NOX and SO2 Cap and included in today’s final rule is
of the reported year, i.e., 17 months after Trade Programs intended for use by CAIR ozone-affected
the end of the reported year. The
A. What Is the Overall Structure of the sources as well as those subject to the
existing CERR includes several other
Model NOX and SO2 Cap and Trade NOX SIP Call in 2009 and beyond.
reporting requirements which in
Programs? Those States that wish to use an EPA-
conjunction with this new requirement
administered, ozone-season cap and
will meet the needs for monitoring the The EPA is finalizing model rules for trade program to achieve the reductions
implementation of required NOX the CAIR annual NOX, CAIR ozone- mandated by the CAIR or the NOX SIP
emissions reductions. season NOX, and SO2 trading programs Call, must use the CAIR ozone-season
2. Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, that States can use to meet the emission NOX model rule (subparts AAAA
Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, reduction requirements in the CAIR. through IIII) in 2009 and beyond.
Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, These rules are designed to be The model rules rely on the detailed
Mississippi, Missouri, New York, North referenced by States in State unit-level emissions monitoring and
Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South rulemaking. State use of the model cap reporting procedures of part 75 and
Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and trade rules helps to ensure consistent allowance management
West Virginia, Wisconsin and the consistency between the State programs, practices. (Note that full CAIR-related
District of Columbia, which are subject which is necessary for the market SIP requirements, i.e., part 51, are
to the CAIR for reasons of PM2.5, must aspects of the regional trading program discussed in section VII of today’s
report to EPA each year annual NOX and to function properly. It also allows the preamble.) Additionally, section IX.B of
SO2 emissions, plus a set of specified CAIR Program to build on the successful today’s preamble discusses the final
other data elements, for all sources Acid Rain Program. Consistency in the revisions to parts 72 through 77 in order
subject to new controls adopted CAIR requirements from State-to-State to, among other things, facilitate the
specifically to meet the CAIR benefits the affected sources, as well as interaction of the title IV Acid Rain
requirements related to PM2.5, unless the Program’s SO2 cap and trade provisions
sources participate in an EPA- 122 40 CFR 51.122 is also amended: (1) to remove
and those of the CAIR SO2 trading
administered emissions trading a reference to now-obsolete electronic data
reporting processes (a ‘‘housekeeping’’ deletion that
program.
program. Previously, these states may was specifically included in the proposed rule text
have been required to report these Road Map of Model Cap and Trade
with the SNPR), and (2) to make a minor technical
sources only every third year, correction to properly indicate which of the latitude Rules
depending on their size. The existing versus longitude data elements corresponds to the The following is a brief ‘‘road map’’
x-coordinate and which to the y-coordinate (a
CERR includes several other reporting correction that was implicitly proposed in the
to the final CAIR NOX and SO2 cap and
requirements which in conjunction with SNPR in that 51.122 was proposed to refer to 51 trade programs. Please refer to the
this new requirement will meet the subpart A for all its data element descriptions). detailed discussions of the CAIR
programmatic elements throughout whether or not they adopt the optional Compliance Supplement Pool (CSP)
today’s rule for further information on individual opt-in provisions of the • Each State will have a share of the
each aspect. model rule. However, if the State CSP that is comprised of 200,000 124
chooses to allow individual sources to CAIR annual NOX allowances of vintage
State Participation
opt-in, the opt-in requirements must year 2009. The State may distribute the
• States have flexibility to achieve reflect the requirements of the model CSP allowances based upon the criteria,
emissions reductions however they rule. found in the SIP Approvability section
chose, including developing and of today’s rule, for early reductions and
implementing their own trading Emission Allowances
need.
program. • The CAIR annual NOX cap and
• States may elect to participate in an trade program will rely upon CAIR Emission Monitoring and Reporting by
EPA-managed cap and trade program. annual NOX allowances allocated by the Sources
To participate, a State must adopt the States. The NOX SIP Call allowances • Sources monitor and report their
model cap and trade rules finalized in and CAIR ozone-season NOX allowances emissions using part 75. This includes
this section of today’s rule with cannot be used for compliance with the individual sources that opt-in to the
flexibility to modify sections regarding annual CAIR reduction requirement. program.
NOX allocations and whether to include (Note that allowances from the • Source information management,
individual unit opt-in provisions. Compliance Supplement Pool (CSP) will emissions data reporting, and allowance
• States may participate in EPA- be CAIR annual NOX allowances.) trading is done through on-line systems
managed cap and trade programs for • The CAIR ozone-season NOX cap similar to those currently used for the
either the annual NOX, the ozone-season and trade program will rely upon CAIR Acid Rain SO2 and NOX SIP Call
NOX, the SO2, or any combination. The ozone-season NOX allowances allocated Programs.
State can only choose to participate in by the States. In addition, pre-2009 NOX • Emission monitoring and reporting
the EPA-administered, CAIR cap and SIP Call allowances can be banked into for both the CAIR annual and ozone-
trade program(s) that is (are) relevant to the program and used by CAIR-affected season NOX cap and trade programs will
their finding(s). sources for compliance with the CAIR use part 75.
• The annual NOX model rule is to be ozone-season NOX program. The NOX
used by only those States that are SIP Call allowances of vintages 2009 Compliance and Penalties
affected by the CAIR PM2.5 finding. and later can not be used for compliance • Compliance for the annual and
• The ozone-season NOX model rule with any EPA-administered cap and ozone-season NOX cap and trade
is designed to be used by those States trade programs. programs, as well as the SO2 program,
that are affected by the CAIR ozone • The CAIR SO2 cap and trade will be determined separately.125
finding as well as take the place of the program will rely upon title IV SO2 • For the NOX and SO2 cap and trade
NOX SIP Call requirements.123 The allowances but may also include programs, any source found to have
CAIR ozone-season NOX program will additional CAIR SO2 allowances, should excess emissions must: (1) Surrender
be the only ozone-season NOX program a State that allows an individual unit allowances sufficient to offset the excess
that EPA will administer. Because EPA opt-in mechanism provide CAIR SO2 emissions; and, (2) surrender
will no longer run a NOX SIP Call allowwances to an opt-in source. Pre- allowances from the next control period
trading program, States may include 2010 title IV SO2 allowances can be equal to three times the excess
their NOX SIP Call trading sources if used for compliance with the CAIR. emissions.
they adopt the EPA-administered CAIR • Sulfur dioxide reductions are
achieved by requiring sources to retire Comments Regarding the Use of a Cap
ozone-season NOX program.
• The SO2 model rule is designed to more than one allowance for each ton of and Trade Approach and the Proposed
Structure
satisfy the ongoing statutory SO2 emissions. The emission value of an
requirements of the title IV Acid Rain SO2 allowance is independent of the Commenters overwhelmingly
SO2 cap and trade program—with year in which it is used, but is based supported the use of a cap and trade
sequential compliance with title IV and upon its vintage (i.e., the year in which approach and the overall framework of
the CAIR—for sources in the CAIR the allowance is issued). Sulfur dioxide the model rules to achieve the mandated
region that are affected by both the Acid allowances of vintage 2009 and earlier emissions reductions. Some supported
Rain Program and the CAIR. offset one ton of SO2 emissions. the use of cap and trade for achieving
Vintages 2010 through 2014 offset 0.5 regional emissions reductions but noted
Trading Sources the need to have additional measures
tons of emissions. And, vintages 2015
• States must achieve all of the and beyond offset 0.35 tons of that ensure that emission reductions
mandated emission reductions from emissions. take place in nonattainment areas. This
EGUs to participate in EPA-managed is in line with the EPA’s strategy of
cap and trade programs. States may Allocation of Allowances to Sources reducing transported SO2 and NOX
include other NOX SIP Call trading • For SO2 allowances, sources have through a regionwide cap and trade
sources in the ozone-season CAIR NOX already received allowances through approach and encouraging States to take
cap and trade program and still title IV. complementary measures to address
participate in EPA-managed cap and • NOX allowances (for both the their particular, persistent
trade programs. annual and ozone-season programs) will nonattainment issues. (Note that
• States may participate in EPA- be allocated based upon the State’s comments on specific mechanisms
managed cap and trade programs chosen allocation methodology. The
EPA’s model NOX rules have provided 124 The 200,000 total includes the share of the
123 Rhode Island (RI) is the only State currently an example allocation, complete with CSP that DE and NJ would receive if the EPA
participating in the NOX SIP Call cap and trade regulatory text, that may be used by finalizes a parallel rule finding that they are
program that is not affected by today’s ozone significant contributors for PM2.5.
finding. As is explained in section IX, RI may join
State’s or replaced by text that 125 Compliance with the title IV Acid Rain
the CAIR ozone-season trading program as a means implements a States alternative Program will be determined separately from CAIR
of satisfying its NOX SIP Call requirements. allocation methodology. compliance.
within the cap and trade program are For States Electing To Participate in the Comments Regarding the Process for
discussed in the topic-specific sections EPA-Administered Ozone-Season CAIR Adopting the Model Rules
that follow.) NOX Cap and Trade Program Commenters supported EPA’s
B. What Is the Process for States To States that wish to achieve their CAIR proposed process and emphasized the
Adopt the Model Cap and Trade ozone-season requirements through an importance of workable model rules,
Programs and How Will It Interact With EPA-administered ozone-season NOX because States with limited resources
Existing Programs? cap and trade program will adopt the are likely to incorporate them by
CAIR model rule in subparts AAAA reference or heavily rely on them as the
1. Adopting the Model Cap and Trade through IIII. (Note that the EPA- basis for State rules.
Programs administered annual NOX CAIR cap and
2. Flexibility in Adopting Model Cap
trade program is independent of ozone-
States may choose to participate in and Trade Rules
season CAIR NOX model rule.) Because
the EPA-administered cap and trade EPA will no longer administer the It is important to have consistency on
programs, which are a fully approvable trading program for the NOX SIP Call, a State-to-State basis with the basic
control strategy for achieving all of the States that wish to continue to meet requirements of the cap and trade
emissions reductions required under their NOX SIP Call obligations through approach when implementing a multi-
today’s rulemaking in a highly cost- an EPA-administered cap and trade State cap and trade program. Such
effective manner. States may simply program will also adopt the CAIR consistency ensures the: Preservation of
reference the model rules in their State ozone-season model rule. NOX SIP Call the integrity of the cap and trade
rules and, thereby, comply with the States will ‘‘sun set’’ their NOX SIP Call approach so that the required emissions
requirements for statewide budget rules for sources that will move into the reductions are achieved; smooth and
demonstrations detailed in section VII.B CAIR NOX ozone-season program. Part efficient operation of the trading market
of today’s preamble. Affected States for 96, sections A–J (i.e., the NOX SIP Call and infrastructure across the multi-State
both PM2.5 and ozone can adopt the trading rule) will continue to be CAIR region so that compliance and
annual NOX and SO2 cap and trade available for the NOX SIP Call and will administrative costs are minimized; and
programs in part 96, subparts AA not be removed for the CAIR. The CAIR equitable treatment of owners and
through II, part 96 subparts AAA model rules specifically address how operators of regulated sources. However,
through III, and AAAA through IIII. NOX SIP Call allowances carry forward EPA believes that some limited
States with ozone-season only CAIR into the CAIR NOX ozone-season differences are possible without
requirements (i.e., Arkansas, program. (Section IX.A provides jeopardizing the environmental and
Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, additional discussion of interactions other goals of the program. Therefore,
and New Jersey) can adopt the ozone- between the CAIR and the NOX SIP the final rule allows States to modify the
season CAIR NOX program (subparts Call). model rule language to best suit their
AAAA through IIII). Part 96 subparts unique circumstances in a few, specific
For States Electing To Participate in the areas.
AA through II and AAA through III can EPA-Administered Annual NOX Cap
be used by States that are affected for First, States have the flexibility to
and Trade Program include, as full trading partners, all
only PM2.5 (i.e., Georgia, Minnesota, and
Texas). States that elect to achieve the States that are PM2.5 affected and wish trading sources affected by the NOX SIP
required reductions by regulating other to participate in an EPA-administered Call in the ozone-season CAIR NOX cap
sources or using other approaches will annual NOX cap and trade program will and trade program. This is an outgrowth
follow alternate State requirements, also adopt the CAIR model rule in subparts of the development of the CAIR ozone-
described in section VII.B of today’s AA through II. States may participate by season NOX program, which will be the
preamble. either adopting the model rule only ozone-season NOX cap and trade
provisions by reference or codifying the program administered by EPA.
As proposed, EPA is requiring States model rule in their State regulations. In addition, States may develop their
that wish to participate in the EPA- own NOX allocations methodologies,
managed cap and trade program to use For States Electing To Participate in the provided allocation information is
the model rule to ensure that all EPA-Administered SO2 Cap and Trade submitted to EPA in the required
participating sources, regardless of Program timeframe. (Section VIII.D of today’s
which State in the CAIR region they are States may simply adopt new preamble discusses unit-level
located, are subject to the same trading provisions, whether by incorporating by allocations and the related comments in
and allowance holding requirements. reference the CAIR SO2 cap and Trade greater detail. This includes a
Further, requiring States to use the rule (part 96, subparts AAA through III) discussion of the provisions establishing
complete model rule provides for or codifying the provisions of the CAIR the advance notice States must provide
accurate, certain, and consistent SO2 cap and trade rules, in order to for unit-by-unit allocations).
quantification of emissions. Because participate in the EPA-administered SO2 Lastly, States using the model cap and
emissions quantification is the basis for cap and trade program. The CAIR SO2 trade rules may elect to include
applying the emissions authorization model rule works in conjunction with provisions that allow individual units to
provided by each allowance and the Acid Rain Program provisions, ‘‘opt-in’’ to the cap and trade programs.
emissions authorizations (in the form of which are implemented at the Federal States that wish to include this
allowances) are the valuable commodity level and will stay in place. Today’s mechanism must adopt provisions
traded in the market, the emissions action also finalizes some revisions to discussed in section VIII.G of today’s
quantification requirements of the the Acid Rain Program (i.e., parts 72, 73, rulemaking. Adopting the individual
model rule are necessary to maintain the 74, 75, and 78). (Section IX.B of today’s unit opt-in provisions, which would
integrity of the cap and trade approach preamble provides additional allow non-EGUs that meet the opt-in
of the program and therefore, to ensure discussion of interactions between the requirements to enter into the EPA-
that the environmental goals of the CAIR and the Acid Rain Program and managed cap and trade programs, does
program are met. changes to the Acid Rain Program). not preclude a State from participating
in the EPA-administered cap and trade applicability threshold of approximately should use in the CAIR Program the
programs. 25 MW under subpart Da. same definition that is used in the NOX
One commenter suggested a plant- SIP Call, i.e., where a unit uses fossil
C. What Sources Are Affected Under the wide cut-off of 250 MW. This fuel for at least 50 percent of its annual
Model Cap and Trade Rules?
commenter suggested that including heat input during a specified period.
In the January 2004 NPR, EPA units between 25 and 250 MW would The same commenter also proposed
proposed a method for developing cause these units to shutdown but failed excluding large wood-fired boilers and
budgets that assumed reductions only to provide any analysis to support its black liquor recovery furnaces. The
from EGUs. Electric Generating Units claim. Such a cut-off would be commenter’s definition would result in
were defined as: Fossil fuel-fired, non- inconsistent with other existing SO2 and units already subject to the Acid Rain
cogeneration EGUs serving a generator NOX cap and trade programs as noted Program in a given State being excluded
with a nameplate capacity of greater above. The EPA estimates that from the CAIR Program and the model
than 25 MWe; and fossil fuel-fired approximately 1⁄3 of the SO2 reductions, cap and trade rules applicable in that
cogeneration EGUs meeting certain and 30 percent of the NOX reductions, State. Such exclusion would make it
criteria (referred to as the ‘‘1⁄3 potential required under today’s rule come from more difficult to coordinate the Acid
electric output capacity criteria’’). In the plants between 25 MW and 250 MW. Rain Program and the CAIR Program.
SNPR, we proposed model cap and Our modeling shows that some units Consequently, EPA rejects the
trade rules that applied to the same below 250 MW will put on controls as commenter’s more restricted definition
categories of sources. We are finalizing part of our highly cost-effective set of of fossil fuel-fired.
the nameplate capacity cut-off that we control actions. The units also have the The EPA recognizes that new (i.e.,
proposed in the NPR for developing option to coal-switch, alter dispatch, post-1990) units that are 25 MW or less
budgets and that we proposed in the and/or purchase allowances. and burn other than clean fuels are
SNPR for the applicability of the model Another commenter suggested that, in subject to the Acid Rain Program but not
trading rules. We are also finalizing the lieu of the language proposed in the to the CAIR Program. However, there are
‘‘fossil fuel-fired’’ definition and the 1⁄3 SNPR, EPA adopt a definition for EGU very few such units, and EPA has
electric output capacity criteria that that, according to the commenter, is the decided to exclude any units that are 25
were proposed. The actual rule language Acid Rain Program’s definition of MW or less on other grounds discussed
in the SNPR describing the sources to affected utility. The commenter stated above.
which the model rules apply is being that the Acid Rain definition of EGU is
slightly revised to be clearer in response 3. Exemption for Cogeneration Units
‘‘all fossil fuel-fired units with a
to some comments that the proposed nameplate capacity greater than 25 MW As proposed, EPA is finalizing an
language was not clear. supplying more than 1⁄3 of potential exemption from the model cap and
electrical output to the grid.’’ However, trade programs for cogeneration units,
1. 25 MW Cut-Off i.e., units having equipment used to
the commenter misstated the Acid Rain
The EPA is retaining the 25 MW cut- produce electricity and useful thermal
definition and confused the Acid Rain
off for EGUs for budget and model rule energy for industrial, commercial,
applicability provisions concerning
purposes. The EPA believes it is heating, or cooling purposes through
utility units in general with those
reasonable to assume no further control sequential use of energy and meeting
of air emissions from smaller EGUs. provisions concerning cogeneration
certain operating and efficiency
Available air emissions data indicate units in particular. The Acid Rain
standards (discussed below). The EPA is
that the collective emissions from small Program covers, with certain
adopting the proposed definition of
EGUs are relatively small and that exceptions,126 all existing fossil fuel-
cogeneration unit and the proposed
further regulating their emissions would fired units greater than 25 MW that
criteria for determining which
be burdensome, to both the regulated produce any electricity for sale; and
cogeneration units qualify for the
community and regulators, given the new fossil fuel-fired units that produce
exemption from the model cap and
relatively large number of such units. any electricity for sale. The language
trade programs.
For example, NOX and SO2 emissions referenced by the commenter The CAIR trading program has
from EGUs of 25 MW or less in the CAIR concerning potential electrical output different applicability provisions for
region represent approximately one applies, in the Acid Rain Program, only non-cogeneration units and
percent and two percent of total NOX to cogeneration units, not all fossil fuel- cogeneration units. If a unit initially
and SO2 emissions from EGUs, fired units. For non-cogeneration units, qualifies as a cogeneration unit, and for
respectively. There are over 4000 EGUs there is no exemption from Acid Rain the exemption from the trading program
of 25 MW or less in the CAIR region. Program requirements based on the unit for certain cogeneration units, but
Consequently, EPA believes that selling a ‘‘small’’ amount of electricity subsequently loses its cogeneration-unit
administrative actions to control this for sale. The provisions in the NPR and status (e.g., due to changes in
large group with small emissions would the SNPR concerning cogeneration units operation), such unit loses the
be inordinate and thus does not believe are discussed below. cogeneration-unit exemption and
these small units should be included. 2. Definition of Fossil Fuel-Fired becomes subject to the applicability
This approach of using a 25 MW cut-off The EPA is finalizing the proposed
criteria for non-cogeneration units,
for EGUs is consistent with existing SO2 definition of fossil fuel-fired, i.e., where
regardless of any future changes in the
and NOX cap and trade programs such any amount of fossil fuel is used at any
unit or its operations. If, under the non-
as the NOX SIP Call (where existing and time. This is the same definition that is
cogeneration unit applicability criteria,
new EGUs at or under this cut-off are, used in the Acid Rain Program. One
the unit becomes subject to the trading
for similar reasons, not required to be commenter suggested that the proposed
program, the unit will remain subject to
included) and the Acid Rain Program definition is too broad and that EPA
the program in the future. Conversely if
(where this cut-off is applied to existing a unit initially does not qualify as a
units and to new units combusting clean 126 For example, certain cogeneration units and cogeneration unit, such unit becomes
fuel). Also, EPA’s New Source new units 25 MW or less that burn only clean fuel subject to the applicability criteria for
Performance Standards use an are exempt from the Acid Rain Program. non-cogeneration units, regardless of
any future changes in the unit. If, under Calculations’’ in the docket. To the capacity and more than 219,000 MW-hrs
such criteria, the unit is subject to the extent any solid fuel-fired cogeneration annually to any utility power
trading program, the unit will remain units cannot meet the efficiency distribution system for sale. These
subject to the program in the future. standard and become affected units criteria are similar to those used in the
This approach to applicability means under the CAIR, EPA believes that, Acid Rain Program to determine
that units (other than, in some cases, considering their relatively high whether a cogeneration unit is a utility
opt-in units) cannot go in and out of the emissions of SO2 and NOX compared to unit and the NOX SIP Call to determine
trading program, which, if allowed, oil and gas-fired units, it is important to whether a cogeneration unit is an EGU
would make it difficult for EPA, States, require these sources to meet the or a non-EGU. The primary difference
and owners or operators to determine efficiency standards or be subject to the between the proposed criteria and the 1⁄3
which units should be complying with emission limits under the CAIR potential electric criteria for the Acid
trading program requirements, and Program. Rain and NOX SIP Call Programs is that
during what years, and would likely Another commenter suggested that these programs applied the criteria to
result in more non-compliance the efficiency standards should not the initial operation of the unit and then
problems. apply to solid fuel-fired cogeneration to 3-year rolling average periods while
units because solid fuel-fired unit the proposed CAIR criteria are applied
a. Efficiency Standard for Cogeneration efficiency is based on HHV (higher to each individual year starting with the
Units heating value) while gas, or oil-fired commencement of operation. The EPA
The EPA proposed operating and unit efficiency is based on LHV (lower believes that using an individual year
efficiency standards (i.e., the useful heating value). The EPA analyzed a approach would streamline the
thermal energy output of the unit must range 127 of solid fuel-fired cogeneration application and administration of this
be no less than a certain percent of the units and calculated their efficiencies to exemption. No adverse comments were
total energy output and, in some cases, see if they would meet the minimum received on using an individual year
useful power must be no less than a efficiency standard. All of the units approach as opposed to a 3-year rolling
certain percent of total energy input) in selected satisfied the proposed average. In addition, the criteria under
the SNPR that a unit must meet in order efficiency standard. See TSD entitled the Acid Rain Program and the NOX SIP
to qualify as a cogeneration unit. If the ‘‘Cogeneration Unit Efficiency Call are applied somewhat differently to
unit qualifies as a cogeneration unit, Calculations’’ in the docket. As a result, units commencing construction on or
then it may be eligible for exemption EPA believes that most solid fuel-fired before November 15, 1990 and units
from the CAIR, depending upon cogeneration units will meet the commencing construction after
whether it meets additional operating proposed efficiency standard. The November 15, 1990. Several
criteria, discussed below. As discussed efficiency standard EPA is adopting is commenters suggested exempting all
in the NPR, EPA proposed the same the Public Utility Regulatory Act cogeneration units under the PURPA
operating and efficiency standards for (PURPA) of thermal efficiency of 42.5 instead of using the proposed criteria
all fossil fuel-fired units (regardless of percent. See TSD entitled, and cite the high efficiency of
whether they burn coal, oil, or gas). In ‘‘Cogeneration Unit Efficiency cogeneration as a reason for a complete
addition, not applying the operating and Calculations’’ for further discussion, is exemption. The EPA believes it is
efficiency standards to coal-fired units based on LHV. If the efficiency of a important to include in the CAIR
would be counter productive to EPA’s solid-fuel-fired unit is expressed in Program all units, including
efforts to reduce SO2 and NOX terms of HHV, it can easily be converted cogeneration units, that are substantially
emissions under this proposed rule to LHV for purposes of determining in the business of selling electricity. The
because of the relatively high SO2 and whether it meets the efficiency proposed 1⁄3 potential electric output
NOX emissions from coal-fired units. In standard. Therefore, the reason given by criteria described above are intended to
particular, without application of the the commenter (that solid fuel-fired unit do that.
efficiency standards to coal-fired units, efficiency is expressed in terms of HHV) Inclusion of all units substantially in
highly inefficient coal-fired units, which is not grounds for not applying an the electricity sales business minimizes
have particularly high emissions per efficiency standard to these units. One the potential for shifting utilization, and
MWhr generated, could be exempt from commenter supported applying the emissions, from regulated to
the CAIR Program. In addition, if coal- same efficiency standard to solid fuel- unregulated units in that business and
fired units were not subject to the fired units as EPA proposed. The EPA thereby freeing up allowances, with the
operating standard, the potential would is finalizing its proposed cogeneration result that total emissions from
exist for a coal-fired unit to provide only unit definition, which applies the same generation of electricity for sale exceed
a token amount of useful thermal energy operating and efficiency standards to all the CAIR emissions caps. The fact that
and still qualify for a cogeneration unit units regardless of the type of fossil fuel units in the electricity sales business are
exemption from the CAIR Program, burned. generally interconnected through their
despite having relatively high access to the grid significantly increases
emissions. b. One-third Potential Electric Output the potential for utilization shifting.
One commenter suggested that EPA Capacity One commenter suggested that the 1⁄3
should not use the efficiency standards The EPA is finalizing the 1⁄3 potential of potential electric output capacity
for solid fuel-fired cogeneration units, electric output capacity criteria in the criteria be applied on an annual basis.
because it may require some coal-fired NPR and SNPR. Under the proposals, The EPA agrees that the criteria should
cogeneration units that were exempt the following cogeneration units are be applied annually. The proposed and
from the Acid Rain Program to purchase EGUs: Any cogeneration unit serving a final model cap and trade rules adopt
CAIR allowances. However, the EPA generator with a nameplate capacity of that approach.
analysis indicates that most existing greater than 25 MW and supplying more
solid fuel-fired cogeneration units c. Clarifying ‘‘For Sale’’
than 1⁄3 potential electric output
affected by this rule will meet the Several commenters requested EPA
proposed standard. See TSD entitled 127 The range included solid fuel-fired confirm that, for purposes of applying
‘‘Cogeneration Unit Efficiency cogeneration units from 25 MW to 250 MW. the 1⁄3 potential electric output criteria,
simultaneous purchases and sales of distribution system seems to be 1. Allocation of NOX and SO2
electricity are to be measured on a ‘‘net’’ apportionment based on the amount of Allowances
basis, as is done in the Acid Rain electricity produced by each unit during Each State participating in EPA-
Program. At least one commenter the relevant period of time. administered cap and trade programs
suggested that the net approach also be Exemption for Independent Power must develop a method for allocating
applied to purchase and sales that are Production (IPP) Facilities: Some (i.e., distributing) an amount of
not simultaneous. For purposes of commenters stated that certain IPP allowances authorizing the emissions
applying the 1⁄3 potential electric output facilities are exempt from the Acid Rain tonnage of the State’s CAIR EGU budget.
criteria in the CAIR Program and the For NOX allowances, each State has the
Program and that they should also be
model cap and trade rules, EPA flexibility to allocate its allowances
exempt from the CAIR Program and
confirms that the only electricity that however they choose, so long as certain
model-cap and trade rules. Under the
counts as a sale is electricity produced timing requirements are met.
Acid Rain Program, an IPP facility that
by a unit that actually flows to a utility For SO2, as noted in the January 2004
power distribution system from the unit. has, as of November 15, 1990, a
qualifying power purchase commitment proposal, States will have no discretion
Electricity that is produced by the unit in their allocation approach since the
and used on-site by the electricity- (including a sales price) to sell at least
15 percent of planned net output CAIR SO2 cap and trade program uses
consuming component of the facility title IV SO2 allowances, which have
will not count, including cogenerated capacity and has installed net output
capacity not exceeding 130 percent of been already allocated in perpetuity to
electricity that is simultaneously individual units by title IV of the CAA.
purchased by the utility and sold back planned net output capacity is exempt.
to such facility under purchase and sale However, if the power purchase a. Required Aspects of a State NOX
agreements under the PURPA. However, commitment changes after November Allocation Approach
electric purchases and sales that are not 15, 1990 in a way that allows the cost While it is EPA’s intent to provide
simultaneous will not be netted; the 1⁄3 of compliance with the Acid Rain States with as much flexibility as
potential electric output criteria will be Program to be shifted to the purchaser, possible in developing allocation
applied on a gross basis, except for then the IPP facility loses the approaches, there are some aspects of
simultaneous purchase and sales. This exemption. For example, expiration or State allocations that must be consistent
is consistent with the approach taken in termination of the power purchase for all States. All State allocation
the Acid Rain Program. commitment or modification so that the systems are required to include specific
price is increased (e.g., changed to a provisions that establish when States
d. Multiple Cogeneration Units market price) results in loss of the notify EPA and sources of the unit-by-
Some commenters suggested exemption. The purpose of the unit allocations. These provisions
aggregating multiple cogeneration units exemption is to protect IPP facilities establish a deadline for each State to
that are connected to a utility subject to contract prices that were set submit to EPA its unit-by-unit
distribution system through a single before passage of the CAA Amendments allocations for processing into the
point when applying the 1⁄3 potential of 1990 (including the Acid Rain electronic allowance tracking system.
electric output capacity criteria. These Program in title IV) and that did not Since the Administrator will then
commenters suggested that it is not allow passthrough of the costs of Acid expeditiously record the submitted
feasible to determine which unit is Rain Program compliance. However, allowance allocations, sources will
producing the electricity exported to the EPA maintains that this exemption was thereby be notified of, and have access
outside grid. The EPA proposed to aimed at easing the transition of such to, allocations with a minimum lead
determine whether a unit is affected by facilities into the Acid Rain Program time (about 3 years) before the
the CAIR on an individual-unit basis. and that there is no basis for allowances can be used to meet the NOX
This unit-based approach is consistent maintaining this exemption for every emission limit.
with both the Acid Rain Program and subsequent cap and trade program. In Today’s action finalizes the proposal
the NOX SIP Call. The EPA considers addition, this exemption was not used to require States to submit unit-by-unit
this approach to be feasible based on in the NOX SIP Call. allocations of allowances for a given
experience from these existing
year no less than 3 years prior to
programs, including for sources with D. How Are Emission Allowances
January 1 of the allowance vintage year,
multiple cogeneration units. The EPA is Allocated to Sources?
which approach was supported by
unaware of any instances of
It is important to have consistency on commenters.128 Requiring States to
cogeneration unit owners being unable
a State-by-State basis with the basic submit allocations and thereby provide
to determine how to apply the 1⁄3
requirements of the cap and trade a minimum lead time before the
potential electric output capacity
criteria where there are multiple approach when implementing a multi- allowances can be used to meet the NOX
cogeneration units at a source. State cap and trade program. This will emission limit ensures that an affected
In a case where there are multiple ensure that: The integrity of the cap and source—regardless of the State in the
cogeneration units with only one trade approach is preserved so that the CAIR region in which the unit is
connection to a utility power required emissions reductions are located—will have sufficient time to
distribution system, the electricity achieved; the compliance and plan for compliance and implement
supplied to the utility distribution administrative costs are minimized; and their compliance planning. Allocating
system can be apportioned among the source owners and operators are allowances less than 3 years in advance
units in order to apply the 1⁄3 potential equitably treated. However, EPA of the compliance year may reduce a
electric output capacity criteria. A believes that some limited differences, CAIR unit’s ability to plan for and
reasonable basis for such apportionment such as allowance allocation implement compliance and,
must be developed based on the methodologies for NOX allowances, are 128 If the deadline for States to submit SIPs is
particular circumstances. The most possible without jeopardizing the September of 2006, then this would result in
accurate way of apportioning the environmental and other goals of the notification period of less than 3 years for the first
electricity supplied to the utility power program. year of CAIR.
consequently, increase compliance using auctions for allocating allowances ensuring that particular units are not
costs. For example, a shorter lead time (as noted in the SNPR), EPA believes disadvantaged in their allocations by
would reduce the period for buying or that the decision regarding utilizing having insufficient operating data on
selling allowances and could prevent auctions should ultimately be made by which to base the allocations. The EPA
sources from participating in allowance the States. Therefore, EPA is not believes that a 5 year window, starting
futures markets, a mechanism for requiring, restricting, or barring State from commencement of operation, gives
hedging risk and lowering costs. use of auctions for allocating units adequate time to collect sufficient
Further, requiring a uniform, allowances. data to provide a fair assessment of their
minimum lead-time for submission of A number of commenters supported operations. Annual operating data is
allocations allows EPA to perform its allowing the use of allowance set-asides now available for 2003. The EPA is
allocation-recordation activities in a for various purposes. In today’s final finalizing January 1, 2001 as the cut-off
coordinated and efficient manner in action, EPA is leaving the decision on on-line date for considering units as
order to complete expeditiously the using set-asides up to the States, so that existing units since units meeting the
recordation for the entire CAIR region States may craft their allocation cut-off date will have at least 5 years of
and thereby promote a fair and approach to meet their State-specific operating data (i.e., data for 2001
competitive allowance market across the policy goals. through 2005).
region. i. Example Allowance Allocation The allowances for 2014 and later will
These minimum requirements apply Methodology be allocated from the State’s EGU NOX
to the NOX allocation approach and are budget annually, 6 years in advance,
not relevant for the SO2 cap and trade In the SNPR, EPA included an
taking into account output data from
program, which relies on title IV example (offered for informational
new units with established baselines
allowances. guidance) of an allocation methodology
(modified by the heat input conversion
that includes allowances for new
b. Flexibility and Options for a State factor to yield heat input numbers). As
generation and is administratively
NOX Allowance Allocations Approach new units enter into service and
straightforward. In today’s preamble,
establish a baseline, they are allocated
Allowance allocation decisions in a EPA is including in today’s preamble,
allowances in proportion to their share
cap-and-trade program raise essentially this ‘‘modified output’’ example
allocations approach, as was outlined in of the total calculated heat input (which
distributional issues, as economic forces is existing unit heat input plus new
are expected to result in economically the SNPR.
The EPA maintains that the choice of units’ modified output). Allowances
efficient and environmentally similar allocated to existing units slowly
outcomes regardless of the manner in allocation methodology does not impact
the achievement of the specific decline as their share of total calculated
which allowances are initially heat input decreases with the entry of
distributed. Consequently, for CAIR environmental goals of the CAIR
Program. This methodology is offered new units.
NOX allowances, States are given After 5 years of operation, a new unit
latitude in developing their allocation simply as an example, and individual
States retain full latitude to make their will have an adequate operating
approach. NOX allocation methodology baseline of output data to be
elements for which States will have own choices regarding what type of
allocation method to adopt for NOX incorporated into the calculations for
flexibility include: allocations to all affected units. The
A. The cost of the allowance allowances and are not bound in any
way to adopt EPA’s example. average of the highest 3 years from these
distribution (e.g., free distribution or
This example method involves input- 5 years will be multiplied by the heat-
auction);
B. The frequency of allocations (e.g., based allocations for existing fossil input conversion factor to calculate the
permanent or periodically updated); units, with updating to take into heat input value that will be used to
C. The basis for distributing the account new generation on a modified- determine the new unit’s allocation
allowances (e.g., heat-input or power output basis. It also utilizes a new from the pool of allowances for all
output); and, source set-aside for new units that have sources.
D. The use of allowance set-asides not yet established baseline data to be Under the EPA example method,
and their size, if used (e.g., new unit set- used for updating. Providing allowances existing units as a group will not update
asides or set-asides for energy for new sources addresses a number of their heat input. This will eliminate the
efficiency, for development of Integrated commenter concerns about the negative potential for a generation subsidy (and
Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) effect of new units not having access to efficiency loss) as well as any potential
generation, for renewables, or for small allowances. incentive for less efficient existing units
units). Under the example method, to generate more. This methodology will
Some commenters have argued allocations are made from the State’s also be easier to implement since it will
against giving States flexibility in EGU NOX budget for the first five not require the updating of existing
determining NOX allocations, citing control periods (2009 through 2013) of units’ baseline data. Retired units will
concerns about complexity of operating the model cap and trade program for continue to receive allowances
in different markets and about the existing sources on the basis of historic indefinitely, thereby creating an
robustness of the trading system. The baseline heat input. Commenters incentive to retire less efficient units
EPA maintains that offering such expressed some concern regarding the instead of continuing to operate them in
flexibility, as it did in the NOX SIP Call, proposed January 1, 1998 cut-off on-line order to maintain the allowances
does not compromise the effectiveness date for considering units as existing allocations.
of the trading program. units. The cut-off on-line date was Moreover, new units as a group will
A number of commenters have argued selected so that any unit meeting the only update their heat input numbers
against allowing (or requiring) the use of cut-off date would have at least 5 years once—for the initial 5-year baseline
allowance auctions, while others did of operating data, i.e., data for 1998 period after they start operating. This
not believe that EPA should recommend through 2002 (which was the last year will eliminate any potential generation
auctions. For today’s final action, while for which annual data was available). subsidy and be easier to implement,
there are some clear potential benefits to The EPA is still concerned with since it will not require the collection
and processing of data needed for adjustment factors of 1.0 for coal, 0.4 for input by dividing the total thermal
regular updating. gas and 0.6 for oil. The factors would output (btu) by the general boiler/heat
The EPA believes that allocating to reflect the inherently different exchanger efficiency of 80 percent. To
existing units based on a baseline of emissions rates of different fossil-fired this they will add the electrical
historic heat input data (rather than units (and consequently also reflect the generation from the combustion turbine,
output data) is desirable, because different burdens to control emissions. converted to an equivalent heat input by
accurate protocols currently exist for However, allocating to new (not multiplying by the conversion factor of
monitoring this data and reporting it to existing) sources on the basis of input 3,413 btu/kWh. This sum will yield the
EPA, and several years of certified data (and particularly fuel-adjusted heat total equivalent heat input for the
are available for most of the affected input) would serve to subsidize less- cogeneration unit.
sources. The EPA expects that any efficient new generation. For a given Steam and heat output, like electrical
problems with standardizing and amount of generation, more efficient output, is a useable form of energy that
collecting output data, to the extent that units will have the lower fuel input or can be utilized to power other
they exist, can be resolved in time for heat input. Allocating to new units processes. Because it would be nearly
their use for new unit calculations. based on heat input could encourage the impossible to adequately define the
Given that units keep track of electricity building of less efficient units since they efficiency in converting steam energy
output for commercial purposes, this is would get more allowances than an into the final product for all of the
not likely to be a significant problem. equivalent efficient, lower heat-input various processes, this approach focuses
A number of commenters expressed unit. The modified output approach, as on the efficiency of a cogeneration unit
support for EPA’s proposal in the SNPR described below, will encourage new, in capturing energy in the form of steam
that the heat input data for existing clean generation, and will not reward or heat from the fuel input.
units be adjusted by multiplying it by less efficient new coal units or less Commenters expressed concern about
different factors based on fuel-type. efficient new gas units. a single conversion factor, arguing for
Contrary to some commenters’ claims, Under the example method, different factors for different fuels and
determining allocations with fuel factors allowances will be allocated to new technologies. The EPA recognizes these
would not create disincentives for units of each fuel-type with an concerns and agrees that different new
efficiency. With the use of a single appropriate baseline on a ‘‘modified fossil-generation units have inherently
baseline for existing units, neither output’’ basis. The new unit’s modified different heat rates, largely dictated by
adjusted input, nor input, nor output output will be calculated by multiplying the technology needed to burn different
based allocations would provide its gross output by a heat rate fuels. A single conversion rate for all
additional incentives for energy conversion factor of 7,900 btu/kWh for units would provide new gas-fired
efficiency. All sources have incentives coal units and 6,675 btu/kWh for oil and combined cycle units with relatively
to reduce emissions (improving gas units. The 7,900 btu/kWh value for more allowances, relative to their
efficiency is a way of doing this) as a the conversion factor for new coal units emissions, than it would for new coal-
result of the cap and trade program, not is an average of heat-rates for new fired units.
because of the choice of an allocation pulverized coal plants and new IGCC The EPA maintains that providing
based on a single historic baseline. coal plants (based upon assumptions in each new source an equal amount of
The EPA acknowledges that since EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) allowances per MWh of output, given
allowances have value, different 2004 129). The 6,675 btu/kWh value for the fuel it is burning, is an equitable
allocations of allowances clearly do the conversion factor for new gas units approach. Since electricity output is the
impact the distribution of wealth among is an average of heat-rates for new ultimate product being produced by
different generators. However, in combined cycle gas units (also based EGUs, a single conversion factor for
general, the economics of power upon assumptions in EIA’s AEO 2004). each fuel, based on output, ensures that
generation dictate that generators selling A single conversion rate for each fuel- all new sources burning a particular fuel
power will seek to operate (and burn type will create consistent and level
will be treated equally.
fuel) to meet energy demand in a least- incentives for efficient generation, Some commenters support allocating
cost manner. The cost of the power rather than favoring new units with allowances to all new generation, not
generated (reflecting the bid price per higher heat-rates.
just fossil fuel-fired CAIR units. The
megawatt hour) will include the cost of For new cogeneration units, their
EPA notes that including new non-CAIR
allowances to cover emissions, whether share of the allowances will be
the generator uses allowances that it calculated by converting the available and non-fossil units in the allowance
already owns, or whether it needs to thermal output (btu) of useable steam distribution would raise issues, about
purchase additional allowances. With a from a boiler or useable heat from a heat which EPA lacks sufficient information
liquid market for allowances, exchanger to an equivalent heat input for resolution at this time for EPA’s
allocations for existing sources (whose by dividing the total thermal output example method. It would be necessary
baseline does not change) are a sunk (btu) by a general boiler/heat exchanger to clearly define what types of
benefit or sunk cost, not impacting the efficiency of 80 percent. generating facilities that could
existing generator’s behavior on the New combustion turbine cogeneration participate and what would constitute
margin. Thus, the use of fuel factors in units will calculate their share of ‘‘new’’ non-fossil generation.130
our allocating method would not be allowances by first converting the Commenters did not provide any
expected to result in changes in available thermal output of useable analysis of the impact of possible
generators’ choices for fuel efficiency. steam from a heat recovery steam definitions on generation mix, or
In its example allocation approach, generator (HRSG) or useable heat from electricity markets. Further, in order to
EPA is including adjustments of heat a heat exchanger to an equivalent heat include all generation, there would be a
input by fuel type based on average need to establish application and data
129 Energy Information Administration, ‘‘Annual
historic NOX emissions rates by three 130 Some commenters stated that, if allocations
Energy Outlook 2004, With Projections to 2025’’,
fuel types (coal, natural gas, and oil) for January 2004. Assumptions for the NEMS model. were provided for non-emitting new generation,
the years 1999–2002. As noted in the http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo04/ they also should be provided to all such generation,
SNPR, such calculations would lead to assumption/tbl38.html. including nuclear units.
collections procedures and determine 2014, the set-aside would need to cover proposed as an alternate approach.133
appropriate size cut-offs and boundaries new sources from the entire period However, the EPA has found this
of this generation—since in many such 2004–2013. approach to be complicated for both the
instances there is no clear analog to The choice of a 3 percent new source States and the EPA to implement.
discrete fossil ‘‘units.’’ 131 There also are set-aside, starting in 2014, reflects Additionally, the NOX SIP Call
associated issues about developing concerns that adequate allowances be approach would introduce a higher
appropriate measurement and data provided for the 10 years of new units level of uncertainty for sources in the
reporting requirements for such sources. to be covered by the set-aside in 2014 allocation process than necessary.
Commenters supporting this approach and subsequent years. (The set-aside in While the EPA is offering an example
did not address any of these matters in 2014, for example, would need to allocation method with accompanying
any detail. However, EPA encourages accommodate all units that went on-line regulatory language, the EPA reiterates
States that are interested in including between 2004 and 2013). that it is giving States’ flexibility in
such units in their updating allocations Individual States using a version of choosing their NOX allocations method
to consider potential solutions and the example method may want to adjust so they may tailor it to their unique
include them in their SIPs. Under the this initial 5 year set-aside amount to a circumstances and interests. Several
example method, new units that have number higher or lower than 5 percent commenters, for instance, have noted
entered service, but have not yet started to the extent that they expect to have their desire for full output-based
receiving allowances through the more or less new generation going on- allocations (in contrast to the hybrid
update, will receive allowances each line during the 2001–2013 period. They approach in the example above). In the
year from a new source set-aside. The may also want to adjust the subsequent past, EPA had sponsored a work group
new source allowances from the set- set-aside amount to a number higher or to assist States wishing to adopt output-
aside will be distributed based on their lower than 3 percent to the extent that based NOX allocations for the NOX SIP
actual emissions from the previous year. they expect more or less new generation Call and believes it is a viable approach
Such an allocation approach will going on-line after 2004. States may also worth considering. Documents from
generally provide new units sufficient want to set this percentage a little higher meetings of this group and the resulting
allowances to cover their emissions than the expected need, since, in the guidance report (found at http://
during the interim period before the event that the amount of the set-aside www.epa.gov/airmarkets/fednox/
units are allocated allowances on the exceeds the need for new unit workgrp.html) together with additional
same basis as existing units. allowances, the State may want to resources such as the EPA-sponsored
Today’s example method includes a provide that any unused set-aside report ‘‘Output-Based Regulations: A
new source set-aside equal to 5 percent allowances will be redistributed to Handbook for Air Regulators’’ (found at
of the State’s emission budget for the existing units in proportion to their http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/pdf/
years 2009–2013 and 3 percent of the existing allocations. output_rpt.pdf) can help States, should
State’s emission budget for the For the example method, EPA is they choose to adopt any output-based
subsequent years. In the SNPR, EPA finalizing the approach that new units elements in their allocation plans.
proposed a level 2 percent set-aside for will begin receiving allowances from the As an another alternative example,
all years. set-aside for the control period States could decide to include elements
Commenters noted their concern that immediately following the control of auctions into their allowance
the amount of the set-aside in the early period in which the new unit allocation programs.134 An example of
years of the program should be higher commences commercial operation, an approach where CAIR NOX
to reflect the fact that the set-aside will based on the unit’s emissions for the allowances could be distributed to
initially need to accommodate all new preceding control period. Thus, a source sources through a combination of an
units entering into service from 1998 will be required to hold allowances auction and a free allocation is provided
through 2010.132 In order to estimate the during its start-up year, but will not below.
need for allocations for new units, EPA receive an allocation for that year. During the first year of the trading
looked at the NOX emissions from units States will allocate allowances from program, 94 percent of the NOX
that went online starting in 1999 as the set-aside to all new units in any allowances could, for example, be
projected by the Integrated Planning given year as a group. If there are more allocated to affected units with an
Model (IPM) runs modeling CAIR for allowances requested than in the set- auction held for the remaining 1 percent
the years 2010 and 2015. These IPM aside, allowances will be distributed on of the NOX allowances 135. Each
emissions projections indicated over a pro-rata basis. Allowance allocations subsequent year, an additional 1 percent
57,000 tons of NOX emissions in 2010 for a given new unit in following years of the allowances (for the first 20 years
and about 74,000 tons of NOX emission will continue to be based on the prior of the program), and then an additional
by 2015 from new sources need to be year’s emissions until the new unit 2.5 percent thereafter, could be
covered under set-asides throughout the establishes a baseline, is treated as an auctioned until eventually all the
CAIR region. The 2010 number existing unit, and is allocated allowances are auctioned. With such a
represents almost 4 percent of the Phase allowances through the State’s updating system, for the first 20 years of the
I NOX regional cap, while the 2015 process. This will enable new units to
number represents about 6 percent of have a good sense of the amount of 133 With the alternate approach from the NO SIP
X
the Phase I regional cap. Consequently, allowances they will likely receive—in Call. States could distribute a new source set-aside
today’s example method includes a 5 proportion to their emissions for the for a control period based on full utilization rates,
at the end of the year the actual allowance
percent set-aside for the initial period previous year. This methodology will allocation would be adjusted to account for actual
(2009–2013). It should be noted that by not provide allowances to a unit in its unit utilization/output, and excess allowances
first year of operation; however it is a would be returned and redistributed, first taking
131 For instance, would the addition of a single
methodology that is straightforward, into account new unit requests that were not able
new wind turbine at a wind-farm constitute a ‘‘new to be addressed.
reasonable to implement, and 134 Auctions could provide States with a non-
unit’’?
132 As noted earlier in this section, EPA is now predictable. distortionary source of revenue.
considering new units to be those that went online In the SNPR, the example method 135 5 percent of the allowances would go to a new
after January 1, 2001 rather than 1998. from the NOX SIP Call model rule was source set-aside.
trading programs, the majority of awarded, and the final prices. The State Comments Regarding Unrestricted
allowances would be distributed for free would return payment to unsuccessful Banking After the Start of the CAIR NOX
via the allocation. Allowances allocated bidders and add any unsold allowances and SO2 Cap and Trade Programs
for these earlier years are generally more to the next relevant auction. Many commenters supported the
valuable than allowances allocated for EPA’s proposal to allow unrestricted
In summary, today’s action provides,
later years because of the time value of banking and the use of banked
for States participating in the EPA-
money. Thus, most emitting units allowances for both SO2 and NOX,
would receive relatively more administered CAIR NOX cap and trade
program, the flexibility to determine agreeing that flow control is a complex
allowances in the early years of the
their own methods for allocating NOX and confusing procedure with
program, when they are facing the
allowances to their sources. undemonstrated environmental benefit.
expenses of taking actions to control
Specifically, such States will have Further, they agreed that banking with
their emissions. Even though the
flexibility concerning the cost of the no restrictions on use will encourage
proportion of allowances allocated to
allowance distribution, the frequency of early emissions reductions, stimulate
existing sources declines in the later
allocations, the basis for distributing the the trading market, encourage efficient
years of the program, these sources
pollution control, and provide
receive for free a very significant share allowances, and the use and size of
flexibility to affected sources in meeting
of the total value of allowances (because allowance set-asides.
environmental objectives.
the discounted present value of
E. What Mechanisms Affect the Trading Other commenters objected to the
allowances allocated in the early years
of Emission Allowances? EPA’s proposal to allow unrestricted use
of the program is greater than the
discounted present value of the of banked allowances. All of these
1. Banking commenters supported some use of flow
allowances auctioned later).
Auctions could be designed by the a. The CAIR NPR and SNPR Proposal for control in the CAIR cap and trade
State to promote an efficient the Model Rules and Input From programs, most supporting its use for
distribution of allowances and a Commenters both SO2 and NOX.
competitive market. Allowances would Some commenters disagreed with the
be offered for sale before or during the Banking is the retention of unused EPA’s assessment that the use of flow
year for which such allowances may be allowances from 1 calendar year for use control in the Ozone Transport
used to meet the requirement to hold in a later calendar year. Banking allows Commission (OTC) cap and trade
allowances. States would decide on the sources to make reductions beyond program was complicated to understand
frequency and timing of auctions. Each required levels and ‘‘bank’’ the unused and implement and caused market
auction would be open to any person, allowances for use later. Generally complexity. One commenter further
who would submit bids according to speaking, banking has several elaborated that flow control was
auction procedures, a bidding schedule, advantages: It can encourage earlier or accepted by industry. Another
a bidding means, and by fulfilling greater reductions than are required commenter claimed that the EPA has
requirements for financial guarantees as from sources, stimulate the market and not analyzed the impact of the flow
specified by the State. Winning bids, encourage efficiency, and provide control mechanism.
and required payments, for allowances Some commenters supportive of flow
flexibility in achieving emissions
would be determined in accordance control stated that flow control was
reductions goals. When sources reduce
with the State program and ownership ‘‘successful’’ in the OTC and NOX SIP
their SO2 and NOX emissions in the Call trading programs and ‘‘worked
of allowances would be recorded in the early phases, the cap and trade program
EPA Allowance Tracking System after well’’ and ‘‘achieved the desired effect,’’
creates an emissions ‘‘glide path’’ that without supporting those statements.
the required payment is received.
The auction could be a multiple- provides earlier environmental benefits
and lower cost of compliance. This b. The Final CAIR Model Rules and
round auction. Interested bidders would Banking
submit before the auction, one or more ‘‘glide path’’ does allow emissions to
initial bids to purchase a specified exceed the cap and trade program The EPA acknowledges that the OTC
quantity of NOX allowances at a reserve budget—especially in the initial years NOX cap and trade program has
price specified by the State, specifying after the adoption of a more stringent functioned for several years despite the
the appropriate account in the cap. The use of banked allowances from complexity introduced by the flow
Allowance Tracking System in which the Acid Rain and NOX SIP Call control procedures. Industry and other
such allowances would be recorded. Programs in the CAIR NOX and SO2 cap allowance traders have adapted to these
Each bid would be guaranteed by a and trade programs is discussed below complex procedures, yet there are
certified check, a funds transfer, or, in in section VIII.F of this preamble. ongoing questions from the regulated
a form acceptable to the State, a letter community about how the procedures
The January 30, 2004 CAIR NPR and
of credit for such quantity multiplied by actually work. As an example, one
June 10, 2004 CAIR SNPR proposed that commenter, while disagreeing with the
the reserve price. For each round of the
the CAIR NOX and SO2 cap and trade EPA’s assertion that flow control is
auction, the State would announce
current round reserve prices for NOX programs allow banking and the use of overly complex, goes on to describe
and determine whether the sum of the banked allowances without restrictions. incorrectly the implementation of flow
acceptable bids exceeds the quantity of Allowing unrestricted banking and the control. The NOX SIP Call cap and trade
such allowances, available for auction. use of banked allowances is consistent program includes similar procedures
If the sum of the acceptable bids for with the existing Acid Rain SO2 cap and but flow control was not triggered in the
NOX allowances exceeds the quantity of trade program. The NOX SIP Call cap first 2 years of the program (2003 and
such allowances the State would and trade program, however, has some 2004), so there is no experience to be
increase the reserve price for the next restrictions on the use of banked drawn from that program.
round. After the auction, the State allowances, a procedure called ‘‘flow The EPA maintains that the benefits
would publish the names of winning control,’’ described in detail in the June of utilizing these complex procedures is
and losing bidders, their quantities 10, 2004 CAIR SNPR. questionable. The EPA has analyzed the
use of the flow control procedures in a (1) What would be the exchange rate acknowledges that it has the authority to
paper released in March 2004, (i.e., the transfer ratio) for the two create interpollutant trading programs
‘‘Progressive Flow Control in the OTC pollutants, and has done so, in other regulatory
NOX Budget Program: Issues to Consider (2) How can the transfer ratio best contexts, in the past. However, for
at the Close of the 1999 to 2002 Period.’’ achieve the goals of PM2.5 and ozone several reasons, the EPA determined
The lessons learned from this analysis reductions in downwind States and, that direct interpollutant trading is not
were as follows: (3) How would the interpollutant appropriate in the CAIR.
(1) Flow control can create market trading accommodate the different The final CAIR includes separate
pricing complexity and uncertainty. The geographic regions of the PM2.5 and annual SO2 and annual NOX model
need for implementation of flow control ozone programs? rules to address PM2.5 precursor
for a particular control period is not emissions, and an ozone-season NOX
Comments Regarding the Potential
known more than a few months in model rule to address summertime
Interpollutant Trading
advance, and the value of banked ozone precursor emissions. The EPA
allowances varies from year to year, The EPA received several comments believes it is not appropriate for the
depending on whether flow control has on interpollutant trading with the most CAIR model rules to allow annual SO2
been triggered for the particular year. commenters generally opposed to or NOX allowances to be used for
Therefore, when deciding how much to including provisions to allow for the compliance with ozone-season NOX
control, a source has some increased interchangability of SO2 and NOX allowance holding requirements
uncertainty about the value of any allowances. because this has the potential to
excess allowances it generates. Several commenters pointed out that adversely impact the ozone-season
(2) Flow control can have a bigger the CAIR ozone attainment benefits emissions reductions and ozone air
impact on small entities than on large result from the NOX emissions quality improvements from CAIR. This
entities. Large firms with multiple reductions, and contend that the EPA is significant because the EPA, as
allowance accounts can shift banked has not shown that SO2 emissions required by the CAA, has promulgated
allowances among those accounts to impact ozone. Therefore, the a national air quality standard for 8-
minimize the number of banked commmenters conclude that it would be hour ozone based on a determination
allowances surrendered at a discounted inappropriate for SO2 allowances to be that the standard is necessary to protect
rate. traded and used for compliance with the public health. Section 110(a)2(D)
(3) Flow control does not directly NOX cap. Some commenters supported requires States to prohibit emissions in
affect short-term emissions, so it may the consideration or use of amounts that will significantly
not serve the environmental goals for interpollutant trading if it was one- contribute to nonattainment in, or
which it was created. directional, i.e., NOX allowances could interfere with maintenance by, any
Incorporating these lessons learned, be used for compliance with the SO2 other State with respect to any air
the EPA is finalizing the CAIR NOX and allowance holding requirements, but not quality standard, including ozone. In
SO2 cap and trade programs with no vice versa. This could result in fewer this rule, EPA has designed the annual
flow control mechanism. NOX emissions and more SO2 (SO2 and NOX) and ozone-season (NOX)
emissions. emission caps to achieve the emissions
2. Interpollutant Trading Mechanisms Some commenters supported the reductions necessary to address each
a. The CAIR NPR Proposal for the Model consideration or use of interpollutant State’s significant contribution to
Rules and Input From Commenters trading and emphasized the scientific downwind PM2.5 and ozone
difficulty in developing accurate nonattainment, respectively, and to
Mechanisms for interpollutant trading transfer ratios. Of these commenters, prevent interference with maintenance.
allow reduced emissions of one some added that interpollutant trading If sources were permitted to use annual
pollutant to be exchanged for increased would be appropriate if the EPA SO2 or annual NOX allowances for
emissions of another pollutant where conducted a thorough analysis of the compliance with ozone-season NOX
both pollutants cause the same potential impacts that interpollutant allowance holding requirements (i.e.,
environmental problem (e.g., are trading would have on: nonattainment the ozone-season NOX cap), then there
precursors of a third pollutant). areas’ ability to come into attainment; would be no assurance that upwind
Interpollutant trading mechanisms are the allowance markets and prices; and States’ ozone-season NOX reduction
typically based upon each precursor’s the integrity of the NOX caps in light of obligations would be met, and CAIR’s
contribution to a particular the potentially large SO2 allowance projected ozone improvements in
environmental problem and are often bank that might be carried forward into downwind nonattainment areas could
controversial and scientifically difficult the CAIR trading programs. be significantly reduced. As a result,
to design because of the complexities of A few commenters noted that the EPA should interpollutant trading be
environmental chemistry. is directed by the CAA to study permitted between the annual and
Determination of conversion factors interpollutant trading and has approved ozone-season programs, the EPA could
(i.e., transfer ratios that relate the impact SIPs that allow the trading of ozone not demonstrate that the use of a CAIR
of one pollutant to the impact of another precursors under specific ozone-season cap and trade program
pollutant) can be dependent upon circumstances. would result in the emissions
location, the presence of other reductions necessary to satisfy upwind
pollutants that are necessary for b. Interpollutant Trading and the Final
States’ obligations under section
chemical reactions, the time of CAIR Model Rules 110(a)2(D)to reduce NOX for ozone
emissions, and other considerations. Interpollutant trading can provide purposes.
The January 30, 2004 CAIR NPR did some additional compliance flexibility, The EPA believes it is also
not propose a specific interpollutant and potentially lower compliance costs, inappropriate to use annual NOX
trading mechanism but rather took if appropriately applied to multiple allowances for compliance with the
comment on interpollutant trading in pollutants that have reasonably well annual SO2 allowance holding
general as well as the following specific known impacts on the same requirements, and vice versa. The EPA
issues: environmental problem. The EPA agrees with commenters that emphasize
that the chemical interactions for PM2.5 addressing two different environmental stringent Phase I SO2 requirements as
precursors are scientifically complex issues, and having slightly different another reason to allow the banking of
and must be accurately reflected in any annual NOX and ozone season NOX undiscounted, title IV allowances into
transfer ratio in order to maintain the control regions. Furthermore, because the CAIR.
integrity of the market. For example, the NOX and SO2 markets provide very Some commenters expressed concern
EPA analysis has shown (see January 30, flexible mechanisms for trading of the that achieving the SO2 caps would be
2004 NPR) that PM2.5 precursors, such two pollutants, the EPA does not believe delayed if a large number of SO2
as NOX and SO2, may have non-linear there is a compelling need to go further allowances were being banked into the
interactions in the formation of PM2.5. at this time. Therefore, EPA is not CAIR. Based upon experience with
Any uniform, interpollutant transfer finalizing provisions in the CAIR model implementing the Acid Rain Program,
ratio would have to be an average and rules that specifically address the EPA acknowledged in the SNPR that
would introduce significant variability interpollutant trades. crediting early reductions does create a
concerning the impact of interpollutant glide slope—where emissions are
F. Are There Incentives for Early reduced below the baseline before the
trading on emissions and significant
Reductions? implementation date and ‘‘glide’’ down
uncertainty concerning the achievement
of the CAIR Program’s emission When sources reduce their SO2 and to the ultimate cap level sometime after
reduction goals. The EPA did not NOX emissions prior to the first phase the program begins. This gradual
receive a response to the request in the of a multi-phase cap and trade program, reduction in emissions is a key
January 30, 2004 NPR for information it creates the emissions ‘‘glide slope’’ of component to cap and trade programs
on an appropriate value for a potential a cap and trade approach that provides having lower cost of compliance than
transfer ratio. While the EPA did receive early environmental benefit and lowers command-and-control approaches. One
one comment that recommended the use the cost of compliance. Early reduction commenter proposed that the EPA
of a trading ratio of two NOX allowances credits (ERCs) can provide an incentive needs to assess the likelihood that
for one SO2 allowance, no comments for sources to install and/or operate allowing the banking of undiscounted
presented supporting analysis that controls before the implementation title IV allowances would delay the
could be used to develop transfer ratios. dates. Allowing emission allowances attainment of the Phase I SO2 cap until
While many commenters supportive from existing programs to be used for Phase II. Because the EPA included this
of allowing interpollutant trading in the compliance in the new program is mechanism (i.e., the use of 2009 and
CAIR claimed that it would provide another mechanism to encourage early earlier vintage SO2 allowances for
additional compliance flexibility to reductions prior to the start of a cap and compliance in the CAIR) in the policy
sources, the EPA contends that use of trade program. This section discusses case modeled as part of this rulemaking,
the newly created CAIR trading markets the potential use of mechanisms to EPA analysis includes the benefits and
is sufficiently flexible. Sources may provide incentives for early reductions costs that would result from the level of
develop integrated, multi-pollutant in the CAIR. SO2 reductions that would take place
control strategies and use the separate 1. Incentives for Early SO2 Reductions with banking of undiscounted title IV
allowance markets to mitigate allowances.
differences in control costs (within the a. The CAIR NPR and SNPR Proposal for One commenter advocated the use of
boundaries of emissions caps). In other the Model Rules and Input From SO2 ERCs. It was not clear whether
words, a source can choose the level to Commenters these would be awarded in addition to
which they can cost effectively control The January 30, 2004 CAIR NPR and banking title IV allowances into the
one pollutant and, if necessary, buy or June 10, 2004 CAIR SNPR acknowledge CAIR or the ERC mechanism would take
sell emission allowances of the other the benefit of early reductions and the place of banking SO2 allowances
pollutant to compensate for any provide for the use of title IV SO2 into the CAIR.
expensive or inexpensive control cost. allowances of vintage years 2009 and b. SO2 Early Reduction Incentives in the
When markets are used to provide for earlier to be used for compliance in the Final CAIR Model Rules
trading of multiple pollutants, sources CAIR at a one-to-one ratio. In other
benefit from the additional compliance words, title IV allowances can be The CAIR SO2 model rule allows
flexibility while the caps assure the banked into the CAIR Program. This CAIR sources to use title IV SO2
achievement of the overarching provides incentive for title IV sources to allowances of vintage 2009 and earlier
environmental goals. reduce their emissions in years 2009 for compliance with the CAIR at a one-
In the June 10, 2004 SNPR, the EPA and earlier because these allowances to-one ratio. This approach was part of
solicited comment on how an may be used for CAIR compliance the CAIR policy case assumptions used
interpollutant trading mechanism might without being discounted by the in the rulemaking modeling and the
accommodate the slightly different retirement ratios applied to the 2010 EPA has shown that the SO2 cap and
geographic regions found to be and later SO2 allowances. No other trade program, with this early incentive
significant contributors for PM2.5 and mechanism, such as SO2 ERCs were mechanism, will achieve the level of
ozone under the CAIR. No commenters proposed by the EPA. SO2 reductions needed to meet the CAIR
provided supporting analysis or input goals. These reductions take place on a
on this issue. Comments Regarding the Incentives for glide slope that includes early emissions
In summary, the EPA received Early SO2 Reductions reductions as well as some use of the
comments that generally opposed The EPA received comments on SO2 allowance bank as sources
including a specific interpollutant incentives for early SO2 reductions with gradually reduce emissions toward the
trading mechanism. No commenters the majority supporting the EPA cap levels.
provided analysis to demonstrate the proposal to encourage early emission The EPA did not include SO2 ERCs
benefit of including a specific reductions by allowing the CAIR because the Acid Rain Program cap and
interpollutant trading mechanism nor sources to use 2009 and earlier vintage trade program, which affects a large
was there analysis provided in response title IV SO2 allowances for CAIR segment of the CAIR source universe,
to the EPA’s solicitation in the June 10, compliance. Some supporters noted makes it impossible to determine
2004 SNPR for input on: Transfer ratios, concerns in meeting the CAIR’s whether sources are reducing their SO2
emissions below levels required by ozone attainment in 2010 but believed commenter contended that technical
existing (i.e., the Acid Rain Program) 2010 attainment could only be helped if limitations of Selective Catalytic
programs. Furthermore, given that most there were some restrictions on the Reduction (SCR) operation would not
sources with substantial emissions number of ERCs that could be created. permit facilities to simply run all of
receive SO2 emission allowances under Some ERC supporters wanted credit their SCRs year-round. More
the Acid Rain Program, a significant for wintertime emissions reductions specifically, the commenter believes the
number of SO2 allowances are expected only, while a few believed that credit lower operating loads, typically of the
to be banked into the CAIR. These should be given for reductions at any wintertime dispatch, would not meet
banked allowances would be available time of year. One commenter advocated the minimum conditions necessary for
to CAIR sources in the early years of the providing ERCs for wintertime SCR operation (i.e., at lower capacity the
program and make ERCs largely reductions only as part of a broader stack gas temperatures will not support
unnecessary. proposal to create a bifurcated NOX the use of the catalyst). Fewer
trading system (i.e., separate wintertime wintertime opportunities to operate the
2. Incentives for Early NOX Reductions and summertime allowances and SCRs is believed by the commenter to
a. The CAIR NPR and SNPR Proposal for trading markets). result in a smaller projected ERC
the Model Rules and Input From Many of the commenters supporting estimate. This was an estimate used for
Commenters the use of ERCs advocated that they be discussion purposes and was not
distributed from a pool of allowances directly used in the development of the
In the June 10, 2004 SNPR, the EPA similar to the CSP used in the NOX SIP CSP.
proposed to provide incentives for early Call. (The NOX SIP Call CSP was a fixed A few commenters advocated
NOX reductions by allowing the use of pool of NOX allowances that were providing credits to any source that
NOX SIP Call allowances of vintage distributed on a first come-first serve, reduced emission rates below those
2009 and earlier to be used for prorated, or need basis, depending upon used to determine the CAIR State
compliance in the CAIR. Further, the the State). Commenters noted that the budgets. One commenter suggested that
EPA did not propose, but solicited CSP approach has already been part of the rates be based on those rates used to
comment on the potential use of NOX a litigated rulemaking and provides the determine the NOX SIP Call caps.
ERCs to provide an additional incentive added benefit of limiting the total A few commenters proposed that the
for sources to reduce NOX emissions number of allowances that can be EPA should develop a strategy for
prior to CAIR implementation. In distributed for early reductions. Other crediting NOX reductions from sources
addition to the general solicitation for commenters proposed that should the that have implemented control
comment on NOX ERCs, the EPA final approach use a pool of allowances, measures in response to State-level
solicited input on the following specific this pool should not remove allowances regulations that are more stringent than
approaches that could be utilized: (1) from the existing State NOX budget. the NOX SIP Call. Another commenter
The EPA could maintain the NOX SIP Another commenter suggested that advocated only providing ERCs in States
Call requirements and allow sources to allowances from a CSP could be subject to both the NOX SIP Call and the
use ERCs only for compliance with the distributed based upon a NOX emission CAIR.
annual limitation, to ensure that ozone- rate, such as 0.25 lbs/mmBtu. Some commenters did not support the
season NOX limitations are met. Under Allowances could be distributed to any use of NOX ERCs in any form. These
this scenario, the additional States source emitting below the target commenters believe that the use of ERCs
subject to the CAIR that have been emission rate. would delay attainment of the CAIR
found to significantly contribute to Several commenters were concerned emission caps.
ozone nonattainment may also have to that too many NOX ERCs (as well as
be included in the ozone season cap; (2) NOX SIP Call allowances) could be b. NOX Early Reduction Incentives in
the EPA could limit the period of time introduced into the CAIR and the ability the Final CAIR Model Rules
during which ERCs could be created of the NOX cap and trade program to The CAIR ozone-season NOX cap and
and banked; (3) the EPA could cap the meet the annual and ozone-season trade rule will allow the proposed use
amount of ERCs that can be created; and reduction goals could be compromised. of NOX SIP Call allowances of vintage
(4) the EPA could apply a discount rate Some commenters suggested that years 2008 and earlier for compliance in
to ERCs. crediting early reductions at a discount the CAIR. This mechanism would
(e.g., 2 tons of NOX reductions earn 1 provide incentive for sources in NOX
Comments Regarding the Incentives for
ERC) could mitigate this concern. Other SIP Call States to reduce their ozone-
Early NOX Reductions
commenters noted that a CSP-style season NOX emissions and bank
The EPA did not receive comment on mechanism also provides safeguards additional allowances into the CAIR.
the proposed use of NOX SIP Call against an overabundance of ERCs. Because today’s final ozone-season cap
allowances of vintage years 2009 and Another commmenter noted that and trade rule includes a mandatory
earlier for compliance in the CAIR. In restrictions on the use of ERCs similar ozone-season NOX cap in 2009 (this
fact, several commenters characterized to the progressive flow control (PFC) modification is discussed in section IV),
the CAIR proposal as not including any mechanism used in the NOX SIP Call— the provisions to allow the banking of
incentives for early NOX emissions PFC restricts the use of banked NOX NOX SIP Call allowances into the CAIR
reductions. allowances for compliance in years are adjusted to reflect this
The EPA received several comments where the NOX bank is greater than 10 implementation date.
on the potential use of NOX ERCs with percent of the allocations—could help The CAIR annual NOX cap and trade
the majority in favor of some sort of ERC to ease concerns of flooding the market rule will provide additional incentives
mechanism. Several commenters with NOX ERCs. for early annual NOX reductions by
advocated the use of ERCs to mitigate One commenter believed that the creating a CSP for CAIR States from
concerns that they would not be able to EPA’s projection that the potential pool which they can distribute allowances
meet the stringent Phase I CAIR of NOX ERCs could be as large as 3.7 for early, surplus NOX emissions
reduction requirements. One commenter million tons (presented in the June 10, reductions in the years 2007 and 2008.
wanted early reductions to facilitate the 2004 SNPR) is unrealistically high. The The earning of CAIR CSP allowances for
NOX emission reductions does not begin CAIR annual NOX allowances only for an opt-in provision in this final rule that
until 2007 because this is the first year those reductions that are in surplus of is based on the approach described in
after the State SIP submittal deadlines. the sources’ existing NOX reduction the SNPR but includes several
The CAIR CSP will provide a total of requirements. By allowing sources in modifications and additions in response
200,000 136 CAIR annual NOX NOX SIP Call and non-NOX SIP Call to comments as described below. In
allowances of vintage 2009 in addition States to demonstrate that their year- general, EPA believes there is value to
to the annual CAIR NOX budgets. round early reductions are truly including an opt-in provision but
The CAIR’s CSP is patterned after the ‘‘surplus’’ and, therefore, deserving of believes that sources that opt-in should
NOX SIP Call’s CSP, which is part of an CSP allowances, the EPA is responding be responsible for a certain level of
established and extensively litigated to comments that the EPA should allow reduction below its baseline because of
rulemaking. Similarities include: sources in non-NOX SIP Call States to the additional flexibility provided to
Limiting the total number of allowances receive credit for early reductions. Some that source by opting into a regional
that can be distributed; limiting the commenters advocated crediting sources trading program and because of the
years in which CSP allowances can be in the ozone-season NOX cap and trade possibility that participation in the
earned; populating the CSP with program that emitted below the CAIR may reduce or eliminate future
allowances vintaged the first emission rate used to determine the potential required reductions.
compliance year; and using distribution ozone-season budget. The EPA did not Therefore, the following opt-in
criteria of early reductions and need. accept this recommendation because a approach has as its goals to provide
The EPA will apportion the CSP to source that is allowed to bank NOX SIP more flexibility to the units opting in as
the States based upon their share of the Call allowances into the CAIR ozone- well as to potentially provide more cost-
final, regionwide NOX CAIR reductions. season NOX program and receive early effective reductions for the affected
Similar to the NOX SIP Call, States may reduction credit from CAIR’s CSP would EGUs but also to ensure a certain level
distribute these CAIR NOX allowances be essentially ‘‘double-counting’’ that of reduction from the units opting into
to sources based upon either: (1) A emission reduction. the program.
demonstration by the source to the State The EPA did not restrict the use of the
NOX allowances awarded from the CSP 1. Applicability
of NOX emissions reductions in surplus
of any existing NOX emission control because several aspects of the CSP Some commenters suggested that the
requirements; or (2) a demonstration to already address concerns that too many opt-in provision not be limited to
the State that the facility has a ‘‘need’’ total credits would be distributed and boilers and turbines but should be open
that would affect electricity grid that they would flood the markets. First, to any unit. The EPA strongly believes
reliability. Sources that wish to receive the CSP is a finite pool of NOX that any unit participating in an
CAIR CSP allowances based upon a allowances. Second, by requiring emissions trading program be subject to
demonstration of surplus emissions sources to reduce one ton of NOX accurate and reliable monitoring and
reductions will be awarded one CAIR emissions for every NOX allowance reporting requirements. This is the
annual NOX allowance for every ton of awarded from the CSP ensures that purpose of part 75. The EPA has
NOX emissions reductions. (Should a significant reductions are made prior to developed criteria for boilers and
State receive more requests for the CAIR implementation date. turbines to satisfy the requirements of
allowances than their share of the CAIR part 75 but has not developed criteria
G. Are There Individual Unit ‘‘Opt-In’’ for all non-boilers and turbines and,
CSP, the State would pro-rate the Provisions?
allowance distribution.) Determination therefore, cannot be confident their
In the SNPR, EPA described a emissions can be monitored with the
of surplus emissions must use emissions potential approach for allowing certain
data measured using part 75 monitoring. high degree of accuracy and reliability
units to voluntarily participate in, or required by a cap-and-trade program.
The EPA elected to include the CSP
‘‘opt-in,’’ to the CAIR. Originally, EPA Continuous Emissions Monitoring
in response to several comments noting proposed to have no opt-in provision
the benefit of early NOX reductions and Systems or ‘‘CEMS’’ are typically what
but included language in the SNPR on is required by EPA to participate in a
some commenters concerns in what a potential opt-in provision may
complying with the stringent Phase I cap-and-trade program.
look like. This ‘‘potential’’ opt-in In response to comments received
CAIR NOX cap. While EPA analysis has provision would have allowed non-EGU suggesting that non-boilers and turbines
shown that sources had sufficient time boilers and turbines that exhaust to a be allowed to opt-in, EPA is expanding
to install NOX emission controls, the stack or duct and monitor and report in applicability of the opt-in provision to
EPA does believe that it would be accordance with part 75 to opt into the include, in addition to boilers and
appropriate to provide some mechanism CAIR. The opt-in unit would have been turbines, other fossil fuel-fired
to alleviate the concerns of some required to opt-in for both SO2 and combustion devices that vent all
sources which may have unique issues NOX. The allocation method for opt-ins emissions through a stack and meet
with complying with the 2009 assumed a percentage SO2 reduction monitoring, recordkeeping, and
implementation deadline. In addition to from a baseline and for NOX, allocations recording requirements of part 75.
mitigating some of the uncertainty were equal to a baseline heat input
regarding the EPA projections of multiplied by a specified NOX 2. Allowing Single Pollutant
resources to comply with CAIR, the emissions rate, the same NOX emissions Some commenters suggested that
CAIR CSP also effectively provides rate EGUs were subject to in the sources should be allowed to opt-in for
incentives for early, surplus NOX assumed EGU budgets. Allocations were only one pollutant instead of requiring
reductions. updated annually and after opting in the source to opt-in for both SO2 and
The EPA agrees with the comments units would have had to stay in the NOX as EPA proposed. These
that advocate allowing sources to earn CAIR for a minimum of 5 years. The commenters argued that some sources
136 The 200,000 ton pool includes the 1,503 tons
EPA received many comments in favor may only emit significant amounts of
that would be DE and NJ’s share. Section V of
of and very few comments against one of the two regulated pollutants and
today’s action describes in detail the State-by-State including an opt-in provision in the that it would not make sense to require
apportionment of the total CSP. final rule. As a result, EPA is including reductions in both pollutants from such
a source. The EPA agrees with this which they have maintained at least a is making this change because EPA
comment and will allow units to opt-in 90 percent monitor availability. The believes that such data should be
for one pollutant, i.e., NOX, SO2, or EPA is making this change because part available and that this more accurately
both. Another commenter suggested that 75 contains missing data provisions that reflects the intent of the rule to ensure
EPA allow non-EGUs subject to the NOX require substitution of data when that the source is not being allocated a
SIP Call to opt into the CAIR for NOX monitors are unavailable. When units greater number of allowances than the
only without requiring any reductions have low monitor availability, units are emissions a source would be allowed to
in SO2. This commenter argued that required to report more conservative emit under the regulations it is subject
these non-EGUs could simply turn on (e.g., higher) heat input values. This is to in the year the allocations are being
their SCRs during the non-ozone season to provide an incentive to maintain high made. The EPA is finalizing parallel
and easily achieve significant NOX monitor availability (since under a cap provisions with respect to NOX.
reductions. The EPA agrees that the and trade program sources would be 4. Alternative Opt-In Approach
relatively small number of non-EGUs required to turn in more allowances if
subject to the NOX SIP Call that have they reported higher emissions). When Some commenters suggested that EPA
SCRs could achieve significant NOX setting baselines, sources have the include an alternative approach to
reductions by operating their SCRs opposite incentive, reporting a higher opting into the CAIR. This alternative
during the non-ozone season. As stated heat input would result in a higher would allow units to opt-in as early as
above, EPA is allowing sources to opt- baseline and thus a greater allocation. 2009 for NOX and 2010 for SO2 and
in for one pollutant and thus non-EGUs receive allocations at their current
With regards to the SO2 emission rate emission levels in return for a
subject to the NOX SIP call may opt-in used to calculate allocations, EPA is
for NOX only. commitment to make deeper reductions
requiring that the emission rate used to by 2015 than would be required under
3. Allocation Method for Opt-Ins calculate allocations would be the lesser the general opt-in provision described
In the SNPR, EPA proposed allocating of, the most stringent State or Federal above. Therefore, for the years 2010
allowances to opt-in units on a yearly SO2 emission rate that applies to the through 2014, the unit would be
basis. The amount of allowances unit in the year that the unit is being allocated allowances based on the same
allocated would be calculated by allocated for, or the emission rate heat input used under the general opt-
multiplying an emission rate by the representing 70 percent of the unit’s in provision (e.g., the lesser of the
lesser of a baseline heat input or the baseline SO2 emission rate (in lbs/ baseline heat input or the heat input for
actual heat input monitored at the unit mmBtu). The EPA is changing the the year preceding the year in which
in the prior year. percentage emission reduction upon allocations are being made) multiplied
The baseline heat input would be which allocations are based because by an emission rate. This emission rate
calculated by using the most recent 3 some commenters suggested that instead would be the lower of the emission rate
years of quality-assured part 75 of using percentage emission reduction for the year or years before the unit
monitoring data. When less than 3 years requirements that are the same as the opted in or the most stringent State or
of quality-assured part 75 monitoring requirements for EGUs as a basis for Federal emission rate required in the
data is available, the heat input would allocating to opt-ins, EPA should year that the unit opts in. For SO2 for
be based on quality-assured part 75 require emissions reductions based on the years 2015 and beyond, the unit
monitoring data from the year before the similar marginal cost of control. The would be allocated allowances based on
unit opted in. EPA agrees with the basic concept that the same heat input multiplied by an
For SO2, EPA proposed that the emissions reductions for opt-ins should emission rate. This emission rate would
emission rate used to calculate be based on similar marginal costs. One be the lower of a 90 percent reduction
allocations would be the lesser of, the commenter submitted results from a from the baseline emission rate or the
most stringent State or Federal SO2 study of industrial boiler NOX and SO2 most stringent State or Federal emission
emission rate that applied in the control costs that indicated the use of rate required in the baseline year. For
preceding year or the emission rate similar marginal cost of control would NOX, the same methodology would be
representing 50 percent of the unit’s result in approximately a 30 percent used, except that the emission rate used
baseline SO2 emission rate (in lbs/ reduction in NOX and SO2 by 2010. for the years 2015 and beyond would be
mmBtu) for the years 2010 through 2014 While the commenter provided limited the lower of 0.15 lbs/mmBtu or the most
and 35 percent of the unit’s baseline data to allow EPA to evaluate the stringent State or Federal emission rate
SO2 emission rate (in lbs/mmBtu) for commenter’s estimates, EPA is using required in the baseline year. The EPA
2015 and beyond. For NOX, EPA this percentage reduction requirement believes the environmental benefit of
proposed that the emission rate would for the opt-in provision. The same achieving deeper emissions reductions
be the lower of the unit’s baseline commenter stated that it may be in the future (2015) from sources that
emission rate, the most stringent State possible to achieve more than a 30 may otherwise not make such deep
or Federal NOX emission limitation that percent reduction in SO2 and NOX by emissions reductions is worth including
applies to the opt-in unit at any time 2015 by employing future unspecified in this final rule.
during the calender year prior to opting technology advances. Because these 5. Opting Out
into the CAIR Program, or 0.15 lb/ future technology advances are not In the SNPR, EPA proposed that opt-
mmBtu for the years 2010 through 2014 specified nor demonstrated, EPA is not in units be required to remain in the
and 0.11 lbs/mmBtu for the years 2015 requiring more than a 30 percent program a minimum of 5 years after
and beyond. reduction in SO2 and NOX in 2015 and which time they could voluntarily
In today’s final rule, EPA is making a beyond for opt-ins. The EPA is changing withdraw from the CAIR. Some
number of changes to its proposed the requirement to use the lowest commenters expressed concern over this
methodology for calculating allocations required emission rate for the year proposed approach, arguing that
for opt-in units. preceding the year in which allowances because EGUs affected by the CAIR are
With regards to baseline heat input, are being allocated to the lowest not allowed to voluntarily withdraw
EPA is requiring that sources may only emission rate for the year in which from the CAIR that opt-in sources
use part 75 monitored data for years in allowances are being allocated. The EPA should not be allowed to voluntarily
withdraw either. The EPA recognizes round under the Acid Rain Program, New sources have separate deadlines
that opt-in sources such as industrial which requires part 75 monitoring. Most based upon the date of commencement
boilers and turbines tend to be more CAIR sources are also reporting NOX of operation, consistent with the Acid
sensitive to changing market forces than mass emissions year round under the Rain Program. These deadlines are
EGUs. As a result, EPA believes it is NOX SIP Call. The CAIR-affected Acid finalized as proposed.
appropriate to allow opt-in sources who Rain sources that are located in States
I. What Is Different Between CAIR’s
voluntarily participate in an emissions that are not affected by the NOX SIP Call
Annual and Seasonal NOX Model Cap
reductions program to be able to end currently measure and report NOX
and Trade Rules?
their participation or (‘‘opt-out’’) after a emission rates year round, but do not
specified period of time. As proposed, currently report NOX mass emissions. Today’s action finalizes not only the
EPA believes a period of 5 years is These sources will need to modify only proposed CAIR annual NOX program
appropriate and is finalizing a rule to their reporting practices in order to and annual SO2 program, but also a
allow opt-in sources to opt-out after comply with the proposed CAIR CAIR ozone-season NOX program.
participating in the CAIR for 5 years. monitoring and reporting requirements. Because the CAIR ozone-season NOX
This option to opt-out after 5 years does Because so many sources are already program is the only ozone-season NOX
not apply to sources that opt-in under using part 75 monitoring, there were cap and trade program that the EPA will
the alternative approach. Sources that very few comments on the source-level administer, NOX SIP Call States wishing
opt-in under the alternative approach monitoring requirements in this to meet their NOX SIP Call obligations
may not opt-out at any time. rulemaking. The comments the EPA through an EPA-administered regional
received related to sources not currently NOX program will also use the CAIR
6. Regulatory Relief for Opt-In Units monitoring under part 75. Commenters ozone-season rule. The EPA believes
The CAIR does not offer relief from suggested that alternative forms of that States and affected sources will
other regulatory requirements, existing monitoring (e.g., part 60 monitoring) benefit from having a single, consistent
or future, for units that opt-in to the would be appropriate for these sources. regional NOX cap and trade program.
CAIR cap and trade program. Any The EPA disagrees. Consistent, This section of today’s action highlights
revision of requirements for other, non- complete and accurate measurement of any key differences between the CAIR
CAIR programs would be done under emissions ensures that each allowance ozone-season NOX model rule and the
rulemakings specific to those programs. actually represents one ton of emissions NOX SIP Call model rule, as well as the
As discussed above, EPA is including and that one ton of reported emissions CAIR annual and ozone-season NOX
two different approaches for opt-in units from one source is equivalent to one ton model rules.
to follow, a general and an alternative of reported emissions from another Differences Between the CAIR Ozone-
approach. The EPA is including both source. Similarly, such measurement of Season NOX Model Rule and the NOX
approaches in this final rule in response emissions ensures that each single SIP Call Model Rule
to comments supportive of including an allowance (or group of SO2 allowances,
alternative means and to provide greater depending upon the SO2 allowance While the CAIR ozone-season NOX
flexibility for sources to participate in vintage) represents one ton of emissions, model rule closely mirrors the NOX SIP
the CAIR trading program. Opt-in regardless of the source for which it is Call rule (as does the other CAIR rules),
sources may select which approach is measured and reported. This establishes the EPA has incorporated into the CAIR
more appropriate for their particular the integrity of each allowance, which model rules its experience with
situation. An opt-in source may not instills confidence in the underlying implementing trading programs
switch from one approach to the other market mechanisms that are central to (including seasonal NOX programs).
once in the program. States have the providing sources with flexibility in These modifications include the
flexibility to choose to include both of achieving compliance. Part 75 has following.
these approaches, one of these flexibility relating to the type of fuel and A. Unrestricted banking: The CAIR
approaches, or none of them in their emission levels as well as procedures ozone-season NOX model rule will not
SIPs. EPA is not requiring States to for petitioning for alternatives. The EPA include any restrictions on the banking
include an individual unit opt-in believes this provides the requested of NOX SIP Call allowances (vintages
provision because the participation of flexibility. 2008 and earlier) or CAIR ozone-season
individual opt-in units is not required to Should a State(s) elect to use the NOX allowances. The NOX SIP Call
meet the goals of the CAIR. However, example allocation approach, the EPA rules include ‘‘progressive flow control’’
States cannot choose to have an would modify the part 75 monitoring provisions that reduce the value of
individual unit opt-in approach and reporting requirements to collect banked allowances in years where the
different than what EPA has finalized in information used in determining the bank is above a certain percentage of the
this rule and still participate in the allowance allocations for Combined cap. (See section VIII.E.1 of today’s rule
inter-State trading program Heat and Power (CHP) units. More for a detailed discussion).
administered by EPA. specifically, provisions for the B. Facility level compliance: The
monitoring and reporting of the BTU CAIR ozone-season NOX model rule will
H. What Are the Source-Level Emissions content of the steam output would be allow sources to comply with the
Monitoring and Reporting added to the existing requirements. The allowance holding requirements at the
Requirements? information on electricity output facility level. The NOX SIP Call rules
In the NPR, the EPA proposed that currently reported under part 75 would required unit-by-unit level compliance
sources subject to the CAIR monitor and not need to be revised to allow States to with certain types of allowance
report NOX and SO2 mass emissions in implement the example allowance accounts providing some flexibility for
accordance with 40 CFR part 75. allocation approach. sources with multiple affected units.
The model trading rules incorporate In the SNPR, the EPA proposed (See the June 2004 SNPR, section IV for
part 75 monitoring and are being continuous measurement of SO2 and a detailed discussion).
finalized as proposed. The majority of NOX emissions by all existing affected The EPA believes that these changes
CAIR sources are measuring and sources by January 1, 2008 using part 75 improve the programs and that both
reporting SO2 mass emissions year certified monitoring methodologies. CAIR and NOX SIP Call affected sources
will benefit from complying with a emissions of 0.35 tons of SO2—which or the EPA to take enforcement action,
single, regionwide cap and trade corresponds with the 2.86 retirement to only knowing violations or knowing
program. ratio. false submissions.
Other, less significant modifications
Differences Between the CAIR Ozone- were also included in the regulatory text IX. Interactions With Other Clean Air
Season and Annual NOX Model Rules of the final model rules. These include: Act Requirements
The CAIR ozone-season and annual C. Units and sources are identified A. How Does This Rule Interact With the
NOX model rules are designed to be separately for NOX and SO2 programs NOX SIP Call?
identical with the exception of (1) (e.g., CAIR NOX units, CAIR Nox ozone
provisions that relate to compliance season units, and CAIR SO2 units) since A majority of States affected by the
period and (2) the mechanism for States can participate in one, two, or CAIR are also affected by the NOX SIP
providing incentives for early NOX three trading programs; Call. This section addresses the
reductions. For compliance related D. The definition of ‘‘nameplate interactions between the two programs.
provisions, the EPA attempted to capacity’’ is clarified; The EPA proposed that States
maintain as much consistency as E. The language on closing of general achieving all of the annual NOX
possible between the CAIR annual and accounts is clarified; and, reductions required by the CAIR from
ozone-season NOX model rules. For F. Process of recordation of CAIR SO2 only EGUs would not need to continue
example, reporting schedules remain allowance allocations and transfers on to impose seasonal NOX limitations on
synchronized (i.e., quarterly reporting) rolling 30-year periods is added to make EGUs from which they required
for both of the CAIR NOX model rules. it consistent with Acid Rain regulations. reductions for purposes of complying
For the annual and ozone-season NOX Another example of where today’s with the NOX SIP Call. Also, EPA
model rules, the EPA did define 12 final model trading rules incorporate proposed that States would have the
month and 5 month compliance relatively minor changes from the option of retaining such seasonal NOX
periods, respectively. proposed model trading rules involves limitations. The EPA also proposed to
Incentives for early NOX reductions the provisions in the standard keep the NOX SIP Call in place for non-
differ between the CAIR annual and requirements concerning liability under EGUs currently subject to the NOX SIP
ozone-season programs. For the annual the trading programs. The proposed Call and to continue working with
NOX program, early reductions may be CAIR model NOX and SO2 trading rules States to run the NOX SIP Call Budget
rewarded by States through a CSP. (See include, under the standard Trading Program for all sources that
section VIII.F.2 of today’s action for a requirements in § 96.106(f)(1) and (2) would remain in the program. In
detailed discussion.) The CAIR ozone- and § 96.206(f)(1) and (2), provisions response to commenters, EPA is making
season NOX model rule provides stating that any person who knowingly several modifications to its proposed
incentive for early emissions reductions violates the CAIR NOX or SO2 trading approach.
by allowing the banking of pre-2009 programs or knowingly makes a false
material statement under the trading States Affected by the CAIR for Ozone
NOX SIP Call allowances into the CAIR and PM2.5 Will Be Subject to a Seasonal
ozone-season program. programs will be subject to enforcement
action under applicable State or Federal and an Annual NOX Limitation
J. Are There Additional Changes to law. Similar provisions are included in A number of commenters
Proposed Model Cap and Trade Rules § 96.6(f)(1) and (2) of the final NOX SIP recommended leaving the current NOX
Reflected in the Regulatory Language? Call model trading rule. The final CAIR SIP Call ozone season NOX limitation in
The proposed and final rules are model NOX and SO2 trading rules place as a way to ensure that ozone
modeled after, and are largely the same exclude these provisions for the season NOX reductions from EGUs
as, the NOX SIP Call model trading rule. following reasons. First, the proposed required by the NOX SIP Call would
Today’s final rule includes some rule provisions are unnecessary continue to be achieved. Some
relatively minor changes to the model because, even in their absence, commenters argued this would also help
rules’ regulatory text that improve the applicable State or Federal law non-EGUs currently subject to the NOX
implementability of the rules or clarify authorizes enforcement actions and SIP Call by allowing them to continue
aspects of the rules identified by the penalties in the case of knowing trading with EGUs in a seasonal NOX
EPA or commenters. (Note that sections violations or knowing submission of program. Many of the same commenters
VIII.B through VIII.H of today’s action false statements. Moreover, these suggested a dual-season or bifurcated
highlight the more significant proposed rule provisions are CAIR trading program as a mechanism
modifications included in the final incomplete. They do not purport to for maintaining an ozone season NOX
model rules). cover, and have no impact on, liability limitation for EGUs under the CAIR. In
One example of a relatively minor for violations that are not knowingly response to these commenters, EPA is
change is the inclusion of language in committed or false submissions that are requiring that States subject to the CAIR
the SO2 model rule that implements the not knowingly made. Applicable State for PM2.5 be subject to an annual
retirement ratio (2.00) used for and Federal law already authorizes limitation and that States subject to the
allowances allocated for 2010 to 2014 enforcement actions and penalties, CAIR for ozone be subject to an ozone
and the retirement ratio (2.86) used for under appropriate circumstances, for season limitation. This means that
allowances allocated for 2015 and later, non-knowing violations or false States subject to the CAIR for both PM2.5
that clarifies the compliance deduction submissions. Because the proposed rule and ozone are subject to both an annual
process and that provides for rounding- provisions are unnecessary and and an ozone season NOX limitation.
up of fractional tons to whole tons of incomplete, the final CAIR model NOX The annual and ozone season NOX
excess emissions. More specifically, the and SO2 trading rules do not include limitations are described in section IV.
definition of ‘‘CAIR SO2 allowance’’ these provisions. However, the EPA States subject to the CAIR for ozone
states that an allowance allocated for emphasizes that, on their face, the only are only subject to an ozone season
2010 to 2014 authorizes emissions of provisions that were proposed, but NOX limitation. To implement these
0.50 tons of SO2 and that an allowance eliminated in the final rules, in no way NOX limitations, EPA will establish and
allocated for 2015 or later authorizes limit liability, or the ability of the State operate two NOX trading programs, i.e.,
a CAIR annual NOX trading program reductions required under the CAIR adopting a CAIR ozone season trading
and a CAIR ozone season NOX trading from EGUs by participating in the CAIR program that includes non-EGUs
program. The CAIR ozone season NOX ozone season NOX trading program, EPA covered by the NOX SIP Call, non-EGUs
trading program will replace the current will find that the State continues to will be able to continue to trade with
NOX SIP Call as discussed in more meet the requirements of the NOX SIP EGUs.
detail later in this section. Call.
If the only changes a State makes with B. How Does This Rule Interact With the
What Will Happen to Non-EGUs Acid Rain Program?
respect to its NOX SIP Call regulations
Currently in the NOX SIP Call? As EPA developed this regulatory
are not those described above, see
A number of commenters were section VII for a discussion of how the action, much consideration was given to
concerned that the cost of compliance State would satisfy its NOX SIP Call interactions between the existing title IV
for non-EGUs in the NOX SIP Call obligations. Acid Rain Program and today’s action
would increase if they were not allowed designed to achieve significant
to continue to trade with EGUs. In States in the NOX SIP Call But Not reductions in SO2 emissions beyond
response to these commenters, EPA is Affected by the CAIR (Rhode Island) title IV. Requiring sources to reduce
modifying its proposed approach. The Rhode Island is the only State in the emissions beyond what title IV
EPA is allowing States affected by the NOX SIP Call that is not affected by the mandates has both environmental and
NOX SIP Call that wish to use EPA’s CAIR. To continue meeting its NOX SIP economic implications for the existing
model trading rule to include non-EGUs Call obligations in 2009 and beyond, title IV SO2 cap and trade program. In
currently covered by the NOX SIP Call Rhode Island will have two choices. It the absence of an approach for taking
in the CAIR ozone season NOX trading may either modify its NOX SIP Call account of the title IV program, a new
program. This will ensure that non- trading rule to conform to the new CAIR program (i.e., the CAIR) that imposes a
EGUs in the NOX SIP Call will continue ozone season NOX trading rule if it significantly tighter cap on SO2
to be able to trade with EGUs as they wishes to allow its sources to continue emissions for a region encompassing
currently do under the NOX SIP Call. to participate in an interstate NOX most of the sources and most of the SO2
This will not require States to get trading program run by EPA or, it will emissions covered by title IV would
additional reductions from non-EGUs. need to develop an alternative method likely result in a significant excess in
Budgets for these units would remain for obtaining the required NOX SIP Call the supply of title IV allowances, a
the same as they are currently under the reductions. In either case, Rhode Island collapse of the price of title IV
NOX SIP Call. States will, however, be must continue to meet the budget allowances, disruption of operation of
required to modify their existing NOX requirements of the existing NOX SIP the title IV allowance market and the
SIP Call regulations to reflect the Call. title IV SO2 cap and trade system, and
replacement of the NOX SIP Call with the potential for increased SO2
the CAIR ozone season NOX trading Use of Banked SIP Call Allowances in emissions. The potential for increased
program. The EPA will continue to the CAIR Program emissions would exist in the entire
operate the NOX SIP Call trading As explained earlier in today’s final country for the years before the CAIR
program until implementation of the rule, banked allowances from the NOX implementation deadline and would
CAIR begins in 2009. The EPA will no SIP Call may be used in the CAIR ozone continue after implementation for States
longer operate the NOX SIP Call trading season NOX trading program. not covered by the CAIR. These negative
program after the 2008 ozone season impacts, particularly those on the
Other Comments and EPA’s Responses
and the CAIR ozone season NOX trading operation of the title IV cap and trade
program will replace the NOX SIP Call One commenter wrote that because system, would undermine the efficacy
trading program. If States affected by the attainment demonstrations for early of the title IV program and could erode
NOX SIP Call do not wish to use EPA’s action compacts were made based on confidence in cap and trade programs in
CAIR ozone season NOX trading having EGUs and non-EGUs together in general.
program to achieve reductions from the NOX SIP Call, EPA could not allow Title IV has successfully reduced
non-EGU boilers and turbines required EGUs to leave the NOX SIP Call and still emissions of SO2 using the cap and
by the NOX SIP Call, they would be have valid early action compacts trade approach, eliminating millions of
required to submit a SIP Revision (EACs). As discussed above, EPA is tons of SO2 from the environment and
deleting the requirements related to allowing States to keep EGUs and non- encouraging billions of dollars of
non-EGU participation in the NOX SIP EGUs in the NOX SIP Call together in investments by companies in pollution
Call Budget Trading Program and one ozone season program (CAIR ozone controls to enable the sale of allowances
replacing them with new requirements season trading program). The NOX reflecting excess emissions reductions
that achieve the same level of reduction. reductions required by the CAIR ozone and in allowance purchases for
season trading program are slightly compliance. In view of these already
Compliance With the NOX SIP Call for more stringent than the reductions achieved reductions and existing
States That Are Subject to Both the required by the NOX SIP Call. As a investments under title IV, the
CAIR Ozone Season NOX Reduction result, the attainment demonstrations likelihood of disruption of the
Requirements and the NOX SIP Call for EACs would remain valid under the allowance market and the title IV cap
If the only changes a State makes with CAIR. Having said that, the EAC and trade system, and the potential for
respect to its NOX SIP Call regulations program will have ended (April 2008) SO2 emission increases, it is necessary
are: (1) To bring non-EGUs that are before the CAIR rule is implemented. to consider ways to preserve the
currently participating in the NOX SIP Thus, the compacts will no longer be environmental benefits achieved under
Call Budget Trading Program into the applicable when the CAIR takes effect. title IV and maintain the integrity of the
CAIR ozone season program using the Another commenter proposed to have market for title IV allowances and the
same non-EGU budget and applicability non-EGUs under the NOX SIP Call title IV cap and trade system. The EPA
requirements that are in their existing subject to an annual NOX cap similar to maintains that it is appropriate to
NOX SIP Call Budget Trading Program; EGUs under the CAIR so that non-EGUs provide States the opportunity to
and (2) to achieve all of the emissions could continue to trade with EGUs. By achieve the SO2 emission reductions
required under today’s action by the total amount of title IV allowances administered by EPA if requested in a
building on, and avoiding undermining, allocated to the units in the State minus State’s SIP, to prohibit emissions that
this existing, successful program. the amount of title IV allowances contribute significantly to
The EPA has developed, in the model equivalent to the tonnage cap set by the nonattainment, or interfere with
SO2 cap and trade rule, an approach to State on EGU SO2 emissions, and the maintenance, of the PM2.5 NAAQS.
build on and coordinate with the title IV State can choose what retirement Further, EPA notes that under section
SO2 program to ensure that the required mechanism to use. 402(3), a title IV allowance is:
reductions under today’s action are Finally, as discussed above, if the An authorization, allocated to an affected
achieved while preserving the efficacy State wants to achieve the SO2 unit by the Administrator under this title
of the title IV program. The EPA’s emissions reductions requirement in [IV], to emit, during or after a specified
approach provides States the today’s action through reductions by calendar year, one ton of sulfur dioxide. 42
opportunity to impose more stringent non-EGUs only, then EPA is not U.S.C. 7651(a)(3).
control requirements for EGUs’ SO2 imposing any requirement to retire title However, section 403(f) states that:
emissions than under title IV through an IV allowances.
An allowance allocated under this title is
EPA-administered cap and trade
1. Legal Authority for Using Title IV a limited authorization to emit sulfur dioxide
program that requires the use of title IV in accordance with the provision of this title
Allowances in CAIR Model SO2 Cap and
allowances for compliance at a ratio of [IV]. Such allowance does not constitute a
Trade Program
2 allowances per ton of emissions for property right. Nothing in this title [IV] or in
allowances allocated for 2010 through The EPA maintains that it has the any other provision of law shall be construed
2014 and 2.86 allowances per ton of authority to approve and administer, if to limit the authority of the United States to
emissions for allowances allocated for requested by a State in the SIP terminate or limit such authorization.
2015 or thereafter. (The program also submitted in response to today’s action, Nothing in this section relating to allowances
the new CAIR model SO2 cap and trade shall be construed as affecting the
allows the use of banked title IV
program meeting the SO2 emission application of, or compliance with, any other
allowances allocated for years before provision of this Act to an affected unit or
2010 to be used at a ratio of 1 allowance reduction requirement in today’s action source, including the provisions related to
per ton of emissions.) Title IV that requires use of title IV allowances applicable National Ambient Air Quality
allowances continue to be freely to comply with the more stringent Standards and State implementation plans.
transferable among sources covered by allowance-holding requirement of the 42 U.S.C. 7651b(f).
the Acid Rain Program and sources new program and retirement under the The EPA interprets the reference in
covered by the model SO2 cap and trade CAIR SO2 cap and trade program and section 403(f) to the authority of the
program under CAIR. However, each the Acid Rain Program of title IV ‘‘United States’’ to terminate or limit the
title IV allowance used to comply with allowances used for such compliance. authorization otherwise provided by a
a source’s allowance-holding Some commenters claim that EPA’s
title IV allowance to mean that EPA
requirement in the CAIR model SO2 cap establishment of such a cap and trade
(acting in accordance with its authority
and trade program is removed from the program using title IV allowances that
under other provisions of the CAA), as
source’s allowance tracking system sources must hold generally at a ratio of
well as Congress, has such authority.137
account and cannot be used again for greater than one allowance per ton of
compliance, either in the CAIR model SO2 emissions is contrary to title IV. 137 The EPA’s interpretation is based on the
SO2 cap and trade program or the Acid Most of these commenters prefer the language of section 403(f) and the legislative history
Rain Program. approach of allowing States to use a of the provision. The language in CAA section
In addition, as discussed above, if a new EPA-administered cap and trade 403(f) contrasts with language that was in section
503(f) of the House bill—but was excluded from the
State wants to achieve the SO2 program to meet lawful emission final version of the CAA Amendments of 1990—
emissions reductions required by reduction requirements under title I and referring to the authority of the ‘‘United States’’ to
today’s action through more stringent of allowing (but not requiring) sources terminate or limit such authorization ‘‘by Act of
EGU emission limitations only but to use title IV allowances in the new Congress’’ and stating that ‘‘[a]llowances under this
program. However, these commenters title may not be extinguished by the
without using the model cap and trade Administrator.’’ U.S. Senate Committee on
program, then EPA is requiring that the argue that title IV prohibits requiring Environment and Public Works, A Legislative
State include in its SIP a mechanism for sources to use title IV allowances in History of The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
retiring the excess title IV allowances such a program, whether at the same (Legis. Hist. of CAAA), S. Prt. 38, 103d Cong., 1st
tonnage authorization (i.e., one Sess., Vol. II at 2224 (Nov. 1993). Further, unlike
that will result from imposition of these CAA section 403(f), the House bill did not state that
more stringent EGU requirements. In allowance per ton of emissions) an allowance did not constitute a property right.
this case, the State must retire an established in title IV or at a different Section 403(f) of the Senate bill that was
amount of title IV allowances equal to tonnage authorization. Other considered, along with the House bill, in conference
the total amount of title IV allowances commenters state that title IV does not committee had language different than both CAA
section 403(f) and the House bill and stated that
allocated to the units in the State minus bar EPA from establishing a new cap ‘‘allowances may be limited, revoked or otherwise
the amount of title IV allowances and trade program that requires the use modified in accordance with the provisions of this
equivalent to the tonnage cap set by the of title IV allowances. title or other authority of the Administrator’’ and
State on SO2 emissions by EGUs, and The EPA maintains that it has the that an allowance ‘‘does not constitute a property
right.’’ Legis. Hist. of CAAA, Vol. III at 4598. While
the State can choose what retirement authority under section 110(a)(2)(D) and the scope of the reference to the ‘‘United States’’ in
mechanism to use. title IV to establish a new cap and trade CAA section 403(f) is not clear, EPA maintains that
Further, as discussed above, if a State program requiring the use of title IV the term is clearly broad enough to include the
wants to meet the SO2 emissions allowances at a different tonnage Administrator. Moreover, even if the term were
considered ambiguous with regard to the
reductions requirement in today’s action authorization than under the Acid Rain Administrator, EPA believes that interpreting the
through reductions by both EGUs and Program and the retirement of such term to include the Administrator is reasonable.
non-EGUs, then EPA is also requiring allowances for purposes of both Specifically, EPA maintains that, by eliminating the
the State’s SIP to include a mechanism programs. First, as discussed in section explicit House bill language that required
Congressional action and including the general
for retiring excess title IV allowances. In V above, EPA has the authority under reference to the ‘‘United States’’ and the ‘‘not a
that case, the amount of title IV section 110(a)(2)(D) to establish a new property right’’ language, CAA section 403(f)
allowances that must be retired equals SO2 cap and trade program, Continued
Therefore, EPA maintains that it has the final revisions to 40 CFR § 73.35 allowance as authorizing less than one
authority to establish a new cap and adopted in today’s action. Moreover, the ton of SO2 emissions under the CAIR
trade program in accordance with CAIR model SO2 cap and trade rule SO2 cap and trade program established
section 110(a)(2)(D) that requires: the coordinates the determinations—made under title I.140
holding of title IV allowances under a by EPA for sources subject to both title Once a title IV allowance is used to
more limited authorization (i.e., 2 or IV and the CAIR—of compliance with meet the more stringent allowance-
2.86 allowances per ton of emissions) by the title IV and CAIR allowance-holding holding requirement in the CAIR SO2
sources in States participating in the requirements so that such program, that allowance is deducted
new program; and the termination of the determinations are made in a multi-step, from the source’s allowance tracking
authorization through retirement under end-of-year process of comparing system account and cannot be used
the new program and the Acid Rain allowances held and emissions. First, again, either in the CAIR SO2 program
Program of those title IV allowances EPA determines whether the source or the Acid Rain Program. As noted
used to meet the allowance-holding holds sufficient title IV allowances to above, EPA has the authority under
requirement of the new program. comply with the one-allowance-per-ton- section 403(f) to require this termination
of-emissions requirement in the Acid of such a title IV allowance’s tonnage
Commenters’ Arguments Based on Title Rain Program as provided in § 73.35;
IV authorization for purposes of the Acid
and subsequently EPA determines Rain Program.
The commenters claiming that EPA is whether the source holds the additional
barred by title IV from requiring use of title IV allowances that, when added to In addition to referencing section
title IV allowances at a reduced tonnage those held for Acid Rain Program 402(3) to support claims that EPA is
authorization in a new cap and trade compliance, are sufficient to meet the barred from adopting the CAIR model
program rely on the above-noted CAIR allowance-holding requirement. cap and trade program provisions on the
provision in section 402(3) stating that Violations of the Acid Rain allowance- use of title IV allowances, the
an allowance is an authorization to emit holding requirement will result in commenters rely on other title IV
one ton of SO2. However, this provision imposition of the penalty for excess provisions that they characterize as
does not bar EPA from requiring either: emissions (i.e., the one-allowance offset setting a ‘‘title IV cap’’ on SO2
use of title IV allowances in a new cap plus $2,000 (inflation-adjusted) per ton emissions. Stating that the requirement
and trade program under a different title of excess emissions) under CAA section to use title IV allowances in the CAIR
of the CAA at a reduced tonnage 411 and §§ 73.35(d) and 77.4. See final model SO2 cap and trade program has
authorization; or retirement in this new § 96.254(b)(1) adopted in today’s action. the effect of reducing the ‘‘title IV cap,’’
program and the Acid Rain Program of Thus, the Acid Rain allowance-holding these commenters indicate, with little
allowances used in this manner. requirement continues as a separate explanation, that such requirement is
At the outset, it should be noted that requirement and reflects the one- unlawful. In mentioning the title IV cap,
the CAIR model SO2 cap and trade allowance-per-ton-of-emissions the commenters are apparently referring
program does not change the tonnage authorization under section 402(3).139 to the fact that section 403(a)(1)
authorization of individual title IV In contrast with the one-allowance- (requiring allowance allocations
allowances for purposes of the Acid per-ton-of-emissions requirement under resulting in emissions not exceeding
Rain Program until such an allowance is the Acid Rain Program, the CAIR SO2 8.90 million tons of SO2) and section
used to meet the allowance-holding cap and trade program requires each 405(a)(3) (requiring additional
requirement of the CAIR SO2 program. source generally to hold 2 or 2.86 Acid allocations of 50,000 allowances)
The authorization provided by each title Rain allowances for each ton of SO2 require EPA to allocate annually,
IV allowance for a source to emit one emissions. Contrary to the commenters’ starting in 2010, a total amount of
ton of SO2 emissions, as well as the claim, this CAIR allowance-holding allowances authorizing no more than
requirement that each source hold title requirement is not barred by the 8.95 million tons of SO2 emissions. The
IV allowances covering annual SO2 definition of the term ‘‘allowance’’ in commenters’ argument about how the
emissions, continue to be in effect in the section 402(3). While section 402(3) CAIR model SO2 cap and trade program
Acid Rain Program whether or not the defines the term ‘‘allowance’’ as an effectively reduces the ‘‘title IV cap’’
source is also covered by the CAIR SO2 authorization to emit one ton of SO2, appears to be that elimination of the
program. In fact, the Acid Rain Program this provision expressly applies the ability to use, in the Acid Rain Program,
regulations continue to reflect both this definition to the term ‘‘[a]s used in this title IV allowances that will be used for
tonnage authorization and this title [IV]’’ and therefore does not apply compliance in the CAIR model SO2 cap
allowance-holding requirement.138 See to the treatment of title IV allowances in and trade program has the effect of
a different program under a different reducing the annual 8.95 million ton
essentially adopted the Senate’s approach and title of the CAA. Moreover, as noted cap on SO2 emissions. This effective
allows the United States—either through
above, section 403(f) allows EPA to limit reduction of the ‘‘title IV cap’’ seems to
Congressional or administrative (i.e., EPA) action— occur when title IV allowances are used
to terminate or limit the allowance authorization. (or terminate) the authorization to emit
See Legis. Hist. of CAAA, Vol. I at 754, 1034, and that an allowance otherwise provides in the CAIR SO2 trading program with
1084 (Oct. 27, 2000 floor statements of Sen. Symms, under section 402(3). Consequently, the a reduced tonnage authorization so that
Sen. Baucus, and Sen. McClure indicating EPA has
allowance definition in section 402(3) more title IV allowances are deducted
authority to take such action); but see Cong. Rec. per ton of emissions than would be
at E 3672 (Nov. 1, 2000)(extension of remarks of does not bar the treatment of a title IV
Cong. Oxley indicating that only Congress has such
deducted for compliance with the Acid
authority). 139 The commenters’ assertion that the sources in
138 As discussed below, today’s action revises the a State that does not participate in the CAIR SO2 140 The commenters also seem to argue that the
Acid Rain Program regulations to provide for cap and trade program will be cut off from the Acid allowance definition itself bars EPA from requiring
source-based, instead of unit-based, compliance Rain cap and trade program is incorrect on its face. use of Acid Rain allowances in the CAIR SO2
with the allowance-holding requirement. These Such a source will continue to be subject to the trading program even on a one-allowance-per-ton-
revisions are adopted for reasons independent of allowance-holding requirement and the compliance of-emissions basis. However, as noted above, the
the adoption of the CAIR model SO2 cap and trade process in § 73.35 and will not be subject to the definition is silent on whether title IV allowances
program, as well as to facilitate the coordination of allowance-holding requirement and the compliance may or may not be used outside the Acid Rain
these two SO2 trading programs. process in the CAIR model SO2 cap and trade rule. Program.
Rain Program.141 The commenters claim In Clean Air Markets Group, the Court Of course, this retirement of title IV
that such a reduction in the 8.95 million reviewed a State law that imposed a allowances once they are used to meet
ton cap is contrary to title IV. monetary assessment on any title IV the CAIR allowance-holding
In asserting an overarching principle allowance sold by a New York utility to requirement means that they cannot
that EPA is barred from adopting any a utility in any of 14 specified States or thereafter be transferred to any person
requirement that would have the effect subsequently transferred to such a or be used again, e.g., to meet the Acid
of reducing the 8.95 million ton cap utility, with the assessment equaling the Rain Program allowance-holding
under title IV, the commenters do not proceeds received in the allowance sale. requirement. As noted by the Court in
point to any specific statutory provision The law also required that each Clean Air Markets Group, section 403(b)
in support. The EPA maintains that not allowance sold include a covenant provides that title IV allowances ‘‘may
only are there no such supporting barring subsequent transfer of the be transferred among designated
provisions, but also certain title IV allowance to a utility in any of those representatives of owners or operators of
provisions contradict this purported States. The Court held that the State law affected sources under [title IV] and any
principle. Specifically, while sections was pre-empted by title IV because the other person who holds such
403 and 405 require annual allowance State law impermissibly interfered with allowances, as provided by the
allocations authorizing no more than the method chosen by Congress in title allowance system regulations’’
8.95 million tons of emissions, section IV to reduce utilities’ SO2 emissions, promulgated by EPA.143 42 U.S.C.
403(f) provides, as noted above, that i.e., the opportunity for nationwide 7651b(b). Moreover, section 403(d)(1)
EPA may terminate or limit the one- trading of title IV allowances. Id. at 87– requires that the allowance system
allowance-per-ton-of-emissions 88. In particular, the Court found that regulations ‘‘specify all necessary
authorization for a title IV allowance.142 the assessment of 100 percent of sale procedures and requirements for an
proceeds ‘‘effectively bans’’ sales of any orderly and competitive functioning of
Because any termination or limitation of
allowance by New York utilities to the allowance system.’’ 42 U.S.C.
the tonnage authorization provided by a
utilities in the specified States and that 7651b(d). In the context of these
title IV allowance for purposes of the
the restrictive covenant ‘‘indisputedly statutory requirements, EPA maintains
Acid Rain Program would have the
decreases’’ the value of the allowances. that, on balance, the retirement of title
effect of reducing the total tonnage of
Id. at 88. IV allowances used for compliance in
emissions allowed by the allowance
The EPA maintains that today’s action the CAIR model SO2 cap and trade
allocations (i.e., the 8.95 million ton
is distinguishable from the facts and program does not constitute
cap) under sections 403 and 405, the
holding in Clean Air Markets Group. In impermissible interference with the
commenters’ claim that EPA is barred
particular, EPA believes that the interstate operation of the Acid Rain
from adopting any provision that has
exercise of its explicit authority under Program, but rather is consistent with,
such an effect is wrong on its face.
section 403(f) to limit the tonnage and necessary to preserve, the operation
Commenters’ Argument Based on Clean authorization of a title IV allowance in of the Acid Rain Program.
Air Markets Group Case the CAIR SO2 cap and trade program As noted above, the imposition of an
SO2 emission limitation (such as in
The commenters also state that the and to terminate the tonnage
authorization in the Acid Rain Program today’s action) that is significantly more
CAIR model SO2 cap and trade program stringent than the one under title IV and
is unlawful under the court’s holding in once the allowance is used in the CAIR
SO2 program is consistent with—and covers most of the sources and
Clean Air Markets Group v. Pataki, 338 emissions covered by title IV—but
F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 2003). According to the necessary to preserve—the operation of
without addressing the impact on the
commenters, the required use of title IV the Acid Rain Program. Therefore, EPA
Acid Rain Program—would likely have
allowances in the CAIR SO2 program concludes that its approach of limiting
several adverse consequences. These
constitutes an unlawful interference and terminating of the tonnage
adverse consequences would be: A
with the operation of the interstate title authorization of title IV allowances does
significant excess of title IV allowances;
IV SO2 trading program, presumably not impermissibly interfere with the
a collapse of the price of title IV
similar to the unlawful interference interstate operation of the Acid Rain
allowances; disruption of the title IV
found by the court in Clean Air Markets Program and is reasonable.
allowance market and the title IV SO2
Group. However, the commenters Unlike the circumstances in Clean Air
cap and trade system; and potential SO2
provide little explanation of how such Markets Group, under EPA’s approach
emission increases, particularly in
use of title IV allowances (with or in today’s action, each title IV allowance
States outside the CAIR SO2 region. The
without a reduced tonnage is freely transferable nationwide unless
EPA modeling indicates that, in 2010,
authorization) purportedly interferes and until a source uses the allowance to
EGU SO2 emissions in States not
with interstate operation of the Acid meet the allowance-holding
affected by the CAIR SO2 program
Rain Program and how the holding in requirements of the CAIR SO2 program,
would increase by about 260,000 tons
Clean Air Markets Group applies to the at which time the allowance is deducted
(or about 29 percent of the
CAIR SO2 program. from the source’s allowance tracking
approximately 0.9 million tons of SO2
system account and retired for purposes
emissions projected for the non-CAIR
141 Similarly, to the extent title IV allowances are of both the CAIR SO2 program and the
SO2 region in 2010) in the absence of an
used in the CAIR SO2 trading program by non-Acid Acid Rain Program. Further, EPA
approach for addressing the impact of
Rain sources, the ‘‘title IV cap’’ seems to be expects that the ability to use title IV
effectively reduced because more allowances are the CAIR SO2 program on title IV. This
allowances to meet the more stringent
used in the CAIR SO2 trading program and
effectively removed from use in the Acid Rain emission limitation under the CAIR SO2 143 While section 403(b) (as well as section
Program. program to maintain or increase (not 403(d)) refer specifically to the allowance system
142 In light of this provision, the statement in the decrease) the value of each title IV regulations required to be promulgated by the EPA
NPR (particularly as it is interpreted by the allowance, until the allowance is used Administrator within 18 months of November 15,
commenters) that EPA lacks authority to tighten the 1990 (the enactment date of the CAA), the EPA
requirements of title IV (69 FR 4618, col. 1) is
to meet the CAIR SO2 program Administrator has authority under section 301 to
overly broad and is not repeated or adopted in allowance-holding requirement and is amend such regulations ‘‘as necessary to carry out
today’s preamble. retired. his functions under [the CAA].’’ 42 U.S.C. 7601.
is because, with the imposition of the of supply and demand, EPA concludes surrendering, to EPA, allowances that
more stringent CAIR SO2 emission that, with the amount of allowances have a market value; and by allowing
limitation in the CAIR SO2 region, this allocated nation wide exceeding SO2 owners (e.g., those who choose to
more stringent limitation becomes the emissions for EGUs nationwide in 2010 reduce emissions) to sell unused
binding limitation for sources in that by about 86 percent (i.e., 8.95 million allowances. Whether the sources’
region. These CAIR SO2 sources must allowances minus 4.8 million tons allowances were originally allocated to
comply with, and cannot use title IV divided by 4.8 million tons), the value the sources or were purchased, the
allowances to exceed, the CAIR SO2 of title IV allowances would fall to zero, owners must decide the extent to which
emission limitation. Consequently, the and all but 260,000 of the surplus it is more efficient to give up the market
portion of the title IV allowances that allowances would have no market and value of such allowances or to reduce
equals the difference between the CAIR so, as a practical matter, would not be emissions. If title IV allowances were to
and the title IV emission limitations is transferable. have no market value, the title IV cap
excess and would be available for use The EPA notes that this effect on and trade system would no longer affect
only by Acid Rain sources that are allowances would occur no matter how the choice of whether to emit or to
outside the CAIR SO2 region. the State implements the more stringent reduce emissions.146
This excess amount of title IV SO2 emission limitation required under
allowances is potentially very the CAIR, e.g., whether implementation The EPA maintains that such a result
significant. Today’s action requires that is through a new cap and trade program is contrary to Congressional intent. The
the States in the CAIR SO2 region (like in the model rule) or through a purposes of title IV include not only
achieve an amount of SO2 emission fixed (command and control) tonnage reductions of annual SO2 emissions
reductions in 2010 and 2015 equal to 50 emission limit imposed on each from 1980 levels, but also the
percent and 65 percent, respectively, of individual source. Consequently, the encouragement of ‘‘energy conservation,
the amount of title IV allowances (about alternatives faced by EPA are either: (1) use of renewable and clean alternative
7.3 million allowances out of the total To establish a CAIR model cap and technologies, and pollution prevention
nationwide allocation of 8.95 million trade program (or allow States to use as a long-range strategy, consistent with
allowances) allocated to the units in the another means of achieving CAIR SO2 the provisions of this title, for reducing
CAIR SO2 region. If the States achieve emissions reductions) that does not air pollution and other adverse impacts
all the required CAIR SO2 reductions retire the 3.65 million surplus of energy production and use.’’ 42
through emission reductions by EGUs allowances and that results in the U.S.C. 7651(b). Reflecting these
(which are largely the same units that devaluation of all title IV allowances to purposes, Congress required EPA to
are subject to the Acid Rain Program) zero and the effective non-transferability promulgate allowance system
and if EGUs held only one title IV of all but 260,000 of the 3.65 million regulations for the Acid Rain Program
allowance for each ton of SO2 emissions surplus allowances in 2010; or, as that would promote ‘‘an orderly and
as required in the Acid Rain Program, provided in today’s action, (2) to adopt competitive functioning of the
the amount of surplus allowances a CAIR SO2 model cap and trade allowance system.’’ 42 U.S.C.
allocated to the States in the CAIR SO2 program (or another means of achieving 7651b(d)(1). See Sen. Rep. No. 101–228,
region would be about 3.65 million reductions) that retires the 3.65 million 101st Cong., 1st Sess. at 320 (explaining
allowances and 4.75 million allowances, surplus allowances and that results in that ‘‘the allowance system is intended
respectively in 2010 and 2015.144 the non-transferability of the entire 3.65 to maximize the economic efficiency of
Moreover, the vast majority of EGUs million surplus of title IV allowances the program both to minimize costs and
nationwide (about 90 percent) and of and ensures the remaining, unused title to create incentives for aggressive and
EGU SO2 emissions nationwide (about IV allowances have market value. Thus, innovative efforts to control pollution’’).
90 percent) are covered by the CAIR SO2 with regard to the impact on the As discussed above, if title IV
program. The net result would be a large transferability of title IV allowances, allowances were to have no market
surplus of title IV allowances that EPA’s decision to adopt the second value, the cap and trade system under
would not be usable in the CAIR SO2 alternative of retiring the surplus title IV would no longer affect owners’
region and would be usable only by the allowances adversely affects the decisions on whether to emit or to
small subset of EGUs (about 10 percent) transferability of only a relatively small control emissions and so would no
located in non-CAIR SO2 region States. amount (260,000 out of 8.95 million per longer provide encouragement (e.g.,
Looking at the nation as a whole (both year) of allowances, as compared to the
CAIR and non-CAIR SO2 States) in 2010, amount of allowances whose 146 See Sen. Rep. No. 101–228, 101st Cong., 1st
there would be total allocations in the transferability would be adversely Sess. at 324 (Dec. 20, 1989) (stating that
Acid Rain Program of 8.95 million title affected under the first alternative. ‘‘[a]llowances are intended to function like a
IV allowances but, according to EPA Moreover, with the total collapse of currency that is sufficiently valuable to stimulate
the title IV allowance price in the Acid efforts to acquire it through innovative and
modeling and analysis of the CAIR aggressive efforts to reduce emissions more than
without a requirement to retire surplus Rain Program, the nationwide cap and required’’ and that, in the event of ‘‘inflation in the
title IV allowances, total projected SO2 trade system under title IV—which currency,’’ the incentives to ‘‘reduce pollution
emissions for EGUs of only about 4.8 would be the binding cap and trade * * * will be seriously weakened.’’ In the instant
system only for sources in the States case, without a requirement to retire excess title IV
million tons.145 Based on the principles allowances, the currency would be inflated to a
outside the CAIR SO2 region—would value of zero. See also Legis. Hist. of CAAA, Vol.
144 The surpluses for 2010 and 2015 respectively lose all efficacy. The title IV cap and I at 1033 (Oct. 27, 1990 floor statement of Sen.
are calculated as: 7.3 million allowances minus trade system operates by: Making Baucus explaining that ‘‘[s]ince units can gain cash
((100 percent minus the percentage reduction revenues from the sale of allowances they do not
requirement for the year) times 7.3 million
owners of sources pay for the
use, they will have a financial incentive both to
allowances). authorization to emit SO2 by make greater-than-required reductions and/or
145 The 4.8 million ton figure is the sum of: 3.65 reductions earlier than required’’ and that
million tons of emissions (equal to the tonnage retirement of surplus title IV allowances; plus ‘‘incentives created by the allowance market should
equivalent of the allowance allocations in the CAIR 260,000 tons of increased non-CAIR SO2 region stimulate innovations in the technologies and
SO2 region); plus about 0.9 million tons of emissions if the surplus title IV allowances are not strategies used to reduce emissions’’ including
emissions in the non-CAIR SO2 region with the retired. energy efficiency).
incentives for innovation) for avoidance U.S.C. (a)(1) (Congressional finding that allowance. Specifically, EPA has the
or reduction of SO2 emissions.147 ‘‘the presence of acidic compounds and authority to: require that any EGU SO2
In addition, EPA is concerned that their precursors in the atmosphere and emission reduction program, chosen by
such disruption of the title IV allowance in deposition from the atmosphere a State to meet (in full or in part) the
market and the title IV SO2 cap and represents a threat to natural resources, requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D),
trade system would significantly erode ecosystems, materials, visibility, and include provisions for retiring excess
confidence in cap and trade programs in public health’’). title IV allowances resulting from the
general and the CAIR model cap and In light of these considerations,149 implementation of the more stringent
trade programs in particular. As noted EPA concludes, on balance, that emission reduction requirement under
above, under the Acid Rain Program, structuring the CAIR model SO2 cap and the State program; and to require that
companies have made billions of dollars trade program in a way that avoids such such retired title IV allowances cannot
of investments in emission controls in extensive disruption of the Acid Rain be used in the Acid Rain Program. As
order to be able to sell excess title IV Program (i.e., by requiring retirement discussed above, the commenters’
allowances and in purchasing title IV from the Acid Rain Program of title IV claims that such a retirement
allowances for future compliance (e.g., allowances used for compliance in the requirement is barred by title IV (relying
under annual, 1-day allowance auctions CAIR SO2 program) does not constitute on, e.g., the section 402(3) definition of
held by EPA, one as recently as March impermissible interference with the ‘‘allowance’’ and on the ‘‘title IV cap’’)
22, 2004 when title IV allowances were interstate operation of the Acid Rain lack merit. Also, for the reasons
purchased for about $50 million). While Program. Rather, this approach in the discussed above, the retirement
in a market-based program like the Acid model SO2 cap and trade rule is requirement is not unlawful under
Rain Program, investments are consistent with, and preserves, such Clean Air Markets Group and is a
necessarily subject to the vagaries of the operation—while providing States a tool reasonable exercise of EPA’s authority
market, EPA believes that it should try, for imposing the more stringent SO2 under section 403(f) to terminate or
to the extent possible consistent with emission limitations required under title limit the tonnage authorization of title
statutory requirements, to avoid taking I—and is a reasonable exercise of EPA’s IV allowances.
administrative actions that would cause authority under section 403(f) to Some commenters also claim that the
such extensive disruption of the Acid terminate or limit the tonnage retirement requirement unlawfully
Rain Program. Allowing such disruption authorization of title IV allowances. constrains the States’ authority to
to occur could significantly reduce the determine in the first instance the
willingness of owners of sources in new 2. Legal Authority for Requiring control measures to use in meeting
cap and trade programs to invest in Retirement of Excess Title IV emission reduction requirements
measures that would result in excess Allowances if State Does Not Use CAIR necessary to comply with section
allowances for sale or to purchase Model SO2 Cap and Trade Program 110(a)(2)(D). According to the
allowances for compliance. To the As discussed above, a State has the commenters, since only EGUs are
extent owners would ignore the additional options of achieving the SO2 subject to title IV, the requirement to
allowance-trading option and simply emissions reductions required by retire title IV allowances is in effect a
control emissions to the level equal to today’s actions through: EGU emission mandate that the State control EGU
their source’s allocations, this would reductions only but without using the emissions.
obviate the incentives for innovation, model SO2 cap and trade rule; some However, EPA is imposing the
and hamper realization of the potential EGU and some non-EGU emissions requirement for a State mechanism to
for cost savings, that would otherwise reductions; or non-EGU reductions only. retire title IV allowances only if the
be provided by new cap and trade The requirement to retire excess title IV State decides in the first instance to
programs (such as the CAIR model cap allowances applies only in the first and require any EGU SO2 emissions
and trade programs). second of these three additional options. reductions to meet the emission
Finally, as noted above, such The State must retire an amount of title reduction requirements under today’s
disruption of the Acid Rain Program IV allowances equal to the total amount action. A State that decides not to
would potentially result in significantly of title IV allowances allocated to units require any EGU SO2 emissions
increased SO2 emissions (about 29 in the State minus the amount of reductions for this purpose is not
percent in 2010) in States covered by allowances equivalent to the tonnage required to retire title IV allowances.
the Acid Rain Program but outside the cap set by the State on EGUs’ SO2 Further, the amount of the required
CAIR SO2 region.148 This would have emissions and can choose what allowance retirement is limited to the
the effect of reversing, at least in part, mechanism to use to achieve such amount of EGU SO2 emissions
the beneficial effect that the Acid Rain retirement. The EPA has the authority to reductions that the State decides in the
Program has had on SO2 emissions in require that the State include in its SIP first instance to require from EGUs (i.e.,
those States, even though the overall a mechanism for retiring the excess title the total title IV allowance allocations in
goal of nationwide SO2 emissions IV allowances that will result under the State minus the tonnage amount of
reductions would still be met. See 42 these two options. the cap set by the State for EGUs’ SO2
As discussed above, EPA has the emissions). In short, the allowance
147 While the title IV cap and trade system could
authority under section 403(f) to retirement requirement echoes the
be replaced by a new CAIR SO2 cap and trade
terminate or limit the authorization to State’s decision in the first instance
system that did not address the problems caused by concerning the amount of SO2 emissions
surplus title IV allowance, that new cap and trade emit otherwise provided by a title IV
system would not be nationwide like the title IV
reductions to require from EGUs in the
cap and trade system and so would not cover 149 While the potential for increased emissions State. The EPA simply requires the State
sources outside the CAIR SO2 region. outside the CAIR SO2 region supports EPA’s to implement the State’s EGU–SO2-
148 The EPA notes that the potential for increased conclusion, EPA maintains that, even in the emission-reduction-requirement
emissions within the CAIR SO2 region would occur absence of any such increase, the other decision in a manner that avoids the
before the implementation of the CAIR SO2 program considerations discussed above are sufficient to
and is addressed by allowing pre-2010 banked title justify the conclusion that the retirement of title IV
otherwise likely, extreme disruption of
IV allowances to be used to meet the CAIR allowances does not impermissibly interfere with the title IV SO2 cap and trade system
allowance holding requirement beginning in 2010. the Acid Rain Program and is reasonable. that is described above. Further, the
State may choose what mechanism to approach is included in many necessary in order to adapt to source-
include in its SIP revision for achieving provisions of the Acid Rain Program level compliance.
the required allowance retirement, and regulations, a significant number of Some commenters support the shift to
EPA will review the effectiveness of the proposed rule revisions were necessary source-by-source allowance holding,
mechanism in achieving such to implement source-by-source and some oppose the change. One
retirement, and approve and adopt the allowance holding. commenter opposing the change claims
mechanism if appropriate, in an EPA In today’s final rule, EPA is adopting, that a source-by-source allowance-
rulemaking concerning the SIP revision. with minor modifications, the proposed holding requirement is ‘‘contrary to
Therefore, EPA concludes that the rule revisions implementing source-by- market-based principles.’’ According to
allowance-retirement requirement is source compliance with the allowance- the commenter, market-based systems
lawful and is a reasonable condition for holding requirement. As explained in give operators the tools for achieving
EPA approval of those State SIPs that detail in the SNPR (69 FR 32698– compliance through allowance transfers,
require EGU SO2 emission reductions 32701), EPA finds that: Title IV is but with source-level compliance the
without using the CAIR model SO2 ambiguous with regard to whether unit- operators do not have to take any action
trading program. by-unit compliance is required and so to maintain sufficient allowances
The EPA notes that the requirement to EPA has discretion in this matter; it is because EPA will move the allowances
retire excess title IV allowances—where important to provide additional around for them.
a State adopts the CAIR model SO2 compliance flexibility by allowing a The commenter’s argument is based
trading program or where a State SIP unit at a source to use allowances from on an incorrect premise. Whether
obtains EGU emissions reductions any other unit at the same source; and compliance is unit-by-unit or source-by-
through some other means—is reflected many other, non-allowance-holding source, the owner or owners of the
in provisions in both the proposed rules affected units at each source must take
provisions of title IV evidence a unit-by-
in the SNPR (i.e., in proposed the same types of actions in order to
unit orientation. Further, as discussed
§§ 51.124(p) and 96.254(b)) and in the comply with the applicable allowance-
in the SNPR, EPA concludes that the
final rules adopted by today’s action holding requirement. In particular,
adoption of source-level compliance
(i.e., in final §§ 51.124(p) and 96.254(b)). under source-level compliance, such
reasonably balances these
In reviewing the proposed rules in light owner or owners must reduce
considerations. In balancing these
of the comments received, EPA has emissions, retain allowances allocated
considerations, EPA also concludes that
concluded that, for consistency and to such units, obtain additional
company-level compliance is not
clarity, the Acid Rain Program allowances, or take a combination of
appropriate because it represents too
regulations should also reference this these actions to ensure that the
much of a deviation from the unit-by- Allowance Tracking System account for
same retirement requirement.
unit orientation in the non-allowance- the source holds enough allowances to
Consequently, today’s action adds a new
holding provisions of title IV and is cover the total emissions of the affected
paragraph (a)(3) to § 73.35 of the Acid
likely to require much more dramatic units at the source. The owner or
Rain Program regulations that reiterates
changes in the operation of the Acid owners also have the option of reducing
the requirement—addressed in the
Rain Program. See 69 FR 32699–700. It emissions below allocations so that
preamble and regulations in both the
is important to note that the final rule there are extra allowances available to
SNPR and today’s action—that title IV
revisions, like the proposed revisions, hold for future use or sale. If the owner
allowances previously used to meet the
allowance-holding requirement in the change only the allowance-holding or owners do not have enough
CAIR model trading program in requirement and not the emissions allowances to cover the emissions from
§ 96.254(b) or otherwise retired in monitoring and reporting requirements, the source, EPA will not move, on its
accordance with § 51.124(p) cannot be which continue to be applied unit by own initiative, allowances into the
used to meet the allowance-holding unit. source’s compliance account from other
requirement in the Acid Rain Program. In today’s action, EPA is making the sources’ accounts or from general
Additional revisions of the Acid Rain source-level-compliance rule revisions accounts, even if there are extra
Program regulations are discussed effective July 1, 2006, which is 1 year allowances in the other accounts. The
below. later than proposed. The shift from unit- only difference between the types of
level to source-level compliance will actions owners must take under the
3. Revisions to Acid Rain Regulations require software changes and testing to unit-level and source-level approaches
In the SNPR, EPA proposed to revise ensure that the Allowance Tracking is that, under unit-level compliance, the
the Acid Rain Program regulations, System operates properly. Currently, owners must transfer allowances from
effective July 1, 2005, to implement the EPA is in the process of conducting a one unit at a source to a second unit at
allowance-holding requirement on a general review and re-engineering of the that source in order to use the first
source-by-source, rather than on a unit- Allowance Tracking System and unit’s allowances for compliance by the
by-unit, basis. Instead of requiring each Emissions Tracking System and second unit while, under source-level
unit to hold an amount of allowances in anticipates completing the process in compliance, any allowance held for
its Allowance Tracking System account 2006. The process of shifting the compliance for the first unit can be
(as of the allowance transfer deadline) at Allowance Tracking System to source- used—without a transfer—for
least equal to the tonnage of SO2 level compliance will be much more compliance by the second unit. This
emissions for the unit in the preceding efficient and less likely to have adverse difference is reflected in the Allowance
calendar year, the proposal required results on the system if the shift is Tracking System, which, under the unit-
each source to hold an amount of coordinated with the general review and level approach, includes a separate
allowances in its Allowance Tracking re-engineering and therefore account for each unit and, under the
System account at least equal to the implemented starting July 1, 2006. source-level approach, includes a single
tonnage of SO2 emissions for all affected Further, as discussed below, this delay account for all the affected units at a
units at the source for such calendar of implementation for 1 additional year single source.
year. Because language reflecting or will give owners additional time to In summary, the mechanism, and the
referencing the unit-by-unit compliance make changes that they determine are owners’ responsibilities, for achieving
compliance with the allowance-holding but the inability of any unit to use extra compliance (with the result that 2006 is
requirements are analogous under unit- allowances held instead by another unit the first year of source-level
by-unit and source-by-source at the source. Consequently, rather than compliance), EPA is providing owners a
compliance, except that, under source- adopting in the Acid Rain Program the reasonable amount of time to make any
by-source compliance, allowances need unit-level approach with over-draft necessary adjustments, such as those
not be transferred among units at the accounts, EPA is today adopting the claimed by the commenter. Further, as
same source. The EPA does not believe source-level approach in the Acid Rain noted above, the rule revisions change
that the source-by-source approach is Program and may consider in the future, only the allowance-holding requirement
any less market-based than the unit-by- as appropriate, adopting the source- and not the emissions monitoring and
unit approach. Owners will still have level approach in other programs using reporting requirements. This should
the ability to reduce emissions or unit-level compliance. limit the scope of adjustments necessary
purchase or sell allowances and the One commenter states that EPA for owners to implement source-level
responsibility to take actions (including should revise the Acid Rain Program compliance and will preserve the
the holding of extra allowances) to regulations to allow owners, each year, availability of reliable, unit-level
ensure they have enough allowances to the option of choosing whether to use emissions data.
cover emissions. Moreover, the market- unit-level or source-level compliance. Because unit-level compliance is
price of allowances will still play a According to the commenter, significant reflected throughout the Acid Rain
crucial role in owners’ decisions on investments have been made to monitor Program regulations, numerous
what actions to take. The EPA’s and report emissions and surrender revisions of the regulations are
adoption of source-by-source allowances under the existing Acid Rain necessary to implement source-level
compliance preserves market-based Program regulations, and shifting to compliance. (None of these changes are
principles, while reasonably balancing source-level compliance will require to the emissions monitoring and
of the ambiguity of title IV, the need for substantial resources and time. The reporting provisions in part 75 since
additional compliance flexibility, and commenter also states that unit-based monitoring and reporting continue to be
the unit-by-unit orientation of many compliance should be retained as an on a unit basis.) One commenter
provisions in title IV. See 69 FR 32699– option ‘‘to accommodate joint requested that EPA provide ‘‘more in-
700. ownership and other special depth detail’’ on the proposed revisions.
The commenter also argues that arrangements that may not affect an However, in the SNPR, EPA described
having a source-level allowance-holding entire facility.’’ the types of, and reasons for, revisions
requirement in the Acid Rain Program The EPA rejects the suggestion of that are necessary for source-level
(and the CAIR model cap and trade allowing each owner the option, for compliance (69 FR 32700–01) and set
program) is inconsistent with unit-level each year and for each source, of forth all of the specific, proposed
compliance in the NOX SIP Call cap and choosing between unit-level and source- changes (69 FR 3273–41). Moreover, no
trade program. However, other than level compliance. Such an approach commenters stated that they did not
pointing out this difference, the would significantly complicate the understand any specific, proposed
commenter fails to explain why the achievement by sources, and the revision or the reason for any specific
programs must be identical in this determination by EPA, of compliance. revision. The EPA notes that in
regard. Based on experience with the The potential for error (e.g., due to reviewing the proposed Acid Rain rule
Acid Rain Program (as well as the NOX erroneous assumptions about whether revisions in light of the comments, EPA
SIP Call trading program), EPA unit-or source-level compliance would found some additional references in the
concludes that a source-level allowance- be applicable to a particular source for
Acid Rain rule to unit-level compliance
holding requirement will result in a a particular year) on the part of owners
that should be revised to reflect source-
somewhat less complicated program or EPA would be significantly
level compliance. In today’s action, EPA
and a reduced likelihood of inadvertent, increased. Moreover, this complicated
is adopting revisions of these additional
minor errors, while achieving the approach would result in inconsistent
references (e.g., changing references to a
program’s environmental goals. See 69 treatment from source to source and
‘‘unit’s account’’ or a ‘‘unit account’’ to
FR 32699–700. year-to-year. Further, the commenter
a source’s ‘‘compliance account’’) that
The commenter suggests that, instead provided only vague assertions about
are analogous to the revisions
of adopting source-level compliance, the benefits of unit-based compliance in
specifically identified in the SNPR.150
EPA revise the Acid Rain Program certain circumstances and did not
Another commenter opposed the rule
regulations to allow for source over- assert—much less show—that source-
revisions implementing source-level
draft accounts, like those allowed in the level compliance cannot be
compliance on several other grounds.
NOX SIP Call cap and trade program. accommodated under those
The commenter claims, without citing
Under the NOX SIP Call program, each circumstances. The EPA maintains that
any statutory support, that the Acid
source may have a source over-draft the only reasonable options for the
Rain Program is based on ‘‘control of
account, in which may be held extra allowance-holding requirement in the
emissions at the unit level’’ so that, in
allowances that may be used for Acid Rain Program are either generally
compliance by any affected unit at the requiring compliance by all sources the event of excess emissions, the
source. However, EPA believes that each year on a unit-level basis (as in the ‘‘source as a whole would not be
source-level compliance is a better existing regulations) or requiring punished’’ and ‘‘corrective action could
approach than unit-level compliance compliance by all sources each year on take place’’ at the particular unit.
with over-draft accounts. Relatively few a source-level basis (as in the proposed According to the commenter, source-
owners in the NOX SIP Call cap and revisions to the regulations). For the level compliance will: Make it harder to
trade program actually put allowances reasons discussed above, EPA believes determine which unit caused excess
in over-draft accounts, and achievement that source-level compliance for the emissions; make the existing Acid Rain
of compliance is made more allowance-holding requirement is 150 This approach is consistent with the SNPR,
complicated by the ability of all units at preferable. By postponing until July 1, where EPA proposed to convert all references,
a source to draw on the over-draft 2006 the effective date of the rule including any initially missed in the SNPR, from
account (if any allowances are put in it) revisions shifting to source-level unit- to source-level compliance (69 FR 32700).
permits meaningless; make the holding requirement could cause reverting to the longstanding, original
individual unit allowance allocations ‘‘confusion’’ over which units are definition would be disruptive.
meaningless; and cause confusion over affected units. This source-level Another Acid Rain Program rule
which units at a source are affected requirement does not change the revision proposed in the SNPR is the
units. applicability provisions, which are still elimination of the requirement for
While there are many non-allowance- applied unit by unit. owners and operators to submit an
holding provisions in title IV that have As discussed in the SNPR, EPA annual compliance certification report
a unit-by-unit orientation, EPA proposed—in addition to the rule for each source. One commenter
disagrees with the commenter’s basic revisions to implement source-level expressed concern, because the purpose
assertion that the purpose of the Acid compliance—other revisions of the Acid of the annual certification is to ensure
Rain Program is to control emissions on Rain Program regulations in order to that the designated representative is
a unit-by-unit basis and that there is a facilitate coordination of the Acid Rain ‘‘aware and has assured the quality of
need to ‘‘distinguish’’ the compliance of Program and the CAIR SO2 cap and the data’’ being submitted to EPA.
each individual unit. The provisions trade program. These additional However, as noted in the SNPR,
concerning application of the revisions were described and explained designated representatives must
allowance-holding requirement are in the SNPR (69 FR 32701). The EPA is evidence such awareness and
ambiguous as to whether EPA must adopting these revisions for the reasons compliance by submitting, with each
implement the requirement on a unit- in the SNPR, as amplified below. Most quarterly emissions report, a
level or a source-level, and the of these revisions are supported, or not certification that the monitoring and
environmental benefits of the Acid Rain opposed, by commenters, but some reporting requirements under part 75 of
Program will still be realized with commenters objected to certain the Acid Rain Program regulations have
source-level compliance. See 69 FR revisions. been met. See 40 CFR 75.64(c).
32699–700. Further, while EPA will For example, EPA noted that it had Quarterly emissions reports are
determine compliance on a source-by- recently changed the ‘‘cogeneration available on-line to the public and the
source basis, nothing in the regulations unit’’ definition in § 72.2 in June 2002 States. In addition, owners and
prevents owners (e.g., owners of units at (67 FR 40394, 40420; June 12, 2002). operators of sources subject to the Acid
sources with multiple units and The original definition in § 72.2 had Rain Program must submit, under title
multiple owners or owners of units with been used since the commencement of V of the CAA, annual compliance
multiple owners and exhausting the Acid Rain Program. The only certification reports concerning all CAA
through a common stack) from significant difference between the requirements (including Acid Rain
determining by agreement which original and revised definitions is that Program requirements). Under these
owners will bear any excess emissions the former refers to a unit ‘‘having the circumstances, EPA maintains that the
penalties that occur at the plant and equipment used to produce’’ electricity separate Acid Rain Program annual
have to take correction actions. Indeed, and useful thermal energy through compliance certification reports are
owners are likely to already have these sequential use of energy, while the latter duplicative and unnecessary. The EPA
types of agreements in cases of units or simply refers to a unit ‘‘that produces’’ notes that it appears that few, if any,
sources with multiple owners. This is electricity and useful thermal energy in requests for copies of these Acid Rain
because the Acid Rain Program that manner. The reason that EPA gave Program reports have been made by
regulations already allow a unit at a for revising the definition in June 2002 States or any other persons since the
multi-unit source to use some was to conform with the definition in commencement of the Acid Rain
allowances from other units at the the Section 126 rule. However, the Program. Apparently, other
source (albeit to cover most but not all Section 126 rule (and the NOX SIP Call) certifications and submissions required
of the potential excess emissions) and did not actually specify a ‘‘cogeneration of owners and operators have been
already allow one unit exhausting from unit’’ definition. Consequently, there is sufficient for the purposes cited by the
a common stack to use allowances from no reason to use the June 2002 revised commenter.
another unit at that stack (without any definition. Moreover, EPA is concerned The SNPR also included proposed
limitation on such use). See 40 CFR that the change in the definition of revisions eliminating the requirement
73.35(b)(3) and (e). In addition, while ‘‘cogeneration unit’’ as of June 2002 may under the Acid Rain Program for a 1-day
the Acid Rain permits will have to be cause confusion or raise question about newspaper notice for designation of
revised in the future to reflect source- what units qualify for exemptions for designated representatives and
level compliance, today’s rule does not ‘‘cogeneration units’’ from the Acid Rain authorized account representatives. One
make source-level compliance effective Program. Under these circumstances, commenter suggests that this notice
until 2006. Permits will not have to be EPA concludes that the definition should be replaced by a requirement to
revised until around the end of 2006, should be changed back to the original notify the State permitting authority.
which should provide States a definition in § 72.2 and, in any event, The EPA notes that information on
reasonable opportunity to amend the intends to interpret the June 2002 designated representatives and
permits. Contrary to the claims of the revised definition as having the same authorized account representatives is
commenter, source-level compliance meaning as the original definition. One already available to State permitting
does not make the unit-by-unit commenter raised concerns that EPA authorities through on-line access to the
allocations meaningless; the unit-by- did not provide any ‘‘detailed analysis’’ Allowance Tracking System. Moreover,
unit allocations (set forth in Table 2 of of the implications of changing the EPA is in the process of developing, and
§ 72.10) will determine the amount of ‘‘cogeneration unit’’ definition. anticipates establishing in the near
allocations reflected in each Allowance However, as discussed above, the future, the ability to send State
Tracking System source account, which change simply reinstates the definition permitting authorities (at their request)
amount will equal the sum of the that had been used in the Acid Rain on-line notices of changes in designated
allocations for all affected units at the Program from the initial promulgation representatives (who are also the
source. Finally, the commenter failed to of implementing regulations in 1993 authorized account representatives for
explain how the source-level allowance- until 2002. No commenter asserted that affected sources’ accounts).
Other proposed Acid Rain Program concerning the holding, transferring, are relevant to today’s action in several
rule revisions on which EPA received recording, and deducting of allowances. respects.
adverse comment are the removal of Section 73.51 prohibits the transfer of Most importantly for purposes of the
§ 73.32 (prescribing the contents of an allowances from a future year CAIR, CEED affirmed EPA’s
allowance account) and § 73.51 subaccount to a subaccount for an interpretation of CAA 169A(b)(2) as
(prohibiting the transfer of allowances earlier year. The removal of this section allowing for non-BART alternatives
from a future year subaccount to a is consistent with the elimination where those alternatives make greater
subaccount for an earlier year). Section throughout the rest of the Acid Rain progress than BART. (CEED, slip. op. at
73.32 sets forth a rather self-evident list Program regulations, as discussed in the 13) (finding that EPA’s interpretation of
of information that must be recorded in SNPR (id.), of any references to such CAA 169(a)(2) as requiring BART only
subaccounts. Further, the prohibition on as necessary to make reasonable
an allowance account in the Allowance
using allowances allocated for a year to progress passes the two-pronged
Tracking System, such as the name of
meet the allowance-holding requirement Chevron test).
the authorized account representative, The particular provisions involved in
the persons represented by the for a prior year is retained in other
provisions of the Acid Rain Program CEED applied, on an optional basis,
authorized account representative, and only to nine western States 152 (none of
the transfers of allowances in and out of regulations. Consequently, EPA is
removing § 73.51. which are in the CAIR region) and the
the account. This section also references Tribes therein. The provisions,
information on compliance or current C. How Does the Rule Interact With the contained in 40 CFR 51.309 (‘‘section
year subaccounts and future year Regional Haze Program? 309’’) required among other things that
subaccounts, as well as emissions States choosing to participate in a
This section discusses the
information. As discussed in the SNPR, ‘‘backstop’’ 153 cap and trade program
relationship of the CAIR cap and trade
several items on the list of informational must demonstrate that the emissions
program for EGUs with the regional
contents for allowance accounts are out- reductions under the program resulted
haze program under sections 169A and
of-date in that they do not reflect how in greater progress towards the national
169B of the CAA, in particular the
the electronic Allowance Tracking visibility goals than would BART. At
requirements for Best Available Retrofit
System operates or will operate in the issue was the particular methodology
Technology (BART) for certain source
near future. For example, the electronic required for this demonstration.
categories including EGUs. The
Allowance Tracking System does not Specifically, EPA’s rule required that
legislative and regulatory background of
currently use or refer to subaccounts, visibility improvements under source-
the BART provisions were presented in
which will continue to be unnecessary specific BART—the benchmark for
some detail in the SNPR. (See 69 FR
in the context of source-level comparison to the cap and trade
32684, 32702–704, June 10, 2004). In program—must be calculated based on
compliance.151 See 69 FR brief, BART regulations consist of two
32700–01. In addition, while § 73.32 the application of BART controls to all
components. The first, promulgated in sources subject to BART.154 Although
states that emissions data are reflected 1980, addresses visibility impairment American Corn Growers had vacated
in the Allowance Tracking System that can be ‘‘reasonably attributed’’ to a this cumulative visibility approach in
account, such data are currently single source or small group of sources. the context of determining BART for
available instead through the electronic (45 FR 80085; December 2, 1980, individual sources, EPA believed that it
Emissions Tracking System. Because the codified at 40 CFR 51.302). The second was still permissible to require this
information list in § 73.32 contains component addresses BART in relation methodology in the context of a BART-
either self-evident items or items that to regional haze (visibility impairment alternative program. The DC Circuit in
are out-of-date and because the NOX caused by a multitude of broadly CEED held otherwise, stating: ‘‘EPA
Allowance Tracking System has been distributed sources) and was cannot under § 309 require states to
operating successfully even though the promulgated as part of the Regional exceed invalid emission reductions (or,
model NOX Budget cap and trade rule Haze Rule. (64 FR 35714; July 1, 1999). to put it more exactly, limit them to a
and State cap and trade rules under the Certain parts of the BART provisions in § 309 alternative defined by an unlawful
NOX SIP Call lack a provision analogous that rule were vacated by the U.S. Court methodology).’’ (Id. at 14).
to § 73.32, EPA is removing § 73.32. EPA of Appeals for the DC Circuit in Thus, CEED firmly established two
notes that the removal of the section American Corn Growers et al. v. EPA, principles: (1) The CAA allows States to
will not mean that the information 291 F.3d 1 (DC Cir., 2002). To address substitute other programs for BART
contained in allowance accounts ‘‘can that decision, in May 2004, EPA where the alternative achieves greater
be changed at will.’’ The format for proposed changes to the Regional Haze progress, and (2) EPA may not require
allowance accounts is set forth in the Rule and reproposed the Guidelines for States to evaluate visibility
electronic Allowance Tracking System BART Determinations (originally improvement on a cumulative basis as
and implements the requirements in the proposed in 2001) (69 FR 25185, May 5, a condition for approval of a BART-
Acid Rain Program regulations 2004). alternative. The first principle validates
On February 18, 2005, the DC Circuit EPA’s proposal to allow the CAIR to
151 In reviewing the proposed Acid Rain Program decided another case dealing with substitute for BART. The second
rule revisions, EPA found some additional BART and a BART alternative program,
references to ‘‘subaccounts’’ that were not Center for Energy and Economic 152 Arizona, California, Colorado, Oregon, Idaho,
specifically noted in the SNPR. For consistency and Development v. EPA, No. 03–1222, (DC Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming.
clarity in the Acid Rain Program rules, EPA is 153 The trading program is referred to as a
adopting in today’s action revisions (e.g., chaning

Cir. Feb. 18, 2005) (‘‘CEED’’). In this ‘‘backstop’’ because under the WRAP Annex, States
the term ‘‘subaccount’’ to ‘‘compliance account’’) of case, the court granted a petition have the opportunity to achieve specified emission
these additional references, which revisions are challenging provisions of the regional milestones using voluntary measures, with the
analogous to those specifically set forth in the haze rule governing the optional trading program coming into effect only if those
SNPR. This approach is consistent with the SNPR, milestones are exceeded.
where EPA proposed to convert all references,
emissions trading program for certain 154 The methodology is prescribed in 40 CFR
including any initially missed in the SNPR, from western States and Tribes (the ‘‘WRAP 51.308(e)(2) and incorporated into § 309 by
subaccount to compliance account, (69 FR 32700). Annex Rule’’). The holdings of the case reference at 40 CFR 51.309(f).
principle is not at issue in the CAIR in lieu of the application of BART on a to conduct additional analyses, and
context, because EPA is not proposing source specific basis. (See 40 CFR those analyses have now been done. The
to impose the cumulative visibility 51.308(e)(2) and 64 FR 35714, 35741– new modeling and results are discussed
methodology upon States, nor to require 35743, July 1, 1999). The proposal was in more detail in section IX.C.2 below.
States to treat the CAIR as having based on the application of the
b. Comments and EPA’s Responses
satisfied their BART obligations. proposed two-pronged test for whether
Nonetheless, EPA has determined that an alternative to BART is ‘‘better than Several commenters argued that a
it is premature to make a final BART’’ which was proposed in the 2001 categorical exclusion of sources from
determination regarding the sufficiency BART guidelines and reproposed BART would violate the CAA, as
of the CAIR as a BART alternative, without changes in our May, 2004 interpreted by the U.S. Court of Appeals
primarily because (1) the guidelines for proposed guidelines for BART for the DC Circuit in American Corn
source-specific BART determinations, in determinations (69 FR 25184, May 5, Growers v. EPA, 291 F.3d 1, 2002, by
response to American Corn Growers 2004). illegally constraining the discretion
have not been finalized, and (2) there is Specifically, the re-proposed BART Congress conferred to States in making
now a need to revise the Regional Haze Guidelines provide that if the BART determinations and by depriving
Rule and the guidelines for BART- geographic distribution of emissions States of an adequate opportunity to
alternative programs in response to reductions is anticipated to be similar evaluate the emissions reductions in
CEED. The source-specific BART under both programs, the trading light of the BART requirement. Some
guidelines will be finalized on or before program (or other alternative measure) States also expressed a desire to retain
April 15, 2005, under a consent decree. must be shown to achieve greater their discretion to require BART.
The rule changes and revisions to the overall emissions reductions than the Additionally, some commenters
BART-alternative guidelines will be application of source-specific BART. If asserted that EPA could not offer an
proposed soon thereafter. the trading program is anticipated to exemption to BART unless the
Therefore, we are making no final result in a different geographic conditions for exemptions provided by
determination in today’s action with distribution of emissions reductions CAA 169A(c) are met, including a
respect to BART. The EPA continues to than would source-specific BART, the showing that the source in question will
believe, however, that the CAIR will trading program must be shown to result not, alone or in combination with other
result in greater progress in visibility in no decline in visibility at any Class sources, emit any pollutant which may
improvement than BART, as explained I area, and in an overall improvement in reasonably be anticipated to cause or
below. visibility on an average basis over all contribute to impairment at any Class I
affected Class I areas (69 FR 25184, area, and the concurrence of the
1. How Does This Rule Relate to 25231). Because we had not yet appropriate Federal Land Manager with
Requirements for BART Under the determined whether there is a difference the exemption determination.
Visibility Provisions of the CAA? in the geographic distribution of The EPA agrees that under the CAA
a. Supplemental Notice of Proposed emissions reductions between the CAIR and the American Corn Growers case,
Rulemaking and the application of source-specific EPA may not preclude a State from
BART in the CAIR region, we assessed conducting its own BART analysis, nor
In the SNPR, we proposed that States from requiring BART controls at
which adopt the CAIR cap and trade the difference between the two
programs by evaluating the visibility individual sources as determined
program for SO2 and NOX would be appropriate through such analysis.
allowed to treat the participation of impacts of each program, using this
proposed two-pronged test. Accordingly, as noted above, the
EGUs in this program as a substitute for proposed regulatory change to the
The emissions projections and air
the application of BART controls for Regional Haze Rule would provide that
quality modeling used to demonstrate
these pollutants to affected EGUs.155 To a CAIR affected State ‘‘need not require
that the CAIR satisfies this proposed
give this option effect, we proposed an two-pronged test were presented in a affected BART-eligible EGUs to install,
amendment to the Regional Haze Rule document entitled Supplemental Air operate, and maintain BART’’ if such
which would add a section at 40 CFR Quality Modeling Technical Support State opts to participate in the CAIR cap
51.308(e)(3), as follows: Document (TSD) for the Clean Air and trade program. The optional nature
(3) A State that opts to participate in the Interstate Rule (May 4, 2004). In brief, of this language (‘‘need not’’ rather than
Clean Air Interstate Rule cap and trade we found that the CAIR would not ‘‘may not’’) is consistent with the
program under part 96 AAA–EEE need not result in a degradation of visibility from American Corn Growers decision,
require affected BART-eligible EGUs to because it does not attempt to mandate
install, operate, and maintain BART. A State
current conditions at any Class I Area
that chooses this option may also include nationwide. Within the CAIR-affected that States must consider the CAIR as
provisions for a geographic enhancement to States and New England, EPA found having met the requirements of BART.
the program to address the requirement that the CAIR would produce greater The SNPR preamble summarized the
under § 51.302(c) related to BART for visibility benefits—specifically, an proposal by stating that ‘‘EPA proposes
reasonably attributable impairment from the average improvement of 2.0 deciviews, that BART-eligible EGUs in any State
pollutants covered by the CAIR cap and trade as compared to 1.0 for BART. The EPA affected by CAIR may be exempted from
program. also found that average visibility BART controls for SO2 and NOX if that
This proposal is consistent with improvement for Class I areas State complies with the CAIR
currently existing provisions which nationwide would be 0.7 deciviews requirements through adoption of the
allow States to develop cap and trade under the CAIR, compared to 0.4 CAIR cap and trade programs for SO2
programs or other alternative measures deciviews under BART. The EPA noted and NOX emissions.’’ (69 FR 3270). That
in the SNPR and the TSD that because statement accurately reflected the
155 The SNPR preamble used the term the emissions scenarios used in these optional nature of the better-than-BART
‘‘exemption’’ in describing this policy. As clarified analyses were developed for different substitution policy, by providing that
below, and as consistent with the proposed
regulatory language, the better-than-BART policy is
purposes, the scenarios varied slightly sources ‘‘may’’ be granted such
not actually an exemption but rather an alternative from the scenarios which would be regulatory flexibility. However, the use
means of compliance. ideal for this test. The EPA committed of the term ‘‘exempted’’ in this context
was somewhat imprecise. EPA agrees the NOX SIP Call must be achieved in Several commenters argued that the
that sources may not be ‘‘exempt’’ from addition to, and not as a substitute for, question of whether BART is better than
BART requirements unless the BART. Commenters also argue that EPA the CAIR is properly addressed in the
requirements of 169A(c) are fulfilled. (and States) will need all available tools, BART rulemaking, not in today’s action,
The better-than-BART policy is not an including BART, to meet visibility and and that the better-than-BART
‘‘exemption’’ from BART; it is an NAAQS requirements. determination is otherwise premature.
alternative regulatory program that Again, under our interpretation of While EPA believes that our current
would allow Congressionally required CAA section 169A(b)(2) as upheld in analysis demonstrates that the CAIR is
emissions reductions from BART- CEED and Central Arizona Water, better than BART (based on the criteria
eligible sources to be made in a more Congress did not ‘‘mandate’’ that in our May 2004 BART proposal), and
cost-effective manner. Moreover, as emission reductions from certain source that the range of uncertainty regarding
explained elsewhere in the SNPR and categories be obtained by the the presumptive BART controls for
again below, BART-eligible EGUs would installation of BART controls. Instead, EGUs to be finalized in the BART
not be ‘‘exempt’’ from BART because, the CAA allows for alternative measures guidelines is not likely to alter that
until the emissions reductions required to BART—whether for EGUs or non- demonstration, we agree that we cannot
by the CAIR are fully realized, such EGUs—where those measures result in make a final determination that CAIR is
sources would remain subject to the greater reasonable progress, and as better than BART until the changes to
possibility of being required to install explained below, we have determined the regional haze regulations required
BART controls if deemed necessary to that greater reasonable progress can be by both American Corn Growers and
meet requirements regarding reasonably obtained from the EGU sector through CEED are finalized.
attributable visibility impairment, as the use of the CAIR cap and trade Several commenters felt the CAIR
provided by 40 CFR 51.302. program. However, if a State believes should be considered better than BART
Several commenters asserted that more progress can be made at affected for a State whether or not that State
because Congress singled out 26 source Class I areas by utilizing BART, the participates in the CAIR cap and trade
categories for the application of BART, State need not make the determination program, as long as the State achieves
there is no basis in law for EPA to that the CAIR substitutes for BART in its emission reduction requirement
‘‘exempt’’ some of these categories. that State. Therefore, EPA is not under the CAIR. Conversely, one
These comments amount to facial eliminating any tools available to the commenter felt that CAIR reductions
challenges of EPA’s authority to approve States. should be considered better than BART
SIPs which contain alternative With respect to Regional Haze Rule only when a State does not participate
strategies, rather than source-specific section 308(e)(2), EPA does not believe in the cap and trade program, thereby
BART requirements, for BART-eligible that this section provides any support ensuring that the reductions will occur
sources. for the notion that emissions reductions in-State.
The EPA’s authority to approve from other programs must necessarily be Our preliminary demonstration that
alternative measures to BART, where in addition to, not substitute, for BART. the CAIR results in more reasonable
those measures achieve greater We first note that the decision in CEED progress than BART for EGUs is based
reasonable progress than would BART, necessitates revisions to 308(e)(2), at on a comparison of emissions
was recently upheld by the DC Circuit. least in the provisions requiring reductions from EGUs, and attendant air
(CEED, slip. op. at 13). See also Central visibility to be evaluated on a quality effects, under the CAIR as
Arizona Water Conservation District v. cumulative basis in defining the BART compared to under BART as proposed
EPA, 990 F.2d 1531, 1543, (1993) benchmark for comparison to BART in May, 2004. If emissions reductions
(Upholding EPA’s interpretation of CAA alternative programs. It remains to be are achieved from other source sectors,
169A(b)(2)as providing discretion to seen whether 308(e)(2)(iv), which a similar analysis would have to be
adopt implementation plan provisions requires that emissions reductions from conducted for those sector(s) before it
other than those provided by BART the BART alternative be ‘‘surplus to could be determined that the reductions
analyses in situations where the agency reductions resulting from measures were better than BART for affected
reasonably concludes that more adopted to meet requirements as of the source categories. For example, if a State
reasonable progress will thereby be baseline date of the SIP,’’ will be either wants to use EGU emissions
attained). changed. Even if that section remains reductions under the CAIR to substitute
Similarly, some commenters stated unchanged, the CAIR complies with it. for BART for non-EGUs, or use non-EGU
that the CAIR could not substitute for The baseline date of Regional Haze SIPs emissions reductions to substitute for
BART because the CAIR and BART are is 2002.157 Since any emissions BART for EGUs, that could be allowed
authorized by separate parts of the CAA. reduction requirements to meet the as an alternative measure to BART
They argue that allowing reductions CAIR would necessarily be adopted provided a similar ‘‘better-than-BART’’
required by a provision of the CAA not after 2002, CAIR-required reductions determination is made for the sectors
linked to visibility improvement to would clearly be surplus to measures involved.
substitute for BART would alter adopted as of the baseline year.158 A few commenters believed EPA
Congress’ ‘‘mandate’’ that certain source should not limit the substitution of the
157 See ‘‘2002 Base Year Emission Inventory SIP
categories make reductions for visibility CAIR for BART to States that are
Planning: 8-hr Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional Haze
in excess of what other CAA provisions Programs,’’ November 8, 2002, Guidance
required to meet CAIR for both SO2 and
require of those sources.156 Commenters Memorandum, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/ NOX on an annual basis, but rather
also point to Regional Haze Rule section memoranda/2002bye_gm.pdf. should also allow it for States which are
308(e)(2), as evidence that reductions 158 The purpose of providing a cut-off year for SIP
only required to reduce NOX during the
measures to which the alternative must be surplus ozone season. Because the modeling
from other programs such as title IV and is to prevent an untenable situation where programs
being developed simultaneously must be surplus to scenarios were based on the pollutants
156 CAIR is linked to visibility improvements each other. Establishing a baseline year allows
insofar as it attempts to make progress towards States to continue to make reductions between that by not being allowed to count them as contributing
attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS, which would, baseline date and the submittal of regional haze to reasonable progress towards the national
among other things, improve visibility. SIPs without being ‘‘penalized’’ for those reductions visibility goal.
covered by the CAIR in each affected The criteria we applied in our present for CAIR-affected States until such time
State, our better-than-BART analysis—that greater reasonable as the BART guidelines for EGUs and
demonstration is limited to those progress is defined as no degradation at the criteria for BART-alternative
scenarios. A State subject to the CAIR any Class I area, and greater overall programs are finalized. At that time,
for NOX purposes only would have to average improvement—have not been contingent upon supporting analysis
make a supplementary demonstration finalized. However, we disagree with and our final rules governing the
that BART has been satisfied for SO2, as comments that 169A(b)(2)’s requirement regional haze program, EPA will make
well as for NOX on an annual basis. of BART for sources reasonably a final determination as to whether the
A few commenters believed that the anticipated to contribute to impairment CAIR makes greater progress than
CAIR should satisfy BART for purposes at any Class I area 159 means that an BART, and can be relied on as an
of reasonably attributable visibility alternative to the BART program must alternative measure in lieu of BART.
impairment as well as BART for be shown to create improvement at each
2. What Improvements Did EPA Make to
purposes of regional haze. Several and every Class I area. Even if a BART
the Bart Versus the CAIR Modeling, and
others commented that it was alternative is deemed to satisfy BART
What Are the New Results?
appropriate or legally necessary to for regional haze purposes, based on
preserve the authority of Federal Land average overall improvement as a. Supplemental Notice of Proposed
Managers (FLMs) and States to certify opposed to improvement at each and Rulemaking
impairment and make reasonable every Class I Area, 169A(b)(2)’s trigger For the better-than-BART analysis in
attribution determinations, which could for BART based on impairment at any the SNPR, we used the Integrated
subject a source to BART requirements Class I area remains in effect, because a Planning Model (IPM) to estimate
even if the source is a participant in the source may become subject to BART emissions expected after
CAIR cap and trade program. These based on ‘‘reasonably attributable implementation of a source-specific
commenters supported the use of a visibility impairment’’ at any area. (The BART approach and after
strategy similar to that employed by the EPA believes it is unlikely that a State implementation of the CAIR cap and
Western Regional Air Partnership, or FLM will have need to certify trade program for EGUs. We then used
which relies upon a Memorandum Of reasonably attributable visibility the Regional Modeling System for
Understanding (MOU) between the impairment (RAVI) with respect to any Aerosols and Deposition (REMSAD) air
FLMs and the States regarding the EGU in the CAIR region, but quality model to project the visibility
criteria by which certifications of nevertheless believes it is necessary to impact of these IPM emissions
impairment may be made, along with preserve this safeguard). predictions for both the CAIR and the
the possibility of ‘‘geographic We also received a number of nationwide source-specific BART
enhancements’’ to the cap and trade comments regarding the broader scenarios. Specifically, EPA evaluated
program to accommodate the imposition relationship between the CAIR and the model results for the 20 percent best
of source-specific BART control regional haze, including whether the days (that is, least visibility impaired)
requirements on a source within the cap CAIR meets reasonable progress and the 20 percent worst days at 44
and trade program. requirements, as well as BART, for Class I areas throughout the country.
As proposed in the SNPR, EPA affected States; whether EPA should Thirteen of these Class I areas are within
continues to believe that reasonably allow non-CAIR States to opt in to the States affected by the CAIR proposal,
attributable visibility impairment CAIR cap and trade program to meet and 31 Class I areas are outside the
determinations under 40 CFR 51.302 their BART requirements; and whether CAIR region—29 in States to the west of
must continue to be a viable option in regional haze provisions should be used the CAIR region, and 2 in New England
order to insure against any possibility of as a basis for expanding the CAIR rule States northeast of the CAIR region.
hot-spots. We believe that a certification to the rest of the States which were not As explained in the SNPR, the
of reasonably attributable visibility included on the basis of contribution to ‘‘CAIR’’ scenario modeled was imperfect
impairment is fairly unlikely, given that PM2.5 and ozone nonattainment. The for purposes of this analysis in that it
there have been few such certifications EPA’s responses to comments on these assumed SO2 reductions on a
since 1980, and given that the broader issues, which are not germane nationwide basis (rather than in the
reductions from the CAIR and other to the issue of whether the CAIR may CAIR region only) and assumed NOX
recent initiatives will make such substitute for BART for affected EGUs, reductions requirements in a slightly
certifications decreasingly likely. We are contained in the Response to different geographic region than covered
believe sources can be given sufficient Comment Document. by the proposed CAIR. The ideal
regulatory certainty to enable effective c. Today’s Action scenario would have correctly
participation in a cap and trade program represented the geographic scope of the
through the use of MOUs and As discussed above, EPA has the CAIR SO2 and NOX reduction
geographic enhancement provisions. authority to approve SIPs which rely requirements, and included source-
Some commenters believe that upon a cap and trade program as an specific BART controls in areas outside
because section 169A(b)(2)(A) requires alternative to BART. However, at this the CAIR region. (This corrected
BART for an eligible source which may time, we are deferring a final scenario has been modeled for the NFR,
reasonably be anticipated to cause or determination that, in EPA’s view, the as explained below).
contribute to any impairment of CAIR makes greater progress than BART The SNPR REMSAD modeling
visibility in any Class I area, EPA is 159 The question of whether section 169A(b)(2)
showed that under the proposed two-
without basis in law or regulation to requires BART based on contribution to impairment
pronged test, CAIR controls achieved
base a better-than-BART determination at any Class I area is separate from the question of equal or greater visibility improvement
on an analysis that does not evaluate whether this section requires source-specific BART than the application of source-specific
visibility improvement at each and under all circumstances. As noted earlier, we BART to EGUs nationwide. The
interpret section 169A(b)(2) as requiring BART only
every Class I area, or one that uses as needed to make reasonable progress, thus
modeling predicted that the CAIR cap
averaging of visibility improvement allowing for alternative measures which make and trade program will not result in
across different Class I areas. greater reasonable progress. degradation of visibility, compared to
existing (1998–2002) visibility potentially BART-eligible EGUs, has c. Today’s Action

conditions, at any of the 44 Class I areas expanded the universe of units assumed We have compared the two model
considered. It also indicated that CAIR subject to BART in the modeling from runs (BART nationwide and BART in
emissions reductions as modeled 302 to 491.161 the West with the CAIR in the East)
produce significantly greater visibility Several commenters noted that the using the proposed two-pronged better-
improvements than source-specific better-than-BART visibility analysis than-BART test. The results were
BART. Specifically, for the 15 Eastern only covered 44 Class I areas and did analyzed at the 116 Class I areas that
Class I areas analyzed, the average not adequately address visibility in all have complete IMPROVE data for 2001
visibility improvement (on the 20 areas of the country. or are represented by IMPROVE
percent worst days) expected solely as For the NFR, we have significantly monitors with complete data. Twenty-
a result of the CAIR was 2.0 deciviews, expanded the number of Class I areas nine of the Class I areas are in the East
and the average degree of improvement covered by the analysis. The NPR and and 87 are in the West. Detailed
predicted for source-specific BART was SNPR visibility analysis was limited by modeling results for all 116 Class I areas
1.0 deciviews. Similarly, on a national the availability of observed data from are contained in the Better-than-BART
basis, the visibility modeling showed Inter-agency Monitoring of Protected TSD.165 Results applicable to the better-
that for all 44 Class I areas evaluated, Visual Environments (IMPROVE) than-BART proposed two-pronged test
the average visibility improvement, on monitors during the meteorological are summarized below.
the 20 percent worst days, in 2015 was modeling year of 1996. There was The updated visibility analysis
0.7 deciviews under the CAIR cap and complete IMPROVE data at 44 reaffirms that under the proposed two-
trade program, but only 0.4 deciviews IMPROVE sites which represented 68 pronged test, CAIR controls are better
under the source-specific BART Class I areas.162 All of the regions of the than BART for EGUs. The modeling
approach. country (as defined by IMPROVE) were predicts that the CAIR cap and trade
b. Comments and EPA Responses represented by at least one site, except program will not result in degradation
the Northern Great Lakes region. For the of visibility on the 20 percent best or 20
Several commenters noted that EPA final rule, the modeling has been percent worst days compared to the
did not model the ‘‘correct’’ emissions updated to use a meteorological year of 2015 baseline conditions, at any of the
scenarios to compare the CAIR and 2001. Therefore, the IMPROVE data for 116 Class I areas considered.166
BART controls. They suggested that a 2001 was used for the NFR better-than- With respect to the greater-average-
model run with the CAIR controls in the BART analysis. For 2001, there were 81 improvement prong, the modeling
East and BART controls in the West IMPROVE sites with complete data,163 indicates that CAIR emissions
should be compared to a model run representing 116 Class I areas. The NFR reductions in the East produce
with nationwide BART controls. analysis accounts for visibility changes significantly greater visibility
The EPA agrees (as we have already at 80 percent of the active IMPROVE improvements than source-specific
noted in the SNPR) that the suggested sites in the lower 48 States. More BART. Specifically, for the 29 Eastern
comparison of model runs is a more importantly for today’s rulemaking, the Class I areas analyzed, the average
appropriate comparison of the CAIR and number of Class I areas in the East has visibility improvement, on the 20
BART. The SNPR better-than-BART been increased from 15 to 29 and now percent worst days, expected solely as a
analysis was limited by the availability covers all IMPROVE-defined visibility result of the CAIR applied in the East
of the model results at the time. For the regions within the CAIR-affected States, and BART applied in the West is 1.6 dv,
NFR, we have modeled nationwide including the Northern Great Lakes.164 as compared to the average degree of
BART for EGUs as proposed in the May We, therefore, believe the expanded improvement predicted for nationwide
2004 guidelines and a separate scenario geographic scope of Class I areas source-specific BART of 0.7 dv.
consisting of CAIR reductions in the covered is sufficient for purposes of this Similarly, on a national basis, the
CAIR-affected States plus BART- analysis. visibility modeling showed that for all
reductions in the remaining States 116 Class I areas evaluated, the average
(excluding Alaska and Hawaii). scenario of the CAIR (with BART in the non-CAIR visibility improvement, on the 20
Additionally, we have improved the region) resulted in 640,000 tons of NOX per year percent worst days, in 2015 was 0.5 dv
BART control assumptions (in both less than the projected emissions under a under the CAIR cap and trade program
scenarios) by increasing the number of nationwide BART scenario. Therefore, even if the
40,000 tons of NOX emissions from oil and gas
in the East and BART in the West, but
BART-eligible units included. EGUs were reduced to zero under the BART only 0.2 deciviews under the
Specifically, in the SNPR analysis, scenario, the CAIR will still produce significantly nationwide source-specific BART
controls were ‘‘required’’ (i.e., assumed greater emission reductions than BART. Also, not approach.
by the model) for BART-eligible EGUs all of the oil and gas units associated with those
40,000 tons would be eligible for BART. The IPM
The modeling showed similar results
greater than 250 MW capacity, for both does not predict any difference in SO2 emissions for the 20 percent best visibility days,
NOX and SO2. For today’s action, BART from oil or gas-fired units between the CAIR and although there is less visibility
controls are assumed for SO2 for all BART. improvement on the best days compared
161 See ‘‘Memo From Perrin Quarles Associates,
BART-eligible EGU units greater than to the worst days. For the 29 Eastern
Inc. Re Follow-Up on Units Potentially Affected by
100 MW, and NOX controls for all BART, July 19, 2004,’’ as Appendix A to the ‘‘Better Class I areas analyzed, the average
BART-eligible EGU units greater than 25 than BART’’ TSD. visibility improvement, on the 20
MW.160 This, along with a review of 162 Some Class I areas do not have IMPROVE percent best days, expected solely as
monitors and are represented by nearby IMPROVE result of the CAIR applied in the East
160 Because the presumptive controls in the BART sites.
163 This is the number of IMPROVE sites that are
and BART applied in the West is 0.4 dv,
guidelines are applicable to coal-fired EGUs, the
BART analysis does not assume controls on oil- and located at or represent Class I areas. There are as compared to the average degree of
gas-fired units. However, NOX emissions from all additional IMPROVE protocol monitoring sites that
(not just BART-eligible) oil and gas steam plants are not located at Class I areas. 165 ‘‘Demonstration that CAIR Satisfies the ‘Better-
and simple cycle turbines in the CAIR region in the 164 There are 5 Class I areas in the East and 33 than-BART’ Test As Proposed in the Guidelines for
2010 base case are projected to be about 40,000 Class I areas in the West (outside of the CAIR Making BART Determinations,’’ March, 2005.
tons, or less than 1.5% of the projected total 2010 control region) that do not have complete IMPROVE 166 See Better-than-BART TSD for results at each
EGU emissions. By comparison, the modeling of the data for 2001. Class I Area.
improvement predicted for nationwide evaluated, the average visibility and BART in the West, and under the
source-specific BART of 0.2 dv. On a improvement, on the 20 percent best nationwide source-specific BART
national basis, the visibility modeling days, in 2015 was 0.1 dv under both the approach. The results are summarized
showed that for all 116 class I areas CAIR cap and trade program in the East in table IX–1.
TABLE IX–1.—AVERAGE VISIBILITY IMPROVEMENT IN 2015 VS. 2015

Base Case (deciviews)
CAIR + BART in West Nationwide BART

Class I Areas
East 167 National East National
20% Worst Days .............................................................................................................. 1.6 0.5 0.7 0.2

20% Best Days ................................................................................................................ 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.1
The results clearly indicate that the the amount of emissions that issues regarding the timing of emissions
CAIR will achieve greater reasonable contributes significantly to reductions under a new section 126
progress than BART as proposed, nonattainment in downwind States. The action. Some pointed out that the CAIR
measured by the proposed better-than- emissions reductions requirement was compliance date would be later than the
BART test. At this time, we can foresee based on the quantity of emissions that 3 years allowed for compliance under
no circumstances under which BART could be eliminated by the application section 126. Some were concerned that
for EGUs could produce greater of highly cost-effective controls on the proposed CAIR compliance date is
visibility improvement than the CAIR. specified sources in that State. In May later than many attainment dates and
However, for the reasons noted in 1999, shortly after promulgation of the States may need section 126 petitions in
section IX.C.1. above, we are deferring NOX SIP Call, EPA took final action on
order to get earlier upwind reductions
a final determination of whether the the section 126 petitions (64 FR 28250;
in order to meet their attainment dates.
CAIR makes greater reasonable progress May 25, 1999). The Section 126 action
than BART until the BART guidelines relied on essentially the same record as Some questioned the legal basis for
for EGUs and the criteria for BART- the NOX SIP Call. In addition, we linking the two rules. Several
alternative programs are finalized. established a section 126 remedy based commenters expressed concern that
on the same set of highly cost-effective EPA would be restricting the use of or
D. How Will EPA Handle State Petitions weakening the section 126 provision. A
controls. In the May 1999 Section 126
Under Section 126 of the CAA? number of commenters urged EPA not
Rule, we determined which petitions
Section 126 of the CAA authorizes a had technical merit, but we stopped to prejudge any petition, but to evaluate
downwind State to petition EPA for a short of granting the findings for the each on its own merit. Some thought
finding that any new (or modified) or petitions. Instead, we stated that that any petitions submitted prior to
existing major stationary source or because we had promulgated the NOX designations or before States had had
group of stationary sources upwind of SIP Call—a transport rule under section the opportunity to prepare SIPs would
the State emits or would emit in 110(a)(2)(D)—as long as an upwind be premature and should be denied.
violation of the prohibition of section State remained on track to comply with Others suggested that CAIR might not
110(a)(2)(D)(i) because their emissions that rule, EPA would defer making the solve all the transport problems and that
contribute significantly to section 126 findings. The findings States would need to retain the section
nonattainment, or interfere with would be triggered at either of two 126 tool to seek further reductions.
maintenance, of a NAAQS in the State. future dates if specified progress had
If EPA makes such a finding, EPA is After issuing the CAIR proposal, EPA
not been made by those times. The
authorized to directly regulate the received, on March 19, 2004, a section
Section 126 Rule included a provision
affected sources. Section 126 relies on under which the rule would be 126 petition from North Carolina
the same statutory provision that automatically withdrawn for sources in seeking reductions in upwind NOX and
underlies the CAIR. a State once that State submitted and SO2 for purposes of reducing PM2.5 and
In the January 30, 2004 CAIR EPA fully approved a SIP that complied 8-hour ozone levels in North Carolina.
proposal, EPA set forth its general view with the NOX SIP Call. (See 64 FR The petition relies in large part on the
of the approach it expected to take in 28271–28274; May 25, 1999.) The technical record for the proposed CAIR.
responding to any section 126 petition reason for this withdrawal would be the When we propose action on the North
that might be submitted which relies on fact that the affected State’s SIP revision
essentially the same record as the CAIR. Carolina petition, we will set forth our
would fulfill the section 110(a)(2)(D) view of the interaction between section
That approach is the one EPA used in requirements, so that there would no
addressing section 126 petitions that 110(a)(2)(D) and section 126. In that
longer be any basis for the section 126 proposal, we will take into
were submitted to EPA in 1997 while finding with respect to that State. In this
EPA was developing the NOX SIP Call consideration and respond to the
manner, the NOX SIP Call and the section 126-related comments we
to control ozone transport. In the NOX Section 126 Rules would be
SIP Call rule, we determined under received on the CAIR. The EPA will
harmonized. provide a comment period and
section 110(a)(2)(D) that the SIP for each Under the CAIR proposal, EPA
affected State (and the District of opportunity for a public hearing on the
received comments regarding its
Columbia) must be revised to eliminate intended approach for acting on any specifics of that section 126 proposal,
future section 126 petitions that might including an opportunity to comment
167 Eastern Class I areas are those in the CAIR
be filed. Many commenters expressed on our view of the interaction of the 2
affected states, except areas in west Texas which are statutory provisions.
considered western and therefore included in the support for the approach that EPA had
national average, plus those in New England. outlined. Other commenters raised
E. Will Sources Subject to CAIR Also Be In view of its important policy nonattainment of the ozone and PM2.5
Subject to New Source Review? implications and potential effect on the NAAQS. In order to reduce this
The EPA did not propose any economy of over $100 million, this significant contribution, EPA requires
provisions in the CAIR related to new action has been judged to be an that certain States reduce their
source review (NSR). Nonetheless, we economically ‘‘significant regulatory emissions of SO2 and NOX. The EPA
received some comments on the action’’ within the meaning of the derived the quantities by calculating the
relationship between CAIR and the NSR Executive Order. As a result, today’s amount of SO2 and NOX emissions that
provisions that may apply to emissions action was submitted to OMB for EPA believes can be controlled from the
sources also impacted by the CAIR. review, and EPA has prepared an electric power industry in a highly cost-
Many commenters indicated that if an economic analysis of the rule entitled effective manner. The EPA considered
EGU is part of an EPA-administered ‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis of the all promulgated CAA requirements and
regional cap and trade program for NOX Final Clean Air Interstate Rule’’ (March known State actions in the baseline
and SO2, then that EGU should be 2005). used to develop the estimates of benefits
exempted from NSR for the covered and costs for this rule. For a more
1. What Economic Analyses Were
pollutants. The commenters cited Clear complete description of the reduction
Conducted for the Rulemaking?
Skies legislation as containing requirements and how they were
The analyses conducted for this final calculated, see section IV of today’s
provisions affecting NSR for covered
rule provide several important analyses rulemaking.
sources. In this final rule, EPA is not
of impacts on public welfare. These Although States may choose to obtain
addressing or revising the provisions of
include an analysis of the social the emissions reductions from other
NSR.
It should be noted that pollution benefits, social costs, and net benefits of source categories, for purposes of
control measures implemented by EGUs the regulatory scenario. The economic analyzing the impacts of the rule, EPA
in compliance with the CAIR may be analyses also address issues involving is assuming the application of the
eligible for an exemption under the NSR small business impacts, unfunded controls that it has identified to be
pollution control project provision.168 mandates (including impacts for Tribal highly cost effective on all EGUs in the
These provisions provide an exemption governments), environmental justice, transport region.
from major NSR for controls such as children’s health, energy impacts, and
b. Cost Analysis and Economic Impacts
selective catalytic reduction (SCR) for requirements of the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA). For the affected region, the projected
NOX control and wet scrubbers for SO2
annual private incremental costs of the
control, provided that certain conditions 2. What Are the Benefits and Costs of CAIR to the power industry are $2.4
identified in the provisions are met. This Rule? billion in 2010 and $3.6 billion in 2015.
X. Statutory and Executive Order The benefit-cost analysis shows that These costs represent the private
Reviews substantial net economic benefits to compliance cost to the electric
society are likely to be achieved due to generating industry of reducing NOX
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
reductions in emissions resulting from and SO2 emissions to meet the caps set
Planning and Review
this rule. The results detailed below forth in the rule. Estimates are in 1999
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR show that this rule would be highly dollars.
51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency beneficial to society, with annual net In estimating the net benefits of
must determine whether a regulatory benefits (benefits less costs) of regulation, the appropriate cost measure
action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore approximately $71.4 or $60.4 billion in is ‘‘social costs.’’ Social costs represent
subject to Office of Management and 2010 and $98.5 or $83.2 billion in 2015. the welfare costs of the rule to society.
Budget (OMB) review and the These alternative net benefits estimates These costs do not consider transfer
requirements of the Executive Order. occur due to differing assumptions payments (such as taxes) that are simply
The Order defines ‘‘significant concerning the social discount rate used redistributions of wealth. The social
regulatory action’’ as one that is likely to estimate the annual value of the costs of this rule are estimated to be
to result in a rule that may: benefits and costs of the rule with the approximately $1.9 billion in 2010 and
1. Have an annual effect on the lower estimates relating to a discount $2.6 billion in 2015 assuming a 3
economy of $100 million or more or rate of 7 percent and the higher percent discount rate. These costs
adversely affect in a material way the estimates a discount rate of 3 percent. become $2.1 billion in 2010 and $3.1
economy, a sector of the economy, billion in 2015 assuming a 7 percent
All amounts are reflected in 1999
productivity, competition, jobs, the discount rate.
dollars.
environment, public health or safety, or The benefits and costs reported for the Overall, the impacts of the CAIR are
State, local, or Tribal governments or CAIR represent estimates for the final modest, particularly in light of the large
communities; CAIR program that includes the CAIR benefits we expect. Ultimately, we
2. Create a serious inconsistency or believe the industry will pass along
promulgated rule and the concurrent
otherwise interfere with an action taken most of the costs of the rule to
proposal to include annual SO2 and
or planned by another agency; consumers, so that the costs of the rule
3. Materially alter the budgetary NOX controls for New Jersey and
Delaware. The modeling used to provide will largely fall upon the consumers of
impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, electricity. Retail electricity prices are
or loan programs or the rights and these estimates also assumes annual SO2
and NOX controls for Arkansas that are projected to increase roughly 2.0–2.7
obligations of recipients thereof; or percent with the CAIR in the 2010 and
4. Raise novel legal or policy issues not a part of the final CAIR program
resulting in a slight overstatement of the 2015 timeframe, and then drop below
arising out of legal mandates, the
reported benefits and costs. the 2.0 percent increase level thereafter.
President’s priorities, or the principles
The effects of the CAIR on natural gas
set forth in the Executive Order. a. Control Scenario prices and the power-sector generation
168 See 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xxv) and 51.165(e), 40 Today’s rule sets forth requirements mix are relatively small, with a 1.6
CFR 51.166(b)(31) and 51.166(v), and 40 CFR for States to eliminate their significant percent or less increase in natural gas
51.21(b)(32) and 52.21(z). contribution to down-wind prices projected from 2010 to 2020.
There will be continued reliance on disease combined) and result in important health impact in the primary
coal-fired generation, that is projected to significant reductions in days of benefits analysis for future regulations.
remain at roughly 50 percent of total restricted activity due to respiratory Table X–2 presents the estimated
electricity generated. A relatively small illness (with an estimate of 9.9 million monetary value of reductions in the
amount of coal-fired capacity, about 5.3 fewer cases) and approximately incidence of health and welfare effects.
GW (1.7 percent of all coal-fired 1,700,000 fewer work-loss days. We also Annual PM-related and ozone-related
capacity and 0.5 percent of all estimate substantial health health benefits are estimated to be
generating capacity), is projected to be improvements for children from approximately $72.1 or $61.4 billion in
uneconomic to maintain. For the most reduced upper and lower respiratory 2010 (3 percent and 7 percent discount
part, these units are small and illness, acute bronchitis, and asthma rate, respectively) and $99.3 or $84.5
infrequently used generating units that attacks. billion in 2015 (3 percent or 7 percent
are dispersed throughout the CAIR discount rate, respectively). Estimated
Ozone health-related benefits are
region. Units projected to be annual visibility benefits in
expected to occur during the summer
uneconomic to maintain may be southeastern Class I areas are
ozone season (usually ranging from May
‘‘mothballed,’’ retired, or kept in service approximately $1.14 billion in 2010 and
to September in the Eastern U.S.). Based
to ensure transmission reliability in $1.78 billion in 2015. All monetized
upon modeling for 2015, annual ozone-
certain parts of the grid. The EPA’s estimates are stated in 1999$. These
related health benefits are expected to
analysis does not address these choices. estimates account for growth in real
include 2,800 fewer hospital admissions
As demand grows in the future, gross domestic product (GDP) per capita
additional coal-fired generation is for respiratory illnesses, 280 fewer between the present and the years 2010
projected to be built under the CAIR. As emergency room admissions for asthma, and 2015. As the table indicates, total
a result, coal production for electricity 690,000 fewer days with restricted benefits are driven primarily by the
generation is projected to increase from activity levels, and 510,000 fewer days reduction in premature fatalities each
2003 levels by about 15 percent in 2010 where children are absent from school year, that accounts for over 90 percent
and 25 percent by 2020, and we expect due to illnesses. of total benefits.
a small shift towards greater coal While we did not include in our Table X–3 presents the total
production in Appalachia and the primary benefits analysis separate monetized net benefits for the years
interior coal regions of the country with estimates of the number of premature 2010 and 2015. This table also indicates
the CAIR. deaths that would be avoided due to with a ‘‘B’’ those additional health and
For today’s rule, EPA analyzed the reductions in ozone levels, recent environmental benefits of the rule that
costs using the Integrated Planning studies suggest a link between short- we were unable to quantify or monetize.
Model (IPM). The IPM is a dynamic term ozone exposures with premature These effects are additive to the estimate
linear programming model that can be mortality independent of PM exposures. of total benefits. A listing of the benefit
used to examine the economic impacts Based upon a recent report by Thurston categories that could not be quantified
of air pollution control policies for SO2 and Ito, (2001),169 the EPA Science or monetized in our benefit estimates
and NOX throughout the contiguous Advisory Board has recommended that are provided in Table X–4. We are not
U.S. for the entire power system. EPA reevaluate the ozone mortality able to estimate the magnitude of these
Documentation for IPM can be found in literature for possible inclusion of ozone unquantified and unmonetized benefits.
the docket for this rulemaking or at mortality in the estimate of total While EPA believes there is
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/epa- benefits. More recently, a considerable value to the public for the
ipm. comprehensive analysis using data from PM-related benefit categories that could
the National Morbidity, Mortality and not be monetized, we believe these
c. Human Health Benefit Analysis
Air Pollution Study (NMMAPS) found a benefits may be small relative to those
Our analysis of the health and welfare significant association between daily categories we were able to quantify and
benefits anticipated from this rule are ozone levels and daily mortality rates monetize. In contrast, EPA believes the
presented in this section. Briefly, the (Bell et al. 2004).170 The analysis monetary value of the ozone-related
analysis projects major benefits from estimated a 0.5 percent increase in daily premature mortality benefits could be
implementation of the rule in 2010 and mortality associated with a 10 ppb substantial. As previously discussed, we
2015. As described below, thousands of increase in ozone, based on data from 95 estimate that ozone mortality benefits
deaths and other serious health effects major urban areas. Using a similar may yield as many as 500 reduced
would be prevented. We are able to magnitude effect estimate, sensitivity premature mortalities per year and may
monetize annual benefits of analysis estimates suggest that in 2015, increase the benefits of CAIR by
approximately $73.3 or $62.6 billion in the CAIR would result in an additional approximately $3 billion annually.
2010 (based upon a 3 percent or 7 500 fewer premature deaths annually
percent discount rate, respectively) and d. Quantified and Monetized Welfare
due to reductions in daily ambient Benefits
$101 billion or $86.3 billion in 2015 ozone concentrations. The EPA has
(based upon a discount rate of 3 percent sponsored three independent meta- Only a subset of the expected
or 7 percent, respectively, 1999 dollars). analyses of the ozone mortality visibility benefits—those for Class I
Table X–1 presents the primary epidemiology literature to inform a areas in the southeastern U.S. are
estimates of reduced incidence of PM- determination on inclusion of this included in the monetary benefits
and ozone-related health effects for the estimates we project for this rule. We
years 2010 and 2015 for the regulatory 169 Thurston, G.D. and K. Ito. 2001.
believe the benefits associated with
control strategy. In 2015, we estimate ‘‘Epidemiological Studies of Acute Ozone these non-health benefit categories are
that PM-related annual benefits include Exposures and Mortality’’. J. Expo Anal Environ likely significant. For example, we are
approximately 17,000 fewer premature Epidemiology 11 (4) :286–294. able to quantify significant visibility
170 Bell, M.L., A. McDermott, S. Zeger, J. Samet,
fatalities, 8,700 fewer cases of chronic improvements in Class I areas in the
F. Dominichi. 2005. ‘‘Ozone and Mortality in 95
bronchitis, 22,000 fewer non-fatal heart U.S. Urban Communities from 1987 to 2000.’’
Northeast and Midwest, but are unable
attacks, 10,500 fewer hospitalizations Journal of the American Medical Association. at present to place a monetary value on
(for respiratory and cardiovascular Forthcoming. these improvements. Similarly, we
anticipate improvement in visibility in improvements. The value of visibility we are unable to estimate a dollar value
residential areas where people live, benefits in areas where we were unable associated with these benefits, we are
work and recreate within the CAIR to monetize benefits could also be able to quantify acidification
region for which we are currently substantial. improvements in lakes in the Northeast
unable to monetize benefits. For the We also quantify nitrogen and sulfur including the Adirondacks and
Class I areas in the southeastern U.S., deposition reductions expected to occur potential benefits of reductions in
we estimate annual benefits of $1.78 as a result of the CAIR and discuss nitrogen deposition to estuaries such as
billion beginning in 2015 for visibility potential benefits from these reductions the Chesapeake Bay.
in section X.A.4 of this preamble. While
TABLE X–1.—ESTIMATED ANNUAL REDUCTIONS IN INCIDENCE OF HEALTH EFFECTS a
2010 annual 2015 annual
Health Effect incidence re- incidence re-
duction duction
PM–Related endpoints
Premature Mortality b, c.
Adult, age 30 and over ..................................................................................................................................... 13,000 17,000
Infant, age <1 year ........................................................................................................................................... 29 36
Chronic bronchitis (adult, age 26 and over) ............................................................................................................ 6,900 8,700
Non-fatal myocardial infarction (adult, age 18 and over) ........................................................................................ 17,000 22,000
Hospital admissions—respiratory (all ages) d .......................................................................................................... 4,300 5,500
Hospital admissions—cardiovascular (adults, age >18) e ....................................................................................... 3,800 5,000
Emergency room visits for asthma (age 18 years and younger) ............................................................................ 10,000 13,000
Acute bronchitis, (children, age 8–12) ..................................................................................................................... 16,000 19,000
Lower respiratory symptoms (children, age 7–14) .................................................................................................. 190,000 230,000
Upper respiratory symptoms (asthmatic children, age 9–18) ................................................................................. 150,000 180,000
Asthma exacerbation (asthmatic children, age 6–18) ............................................................................................. 240,000 290,000
Work Loss Days ...................................................................................................................................................... 1,400,000 1,700,000
Minor restricted activity days (adults age 18–65) ................................................................................................... 8,100,000 9,900,000
Ozone-Related endpoints
Hospital admissions—respiratory causes (adult, 65 and older) f ............................................................................ 610 1,700

Hospital admissions—respiratory causes (children, under 2) ................................................................................. 380 1,100
Emergency room visit for asthma (all ages) ........................................................................................................... 100 280
Minor restricted activity days (adults, age 18–65) .................................................................................................. 280,000 690,000
School absence days .............................................................................................................................................. 180,000 510,000
a Incidences are rounded to two significant digits. These estimates represent benefits from the CAIR nationwide. The modeling used to derive
these incidence estimates are reflective of those expected for the final CAIR program including the CAIR promulgated rule and the proposal to
include annual SO2 and NOX controls for New Jersey and Delaware. Modeling used to develop these estimates assumes annual SO2 and NOX
controls for Arkansas resulting in a slight overstatement of the reported benefits and costs for the complete CAIR program.
b Premature mortality benefits associated with ozone are not analyzed in the primary analysis.
c Adult mortality based upon studies by Pope, et al. 2002.171 Infant mortality based upon studies by Woodruff, Grillo, and Schoendorf,1997.172
d Respiratory hospital admissions for PM include admissions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), pneumonia and asthma.
e Cardiovascular hospital admissions for PM include total cardiovascular and subcategories for ischemic heart disease, dysrhythmias, and heart
failure.
f Respiratory hospital admissions for ozone include admissions for all respiratory causes and subcategories for COPD and pneumonia.
TABLE X–2.—ESTIMATED ANNUAL MONETARY VALUE OF REDUCTIONS IN INCIDENCE OF HEALTH AND WELFARE EFFECTS
[Millions of 1999$] a, b
2010 esti- 2015 esti-

mated value mated value
Health effect Pollutant of reduc- of reduc-
tions tions
Premature mortality c, d
Adult >30 years .................. .................... ....................
3 percent discount rate ............................................................................................................... PM2.5 ........ $67,300 $92,800
7 percent discount rate ............................................................................................................... .................. 56,600 78,100
Child <1 year ...................................................................................................................................... .................. 168 222
Chronic bronchitis (adults, 26 and over) ................................................................................................... PM2.5 ........ 2,520 3,340
Non-fatal acute myocardial infarctions
3 percent discount rate ....................................................................................................................... PM2.5 ........ 1,420 1,850
7 percent discount rate ....................................................................................................................... .................. 1,370 1,790
171 Pope, C.A., III, R.T. Burnett, M.J. Thun, E.E. 172 Woodruff, T.J., J. Grillo, and K.C. Schoendorf. 173 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000.
Calle, D. Krewski, K. Ito, and G.D. Thurston. 2002. 1997. ‘‘The Relationship Between Selected Causes Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses.
‘‘Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and of Postneonatal Infant Mortality and Particulate www.yosemite1.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed/hsf/pages/
Long-term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Infant Mortality and Particulate Air Pollution in the Guideline.html. Office of Management and Budget,
Pollution.’’ Journal of American Medical United States.’’ Environmental Health Perspectives The Executive Office of the President, 2003.
Circular A–4. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/
Association 287:1132–1141. 105(6):608–612.
circulars.
TABLE X–2.—ESTIMATED ANNUAL MONETARY VALUE OF REDUCTIONS IN INCIDENCE OF HEALTH AND WELFARE
EFFECTS—Continued
[Millions of 1999$] a, b
2010 esti- 2015 esti-

mated value mated value
Health effect Pollutant of reduc- of reduc-
tions tions
Hospital admissions for respiratory causes ............................................................................................... PM2.5, O3 45.2 78.9

Hospital admissions for cardiovascular causes ........................................................................................ PM2.5 ........ 80.7 105
Emergency room visits for asthma ............................................................................................................ PM2.5, O3 2.84 3.56
Acute bronchitis (children, age 8–12) ........................................................................................................ PM2.5 ........ 5.63 7.06
Lower respiratory symptoms (children, age 7–14) .................................................................................... PM2.5 ........ 2.98 3.74
Upper respiratory symptoms (asthma, age 9–11) ..................................................................................... PM2.5 ........ 3.80 4.77
Asthma exacerbations ............................................................................................................................... PM2.5 ........ 10.3 12.7
Work loss days .......................................................................................................................................... PM2.5, ....... 180 219
Minor restricted activity days (MRADs) ..................................................................................................... PM2.5, O3 422 543
School absence days ................................................................................................................................ O3 ............ 12.9 36.4
Worker productivity (outdoor workers, age 18–65) ................................................................................... O3 ............ 7.66 19.9
Recreational visibility, 81 Class I areas .................................................................................................... PM2.5 ........ 1,140 1,780
Monetized Total e
Base estimate .................. .................... ....................
3 percent discount rate ............................................................................................................... PM2.5, O3 73,300 + B 101,000 + B
7 percent discount rate ............................................................................................................... .................. 62,600 + B 86,300 + B
a Monetary benefits are rounded to three significant digits. These estimates represent benefits from the CAIR nationwide for NO
X and SO2
emissions reductions from electricity-generating units sources (with the exception of ozone and visibility benefits). Ozone benefits relate to the
eastern United States. Visibility benefits relate to Class I areas in the southeastern United States. The benefit estimates reflected relate to the
final CAIR program that includes the CAIR promulgated rule and the proposal to include annual SO2 and NOX controls for New Jersey and Dela-
ware. Modeling used to develop these estimates assumes annual SO2 and NOX controls for Arkansas resulting in a slight overstatement of the
reported benefits and costs for the complete CAIR program.
b Monetary benefits adjusted to account for growth in real GDP per capita between 1990 and the analysis year (2010 or 2015).
c Valuation assumes discounting over the SAB recommended 20 year segmented lag structure described in the Regulatory Impact Analysis for
the Final Clean Air Interstate Rule (March 2005). Results show 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates consistent with EPA and OMB guidelines
for preparing economic analyses (US EPA, 2000 and OMB, 2003).173
d Adult mortality based upon studies by Pope et al. 2002. Infant mortality based upon studies by Woodruff, Grillo, and Schoendorf, 1997.
e B represents the monetary value of health and welfare benefits not monetized. A detailed listing is provided in Table X–4.
3. How Do the Benefits Compare to the $98.5 + B billion or $83.2 + B billion million (see section X. B., Paperwork
Costs of This Final Rule? annually (3 percent and 7 percent Reduction Act). However, there may
The estimated annual private costs to discount rate, respectively) in 2015. exist certain costs that EPA has not
implement the emission reduction Implementation of the rule is expected quantified in these estimates. These
requirements of the final rule for the to provide society with a substantial net costs may include costs of transitioning
CAIR region are $2.36 in 2010 and $3.57 gain in social welfare based on to the CAIR, such as the costs associated
billion in 2015 (1999$). These costs are economic efficiency criteria. with the retirement of smaller or less
the annual incremental electric The annualized regional cost of the efficient EGUs, employment shifts as
generation production costs that are CAIR, as quantified here, is EPA’s best workers are retrained at the same
expected to occur with the CAIR. The assessment of the cost of implementing company or re-employed elsewhere in
EPA uses these costs as compliance cost the CAIR, assuming that States adopt the economy, and certain relatively
estimates in developing cost- the model cap and trade program. These small permitting costs associated with
effectiveness estimates. costs are generated from rigorous title IV that new program entrants face.
In estimating the net benefits of economic modeling of changes in the Costs may be understated since an
regulation, the appropriate cost measure power sector due to the CAIR. This type optimization model was employed that
is ‘‘social costs.’’ Social costs represent of analysis using IPM has undergone assumes cost minimization, and the
the welfare costs of the rule to society. peer review and been upheld in Federal regulated community may not react in
These costs do not consider transfer courts. The direct cost includes, but is the same manner to comply with the
payments (such as taxes) that are simply not limited to, capital investments in rules. Although EPA has not quantified
redistributions of wealth. The social pollution controls, operating expenses these costs, the Agency believes that
costs of this rule are estimated to be of the pollution controls, investments in they are small compared to the
approximately $1.9 billion in 2010 and new generating sources, and additional quantified costs of the program on the
$2.6 billion in 2015 assuming a 3 fuel expenditures. The EPA believes power sector. The annualized cost
percent discount rate. These costs that these costs reflect, as closely as estimates presented are the best and
become $2.1 billion in 2010 and $3.1 possible, the additional costs of the most accurate based upon available
billion in 2015, if one assumes a 7 CAIR to industry. The relatively small information. In a separate analysis, EPA
percent discount rate. Thus, the net cost associated with monitoring estimates the indirect costs and impacts
benefit (social benefits minus social emissions, reporting, and recordkeeping of higher electricity prices on the entire
costs) of the program is approximately for affected sources is not included in economy [see Regulatory Impact
$71.4 + B billion or $60.4 + B billion (3 these annualized cost estimates, but Analysis for the Final Clean Air
percent and 7 percent discount rate, EPA has done a separate analysis and Interstate Rule, Appendix E (March
respectively) annually in 2010 and estimated the cost to less than $42 2005)].
The costs presented here are EPA’s estimates of the benefits of the CAIR (3 the CAIR using the adjusted discount
best estimate of the direct private costs percent and 7 percent). Using these rates are lower than the private costs of
of the CAIR. For purposes of benefit-cost alternate discount rates, the social costs the CAIR generated using IPM because
analysis of this rule, EPA has also of the CAIR are $1.9 billion in 2010 and the social costs do not include certain
estimated the additional costs of the $2.6 billion in 2015 using a discount transfer payments, primarily taxes, that
CAIR using alternate discount rates for rate of 3 percent, and $2.1 billion in are considered a redistribution of wealth
calculating the social costs, parallel to 2010 and $3.1 billion in 2015 using a rather than a social cost.174
the range of discount rates used in the discount rate of 7 percent. The costs of
TABLE X–3.—SUMMARY OF ANNUAL BENEFITS, COSTS, AND NET BENEFITS OF THE CLEAN AIR INTERSTATE RULE a
[Billions of 1999 dollars]
2010 (Billions 2015 (Billions

Description of 1999 dol- of 1999 dol-
lars) lars)
Social Costs: b
3 percent discount rate ......................................................................................................................................... $1.91 ........... $2.56
7 percent discount rate ......................................................................................................................................... 2.14 ............. 3.07
Social Benefits: c,d,e
3 percent discount rate ......................................................................................................................................... 73.3 + B ...... 101 + B
7 percent discount rate ......................................................................................................................................... 62.6 + B ...... 86.3 + B
Health-related benefits:
Visibility benefits ........................................................................................................................................................... 1.14 + B ...... 1.78 + B
Annual Net Benefits (Benefits-Costs): e,f
a All estimates are rounded to three significant digits and represent annualized benefits and costs anticipated for the years 2010 and 2015. Es-
timates relate to the complete CAIR program including the CAIR promulgated rule and the proposal to include annual SO2 and NOX controls for
New Jersey and Delaware. Modeling used to develop these estimates assumes annual SO2 and NOX controls for Arkansas resulting in a slight
overstatement of the reported benefits and costs for the complete CAIR program.
b Note that costs are the annual total costs of reducing pollutants including NO and SO in the CAIR region.
X 2
c As this table indicates, total benefits are driven primarily by PM-related health benefits. The reduction in premature fatalities each year ac-
counts for over 90 percent of total monetized benefits in 2015. Benefits in this table are nationwide (with the exception of ozone and visibility)
and are associated with NOX and SO2 reductions for the EGU source category. Ozone benefits represent benefits in the eastern United States.
Visibility benefits represent benefits in Class I areas in the southeastern United States.
d Not all possible benefits or disbenefits are quantified and monetized in this analysis. B is the sum of all unquantified benefits and disbenefits.
Potential benefit categories that have not been quantified and monetized are listed in Table X–4.
e Valuation assumes discounting over the SAB-recommended 20 year segmented lag structure described in chapter 4 of the Regulatory Impact
Analysis for the Clean Air Interstate Rule (March 2005). Results reflect 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates consistent with EPA and OMB
guidelines for preparing economic analyses (U.S. EPA, 2000 and OMB, 2003).174
f Net benefits are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Columnar totals may not sum due to rounding.
Every benefit-cost analysis examining analyses and its supporting documents • Uncertainties associated with the
the potential effects of a change in and references, the key uncertainties effect of potential future actions to limit
environmental protection requirements which have a bearing on the results of emissions.
is limited to some extent by data gaps, the benefit-cost analysis of this rule Despite these uncertainties, we
limitations in model capabilities (such include the following: believe the benefit-cost analysis
as geographic coverage), and • EPA’s inability to quantify provides a reasonable indication of the
uncertainties in the underlying potentially significant benefit categories; expected economic benefits of the
scientific and economic studies used to • Uncertainties in population growth rulemaking in future years under a set
configure the benefit and cost models. and baseline incidence rates; of reasonable assumptions.
Gaps in the scientific literature often In valuing reductions in premature
result in the inability to estimate • Uncertainties in projection of fatalities associated with PM, we used a
quantitative changes in health and emissions inventories and air quality value of $5.5 million per statistical life.
environmental effects. Gaps in the into the future; This represents a central value
economics literature often result in the • Uncertainty in the estimated consistent with a range of values from
inability to assign economic values even relationships of health and welfare $1 to $10 million suggested by recent
to those health and environmental effects to changes in pollutant meta-analyses of the wage-risk value of
outcomes that can be quantified. While concentrations including the shape of statistical life (VSL) literature.175
uncertainties in the underlying the C–R function, the size of the effect The benefits estimates generated for
scientific and economics literatures estimates, and the relative toxicity of the this rule are subject to a number of
(that may result in overestimation or many components of the PM mixture; assumptions and uncertainties, that are
underestimation of benefits) are • Uncertainties in exposure discussed throughout the Regulatory
discussed in detail in the economic estimation; and Impact Analysis document [Regulatory
174 United States Environmental Protection Budget, The Executive Office of the President, 2003. 175 Mrozek, J.R. and L.O. Taylor, What determines
Agency, 2000. Guidelines for Preparing Economic Circular A–4. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/ the value of a life? A Meta Analysis, Journal of
Analyses. www.yosemitel.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed/hsf/ circulars. Policy Analysis and Management 21(2), pp. 253–
pages/Guideline.html. Office of Management and 270.
Impact Analysis for the Final Clean Air There are a number of health and and harm to sensitive coastal
Interstate Rule (March 2005)]. As Table environmental effects that we were ecosystems.
X–2 indicates, total benefits are driven unable to quantify or monetize. A
i. Acid Deposition and Acidification of
primarily by the reduction in premature complete benefit-cost analysis of the
Lakes and Streams
fatalities each year. Elaborating on the CAIR requires consideration of all
previous uncertainty discussion, some benefits and costs expected to result The extent of adverse effects of acid
key assumptions underlying the primary from the rule, not just those benefits and deposition on freshwater and forest
estimate for the premature mortality costs which could be expressed here in ecosystems depends largely upon the
category include the following: dollar terms. A listing of the benefit ecosystem’s ability to neutralize the
(1) EPA assumes inhalation of fine categories that were not quantified or acid. The neutralizing ability [key
particles is causally associated with monetized in our estimate are provided indicator is termed Acid Neutralizing
premature death at concentrations near in Table X–4. These effects are denoted Capacity (ANC)] depends largely on the
those experienced by most Americans by ‘‘B’’ in Table X–3 above, and are watershed’s physical characteristics:
on a daily basis. Plausible biological additive to the estimates of benefits. Geology, soils, and size. Waters that are
mechanisms for this effect have been sensitive to acidification tend to be
hypothesized for the endpoints 4. What Are the Unquantified and
Unmonetized Benefits of the CAIR located in small watersheds that have
included in the primary analysis and few alkaline minerals and shallow soils.
the weight of the available Emissions Reductions?
Conversely, watersheds that contain
epidemiological evidence supports an Important benefits beyond the human alkaline minerals, such as limestone,
assumption of causality. health and welfare benefits resulting tend to have waters with a high ANC.
(2) EPA assumes all fine particles, from reductions in ambient levels of Areas especially sensitive to
regardless of their chemical PM2.5 and ozone are expected to occur acidification include portions of the
composition, are equally potent in from this rule. These other benefits Northeast (particularly, the Adirondack
causing premature mortality. This is an occur both directly from NOX and SO2 and Catskill Mountains, portions of New
important assumption, because the emissions reductions, and indirectly England, and streams in the mid-
proportion of certain components in the through reductions in co-pollutants Appalachian highlands) and
PM mixture produced via precursors such as mercury. These benefits are southeastern streams.
emitted from EGUs may differ listed in Table X–4. Some of the more
significantly from direct PM released Some of the impacts of today’s
important examples include: Reductions rulemaking on acidification of water
from automotive engines and other in NOX and SO2 emissions required by
industrial sources, but no clear bodies have been quantified. In
the CAIR will reduce acidification and, particular, this rule will result in
scientific grounds exist for supporting in the case of NOX, eutrophication of
differential effects estimates by particle improvements in the acid buffering
water bodies. Reduced nitrate capacity for lakes in the Northeast and
type. contamination of drinking water is
(3) EPA assumes the C–R function for Adirondack Mountains. Specifically, 12
another possible benefit of the rule. This percent of Adirondack lakes are
fine particles is approximately linear final rule will also reduce acid and
within the range of ambient projected to be chronically acidic in the
particulate deposition that cause base case. However, we project that the
concentrations under consideration. In damages to cultural monuments, as well
the PM Criteria Document, EPA CAIR rule will eliminate chronic
as, soiling and other materials damage. acidification in lakes in the Adirondack
recognizes that for individuals and To illustrate the important nature of
specific health responses there are likely Mountains by 2030. In addition, today’s
benefit categories we are currently rule is expected to decrease the
threshold levels, but there remains little unable to monetize, we discuss two
evidence of thresholds for PM-related percentage of chronically acidic lakes
categories of public welfare and throughout Northeast from 6 to 1
effects in populations.176 Where environmental impacts related to
potential threshold levels have been percent. However, some lakes in the
reductions in emissions required by the Adirondacks and New England will
suggested, they are at fairly low levels CAIR: Reduced acid deposition and
with increasing uncertainty about continue to experience episodic
reduced eutrophication of water bodies. acidification even after implementation
effects at lower ends of the PM2.5
concentration ranges. Thus, EPA a. What Are the Benefits of Reduced of this rule.
estimates include health benefits from Deposition of Sulfur and Nitrogen to In a recent study,177 Resources for the
reducing the fine particles in areas with Aquatic, Forest, and Coastal Future (RFF) estimates total benefits
varied concentrations of PM, including Ecosystems? (i.e., the sum of use and nonuse values)
both regions that are in attainment with of natural resource improvements for
Atmospheric deposition of sulfur and
fine particle standard and those that do the Adirondacks resulting from a
nitrogen, more commonly known as
not meet the standard. program that would reduce acidification
acid rain, occurs when emissions of SO2
The EPA recognizes the difficulties, in 40 percent of the lakes in the
and NOX react in the atmosphere (with
assumptions, and inherent uncertainties Adirondacks that were of concern for
water, oxygen, and oxidants) to form
in the overall enterprise. The analyses acidification. While this study requires
various acidic compounds. These acidic
upon which the CAIR is based were further evaluation, the RFF study
compounds fall to earth in either a wet
selected from the peer-reviewed suggests that the benefits of acid
form (rain, snow, and fog) or a dry form
scientific literature. We used up-to-date deposition reductions for the CAIR are
(gases and particles). Prevailing winds
assessment tools, and we believe the likely to be substantial in terms of the
can transport acidic compounds
results are highly useful in assessing total monetized value for ecological
hundreds of miles, across State borders.
this rule. endpoints (although likely small in
Acidic compounds (including small
176 U.S. EPA. (2004). Air Quality Criteria for
particles such as sulfates and nitrates) 177 Banzhaf, Spencer, Dallas Burtraw, David
Particulate Matter. Research Triangle Park, NC:

cause many negative environmental Evans, and Alan Krupnick. ‘‘Valuation of Natural
National Center for Environmental Assessment— effects, including acidification of lakes Resource Improvements in the Adirondacks,’’
RTP Office; Report No. EPA/600/P–99/002aD. and streams, harm to sensitive forests, Resources for the Future (RFF), September 2004.
comparison to the estimated premature significant changes to those ecosystems. toxins become airborne, causing
mortality benefits estimates). In recent decades, human activities have respiratory problems due to inhalation.
accelerated nitrogen nutrient inputs, According to the NOAA report, more
ii. Acid Deposition and Forest
causing excessive growth of algae and than half of the nation’s estuaries have
Ecosystem Impacts
leading to degraded water quality and moderate to high expressions of at least
Current understanding of the effects associated impairments of estuarine and one of these symptoms’an indication
of acid deposition on forest ecosystems coastal resources. that eutrophication is well developed in
focuses on the effects of ecological Atmospheric deposition of nitrogen is more than half of U.S. estuaries.
processes affecting plant uptake, a significant source of nitrogen to many This rule is anticipated to reduce
retention, and cycling of nutrients estuaries. The amount of nitrogen nitrogen deposition in the CAIR region.
within forest ecosystems. Recent studies entering estuaries due to atmospheric Thus, reductions in the levels of
indicate that acid deposition is at least deposition varies widely, depending on nitrogen deposition will have a positive
partially responsible for decreases in the size and location of the estuarine impact upon current eutrophic
base cations (calcium, magnesium, watershed and other sources of nitrogen conditions in estuaries and coastal areas
potassium, and others) from soils in the in the watershed. There are a few in the region. While we are unable to
northeastern and southeastern United estuaries where atmospheric deposition monetize the benefits of such
States. Losses of calcium from forest of nitrogen contributes well over 40 reductions, the Chesapeake Bay Program
soils and forested watersheds have now percent of the total nitrogen load; estimated the reduced mass of delivered
been documented as a sensitive early however, in most estuaries for which nitrogen loads likely to result from the
indicator of soil response to acid estimates exist, the contribution from CAIR, based upon the CAIR proposal
deposition for a wide range of forest atmospheric deposition ranges from 15– deposition estimates published in
soils in the United States. 30 percent. The area of the country with January 2004. Atmospheric deposition
In red spruce stands, a clear link the highest air deposition rates (30 of nitrogen accounts for a significant
exists between acid deposition, calcium percent deposition rates) includes many portion of the nitrogen loads to the
supply, and sensitivity to abiotic stress. estuaries along the northeast seaboard Chesapeake with 28 percent of the
Red spruce uptake and retention of from Massachusetts to the Chesapeake nitrogen loads from the watershed
calcium is impacted by acid deposition Bay and along the central Gulf of coming from air deposition. Based upon
in two main ways: Leaching of Mexico coast. the CAIR proposal, nitrogen deposition
important stores of calcium from In 1999, National Oceanic and rates published in the January 2004
needles and decreased root uptake of Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) proposal, the Chesapeake Bay Program
calcium due to calcium depletion from published the results of a 5-year finds that the CAIR will likely reduce
the soil and aluminum mobilization. national assessment of the severity and the nitrogen loads to the Bay by 10
These changes increase the sensitivity of extent of estuarine eutrophication. An million pounds per year by 2010.178
red spruce to winter injuries under estuary is defined as the inland arm of These substantial nitrogen load
normal winter conditions in the the sea that meets the mouth of a river. reductions more than fulfill the EPA’s
Northeast, result in the loss of needles, The 138 estuaries characterized in the commitment to reduce atmospheric
slow tree growth, and impair the overall study represent more than 90 percent of deposition delivered to the Chesapeake
health and productivity of forest total estuarine water surface area and Bay by 8 million pounds.
ecosystems in many areas of the eastern the total number of U.S. estuaries. The
United States. In addition, recent study found that estuaries with b. Are There Health or Welfare
studies of sugar maple decline in the moderate to high eutrophication Disbenefits of the CAIR That Have Not
Northeast demonstrate a link between represented 65 percent of the estuarine Been Quantified?
low base cation availability, high levels surface area. In contrast to the additional benefits
of aluminum and manganese in the soil, Eutrophication is of particular of the rule discussed above, it is also
and increased levels of tree mortality concern in coastal areas with poor or possible that this rule will result in
due to native defoliating insects. stratified circulation patterns, such as disbenefits in some areas of the region.
Although sulfate is the primary cause the Chesapeake Bay, Long Island Sound, Current levels of nitrogen deposition in
of base cation leaching, nitrate is a and the Gulf of Mexico. In such areas, these areas may provide passive
significant contributor in watersheds the ‘‘overproduced’’ algae tends to sink fertilization for forest and terrestrial
that are nearly nitrogen saturated. Base to the bottom and decay, using all or ecosystems where nutrients are a
cation depletion is a cause for concern most of the available oxygen and limiting factor and for some croplands.
because of the role these ions play in thereby reducing or eliminating The effects of ozone and PM on
surface water acid neutralization and populations of bottom-feeder fish and radiative transfer in the atmosphere can
their importance as essential nutrients shellfish, distorting the normal also lead to effects of uncertain
for tree growth (calcium, magnesium population balance between different magnitude and direction on the
and potassium). aquatic organisms, and in extreme cases, penetration of ultraviolet light and
This regulatory action will decrease causing dramatic fish kills. Severe and climate. Ground level ozone makes up
acid deposition in the transport region persistent eutrophication often directly a small percentage of total atmospheric
and is likely to have positive effects on impacts human activities. For example, ozone (including the stratospheric layer)
the health and productivity of forest fishery resource losses can be caused that attenuates penetration of
systems in the region. directly by fish kills associated with low ultraviolet—b (UVb) radiation to the
dissolved oxygen and toxic blooms. ground. The EPA’s past evaluation of
iii. Coastal Ecosystems Declines in tourism occur when low the information indicates that potential
Since 1990, a large amount of research dissolved oxygen causes noxious smells disbenefits would be small, variable,
has been conducted on the impact of and floating mats of algal blooms create and with too many uncertainties to
nitrogen deposition to coastal waters. unfavorable aesthetic conditions. Risks attempt quantification of relatively
Nitrogen is often the limiting nutrient in to human health increase when the
coastal ecosystems. Increasing the levels toxins from algal blooms accumulate in 178 Sweeney, Jeff. ‘‘EPA’s Chesapeake Bay
of nitrogen in coastal waters can cause edible fish and shellfish, and when Program Air Strategy.’’ October 26, 2004.
small changes in average ozone levels nitrate particles also scatter UVb, which and sulfates and nitrates can reduce the
over the course of a year (EPA, 2005a). can decrease exposure of horizontal amount of solar radiation reaching the
The EPA’s most recent provisional surfaces to UVb, but increase exposure earth, but EPA believes that we are
assessment of the currently available of vertical surfaces. In this case as well, unable to quantify any net climate-
information indicates that potential but both the magnitude and direction of the related disbenefit or benefit associated
unquantifiable benefits may also arise effect of reductions in sulfate and nitrate with the combined ozone and PM
from ozone-related attenuation of UVb particles are too uncertain to quantify reductions in this rule.
radiation (EPA, 2005b). Sulfate and (EPA, 2004). Ozone is a greenhouse gas,
TABLE X–4.—UNQUANTIFIED AND NON-MONETIZED EFFECTS OF THE CLEAN AIR INTERSTATE RULE
Pollutant/effects Effects not included in primary estimates—Changes in:
Ozone Health a .................................................... Premature mortality b

Chronic respiratory damage
Premature aging of the lungs
Non-asthma respiratory emergency room visits
Increased exposure to UVb
Ozone Welfare .................................................... Yields for
–commercial forests
–fruits and vegetables
–commercial and non-commercial crops
Damage to urban ornamental plants
Impacts on recreational demand from damaged forest aesthetics
Ecosystem functions
Increased exposure to UVb
PM Health c ......................................................... Premature mortality—short term exposures d
Low birth weight
Pulmonary function
Chronic respiratory diseases other than chronic bronchitis
Non-asthma respiratory emergency room visits
Exposure to UVb (+/¥) e
PM Welfare ......................................................... Visibility in many Class I areas
Residential and recreational visibility in non-Class I areas
Soiling and materials damage
Damage to ecosystem functions
Exposure to UVb (+/¥) e
Nitrogen and Sulfate Deposition Welfare ........... Commercial forests due to acidic sulfate and nitrate
deposition
Commercial freshwater fishing due to acidic deposition
Recreation in terrestrial ecosystems due to acidic deposition
Existence values for currently healthy ecosystems
Commercial fishing, agriculture, and forests due to nitrogen deposition
Recreation in estuarine ecosystems due to nitrogen deposition
Ecosystem functions
Passive fertilization
Mercury Health ................................................... Incidences of neurological disorders
Incidences of learning disabilities
Incidences of developmental delays
Potential reproductive effects f
Potential cardiovascular effects,f including:
–Altered blood pressure regulation f
–Increased heart rate variability f
–Myocardial infarction f
Mercury Deposition Welfare ............................... Impact on birds and mammals (e.g., reproductive effects)
Impacts to commercial, subsistence, and recreational fishing
Notes:
a In addition to primary economic endpoints, there are a number of biological responses that have been associated with ozone health effects
including increased airway responsiveness to stimuli, inflamation in the lung, acute inflammation and respiratory cell damage, and increased sus-
ceptibility to respiratory infection. The public health impact of these biological responses may be partly represented by our quantified endpoints.
b Premature mortality associated with ozone is not currently included in the primary analysis. Recent evidence suggests that short-term expo-
sures to ozone may have a significant effect on daily mortality rates, independent of exposure to PM. EPA is currently conducting a series of
meta-analyses of the ozone mortality epidemiology literature. EPA will consider including ozone mortality in primary benefits analyses once a
peer reviewed methodology is available.
c In addition to primary economic endpoints, there are a number of biological responses that have been associated with PM health effects in-
cluding morphological changes and altered host defense mechanisms. The public health impact of these biological responses may be partly rep-
resented by our quantified endpoints.
d While some of the effects of short term exposures are likely to be captured in the estimates, there may be premature mortality due to short
term exposure to PM not captured in the cohort study upon which the primary analysis is based.
e May result in benefits or disbenefits.
f These are potential effects as the literature is insufficient.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act local governments, and sources that are by the Small Business Regulatory
expected to result from the CAIR. Enforcement Fairness Act (Pub. L. 104–
In compliance with the Paperwork The recordkeeping and reporting 121)(SBREFA), provides that whenever
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), burden to sources resulting from States an agency is required to publish a
EPA submitted a proposed Information choosing to participate in a regional cap general notice of rulemaking, it must
Collection Request (ICR) (EPA ICR and trade program are expected to be prepare and make available an initial
number 2512.01) to the OMB for review less than $42 million annually at the regulatory flexibility analysis, unless it
and approval on July 19, 2004 (FR time the monitors are implemented. certifies that the rule, if promulgated,
42720–42722). The ICR describes the This estimate includes the annualized will not have ‘‘a significant economic
nature of the information collection and cost of installing and operating impact on a substantial number of small
its estimated burden and cost associated appropriate SO2 and NOX emissions entities.’’ 5 U.S.C. 605(b). Small entities
with the final rule. In cases where monitoring equipment to measure and include small businesses, small
information is already collected by a report the total emissions of these organizations, and small governmental
related program, the ICR takes into pollutants from affected EGUs serving jurisdictions.
account only the additional burden. generators greater than 25 megawatt For purposes of assessing the impacts
This situation arises in States that are electrical. The burden to State and local of today’s rule on small entities, small
also subject to requirements of the air agencies includes any necessary SIP entity is defined as: (1) A small business
Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule revisions, performing monitoring that is identified by the North American
(EPA ICR number 0916.10; OMB control certification, and fulfilling audit Industry Classification System (NAICS)
number 2060–0088) or for sources that responsibilities. Code, as defined by the Small Business
are subject to the Acid Rain Program In accordance with the Paperwork Administration (SBA); (2) a small
(EPA ICR number 1633.13; OMB control Reduction Act, on July 19, 2004, an ICR governmental jurisdiction that is a
number 2060–0258) or NOX SIP Call was made available to the public for government of a city, county, town,
(EPA ICR number 1857.03; OMB comment. The 60-day comment period school district or special district with a
number 2060–0445) requirements. expired September 19, 2004 with no population of less than 50,000; and (3)
The EPA solicited comments on public comments received specific to a small organization that is any not-for-
specific aspects of the information the ICR. profit enterprise which is independently
collection. The purpose of the ICR is to owned and operated and is not
estimate the anticipated monitoring, C. Regulatory Flexibility Act dominant in its field. Table X–5 lists
reporting, and recordkeeping burden The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 entities potentially impacted by this
estimates and associated costs for States, U.S.C. § 601 et seq.)(RFA), as amended rule with applicable NAICS code.
X–5.—POTENTIALLY REGULATED CATEGORIES AND ENTITIES

1 NAICS
Category Examples of potentially regulated entities
code
Industry ........................................................ 221112 Fossil fuel-fired electric utility steam generating units.
Federal government .................................... 2 221112 Fossil fuel-fired electric utility steam generating units owned by the Federal govern-
ment.
State/local/Tribal government ...................... 2 221112 Fossil fuel-fired electric utility steam generating units owned by municipalities.
................................................................. 921150 Fossil fuel-fired electric utility steam generating units in Indian Country.
1 North American Industry Classification System.
2 Federal, State, or local government-owned and operated establishments are classified according to the activity in which they are engaged.
According to the SBA size standards reductions, and would leave to the modeling is unable to distinguish
for NAICS code 221112 Utilities-Fossil States the task of determining how to between these potential outcomes.
Fuel Electric Power Generation, a firm obtain those reductions, including The EPA modeling identified 264
is small if, including its affiliates, it is which entities to regulate. Moreover, small entities within the CAIR region
primarily engaged in the generation, because affected States would have based upon the definition of small
transmission, and or distribution of discretion to choose the sources to entity outlined above. From this
electric energy for sale and its total regulate and how much emissions analysis, EPA excluded 189 small
electric output for the preceding fiscal reductions each selected source would entities that were not projected to have
year did not exceed 4 million megawatt have to achieve, EPA could not predict at least one unit with a generating
hours. the effect of the rule on small entities. capacity of 25 MW or great operating in
Courts have interpreted the RFA to Although not required by the RFA, the the base case. Thus, we found that 75
require a regulatory flexibility analysis Agency has conducted a small business small entities may potentially be
only when small entities will be subject analysis. affected by the CAIR. Of these 75 small
to the requirements of the rule. See Overall, about 445 MW of total small entities, 28 may experience compliance
Michigan v. EPA, 213 F.3d 663, 668–69 entity capacity, or 1.0 percent of total costs in excess of one percent of
(DC Cir., 2000), cert. den. 121 S.Ct. 225, small entity capacity in the CAIR region, revenues in 2010, and 46 may in 2015,
149 L.Ed.2d 135 (2001). is projected to be uneconomic to based on the Agency’s assumptions of
This rule would not establish maintain under the CAIR relative to the how the affected States implement
requirements applicable to small base case. In practice, units projected to control measures to meet their
entities. Instead, it would require States be uneconomic to maintain may be emissions budgets as set forth in this
to develop, adopt, and submit SIP ‘‘mothballed,’’ retired, or kept in service rulemaking. Potentially affected small
revisions that would achieve the to ensure transmission reliability in entities experiencing compliance costs
necessary SO2 and NOX emissions certain parts of the grid. Our IPM in excess of 1 percent of revenues have
some potential for significant impact generally requires EPA to identify and ‘mothballed,’ retired, or kept in service
resulting from implementation of the consider a reasonable number of to ensure transmission reliability in
CAIR. However, it is the Agency’s regulatory alternatives and adopt the certain parts of the grid. For the most
position that because none of the least costly, most cost-effective, or least part, these units are small and
affected entities currently operate in a burdensome alternative that achieves infrequently used generating units that
competitive market environment, they the objectives of the rule. are dispersed throughout the CAIR
should be able to pass the costs of The EPA prepared a written statement region.
complying with the CAIR on to rate- for the final rule consistent with the The EPA modeling identified 265
payers. Moreover, the decision to requirements of section 202 of the State or municipally-owned entities, as
include only units greater than 25 MW UMRA. Furthermore, as EPA stated in well as subdivisions, within the CAIR
in size exempts 185 small entities that the rule, EPA is not directly establishing region. The EPA excluded from the
would otherwise be potentially affected any regulatory requirements that may analysis government-owned entities that
by the CAIR. significantly or uniquely affect small were not projected to have at least one
Two other points should be governments, including Tribal unit with generating capacity of 25 MW
considered when evaluating the impact governments. Thus, EPA is not obligated or greater in the base case. Thus, we
of the CAIR, specifically, and cap and to develop under section 203 of the excluded 184 entities from the analysis.
trade programs more generally, on small UMRA a small government agency plan. We found that 81 government entities
entities. First, under the CAIR, the cap Furthermore, in a manner consistent will be potentially affected by CAIR. Of
and trade program is designed such that with the intergovernmental consultation the 81 government entities, 20 may
States determine how NOX allowances provisions of section 204 of the UMRA, experience compliance costs in excess
are to be allocated across units. A State EPA carried out consultations with the of 1 percent of revenues in 2010, and 39
that wishes to mitigate the impact of the governmental entities affected by this may in 2015, based on our assumptions
rule on small entities might choose to rule. of how the affected States implement
allocate NOX allowances in a manner For several reasons, however, EPA is control measures to meet their
that is favorable to small entities. not reaching a final conclusion as to the emissions budgets as set forth in this
Finally, the use of cap and trade in applicability of the requirements of rulemaking.
general will limit impacts on small UMRA to this rulemaking action. First, Government entities projected to
entities relative to a less flexible it is questionable whether a requirement experience compliance costs in excess
command-and-control program. to submit a SIP revision would of 1 percent of revenues have some
constitute a Federal mandate in any potential for significant impact resulting
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act case. The obligation for a State to revise from implementation of the CAIR.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates its SIP that arises out of section 110(a) However, as noted above, it is EPA’s
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) of the CAA is not legally enforceable by position that because these government
(UMRA), establishes requirements for a court of law, and at most is a entities can pass on their costs of
Federal agencies to assess the effects of condition for continued receipt of compliance to rate-payers, they will not
their regulatory actions on State, local, highway funds. Therefore, it is possible be significantly impacted. Furthermore,
and Tribal governments and the private to view an action requiring such a the decision to include only units
sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, submittal as not creating any greater than 25 MW in size exempts 179
2 U.S.C. 1532, EPA generally must enforceable duty within the meaning of government entities that would
prepare a written statement, including a section 421(5)(9a)(I) of UMRA (2 U.S.C. otherwise be potentially affected by the
cost-benefit analysis, for any proposed 658 (a)(I)). Even if it did, the duty could CAIR.
or final rule that ‘‘includes any Federal be viewed as falling within the The above points aside, potentially
mandate that may result in the exception for a condition of Federal adverse impacts of the CAIR on State
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal assistance under section 421(5)(a)(i)(I) of and municipality-owned entities could
governments, in the aggregate, or by the UMRA (2 U.S.C. 658(5)(a)(i)(I)). be limited by the fact that the cap and
private sector, of $100,000,000 or more As noted earlier, however, trade program is designed such that
* * * in any one year.’’ A ‘‘Federal notwithstanding these issues, EPA States determine how NOX allowances
mandate’’ is defined under section prepared for the final rule the statement are to be allocated across units. A State
421(6), 2 U.S.C. 658(6), to include a that would be required by UMRA if its that wishes to mitigate the impact of the
‘‘Federal intergovernmental mandate’’ statutory provisions applied, and EPA rule on State or municipality-owned
and a ‘‘Federal private sector mandate.’’ has consulted with governmental entities might choose to allocate NOX
A ‘‘Federal intergovernmental entities as would be required by UMRA. allowances in a manner that is favorable
mandate,’’ in turn, is defined to include Consequently, it is not necessary for to these entities. Finally, the use of cap
a regulation that ‘‘would impose an EPA to reach a conclusion as to the and trade in general will limit impacts
enforceable duty upon State, Local, or applicability of the UMRA on entities owned by small governments
Tribal governments,’’ section requirements. relative to a less flexible command-and-
421(5)(A)(i), 2 U.S.C. 658(5)(A)(i), The EPA conducted an analysis of the control program.
except for, among other things, a duty economic impacts anticipated from the
that is ‘‘a condition of Federal CAIR for government-owned entities. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
assistance,’’ section 421(5)(A)(i)(I). A The modeling conducted using the IPM Executive Order 13132, entitled
‘‘Federal private sector mandate’’ projects that about 340 MW of ‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,
includes a regulation that ‘‘would municipality-owned capacity (about 0.4 1999), requires EPA to develop an
impose an enforceable duty upon the percent of all subdivision, State and accountable process to ensure
private sector,’’ with certain exceptions, municipality capacity in the CAIR ‘‘meaningful and timely input by State
section 421(7)(A), 2 U.S.C. 658(7)(A). region) would be uneconomic to and local officials in the development of
Before promulgating an EPA rule for maintain under the CAIR, beyond what regulatory policies that have federalism
which a written statement is needed is projected in the base case. In practice, implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have
under section 202 of the UMRA, section however, the units projected to be federalism implications’’ is defined in
205, 2 U.S.C. 1535, of the UMRA uneconomic to maintain may be the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct CAA and the TAR establish the Section 5–501 of the Order directs the
effects on the States, on the relationship relationship of the Federal Government Agency to evaluate the environmental
between the national government and and Tribes in developing plans to attain health or safety effects of the planned
the States, or on the distribution of the NAAQS, and this rule does nothing rule on children, and explain why the
power and responsibilities among the to modify that relationship. Because this planned regulation is preferable to other
various levels of government.’’ rule does not have Tribal implications, potentially effective and reasonably
This rule does not have federalism Executive Order 13175 does not apply. feasible alternatives considered by the
implications. It will not have substantial If one assumes a Tribe is Agency.
direct effects on the States, on the implementing a Tribal Implementation This final rule is not subject to the
relationship between the national Plan, today’s rule could have Executive Order, because it does not
government and the States, or on the implications for that Tribe, but it would involve decisions on environmental
distribution of power and not impose substantial direct costs upon health or safety risks that may
responsibilities among the various the Tribe, nor preempt Tribal law. As disproportionately affect children. The
levels of government, as specified in provided above, EPA has estimated that EPA believes that the emissions
Executive Order 13132. The CAA the total annual private costs for the rule reductions from the strategies in this
establishes the relationship between the for the CAIR region as implemented by rule will further improve air quality and
Federal Government and the States, and State, local, and Tribal governments is will further improve children’s health.
this rule does not impact that approximately $2.4 billion in 2010 and
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
relationship. Thus, Executive Order $3.6 billion in 2015 (1999$). There are
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
13132 does not apply to this rule. In the currently very few emissions sources in
Distribution, or Use
spirit of Executive Order 13132, and Indian country that could be affected by
consistent with EPA policy to promote this rule and the percentage of Tribal Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355,
communications between EPA and State land that will be impacted is very small. May 22, 2001) provides that agencies
and local governments, EPA specifically For Tribes that choose to regulate shall prepare and submit to the
solicited comment on this rule from sources in Indian country, the costs Administrator of the Office of
State and local officials. would be attributed to inspecting Regulatory Affairs, OMB, a Statement of
regulated facilities and enforcing Energy Effects for certain actions
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation identified as ‘‘significant energy
adopted regulations.
and Coordination With Indian Tribal Although Executive Order 13175 does actions.’’ Section 4(b) of Executive
Governments not apply to this rule, EPA consulted Order 13211 defines ‘‘significant energy
Executive Order 13175, entitled with Tribal officials in developing this actions’’ as ‘‘any action by an agency
‘‘Consultation and Coordination with rule. The EPA has encouraged Tribal (normally published in the Federal
Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR input at an early stage. Also, EPA held Register) that promulgates or is
67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA periodic meetings with the States and expected to lead to the promulgation of
to develop an accountable process to the Tribes during the technical a final rule or regulation, including
ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by development of this rule. Three notices of inquiry, advance notices of
Tribal officials in the development of meetings were held with the Crow final rulemaking, and notices of final
regulatory policies that have Tribal Tribe, where the Tribe expressed rulemaking (1) (i) a significant
implications.’’ This rule does not have concerns about potential impacts of the regulatory action under Executive Order
‘‘Tribal implications’’ as specified in rule on their coal mine operations. In 12866 or any successor order, and (ii)
Executive Order 13175. addition, EPA held three calls with likely to have a significant adverse effect
This rule addresses transport of Tribal environmental professionals to on the supply, distribution, or use of
pollution that are precurors for ozone address concerns specific to the Tribes. energy; or (2) designated by the
and PM2.5. The CAA provides for States These discussions have given EPA Administrator of the Office of
and Tribes to develop plans to regulate valuable information about Tribal Information and Regulatory Affairs as a
emissions of air pollutants within their concerns regarding the development of ‘‘significant energy action.’’ This final
jurisdictions. The regulations clarify the this rule. The EPA has provided rule is a significant regulatory action
statutory obligations of States and briefings for Tribal representatives and under Executive Order 12866, and this
Tribes that develop plans to implement the newly formed National Tribal Air rule may have a significant adverse
this rule. The Tribal Authority Rule Association (NTAA), and other national effect on the supply, distribution, or use
(TAR) give Tribes the opportunity to Tribal forums. Input from Tribal of energy.
develop and implement CAA programs, representatives has been taken into If States choose to obtain the
but it leaves to the discretion of the consideration in development of this emissions reductions required by this
Tribe whether to develop these rule. rule by regulating EGUs, EPA projects
programs and which programs, or that approximately 5.3 GWs of coal-fired
appropriate elements of a program, the G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of generation may be removed from
Tribe will adopt. Children From Environmental Health operation by 2010. In practice, however,
This rule does not have Tribal and Safety Risks the units projected to be uneconomic to
implications as defined by Executive Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of maintain may be ‘mothballed,’ retired,
Order 13175. It does not have a Children from Environmental Health or kept in service to ensure transmission
substantial direct effect on one or more and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April reliability in certain parts of the grid.
Indian Tribes, because no Tribe has 23, 1997) applies to any rule that (1) is For the most part, these units are small
implemented a federally-enforceable air determined to be ‘‘economically and infrequently used generating units
quality management program under the significant’’ as defined under Executive that are dispersed throughout the CAIR
CAA at this time. Furthermore, this rule Order 12866, and (2) concerns an region. Less conservative assumptions
does not affect the relationship or environmental health or safety risk that regarding natural gas prices or
distribution of power and EPA has reason to believe may have a electricity demand would create a
responsibilities between the Federal disproportionate effect on children. If greater incentive to keep these units
Government and Indian Tribes. The the regulatory action meets both criteria, operational. The EPA projects that the
average annual electricity price will however, EPA periodically revises the Senate, the U.S. House of
increase by less than 2.7 percent in the test procedures set forth in part 75. Representatives, and the Comptroller
CAIR region and that natural gas prices When EPA revises the test procedures General of the United States prior to
will increase by less than 1.6 percent. set forth in part 75 in the future, EPA publication of the rule in the Federal
The EPA does not believe that this rule will address the use of any new Register. A Major rule cannot take effect
will have any other impacts that exceed voluntary consensus standards that are until 60 days after it is published in the
the significance criteria. equivalent. Currently, even if a test Federal Register. This action is a ‘‘major
The EPA believes that a number of procedure is not set forth in part 75 EPA rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
features of today’s rulemaking serve to is not precluding the use of any method,
reduce its impact on energy supply. whether it constitutes a voluntary L. Judicial Review
First, the optional trading program consensus standard or not, as long as it Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA indicates
provides considerable flexibility to the meets the performance criteria which Federal Courts of Appeal have
power sector and enables industry to specified; however, any alternative venue for petitions of review of final
comply with the emission reduction methods must be approved through the actions by EPA. This Section provides,
requirements in the most cost-effective petition process under Sec. 75.66 before in part, that petitions for review must be
manner, thus minimizing overall costs they are used under part 75. filed in the Court of Appeals for the
and the ultimate impact on energy District of Columbia Circuit if (i) the
supply. The ability to use banked J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental agency action consists of ‘‘nationally
allowances from the existing title IV SO2 applicable regulations promulgated, or
trading program and the NOX SIP Call Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations final action taken, by the
Trading Program also provide additional Administrator,’’ or (ii) such action is
flexibility. Second, the CAIR caps are Executive Order 12898, ‘‘Federal locally or regionally applicable, if ‘‘such
set in two phases and provide adequate Actions to Address Environmental action is based on a determination of
time for EGUs to install pollution Justice in Minority Populations and nationwide scope or effect and if in
controls. For more details concerning Low-Income Populations,’’ requires taking such action the Administrator
energy impacts, see the Regulatory Federal agencies to consider the impact finds and publishes that such action is
Impact Analysis for the Final Clean Air of programs, policies, and activities on based on such a determination.’’
Interstate Rule (March 2005). minority populations and low-income Any final action related to CAIR is
populations. According to EPA ‘‘nationally applicable’’ within the
I. National Technology Transfer guidance,179 agencies are to assess
Advancement Act meaning of section 307(b)(1). As an
whether minority or low-income initial matter, through this rule, EPA
Section 12(d) of the National populations face risks or a rate of interprets section 110 of the CAA, a
Technology Transfer and Advancement exposure to hazards that are significant provision which has nationwide
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–113; and that ‘‘appreciably exceed or is likely applicability. In addition, CAIR applies
15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use to appreciably exceed the risk or rate to to 28 States and the District of
voluntary consensus standards in its the general population or to the Columbia. CAIR is also based on a
regulatory and procurement activities appropriate comparison group.’’ (EPA, common core of factual findings and
unless to do so would be inconsistent 1998) analyses concerning the transport of
with applicable law or otherwise In accordance with Executive Order
pollutants between the different States
impractical. Voluntary consensus 12898, the Agency has considered
subject to it. Finally, EPA has
standards are technical standards (e.g., whether this rule may have
established uniform approvability
materials specifications, test methods, disproportionate negative impacts on
sampling procedures, business minority or low income populations. criteria that would be applied to all
practices) developed or adopted by one The Agency expects this rule to lead to States subject to CAIR. For these
or more voluntary consensus bodies. reductions in air pollution and reasons, the Administrator also is
The NTTAA directs EPA to provide exposures generally. For this reason, determining that any final action
Congress, through annual reports to negative impacts to these sub- regarding CAIR is of nationwide scope
OMB, with explanations when an populations that appreciably exceed and effect for purposes of section
agency does not use available and similar impacts to the general 307(b)(1). Thus, any petitions for review
applicable voluntary consensus population are not expected. of final actions regarding CAIR must be
standards. filed in the Court of Appeals for the
K. Congressional Review Act District of Columbia Circuit within 60
This rule would require all sources
that participate in the trading program The Congressional Review Act, 5 days from the date final action is
under part 96 to meet the applicable U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small published in the Federal Register.
monitoring requirements of part 75. Part Business Regulatory Enforcement List of Subjects
75 already incorporates a number of Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
voluntary consensus standards. that before a rule may take effect, the 40 CFR Part 51
Consistent with the Agency’s agency promulgating the rule must Administrative practice and
Performance Based Measurement submit a rule report, which includes a procedure, Air pollution control,
System (PBMS), part 75 sets forth copy of the rule, to each House of the Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
performance criteria that allow the use Congress and to the Comptroller General oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter,
of alternative methods to the ones set of the United States. The EPA will Regional haze, Reporting and
forth in part 75. The PBMS approach is submit a report containing this rule and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
intended to be more flexible and cost- other required information to the U.S. dioxide.
effective for the regulated community; it
is also intended to encourage innovation 179 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1998. 40 CFR Parts 72, 73, 74, 77 and 78
Guidance for Incorporating Environmental Justice
in analytical technology and improved Concerns in EPA’s NEPA Compliance Analyses.
Acid rain, Administrative practice
data quality. At this time, EPA is not Office of Federal Activities, Washington, DC, April, and procedure, Air pollution control,
recommending any revisions to part 75; 1998. Electric utilities, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen oxides, Reporting (b) Each revision must provide for (vii) Spring throughput (%).
and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur periodic reporting by the State of NOX (viii) Summer throughput (%).
dioxide. emissions data to demonstrate whether (ix) Fall throughput (%).
the State’s emissions are consistent with (x) Work weekday emissions.
40 CFR Part 96 (xi) Emission factor.
the projections contained in its
Administrative practice and approved SIP submission. (xii) Source of emission factor.
procedure, Air pollution control, (1) Annual reporting. Each revision (xiii) Hour/day in operation.
Electric utilities, Nitrogen oxides, must provide for annual reporting of (xiv) Operations Start time (hour).
Reporting and recordkeeping NOX emissions data as follows: (xv) Day/week in operation.
requirements, Sulfur dioxide. (i) The State must report to EPA (xvi) Week/year in operation.
Dated: March 10, 2005. emissions data from all NOX sources (3) The triennial inventories must
within the State for which the State include the following data elements:
Stephen L. Johnson,
specified control measures in its SIP (i) The data required in paragraphs
Acting Administrator.
submission under § 51.121(g) of this (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section.
■ Title 40, chapter I, of the Code of part. This would include all sources for (ii) X coordinate (longitude).
Federal Regulations is amended as which the State has adopted measures (iii) Y coordinate (latitude).
follows: that differ from the measures (iv) Stack height.
incorporated into the baseline inventory (v) Stack diameter.
PART 51—[AMENDED] (vi) Exit gas temperature.
for the year 2007 that the State
■ 1. The authority citation for Part 51 developed in accordance with (vii) Exit gas velocity.
continues to read as follows: § 51.121(g). (viii) Exit gas flow rate.
(ii) If sources report NOX emissions (ix) SIC.
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401– (x) Boiler/process throughput design
7671q. data to EPA annually pursuant to a
trading program approved under capacity.
§ 51.121 [Amended] § 51.121(p) or pursuant to the (xi) Maximum design rate.
monitoring and reporting requirements (xii) Maximum capacity.
■ 2. Section 51.121 is amended by (xiii) Primary control efficiency.
adding a new paragraph (r) to read as of subpart H of 40 CFR part 75, then the
State need not provide annual reporting (xiv) Secondary control efficiency.
follows: (xv) Control device type.
to EPA for such sources.
§ 51.121 Findings and requirements for (2) Triennial reporting. Each plan (d) The data reported in paragraph (b)
submission of State implementation plan must provide for triennial (i.e., every of this section for non-point sources
revisions relating to emissions of oxides of third year) reporting of NOX emissions must include the following minimum
nitrogen. data from all sources within the State. elements:
* * * * * (3) The data availability requirements (1) For annual inventories it must
(r)(1) Notwithstanding any provisions in § 51.116 must be followed for all data include:
of paragraph (p) of this section, subparts submitted to meet the requirements of (i) Inventory year.
A through I of part 96 of this chapter, paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section. (ii) State FIPS code.
and any State’s SIP to the contrary, the (c) The data reported in paragraph (b) (iii) County FIPS code.
Administrator will not carry out any of of this section for stationary point (iv) SCC.
the functions set forth for the sources must meet the following (v) Emission factor.
Administrator in subparts A through I of minimum criteria: (vi) Source of emission factor.
part 96 of this chapter, or in any (1) For annual data reporting purposes (vii) Activity/throughput level
emissions trading program in a State’s the data must include the following (annual).
SIP approved under paragraph (p) of minimum elements: (viii) Activity throughput level
this section, with regard to any ozone (i) Inventory year. (seasonal).
season that occurs after September 30, (ii) State Federal Information (ix) Source of activity/throughput
2008. Placement System code. data.
(2) Except as provided in § 51.123(bb), (iii) County Federal Information (x) Spring throughput (%).
a State whose SIP is approved as Placement System code. (xi) Summer throughput (%).
meeting the requirements of this section (iv) Federal ID code (plant). (xii) Fall throughput (%).
and that includes an emissions trading (v) Federal ID code (point). (xiii) Control efficiency (%).
program approved under paragraph (p) (vi) Federal ID code (process). (xiv) Pollutant code.
(vii) Federal ID code (stack). (xv) Ozone season emissions.
of this section must revise the SIP to (viii) Site name.
adopt control measures that satisfy the (xvi) Source of emissions data.
(ix) Physical address. (xvii) Hour/day in operation.
same portion of the State’s NOX (x) SCC.
emission reduction requirements under (xviii) Day/week in operation.
(xi) Pollutant code.
this section as the State projected such (xii) Ozone season emissions. (xix) Week/year in operations.
emissions trading program would (xiii) Area designation. (2) The triennial inventories must
satisfy. (2) In addition, the annual data must contain, at a minimum, all the data
■ 3. Revise § 51.122 of subpart G to read include the following minimum required in paragraph (d)(1) of this
as follows: elements as applicable to the emissions section.
estimation methodology. (e) The data reported in paragraph (b)
§ 51.122 Emissions reporting (i) Fuel heat content (annual). of this section for mobile sources must
requirements for SIP revisions relating to (ii) Fuel heat content (seasonal). meet the following minimum criteria:
budgets for NOX emissions. (iii) Source of fuel heat content data. (1) For the annual and triennial
(a) For its transport SIP revision under (iv) Activity throughput (annual). inventory purposes, the following data
§ 51.121, each State must submit to EPA (v) Activity throughput (seasonal). must be reported:
NOX emissions data as described in this (vi) Source of activity/throughput (i) Inventory year.
section. data. (ii) State FIPS code.
(iii) County FIPS code. (1) States are required to report (11) Exit gas velocity. Numeric value
(iv) SCC. emissions data in an electronic format to of an exit gas stream velocity.
(v) Emission factor. EPA. Several options are available for (12) Fall throughput (%). Portion of
(vi) Source of emission factor. data reporting. States can obtain throughput for the 3 fall months
(vii) Activity (this must be reported information on the current formats at (September, October, November). This
for both highway and nonroad activity. the following Internet address: http:// represents the expression of annual
Submit nonroad activity in the form of www.epa.gov/ttn/chief, by calling the activity information on the basis of four
hours of activity at standard load (either EPA Info CHIEF help desk at (919) 541– seasons, typically spring, summer, fall,
full load or average load) for each 1000 or by sending an e-mail to and winter. It can be represented either
engine type, application, and info.chief@epa.gov. Because electronic as a percentage of the annual activity
horsepower range. Submit highway reporting technology continually (e.g., production in summer is 40
activity in the form of vehicle miles changes, States are to contact the percent of the year’s production), or in
traveled (VMT) by vehicle class on each Emission Inventory Group (EIG) for the terms of the units of the activity (e.g.,
roadway type. Report both highway and latest specific formats. out of 600 units produced, spring = 150
nonroad activity for a typical ozone (2) For annual reporting (not for units, summer = 250 units, fall = 150
season weekday day, if the State uses triennial reports), a State may have units, and winter = 50 units).
EPA’s default weekday/weekend (13) Federal ID code (plant). Unique
sources submit the data directly to EPA
activity ratio. If the State uses a different codes for a plant or facility, containing
to the extent the sources are subject to
weekday/weekend activity ratio, submit one or more pollutant-emitting sources.
a trading program that qualifies for
separate activity level information for (14) Federal ID code (point). Unique
approval under § 51.121(q), and the
weekday days and weekend days.) codes for the point of generation of
(viii) Source of activity data. State has agreed to accept data in this
format. The EPA will make both the raw emissions, typically a physical piece of
(ix) Pollutant code. equipment.
(x) Summer work weekday emissions. data submitted in this format and
summary data available to any State that (15) Federal ID code (stack number).
(xi) Ozone season emissions.
(xii) Source of emissions data. chooses this option. Unique codes for the point where
(2) [Reserved.] (i) Definitions. As used in this section, emissions from one or more processes
(f) Approval of ozone season the following words and terms shall are released into the atmosphere.
calculation by EPA. Each State must have the meanings set forth below: (16) Federal Information Placement
submit for EPA approval an example of (1) Annual emissions. Actual System (FIPS). The system of unique
the calculation procedure used to emissions for a plant, point, or process, numeric codes developed by the
calculate ozone season emissions along either measured or calculated. government to identify States, counties,
with sufficient information for EPA to (2) Ash content. Inert residual portion towns, and townships for the entire
verify the calculated value of ozone of a fuel. United States, Puerto Rico, and Guam.
season emissions. (17) Heat content. The thermal heat
(3) Area designation. The designation
(g) Reporting schedules. (1) Data energy content of a solid, liquid, or
of the area in which the reporting source
collection is to begin during the ozone gaseous fuel. Fuel heat content is
is located with regard to the ozone
season one year prior to the State’s NOX typically expressed in units of Btu/lb of
NAAQS. This would include attainment
SIP Call compliance date. fuel, Btu/gal of fuel, joules/kg of fuel,
or nonattainment designations. For
(2) Reports are to be submitted etc.
nonattainment designations, the
according to paragraph (b) of this (18) Hr/day in operations. Hours per
classification of the nonattainment area
section and the schedule in Table 1. day that the emitting process operates.
must be specified, i.e., transitional, (19) Maximum design rate. Maximum
After 2008, trienniel reports are to be marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or
submitted every third year and annual fuel use rate based on the equipment’s
extreme. or process’ physical size or operational
reports are to be submitted each year (4) Boiler design capacity. A measure
that a trienniel report is not required. capabilities.
of the size of a boiler, based on the (20) Maximum nameplate capacity. A
reported maximum continuous steam measure of the size of a generator which
TABLE 1.—SCHEDULE FOR SUBMITTING flow. Capacity is calculated in units of is put on the unit’s nameplate by the
REPORTS MMBtu/hr. manufacturer. The data element is
(5) Control device type. The name of reported in megawatts (MW) or
Type of the type of control device (e.g., wet
Data collection year report re- kilowatts (KW).
quired scrubber, flaring, or process change). (21) Mobile source. A motor vehicle,
(6) Control efficiency. The emissions nonroad engine or nonroad vehicle,
2002 ............................................ Trienniel. reduction efficiency of a primary control where:
2003 ............................................ Annual. device, which shows the amount of (i) Motor vehicle means any self-
2004 ............................................ Annual. reductions of a particular pollutant from
2005 ............................................ Trienniel.
propelled vehicle designed for
2006 ............................................ Annual.
a process’s emissions due to controls or transporting persons or property on a
2007 ............................................ Annual. material change. Control efficiency is street or highway;
2008 ............................................ Trienniel. usually expressed as a percentage or in (ii) Nonroad engine means an internal
tenths. combustion engine (including the fuel
(3) States must submit data for a (7) Day/week in operations. Days per system) that is not used in a motor
required year no later than 12 months week that the emitting process operates. vehicle or a vehicle used solely for
after the end of the calendar year for (8) Emission factor. Ratio relating competition, or that is not subject to
which the data are collected. emissions of a specific pollutant to an standards promulgated under section
(h) Data Reporting Procedures. When activity or material throughput level. 111 or section 202 of the CAA;
submitting a formal NOX budget (9) Exit gas flow rate. Numeric value (iii) Nonroad vehicle means a vehicle
emissions report and associated data, of stack gas flow rate. that is powered by a nonroad engine
States shall notify the appropriate EPA (10) Exit gas temperature. Numeric and that is not a motor vehicle or a
Regional Office. value of an exit gas stream temperature. vehicle used solely for competition.
(22) Ozone season. The period May 1 estimates were calculated for and are nonattainment in, or interfere with
through September 30 of a year. applicable to. maintenance by, one or more other
(23) Physical address. Street address (35) Start time (hour). Start time (if States with respect to the 8-hour ozone
of facility. available) that was applicable and used NAAQS.
(24) Point source. A non-mobile for calculations of emissions estimates. (b) For each State identified in
source which emits 100 tons of NOX or (36) Summer throughput (%). Portion paragraph (c) of this section, the SIP
more per year unless the State of throughput or activity for the 3 revision required under paragraph (a) of
designates as a point source a non- summer months (June, July, August). this section will contain adequate
mobile source emitting at a specified See the definition of Fall Throughput. provisions, for purposes of complying
level lower than 100 tons of NOX per (37) Summer work weekday with section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the
year. A non-mobile source which emits emissions. Average day’s emissions for CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), only
less NOX per year than the point source a typical day. if the SIP revision contains control
threshold is a non-point source. (38) VMT by Roadway Class. This is measures that assure compliance with
(25) Pollutant code. A unique code for an expression of vehicle activity that is the applicable requirements of this
each reported pollutant that has been used with emission factors. The section.
assigned in the EIIP Data Model. emission factors are usually expressed (c) In addition to being subject to the
Character names are used for criteria in terms of grams per mile of travel. requirements in paragraphs (b) and (d)
pollutants, while Chemical Abstracts Since VMT does not directly correlate to of this section:
Service (CAS) numbers are used for all emissions that occur while the vehicle (1) Alabama, Florida, Illinois, Indiana,
other pollutants. Some States may be is not moving, these non-moving Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland,
using storage and retrieval of aerometric emissions are incorporated into EPA’s Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New
data (SAROAD) codes for pollutants, but MOBILE model emission factors. York, North Carolina, Ohio,
these should be able to be mapped to (39) Week/year in operation. Weeks Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
the EIIP Data Model pollutant codes. per year that the emitting process Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia,
(26) Process rate/throughput. A operates. Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia
measurable factor or parameter that is (40) Work Weekday. Any day of the shall be subject to the requirements
directly or indirectly related to the week except Saturday or Sunday. contained in paragraphs (e) through (cc)
emissions of an air pollution source. (41) X coordinate (longitude). An of this section;
Depending on the type of source object’s east-west geographical (2) Georgia, Minnesota, and Texas
category, activity information may refer coordinate. shall be subject to the requirements in
to the amount of fuel combusted, the (42) Y coordinate (latitude). An paragraphs (e) through (o) and (cc) of
amount of a raw material processed, the object’s north-south geographical this section; and
coordinate. (3) Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware,
amount of a product that is
■ 4. Part 51 is amended by adding Massachusetts, and New Jersey shall be
manufactured, the amount of a material
§ 51.123 to Subpart G to read as follows: subject to the requirements contained in
that is handled or processed,
paragraphs (q) through (cc) of this
population, employment, number of § 51.123 Findings and requirements for section.
units, or miles traveled. Activity submission of State implementation plan (d)(1) The State’s SIP revision under
information is typically the value that is revisions relating to emissions of oxides of paragraph (a) of this section must be
multiplied against an emission factor to nitrogen pursuant to the Clean Air Interstate submitted to EPA by no later than
generate an emissions estimate. Rule.
September 11, 2006.
(27) SCC. Source category code. A (a)(1) Under section 110(a)(1) of the (2) The requirements of appendix V to
process-level code that describes the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(1), the this part shall apply to the SIP revision
equipment or operation emitting Administrator determines that each under paragraph (a) of this section.
pollutants. State identified in paragraph (c)(1) and (3) The State shall deliver 5 copies of
(28) Secondary control efficiency (%). (2) of this section must submit a SIP the SIP revision under paragraph (a) of
The emissions reductions efficiency of a revision to comply with the this section to the appropriate Regional
secondary control device, which shows requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Office, with a letter giving notice of
the amount of reductions of a particular of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), such action.
pollutant from a process’ emissions due through the adoption of adequate (e) The State’s SIP revision shall
to controls or material change. Control provisions prohibiting sources and other contain control measures and
efficiency is usually expressed as a activities from emitting NOX in amounts demonstrate that they will result in
percentage or in tenths. that will contribute significantly to compliance with the State’s Annual
(29) SIC. Standard Industrial nonattainment in, or interfere with EGU NOX Budget, if applicable, and
Classification code. U.S. Department of maintenance by, one or more other achieve the State’s Annual Non-EGU
Commerce’s categorization of businesses States with respect to the fine particles NOX Reduction Requirement, if
by their products or services. (PM2.5) NAAQS. applicable, for the appropriate periods.
(30) Site name. The name of the (2)(a) Under section 110(a)(1) of the The amounts of the State’s Annual EGU
facility. CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(1), the NOX Budget and Annual Non-EGU NOX
(31) Spring throughput (%). Portion of Administrator determines that each Reduction Requirement shall be
throughput or activity for the 3 spring State identified in paragraph (c)(1) and determined as follows:
months (March, April, May). See the (3) of this section must submit a SIP (1)(i) The Annual EGU NOX Budget
definition of Fall Throughput. revision to comply with the for the State is defined as the total
(32) Stack diameter. Stack physical requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) amount of NOX emissions from all EGUs
diameter. of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), in that State for a year, if the State meets
(33) Stack height. Stack physical through the adoption of adequate the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of
height above the surrounding terrain. provisions prohibiting sources and other this section by imposing control
(34) Start date (inventory year). The activities from emitting NOX in amounts measures, at least in part, on EGUs. If
calendar year that the emissions that will contribute significantly to the State imposes control measures
under this section on only EGUs, the State’s Annual Non-EGU NOX (B) The Annual EGU NOX Budget
Annual EGU NOX Budget for the State Reduction Requirement shall equal or shall not exceed, during the indicated
shall not exceed the amount, during the exceed, during the appropriate periods, periods, the amount specified in
indicated periods, specified in the amount determined in accordance paragraph (e)(2) of this section plus the
paragraph (e)(2) of this section. with paragraph (e)(3) of this section. amount of the Annual Non-EGU NOX
(iii) If a State meets the requirements Reduction Requirement under
(ii) The Annual Non-EGU NOX of paragraph (a)(1) of this section by
Reduction Requirement, if applicable, is paragraph (e)(1)(iii)(A) of this section for
imposing control measures on both the appropriate period.
defined as the total amount of NOX EGUs and non-EGUs, then:
emission reductions that the State (A) The Annual Non-EGU NOX (2) For a State that complies with the
demonstrates, in accordance with Reduction Requirement shall equal or requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this
paragraph (g) of this section, it will exceed the difference between the section by imposing control measures
achieve from non-EGUs during the amount specified in paragraph (e)(2) of on only EGUs, the amount of the
appropriate period. If the State meets this section for the appropriate period Annual EGU NOX Budget, in tons of
the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of and the amount of the State’s Annual NOX per year, shall be as follows, for the
this section by imposing control EGU NOX Budget specified in the SIP indicated State for the indicated period:
measures on only non-EGUs, then the revision for the appropriate period; and
Annual EGU
Annual EGU NOX budget
NOX budget
State for 2015 and
for 2009–2014 thereafter
(tons) (tons)
Alabama ................................................................................................................................................................... 69,020 57,517

District of Columbia ................................................................................................................................................. 144 120
Florida ...................................................................................................................................................................... 99,445 82,871
Georgia .................................................................................................................................................................... 66,321 55,268
Illinois ....................................................................................................................................................................... 76,230 63,525
Indiana ..................................................................................................................................................................... 108,935 90,779
Iowa ......................................................................................................................................................................... 32,692 27,243
Kentucky .................................................................................................................................................................. 83,205 69,337
Louisiana .................................................................................................................................................................. 35,512 29,593
Maryland .................................................................................................................................................................. 27,724 23,104
Michigan ................................................................................................................................................................... 65,304 54,420
Minnesota ................................................................................................................................................................ 31,443 26,203
Mississippi ................................................................................................................................................................ 17,807 14,839
Missouri .................................................................................................................................................................... 59,871 49,892
New York ................................................................................................................................................................. 45,617 38,014
North Carolina .......................................................................................................................................................... 62,183 51,819
Ohio ......................................................................................................................................................................... 108,667 90,556
Pennsylvania ............................................................................................................................................................ 99,049 82,541
South Carolina ......................................................................................................................................................... 32,662 27,219
Tennessee ............................................................................................................................................................... 50,973 42,478
Texas ....................................................................................................................................................................... 181,014 150,845
Virginia ..................................................................................................................................................................... 36,074 30,062
West Virginia ............................................................................................................................................................ 74,220 61,850
Wisconsin ................................................................................................................................................................. 40,759 33,966
(3) For a State that complies with the SIP revision may allow sources required Compliance
requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this by the revision to implement control State supplement
section by imposing control measures measures to demonstrate compliance pool
on only non-EGUs, the amount of the using credit issued from the State’s
Louisiana .............................. 2,251
Annual Non-EGU NOX Reduction compliance supplement pool, as set Maryland ............................... 4,670
Requirement, in tons of NOX per year, forth in paragraph (e)(4)(ii) of this Michigan ............................... 8,347
shall be determined, for the State for section. Minnesota ............................. 6,528
2009 and thereafter, by subtracting the (ii) The State-by-State amounts of the Mississippi ............................ 3,066
amount of the State’s Annual EGU NOX compliance supplement pool are as Missouri ................................ 9,044
Budget for the appropriate year, follows: New York .............................. 0
North Carolina ...................... 0
specified in paragraph (e)(2) of this Ohio ...................................... 25,037
section from the amount of the State’s Compliance
State supplement Pennsylvania ........................ 16,009
NOX baseline EGU emissions inventory pool South Carolina ...................... 2,600
projected for the appropriate year, Tennessee ............................ 8,944
specified in Table 5 of ‘‘Regional and Alabama ................................ 10,166 Texas .................................... 772
State SO2 and NOX Budgets’’, March District of Columbia .............. 0 Virginia .................................. 5,134
Florida ................................... 8,335 West Virginia ........................ 16,929
2005 (available at http://www.epa.gov/
Georgia ................................. 12,397 Wisconsin ............................. 4,898
cleanairinterstaterule).
Illinois .................................... 11,299
(4)(i) Notwithstanding the State’s Indiana .................................. 20,155 (iii) The SIP revision may provide for
obligation to comply with paragraph Iowa ...................................... 6,978 the distribution of credits from the
(e)(2) or (3) of this section, the State’s Kentucky ............................... 14,935 compliance supplement pool to sources
that are required to implement control (2) The State shall issue credit to a adopt alternative requirements that
measures using one or both of the source only if the owners and operators ensure that the State will comply with
following two mechanisms: of the source demonstrate that: its requirements under paragraph (e) of
(A) The State may issue credit from (i) For a source used to generate this section, as applicable, in 2009 and
compliance supplement pool to sources electricity, implementation of the SIP subsequent years.
that are required by the SIP revision to revision’s applicable control measures (g)(1) Each SIP revision that contains
implement NOX emission control by 2009 would create undue risk for the control measures covering non-EGUs as
measures and that implement NOX reliability of the electricity supply. This part or all of a State’s obligation in
emission reductions in 2007 and 2008 demonstration must include a showing meeting its requirement under
that are not necessary to comply with that it would not be feasible for the paragraph (a)(1) of this section must
any State or federal emissions limitation owners and operators of the source to demonstrate that such control measures
applicable at any time during such obtain a sufficient amount of electricity, are adequate to provide for the timely
years. Such a source may be issued one to prevent such undue risk, from other compliance with the State’s Annual
credit from the compliance supplement electricity generation facilities during Non-EGU NOX Reduction Requirement
pool for each ton of such emission the installation of control technology at under paragraph (e) of this section and
reductions in 2007 and 2008. the source necessary to comply with the are not adopted or implemented by the
(1) The State shall complete the SIP revision. State, as of May 12, 2005, and are not
issuance process by January 1, 2010. (ii) For a source not used to generate adopted or implemented by the Federal
(2) The emissions reductions for electricity, compliance with the SIP government, as of the date of
which credits are issued must have been revision’s applicable control measures submission of the SIP revision by the
demonstrated by the owners and by 2009 would create undue risk for the State to EPA.
operators of the source to have occurred source or its associated industry to a (2) The demonstration under
during 2007 and 2008 and not to be degree that is comparable to the risk paragraph (g)(1) of this section must
necessary to comply with any described in paragraph (e)(4)(iii)(B)(2)(i) include the following, with respect to
applicable State or federal emissions of this section. each source category of non-EGUs for
limitation. (iii) This demonstration must include which the SIP revision requires control
(3) The emissions reductions for a showing that it would not be possible measures:
which credits are issued must have been for the source to comply with applicable (i) A detailed historical baseline
quantified by the owners and operators control measures by obtaining sufficient inventory of NOX mass emissions from
of the source: credits under paragraph (e)(4)(iii)(A) of
(i) For EGUs and for fossil-fuel-fired the source category in a representative
this section, or by acquiring sufficient year consisting, at the State’s election, of
non-EGUs that are boilers or combustion credits from other sources or persons, to
turbines with a maximum design heat 2002, 2003, 2004, or 2005, or an average
prevent undue risk. of 2 or more of those years, absent the
input greater than 250 mmBut/hr, using (f) Each SIP revision must set forth
emissions data determined in control measures specified in the SIP
control measures to meet the amounts revision.
accordance with subpart H of part 75 of specified in paragraph (e) of this
this chapter; and (A) This inventory must represent
section, as applicable, including the
(ii) For non-EGUs not described in estimates of actual emissions based on
following:
paragraph (e)(4)(iii)(A)(3)(i) of this monitoring data in accordance with
(1) A description of enforcement
section, using emissions data subpart H of part 75 of this chapter, if
methods including, but not limited to:
determined in accordance with subpart (i) Procedures for monitoring the source category is subject to
H of part 75 of this chapter or, if the compliance with each of the selected monitoring requirements in accordance
State demonstrates that compliance control measures; with subpart H of part 75 of this
with subpart H of part 75 of this chapter (ii) Procedures for handling chapter.
is not practicable, determined, to the violations; and (B) In the absence of monitoring data
extent practicable, with the same degree (iii) A designation of agency in accordance with subpart H of part 75
of assurance with which emissions data responsibility for enforcement of of this chapter, actual emissions must be
are determined for sources subject to implementation. quantified, to the maximum extent
subpart H of part 75. (2)(i) If a State elects to impose practicable, with the same degree of
(4) If the SIP revision contains control measures on EGUs, then those assurance with which emissions are
approved provisions for an emissions measures must impose an annual NOX quantified for sources subject to subpart
trading program, the owners and mass emissions cap on all such sources H of part 75 of this chapter and using
operators of sources that receive credit in the State. source-specific or source-category-
according to the requirements of this (ii) If a State elects to impose control specific assumptions that ensure a
paragraph may transfer the credit to measures on fossil fuel-fired non-EGUs source’s or source category’s actual
other sources or persons according to that are boilers or combustion turbines emissions are not overestimated. If a
the provisions in the emissions trading with a maximum design heat input State uses factors to estimate emissions,
program. greater than 250 mmBtu/hr, then those production or utilization, or
(B) The State may issue credit from measures must impose an annual NOX effectiveness of controls or rules for a
the compliance supplement pool to mass emissions cap on all such sources source category, such factors must be
sources that are required by the SIP in the State. chosen to ensure that emissions are not
revision to implement NOX emission (iii) If a State elects to impose control overestimated.
control measures and whose owners and measures on non-EGUs other than those (C) For measures to reduce emissions
operators demonstrate a need for an described in paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this from motor vehicles, emission estimates
extension, beyond 2009, of the deadline section, then those measures must must be based on an emissions model
for the source for implementing such impose an annual NOX mass emissions that has been approved by EPA for use
emission controls. cap on all such sources in the State or in SIP development and must be
(1) The State shall complete the the State must demonstrate why such consistent with the planning
issuance process by January 1, 2010. emissions cap is not practicable and assumptions regarding vehicle miles
traveled and other factors current at the or utilization, and emissions, to shift to turbines with a maximum design heat
time of the SIP development. unregulated or less stringently regulated input greater than 250 mmBtu/hr, then
(D) For measures to reduce emissions sources in the source category in the the SIP revision must require such
from nonroad engines or vehicles, same or another State, and these sources to comply with the monitoring,
emission estimates methodologies must inventories must include any such recordkeeping, and reporting provisions
be approved by EPA. amounts of emissions that may shift to of subpart H of part 75 of this chapter.
(ii) A detailed baseline inventory of such other sources. (iii) If the SIP revision contains
NOX mass emissions from the source (B) The State must provide EPA with measures to control any other non-EGUs
category in the years 2009 and 2015, a summary of the computations, that are not described in paragraph
absent the control measures specified in assumptions, and judgments used to (i)(4)(ii) of this section, then the SIP
the SIP revision and reflecting changes determine the degree of reduction in revision must require such sources to
in these emissions from the historical projected 2009 and 2015 NOX emissions comply with the monitoring,
baseline year to the years 2009 and that will be achieved from the recordkeeping, and reporting provisions
2015, based on projected changes in the implementation of the new control of subpart H of part 75 of this chapter,
production input or output, population, measures compared to the relevant or the State must demonstrate why such
vehicle miles traveled, economic baseline emissions inventory. requirements are not practicable and
activity, or other factors as applicable to (iv) The result of subtracting the adopt alternative requirements that
this source category. amounts in paragraph (g)(2)(iii) of this ensure that the required emissions
(A) These inventories must account section for 2009 and 2015, respectively, reductions will be quantified, to the
for implementation of any control from the lower of the amounts in maximum extent practicable, with the
measures that are otherwise required by paragraph (g)(2)(i) or (g)(2)(ii) of this same degree of assurance with which
final rules already promulgated, as of section for 2009 and 2015, respectively, emissions are quantified for sources
May 12, 2005, or adopted or may be credited towards the State’s subject to subpart H of part 75 of this
implemented by any federal agency, as Annual Non-EGU NOX Reduction chapter.
of the date of submission of the SIP Requirement in paragraph (e)(3) of this (j) Each SIP revision must show that
revision by the State to EPA, and must section for the appropriate period. the State has legal authority to carry out
exclude any control measures specified (v) Each SIP revision must identify the SIP revision, including authority to:
in the SIP revision to meet the NOX the sources of the data used in each (1) Adopt emissions standards and
emissions reduction requirements of estimate and each projection of limitations and any other measures
this section. emissions. necessary for attainment and
(B) Economic and population (h) Each SIP revision must comply maintenance of the State’s relevant
forecasts must be as specific as possible with § 51.116 (regarding data Annual EGU NOX Budget or the Annual
to the applicable industry, State, and availability). Non-EGU NOX Reduction Requirement,
county of the source or source category (i) Each SIP revision must provide for as applicable, under paragraph (e) of
and must be consistent with both monitoring the status of compliance this section;
national projections and relevant official with any control measures adopted to (2) Enforce applicable laws,
planning assumptions, including meet the State’s requirements under regulations, and standards and seek
estimates of population and vehicle paragraph (e) of this section as follows: injunctive relief;
miles traveled developed through (1) The SIP revision must provide for (3) Obtain information necessary to
consultation between State and local legally enforceable procedures for determine whether air pollution sources
transportation and air quality agencies. requiring owners or operators of are in compliance with applicable laws,
However, if these official planning stationary sources to maintain records regulations, and standards, including
assumptions are inconsistent with of, and periodically report to the State: authority to require recordkeeping and
official U.S. Census projections of (i) Information on the amount of NOX to make inspections and conduct tests of
population or with energy consumption emissions from the stationary sources; air pollution sources; and
projections contained in the U.S. and (4)(i) Require owners or operators of
Department of Energy’s most recent (ii) Other information as may be stationary sources to install, maintain,
Annual Energy Outlook, then the SIP necessary to enable the State to and use emissions monitoring devices
revision must make adjustments to determine whether the sources are in and to make periodic reports to the State
correct the inconsistency or must compliance with applicable portions of on the nature and amounts of emissions
demonstrate how the official planning the control measures; from such stationary sources; and
assumptions are more accurate. (2) The SIP revision must comply (ii) Make the data described in
(C) These inventories must account with § 51.212 (regarding testing, paragraph (j)(4)(i) of this section
for any changes in production method, inspection, enforcement, and available to the public within a
materials, fuels, or efficiency that are complaints); reasonable time after being reported and
expected to occur between the historical (3) If the SIP revision contains any as correlated with any applicable
baseline year and 2009 or 2015, as transportation control measures, then emissions standards or limitations.
appropriate. the SIP revision must comply with (k)(1) The provisions of law or
(iii) A projection of NOX mass § 51.213 (regarding transportation regulation that the State determines
emissions in 2009 and 2015 from the control measures); provide the authorities required under
source category assuming the same (4)(i) If the SIP revision contains this section must be specifically
projected changes as under paragraph measures to control EGUs, then the SIP identified, and copies of such laws or
(g)(2)(ii) of this section and resulting revision must require such sources to regulations must be submitted with the
from implementation of each of the comply with the monitoring, SIP revision.
control measures specified in the SIP recordkeeping, and reporting provisions (2) Legal authority adequate to fulfill
revision. of subpart H of part 75 of this chapter. the requirements of paragraphs (j)(3)
(A) These inventories must address (ii) If the SIP revision contains and (4) of this section may be delegated
the possibility that the State’s new measures to control fossil fuel-fired non- to the State under section 114 of the
control measures may cause production EGUs that are boilers or combustion CAA.
(l)(1) A SIP revision may assign legal (B) The State’s methodology must (1)(i) The Ozone Season EGU NOX
authority to local agencies in require that, for EGUs commencing Budget for the State is defined as the
accordance with § 51.232. operation before January 1, 2001, the total amount of NOX emissions from all
(2) Each SIP revision must comply State will determine, and notify the EGUs in that State for an ozone season,
with § 51.240 (regarding general plan Administrator of, each unit’s allocation if the State meets the requirements of
requirements). of CAIR NOX allowances by October 31, paragraph (a)(2) of this section by
(m) Each SIP revision must comply 2006 for 2009, 2010, and 2011 and by imposing control measures, at least in
with § 51.280 (regarding resources). October 31, 2008 and October 31 of each part, on EGUs. If the State imposes
(n) Each SIP revision must provide for year thereafter for the year after the year control measures under this section on
State compliance with the reporting of the notification deadline; and only EGUs, the Ozone Season EGU NOX
requirements in § 51.125. (C) The State’s methodology must Budget for the State shall not exceed the
(o)(1) Notwithstanding any other require that, for EGUs commencing amount, during the indicated periods,
provision of this section, if a State operation on or after January 1, 2001, specified in paragraph (q)(2) of this
adopts regulations substantively the State will determine, and notify the section.
identical to subparts AA through II of Administrator of, each unit’s allocation
part 96 of this chapter (CAIR NOX (ii) The Ozone Season Non-EGU NOX
of CAIR NOX allowances by October 31 Reduction Requirement, if applicable, is
Annual Trading Program), incorporates of the year for which the CAIR NOX
such subparts by reference into its defined as the total amount of NOX
allowances are allocated. emission reductions that the State
regulations, or adopts regulations that (3) A State that adopts an emissions
differ substantively from such subparts demonstrates, in accordance with
trading program in accordance with paragraph (s) of this section, it will
only as set forth in paragraph (o)(2) of paragraph (o)(1) or (2) of this section is
this section, then such emissions achieve from non-EGUs during the
not required to adopt an emissions appropriate period. If the State meets
trading program in the State’s SIP trading program in accordance with
revision is automatically approved as the requirements of paragraph (a)(2) of
paragraph (aa)(1) or (2) of this section or this section by imposing control
meeting the requirements of paragraph § 96.124(o)(1) or (2).
(e) of this section, provided that the measures on only non-EGUs, then the
(4) If a State adopts an emissions State’s Ozone Season Non-EGU NOX
State has the legal authority to take such trading program that differs
action and to implement its Reduction Requirement shall equal or
substantively from subparts AA through exceed, during the appropriate periods,
responsibilities under such regulations. HH of part 96 of this chapter, other than
(2) If a State adopts an emissions the amount determined in accordance
as set forth in paragraph (o)(2) of this with paragraph (q)(3) of this section.
trading program that differs
section, then such emissions trading (iii) If a State meets the requirements
substantively from subparts AA through
program is not automatically approved of paragraph (a)(2) of this section by
II of part 96 of this chapter only as
as set forth in paragraph (o)(1) or (2) of imposing control measures on both
follows, then the emissions trading
this section and will be reviewed by the EGUs and non-EGUs, then:
program is approved as set forth in
Administrator for approvability in
paragraph (o)(1) of this section. (A) The Ozone Season Non-EGU NOX
(i) The State may decline to adopt the accordance with the other provisions of
this section, provided that the NOX Reduction Requirement shall equal or
CAIR NOX opt-in provisions of: exceed the difference between the
(A) Subpart II of this part and the allowances issued under such emissions
trading program shall not, and the SIP amount specified in paragraph (q)(2) of
provisions applicable only to CAIR NOX this section for the appropriate period
opt-in units in subparts AA through HH revision shall state that such NOX
allowances shall not, qualify as CAIR and the amount of the State’s Ozone
of this part; Season EGU NOX Budget specified in
(B) Section 96.188(b) of this chapter NOX allowances or CAIR NOX Ozone
Season allowances under any emissions the SIP revision for the appropriate
and the provisions of subpart II of this period; and
part applicable only to CAIR NOX opt- trading program approved under
in units under § 96.188(b); or paragraphs (o)(1) or (2) or (aa)(1) or (2) (B) The Ozone Season EGU NOX
(C) Section 96.188(c) of this chapter of this section. Budget shall not exceed, during the
and the provisions of subpart II of this (p) [Reserved] indicated periods, the amount specified
part applicable only to CAIR NOX opt- (q) The State’s SIP revision shall in paragraph (e)(2) of this section plus
in units under § 96.188(c). contain control measures and the amount of the Ozone Season Non-
(ii) The State may decline to adopt the demonstrate that they will result in EGU NOX Reduction Requirement under
allocation provisions set forth in subpart compliance with the State’s Ozone paragraph (q)(1)(iii)(A) of this section
EE of part 96 of this chapter and may Season EGU NOX Budget, if applicable, for the appropriate period.
instead adopt any methodology for and achieve the State’s Ozone Season (2) For a State that complies with the
allocating CAIR NOX allowances to Non-EGU NOX Reduction Requirement, requirements of paragraph (a)(2) of this
individual sources, as follows: if applicable, for the appropriate section by imposing control measures
(A) The State’s methodology must not periods. The amounts of the State’s on only EGUs, the amount of the Ozone
allow the State to allocate CAIR NOX Ozone Season EGU NOX Budget and Season EGU NOX Budget, in tons of
allowances for a year in excess of the Ozone Season Non-EGU NOX Reduction NOX per ozone season, shall be as
amount in the State’s Annual EGU NOX Requirement shall be determined as follows, for the indicated State for the
Budget for such year; follows: indicated period:
Ozone season
Ozone season EGU NOX
EGU NOX budget for
State budget for 2015 and
2009–2014 thereafter
(tons) (tons)
Alabama ................................................................................................................................................................... 32,182 26,818
Ozone season
Ozone season EGU NOX
EGU NOX budget for
State budget for 2015 and
2009–2014 thereafter
(tons) (tons)
Arkansas .................................................................................................................................................................. 11,515 9,596

Connecticut .............................................................................................................................................................. 2,559 2,559
Delaware .................................................................................................................................................................. 2,226 1,855
District of Columbia ................................................................................................................................................. 112 94
Florida ...................................................................................................................................................................... 47,912 39,926
Illinois ....................................................................................................................................................................... 30,701 28,981
Indiana ..................................................................................................................................................................... 45,952 39,273
Iowa ......................................................................................................................................................................... 14,263 11,886
Kentucky .................................................................................................................................................................. 36,045 30,587
Louisiana .................................................................................................................................................................. 17,085 14,238
Maryland .................................................................................................................................................................. 12,834 10,695
Massachusetts ......................................................................................................................................................... 7,551 6,293
Michigan ................................................................................................................................................................... 28,971 24,142
Mississippi ................................................................................................................................................................ 8,714 7,262
Missouri .................................................................................................................................................................... 26,678 22,231
New Jersey .............................................................................................................................................................. 6,654 5,545
New York ................................................................................................................................................................. 20,632 17,193
North Carolina .......................................................................................................................................................... 28,392 23,660
Ohio ......................................................................................................................................................................... 45,664 39,945
Pennsylvania ............................................................................................................................................................ 42,171 35,143
South Carolina ......................................................................................................................................................... 15,249 12,707
Tennessee ............................................................................................................................................................... 22,842 19,035
Virginia ..................................................................................................................................................................... 15,994 13,328
West Virginia ............................................................................................................................................................ 26,859 26,525
Wisconsin ................................................................................................................................................................. 17,987 14,989
(3) For a State that complies with the specified in paragraph (q) of this this section, as applicable, in 2009 and
requirements of paragraph (a)(2) of this section, as applicable, including the subsequent years.
section by imposing control measures following: (s)(1) Each SIP revision that contains
on only non-EGUs, the amount of the (1) A description of enforcement control measures covering non-EGUs as
Ozone Season Non-EGU NOX Reduction methods including, but not limited to: part or all of a State’s obligation in
Requirement, in tons of NOX per ozone (i) Procedures for monitoring meeting its requirement under
season, shall be determined, for the compliance with each of the selected paragraph (a)(2) of this section must
State for 2009 and thereafter, by control measures; demonstrate that such control measures
subtracting the amount of the State’s (ii) Procedures for handling are adequate to provide for the timely
Ozone Season EGU NOX Budget for the violations; and compliance with the State’s Ozone
appropriate year, specified in paragraph (iii) A designation of agency Season Non-EGU NOX Reduction
(e)(2) of this section, from the amount of responsibility for enforcement of Requirement under paragraph (q) of this
the State’s NOX baseline EGU emissions implementation. section and are not adopted or
inventory projected for the ozone season implemented by the State, as of May 12,
(2)(i) If a State elects to impose
in the appropriate year, specified in 2005, and are not adopted or
control measures on EGUs, then those
Table 7 of ‘‘Regional and State SO2 and implemented by the federal government,
measures must impose an ozone season
NOX Budgets’’, March 2005 (available as of the date of submission of the SIP
NOX mass emissions cap on all such
at: http://www.epa.gov/ revision by the State to EPA.
sources in the State. (2) The demonstration under
cleanairinterstaterule). (ii) If a State elects to impose control paragraph (s)(1) of this section must
(4) Notwithstanding the State’s measures on fossil fuel-fired non-EGUs include the following, with respect to
obligation to comply with paragraph that are boilers or combustion turbines each source category of non-EGUs for
(q)(2) or (3) of this section, the State’s with a maximum design heat input which the SIP revision requires control
SIP revision may allow sources required greater than 250 mmBtu/hr, then those measures:
by the revision to implement NOX measures must impose an ozone season (i) A detailed historical baseline
emission control measures to NOX mass emissions cap on all such inventory of NOX mass emissions from
demonstrate compliance using NOX SIP sources in the State. the source category in a representative
Call allowances allocated under the (iii) If a State elects to impose control ozone season consisting, at the State’s
NOX Budget Trading Program for any measures on non-EGUs other than those election, of the ozone season in 2002,
ozone season during 2003 through 2008 described in paragraph (r)(2)(ii) of this 2003, 2004, or 2005, or an average of 2
that have not been deducted by the section, then those measures must or more of those ozone seasons, absent
Administrator under the NOX Budget impose an ozone season NOX mass the control measures specified in the
Trading Program, if the SIP revision emissions cap on all such sources in the SIP revision.
ensures that such allowances will not be State or the State must demonstrate why (A) This inventory must represent
available for such deduction under the such emissions cap is not practicable estimates of actual emissions based on
NOX Budget Trading Program. and adopt alternative requirements that monitoring data in accordance with
(r) Each SIP revision must set forth ensure that the State will comply with subpart H of part 75 of this chapter, if
control measures to meet the amounts its requirements under paragraph (q) of the source category is subject to
monitoring requirements in accordance However, if these official planning meet the State’s requirements under
with subpart H of part 75 of this assumptions are inconsistent with paragraph (q) of this section as follows:
chapter. official U.S. Census projections of (1) The SIP revision must provide for
(B) In the absence of monitoring data population or with energy consumption legally enforceable procedures for
in accordance with subpart H of part 75 projections contained in the U.S. requiring owners or operators of
of this chapter, actual emissions must be Department of Energy’s most recent stationary sources to maintain records
quantified, to the maximum extent Annual Energy Outlook, then the SIP of, and periodically report to the State:
practicable, with the same degree of revision must make adjustments to (i) Information on the amount of NOX
assurance with which emissions are correct the inconsistency or must emissions from the stationary sources;
quantified for sources subject to subpart demonstrate how the official planning and
H of part 75 of this chapter and using assumptions are more accurate. (ii) Other information as may be
source-specific or source-category- (C) These inventories must account necessary to enable the State to
specific assumptions that ensure a for any changes in production method, determine whether the sources are in
source’s or source category’s actual materials, fuels, or efficiency that are compliance with applicable portions of
emissions are not overestimated. If a expected to occur between the historical the control measures;
State uses factors to estimate emissions, baseline ozone season and ozone season (2) The SIP revision must comply
production or utilization, or 2009 or ozone season 2015, as with § 51.212 (regarding testing,
effectiveness of controls or rules for a appropriate. inspection, enforcement, and
source category, such factors must be (iii) A projection of NOX mass complaints);
chosen to ensure that emissions are not emissions in ozone season 2009 and (3) If the SIP revision contains any
overestimated. ozone season 2015 from the source transportation control measures, then
(C) For measures to reduce emissions category assuming the same projected the SIP revision must comply with
from motor vehicles, emission estimates changes as under paragraph (s)(2)(ii) of § 51.213 (regarding transportation
must be based on an emissions model this section and resulting from control measures);
that has been approved by EPA for use implementation of each of the control (4)(i) If the SIP revision contains
in SIP development and must be measures specified in the SIP revision. measures to control EGUs, then the SIP
consistent with the planning
(A) These inventories must address revision must require such sources to
assumptions regarding vehicle miles
the possibility that the State’s new comply with the monitoring,
traveled and other factors current at the
control measures may cause production recordkeeping, and reporting provisions
time of the SIP development.
(D) For measures to reduce emissions or utilization, and emissions, to shift to of subpart H of part 75 of this chapter.
from nonroad engines or vehicles, unregulated or less stringently regulated (ii) If the SIP revision contains
emission estimates methodologies must sources in the source category in the measures to control fossil fuel-fired non-
be approved by EPA. same or another State, and these EGUs that are boilers or combustion
(ii) A detailed baseline inventory of inventories must include any such turbines with a maximum design heat
NOX mass emissions from the source amounts of emissions that may shift to input greater than 250 mmBtu/hr, then
category in ozone seasons 2009 and such other sources. the SIP revision must require such
2015, absent the control measures (B) The State must provide EPA with sources to comply with the monitoring,
specified in the SIP revision and a summary of the computations, recordkeeping, and reporting provisions
reflecting changes in these emissions assumptions, and judgments used to of subpart H of part 75 of this chapter.
from the historical baseline ozone determine the degree of reduction in (iii) If the SIP revision contains
season to the ozone seasons 2009 and projected ozone season 2009 and ozone measures to control any other non-EGUs
2015, based on projected changes in the season 2015 NOX emissions that will be that are not described in paragraph
production input or output, population, achieved from the implementation of (u)(4)(ii) of this section, then the SIP
vehicle miles traveled, economic the new control measures compared to revision must require such sources to
activity, or other factors as applicable to the relevant baseline emissions comply with the monitoring,
this source category. inventory. recordkeeping, and reporting provisions
(A) These inventories must account (iv) The result of subtracting the of subpart H of part 75 of this chapter,
for implementation of any control amounts in paragraph (s)(2)(iii) of this or the State must demonstrate why such
measures that are adopted or section for ozone season 2009 and ozone requirements are not practicable and
implemented by the State, as of May 12, season 2015, respectively, from the adopt alternative requirements that
2005, or adopted or implemented by the lower of the amounts in paragraph ensure that the required emissions
federal government, as of the date of (s)(2)(i) or (s)(2)(ii) of this section for reductions will be quantified, to the
submission of the SIP revision by the ozone season 2009 and ozone season maximum extent practicable, with the
State to EPA, and must exclude any 2015, respectively, may be credited same degree of assurance with which
control measures specified in the SIP towards the State’s Ozone Season Non- emissions are quantified for sources
revision to meet the NOX emissions EGU NOX Reduction Requirement in subject to subpart H of part 75 of this
reduction requirements of this section. paragraph (q)(3) of this section for the chapter.
(B) Economic and population appropriate period. (v) Each SIP revision must show that
forecasts must be as specific as possible (v) Each SIP revision must identify the State has legal authority to carry out
to the applicable industry, State, and the sources of the data used in each the SIP revision, including authority to:
county of the source or source category estimate and each projection of (1) Adopt emissions standards and
and must be consistent with both emissions. limitations and any other measures
national projections and relevant official (t) Each SIP revision must comply necessary for attainment and
planning assumptions including with § 51.116 (regarding data maintenance of the State’s relevant
estimates of population and vehicle availability). Ozone Season EGU NOX Budget or the
miles traveled developed through (u) Each SIP revision must provide for Ozone Season Non-EGU NOX Reduction
consultation between State and local monitoring the status of compliance Requirement, as applicable, under
transportation and air quality agencies. with any control measures adopted to paragraph (q) of this section;
(2) Enforce applicable laws, trading program is approved as set forth the State will determine, and notify the
regulations, and standards and seek in paragraph (aa)(1) of this section. Administrator of, each unit’s allocation
injunctive relief; (i) The State may expand the of CAIR Ozone Season NOX allowances
(3) Obtain information necessary to applicability provisions in § 96.304 to by July 31 of the calendar year of the
determine whether air pollution sources include all non-EGUs subject to the ozone season for which the CAIR Ozone
are in compliance with applicable laws, State’s emissions trading program Season NOX allowances are allocated.
regulations, and standards, including approved under § 51.121(p). (3) A State that adopts an emissions
authority to require recordkeeping and (ii) The State may decline to adopt the trading program in accordance with
to make inspections and conduct tests of CAIR NOX Ozone Season opt-in paragraph (aa)(1) or (2) of this section is
air pollution sources; and provisions of: not required to adopt an emissions
(4)(i) Require owners or operators of (A) Subpart IIII of this part and the trading program in accordance with
stationary sources to install, maintain, provisions applicable only to CAIR NOX paragraph (o)(1) or (2) of this section or
and use emissions monitoring devices Ozone Season opt-in units in subparts § 51.153(o)(1) or (2).
and to make periodic reports to the State AAAA through HHHH of this part; (4) If a State adopts an emissions
on the nature and amounts of emissions (B) Section 96.388(b) of this chapter trading program that differs
from such stationary sources; and and the provisions of subpart IIII of this substantively from subparts AAAA
(ii) Make the data described in part applicable only to CAIR NOX through IIII of part 96 of this chapter,
paragraph (v)(4)(i) of this section Ozone Season opt-in units under other than as set forth in paragraph
available to the public within a § 96.388(b); or (aa)(2) of this section, then such
reasonable time after being reported and (C) Section 96.388(c) of this chapter emissions trading program is not
as correlated with any applicable and the provisions of subpart IIII of this automatically approved as set forth in
emissions standards or limitations. part applicable only to CAIR NOX paragraph (aa)(1) or (2) of this section
(w)(1) The provisions of law or Ozone Season opt-in units under and will be reviewed by the
regulation that the State determines § 96.388(c). Administrator for approvability in
provide the authorities required under (iii) The State may decline to adopt accordance with the other provisions of
this section must be specifically the allocation provisions set forth in this section, provided that the NOX
identified, and copies of such laws or subpart EEEE of part 96 of this chapter allowances issued under such emissions
regulations must be submitted with the and may instead adopt any methodology trading program shall not, and the SIP
SIP revision. for allocating CAIR NOX Ozone Season revision shall state that such NOX
(2) Legal authority adequate to fulfill allowances to individual sources, as allowances shall not, qualify as CAIR
the requirements of paragraphs (v)(3) follows: NOX allowances or CAIR Ozone Season
and (4) of this section may be delegated (A) The State may provide for NOX allowances under any emissions
to the State under section 114 of the issuance of an amount of CAIR Ozone trading program approved under
CAA. Season NOX allowances for an ozone paragraphs (o)(1) or (2) or (aa)(1) or (2)
(x)(1) A SIP revision may assign legal season, in addition to the amount in the of this section.
authority to local agencies in State’s Ozone Season EGU NOX Budget (bb)(1)(i) The State may revise its SIP
accordance with § 51.232. for such ozone season, not exceeding to provide that, for each ozone season
(2) Each SIP revision must comply the amount of NOX SIP Call allowances during which a State implements
with § 51.240 (regarding general plan allocated for the ozone season under the control measures on EGUs or non-EGUs
requirements). NOX Budget Trading Program to non- through an emissions trading program
(y) Each SIP revision must comply EGUs that the applicability provisions approved under paragraph (aa)(1) or (2)
with § 51.280 (regarding resources). in § 96.304 are expanded to include of this section, such EGUs and non-
(z) Each SIP revision must provide for under paragraph (aa)(2)(i) of this EGUs shall not be subject to the
State compliance with the reporting section; requirements of the State’s SIP meeting
requirements in § 51.125. (B) The State’s methodology must not the requirements of § 51.121, if the State
(aa)(1) Notwithstanding any other allow the State to allocate CAIR Ozone meets the requirement in paragraph
provision of this section, if a State Season NOX allowances for an ozone (bb)(1)(ii) of this section.
adopts regulations substantively season in excess of the amount in the (ii) For a State under paragraph
identical to subparts AAAA through IIII State’s Ozone Season EGU NOX Budget (bb)(1)(i) of this section, if the State’s
of part 96 of this chapter (CAIR Ozone for such ozone season plus any amount of tons specified in paragraph
Season NOX Trading Program), additional amount of CAIR Ozone (q)(2) of this section exceeds the State’s
incorporates such subparts by reference Season NOX allowances issued under amount of NOX SIP Call allowances
into its regulations, or adopts paragraph (aa)(2)(iii)(A) of this section allocated for the ozone season in 2009
regulations that differ substantively for such ozone season; or in any year thereafter for the same
from such subparts only as set forth in (C) The State’s methodology must types and sizes of units as those covered
paragraph (aa)(2) of this section, then require that, for EGUs commencing by the amount of tons specified in
such emissions trading program in the operation before January 1, 2001, the paragraph (q)(2) of this section, then the
State’s SIP revision is automatically State will determine, and notify the State must replace the former amount
approved as meeting the requirements Administrator of, each unit’s allocation for such ozone season by the latter
of paragraph (q) of this section, of CAIR NOX allowances by October 31, amount for such ozone season in
provided that the State has the legal 2006 for the ozone seasons 2009, 2010, applying paragraph (q) of this section.
authority to take such action and to and 2011 and by October 31, 2008 and (2) Rhode Island may revise its SIP to
implement its responsibilities under October 31 of each year thereafter for provide that, for each ozone season
such regulations. the ozone season in the 4th year after during which Rhode Island implements
(2) If a State adopts an emissions the year of the notification deadline; control measures on EGUs and non-
trading program that differs and EGUs through an emissions trading
substantively from subparts AAAA (D) The State’s methodology must program adopted in regulations that
through IIII of part 96 of this chapter require that, for EGUs commencing differ substantively from subparts
only as follows, then the emissions operation on or after January 1, 2001, AAAA through IIII of part 96 of this
chapter as set forth in this paragraph, under paragraph (bb)(2) of this section, the combustion of fuel in the combustor
such EGUs and non-EGUs shall not be if the State’s or Rhode Island’s SIP that, passes through the turbine, rotating the
subject to the requirements of the State’s without such SIP revision, imposes turbine; and
SIP meeting the requirements of control measures on EGUs or non-EGUs (2) If the enclosed device under
§ 51.121. under § 51.121 is determined by the paragraph (1) of this definition is
(i) Rhode Island must expand the Administrator to meet the requirements combined cycle, any associated heat
applicability provisions in § 96.304 to of § 51.121, such SIP shall be deemed to recovery steam generator and steam
include all non-EGUs subject to Rhode continue to meet the requirements of turbine.
Island’s emissions trading program § 51.121. Commence operation means to have
approved under § 51.121(p). (cc) The terms used in this section begun any mechanical, chemical, or
(ii) Rhode Island may decline to adopt shall have the following meanings: electronic process, including, with
the CAIR NOX Ozone Season opt-in Administrator means the regard to a unit, start-up of a unit’s
provisions of: Administrator of the United States combustion chamber.
(A) Subpart IIII of this part and the Environmental Protection Agency or the Electric generating unit or EGU
provisions applicable only to CAIR NOX Administrator’s duly authorized means:
Ozone Season opt-in units in subparts representative. (1) Except as provided in paragraph
AAAA through HHHH of this part; Allocate or allocation means, with (2) of this definition, a stationary, fossil-
(B) Section 96.388(b) of this chapter regard to allowances, the determination fuel-fired boiler or stationary, fossil-
and the provisions of subpart IIII of this of the amount of allowances to be fuel-fired combustion turbine serving at
part applicable only to CAIR NOX initially credited to a source. any time, since the start-up of the unit’s
Ozone Season opt-in units under Boiler means an enclosed fossil- or combustion chamber, a generator with
§ 96.388(b); or other-fuel-fired combustion device used nameplate capacity of more than 25
(C) Section 96.388(c) of this chapter to produce heat and to transfer heat to MWe producing electricity for sale.
and the provisions of subpart IIII of this recirculating water, steam, or other (2) For a unit that qualifies as a
part applicable only to CAIR NOX medium. cogeneration unit during the 12-month
Ozone Season opt-in units under Bottoming-cycle cogeneration unit period starting on the date the unit first
§ 96.388(c). means a cogeneration unit in which the produces electricity and continues to
(iii) Rhode Island may adopt the energy input to the unit is first used to qualify as a cogeneration unit, a
allocation provisions set forth in subpart produce useful thermal energy and at cogeneration unit serving at any time a
EEEE of part 96 of this chapter, least some of the reject heat from the generator with nameplate capacity of
provided that Rhode Island must useful thermal energy application or more than 25 MWe and supplying in
provide for issuance of an amount of process is then used for electricity any calendar year more than one-third
CAIR Ozone Season NOX allowances for production. of the unit’s potential electric output
an ozone season not exceeding 936 tons Clean Air Act or CAA means the capacity or 219,000 MWh, whichever is
for 2009 and thereafter; Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
(iv) Rhode Island may adopt any greater, to any utility power distribution
Cogeneration unit means a stationary,
methodology for allocating CAIR NOX system for sale. If a unit qualifies as a
fossil-fuel-fired boiler or stationary,
Ozone Season allowances to individual cogeneration unit during the 12-month
fossil-fuel-fired combustion turbine:
sources, as follows: period starting on the date the unit first
(1) Having equipment used to produce
(A) Rhode Island’s methodology must produces electricity but subsequently no
electricity and useful thermal energy for
not allow Rhode Island to allocate CAIR longer qualifies as a cogeneration unit,
industrial, commercial, heating, or
Ozone Season NOX allowances for an the unit shall be subject to paragraph (1)
cooling purposes through the sequential
ozone season in excess of 936 tons for of this definition starting on the day on
use of energy; and
2009 and thereafter; (2) Producing during the 12-month which the unit first no longer qualifies
(B) Rhode Island’s methodology must period starting on the date the unit first as a cogeneration unit.
require that, for EGUs commencing produces electricity and during any Fossil fuel means natural gas,
operation before January 1, 2001, Rhode calendar year after which the unit first petroleum, coal, or any form of solid,
Island will determine, and notify the produces electricity— liquid, or gaseous fuel derived from
Administrator of, each unit’s allocation (i) For a topping-cycle cogeneration such material.
of CAIR NOX allowances by October 31, unit, Fossil-fuel-fired means, with regard to
2006 for the ozone seasons 2009, 2010, (A) Useful thermal energy not less a unit, combusting any amount of fossil
and 2011 and by October 31, 2008 and than 5 percent of total energy output; fuel in any calendar year.
October 31 of each year thereafter for and Generator means a device that
the ozone season in the 4th year after (B) Useful power that, when added to produces electricity.
the year of the notification deadline; one-half of useful thermal energy Maximum design heat input means:
and produced, is not less then 42.5 percent (1) Starting from the initial
(C) Rhode Island’s methodology must of total energy input, if useful thermal installation of a unit, the maximum
require that, for EGUs commencing energy produced is 15 percent or more amount of fuel per hour (in Btu/hr) that
operation on or after January 1, 2001, of total energy output, or not less than a unit is capable of combusting on a
Rhode Island will determine, and notify 45 percent of total energy input, if steady state basis as specified by the
the Administrator of, each unit’s useful thermal energy produced is less manufacturer of the unit;
allocation of CAIR Ozone Season NOX than 15 percent of total energy output. (2)(i) Except as provided in paragraph
allowances by July 31 of the calendar (ii) For a bottoming-cycle (2)(ii) of this definition, starting from
year of the ozone season for which the cogeneration unit, useful power not less the completion of any subsequent
CAIR Ozone Season NOX allowances are than 45 percent of total energy input. physical change in the unit resulting in
allocated. Combustion turbine means: an increase in the maximum amount of
(3) Notwithstanding a SIP revision by (1) An enclosed device comprising a fuel per hour (in Btu/hr) that a unit is
a State authorized under paragraph compressor, a combustor, and a turbine capable of combusting on a steady state
(bb)(1) of this section or by Rhode Island and in which the flue gas resulting from basis, such increased maximum amount
as specified by the person conducting (2) For a bottoming-cycle cogeneration (2) New Hampshire may decline to
the physical change; or unit, the use of reject heat from useful adopt the CAIR NOX Ozone Season opt-
(ii) For purposes of applying the thermal energy application or process in in provisions of:
definition of the term ‘‘potential electricity production. (i) Subpart IIII of this part and the
electrical output capacity,’’ starting from Topping-cycle cogeneration unit provisions applicable only to CAIR NOX
the completion of any subsequent means a cogeneration unit in which the Ozone Season opt-in units in subparts
physical change in the unit resulting in energy input to the unit is first used to AAAA through HHHH of this part;
a decrease in the maximum amount of produce useful power, including (ii) Section 96.388(b) of this chapter
fuel per hour (in Btu/hr) that a unit is electricity, and at least some of the and the provisions of subpart IIII of this
capable of combusting on a steady state reject heat from the electricity part applicable only to CAIR NOX
basis, such decreased maximum amount production is then used to provide Ozone Season opt-in units under
as specified by the person conducting useful thermal energy. § 96.388(b); or
the physical change. Total energy input means, with regard (iii) Section 96.388(c) of this chapter
NAAQS means National Ambient Air to a cogeneration unit, total energy of all and the provisions of subpart IIII of this
Quality Standard. forms supplied to the cogeneration unit, part applicable only to CAIR NOX
Nameplate capacity means, starting excluding energy produced by the Ozone Season opt-in units under
from the initial installation of a cogeneration unit itself. § 96.388(c).
generator, the maximum electrical (3) New Hampshire may adopt the
Total energy output means, with
generating output (in MWe) that the allocation provisions set forth in subpart
regard to a cogeneration unit, the sum
generator is capable of producing on a EEEE of part 96 of this chapter,
of useful power and useful thermal
steady state basis and during continuous provided that New Hampshire must
energy produced by the cogeneration
operation (when not restricted by provide for issuance of an amount of
unit.
seasonal or other deratings) as specified CAIR Ozone Season NOX allowances for
by the manufacturer of the generator or, Unit means a stationary, fossil-fuel- an ozone season not exceeding 3,000
starting from the completion of any fired boiler or a stationary, fossil-fuel- tons for 2009 and thereafter;
subsequent physical change in the fired combustion turbine. (4) New Hampshire may adopt any
generator resulting in an increase in the Useful power means, with regard to a methodology for allocating CAIR NOX
maximum electrical generating output cogeneration unit, electricity or Ozone Season allowances to individual
(in MWe) that the generator is capable mechanical energy made available for sources, as follows:
of producing on a steady state basis and use, excluding any such energy used in (i) New Hampshire’s methodology
during continuous operation (when not the power production process (which must not allow New Hampshire to
restricted by seasonal or other process includes, but is not limited to, allocate CAIR Ozone Season NOX
deratings), such increased maximum any on-site processing or treatment of allowances for an ozone season in
amount as specified by the person fuel combusted at the unit and any on- excess of 3,000 tons for 2009 and
conducting the physical change. site emission controls). thereafter;
Non-EGU means a source of NOX Useful thermal energy means, with (ii) New Hampshire’s methodology
emissions that is not an EGU. regard to a cogeneration unit, thermal must require that, for EGUs
NOX Budget Trading Program means energy that is: commencing operation before January 1,
a multi-state nitrogen oxides air (1) Made available to an industrial or 2001, New Hampshire will determine,
pollution control and emission commercial process, excluding any heat and notify the Administrator of, each
reduction program approved and contained in condensate return or unit’s allocation of CAIR NOX
administered by the Administrator in makeup water; allowances by October 31, 2006 for the
accordance with subparts A through I of (2) Used in a heat application (e.g., ozone seasons 2009, 2010, and 2011 and
this part and § 51.121, as a means of space heating or domestic hot water by October 31, 2008 and October 31 of
mitigating interstate transport of ozone heating); or each year thereafter for the ozone season
and nitrogen oxides. (3) Used in a space cooling in the 4th year after the year of the
NOX SIP Call allowance means a application (i.e., thermal energy used by notification deadline; and
limited authorization issued by the an absorption chiller). (iii) New Hampshire’s methodology
Administrator under the NOX Budget must require that, for EGUs
Utility power distribution system
Trading Program to emit up to one ton commencing operation on or after
means the portion of an electricity grid
of nitrogen oxides during the ozone January 1, 2001, New Hampshire will
owned or operated by a utility and
season of the specified year or any year determine, and notify the Administrator
dedicated to delivering electricity to
thereafter, provided that the provision of, each unit’s allocation of CAIR Ozone
customers.
in § 51.121(b)(2)(ii)(E) shall not be used Season NOX allowances by July 31 of
in applying this definition. (dd) New Hampshire may revise its
SIP to implements control measures on the calendar year of the ozone season for
Ozone season means the period, which the CAIR Ozone Season NOX
which begins May 1 and ends EGUs and non-EGUs through an
emissions trading program adopted in allowances are allocated.
September 30 of any year. ■ 5. Part 51 is amended by adding
Potential electrical output capacity regulations that differ substantively
from subparts AAAA through IIII of part § 51.124 to Subpart G to read as follows:
means 33 percent of a unit’s maximum
design heat input, divided by 3,413 Btu/ 96 of this chapter as set forth in this § 51.124 Findings and requirements for
kWh, divided by 1,000 kWh/MWh, and paragraph. submission of State implementation plan
multiplied by 8,760 hr/yr. (1) New Hampshire must expand the revisions relating to emissions of sulfur
Sequential use of energy means: applicability provisions in § 96.304 of dioxide pursuant to the Clean Air Interstate
(1) For a topping-cycle cogeneration this chapter to include all non-EGUs Rule.
unit, the use of reject heat from subject to New Hampshire’s emissions (a) Under section 110(a)(1) of the
electricity production in a useful trading program at New Hampshire CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(1), the
thermal energy application or process; Code of Administrative Rules, chapter Administrator determines that each
or Env-A 3200 (2004). State identified in paragraph (c) of this
section must submit a SIP revision to (2) The requirements of appendix V to paragraph (g) of this section, it will
comply with the requirements of section this part shall apply to the SIP revision achieve from non-EGUs during the
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. under paragraph (a) of this section. appropriate period. If the State meets
7410(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), through the adoption (3) The State shall deliver 5 copies of the requirements of paragraph (a) of this
of adequate provisions prohibiting the SIP revision under paragraph (a) of section by imposing control measures
sources and other activities from this section to the appropriate Regional on only non-EGUs, then the State’s
emitting SO2 in amounts that will Office, with a letter giving notice of Annual Non-EGU SO2 Reduction
contribute significantly to such action. Requirement shall equal or exceed,
nonattainment in, or interfere with (e) The State’s SIP revision shall during the appropriate periods, the
maintenance by, one or more other contain control measures and amount determined in accordance with
States with respect to the fine particles demonstrate that they will result in paragraph (e)(3) of this section.
(PM2.5) NAAQS. compliance with the State’s Annual (iii) If a State meets the requirements
(b) For each State identified in EGU SO2 Budget, if applicable, and of paragraph (a) of this section by
paragraph (c) of this section, the SIP achieve the State’s Annual Non-EGU imposing control measures on both
revision required under paragraph (a) of SO2 Reduction Requirement, if EGUs and non-EGUs, then:
this section will contain adequate applicable, for the appropriate periods. (A) The Annual Non-EGU SO2
provisions, for purposes of complying The amounts of the State’s Annual EGU Reduction Requirement shall equal or
with section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the SO2 Budget and Annual Non-EGU SO2 exceed the difference between the
CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), only Reduction Requirement shall be amount specified in paragraph (e)(2) of
if the SIP revision contains control determined as follows: this section for the appropriate period
measures that assure compliance with (1)(i) The Annual EGU SO2 Budget for and the amount of the State’s Annual
the applicable requirements of this the State is defined as the total amount EGU SO2 Budget specified in the SIP
section. of SO2 emissions from all EGUs in that revision for the appropriate period; and
State for a year, if the State meets the (B) The Annual EGU SO2 Budget shall
(c) The following States are subject to requirements of paragraph (a) of this not exceed, during the indicated
the requirements of this section: section by imposing control measures, periods, the amount specified in
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, at least in part, on EGUs. If the State paragraph (e)(2) of this section plus the
Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, imposes control measures under this amount of the Annual Non-EGU SO2
Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, section on only EGUs, the Annual EGU Reduction Requirement under
Mississippi, Missouri, New York, North SO2 Budget for the State shall not paragraph (e)(1)(iii)(A) of this section for
Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South exceed the amount, during the indicated the appropriate period.
Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, periods, specified in paragraph (e)(2) of (2) For a State that complies with the
West Virginia, and Wisconsin, and the this section. requirements of paragraph (a) of this
District of Columbia. (ii) The Annual Non-EGU SO2 section by imposing control measures
(d)(1) The SIP revision under Reduction Requirement, if applicable, is on only EGUs, the amount of the
paragraph (a) of this section must be defined as the total amount of SO2 Annual EGU SO2 Budget, in tons of SO2
submitted to EPA by no later than emission reductions that the State per year, shall be as follows, for the
September 11, 2006. demonstrates, in accordance with indicated State for the indicated period:
Annual EGU SO2 Annual EGU SO2

State budget for 2010–2014 budget for 2015 and
(tons) thereafter (tons)
Alabama ........................................................................................................................................... 157,582 110,307

District of Columbia ......................................................................................................................... 708 495
Florida .............................................................................................................................................. 253,450 177,415
Georgia ............................................................................................................................................ 213,057 149,140
Illinois ............................................................................................................................................... 192,671 134,869
Indiana ............................................................................................................................................. 254,599 178,219
Iowa ................................................................................................................................................. 64,095 44,866
Kentucky .......................................................................................................................................... 188,773 132,141
Louisiana .......................................................................................................................................... 59,948 41,963
Maryland .......................................................................................................................................... 70,697 49,488
Michigan ........................................................................................................................................... 178,605 125,024
Minnesota ........................................................................................................................................ 49,987 34,991
Mississippi ........................................................................................................................................ 33,763 23,634
Missouri ............................................................................................................................................ 137,214 96,050
New York ......................................................................................................................................... 135,139 94,597
North Carolina .................................................................................................................................. 137,342 96,139
Ohio ................................................................................................................................................. 333,520 233,464
Pennsylvania .................................................................................................................................... 275,990 193,193
South Carolina ................................................................................................................................. 57,271 40,089
Tennessee ....................................................................................................................................... 137,216 96,051
Texas ............................................................................................................................................... 320,946 224,662
Virginia ............................................................................................................................................. 63,478 44,435
West Virginia .................................................................................................................................... 215,881 151,117
Wisconsin ......................................................................................................................................... 87,264 61,085
(3) For a State that complies with the government, as of the date of implemented by the State, as of May 12,
requirements of paragraph (a) of this submission of the SIP revision by the 2005, or adopted or implemented by the
section by imposing control measures State to EPA. federal government, as of the date of
on only non-EGUs, the amount of the (2) The demonstration under submission of the SIP revision by the
Annual Non-EGU SO2 Reduction paragraph (g)(1) of this section must State to EPA, and must exclude any
Requirement, in tons of SO2 per year, include the following, with respect to control measures specified in the SIP
shall be determined, for the State for each source category of non-EGUs for revision to meet the SO2 emissions
2010 and thereafter, by subtracting the which the SIP revision requires control reduction requirements of this section.
amount of the State’s Annual EGU SO2 measures: (B) Economic and population
Budget for the appropriate year, (i) A detailed historical baseline forecasts must be as specific as possible
specified in paragraph (e)(2) of this inventory of SO2 mass emissions from to the applicable industry, State, and
section, from an amount equal to 2 the source category in a representative county of the source or source category
times the State’s Annual EGU SO2 year consisting, at the State’s election, of and must be consistent with both
Budget for 2010 through 2014, specified 2002, 2003, 2004, or 2005, or an average national projections and relevant official
in paragraph (e)(2) of this section. of 2 or more of those years, absent the planning assumptions, including
(f) Each SIP revision must set forth control measures specified in the SIP estimates of population and vehicle
control measures to meet the amounts revision. miles traveled developed through
specified in paragraph (e) of this (A) This inventory must represent consultation between State and local
section, as applicable, including the estimates of actual emissions based on transportation and air quality agencies.
following: monitoring data in accordance with part However, if these official planning
(1) A description of enforcement 75 of this chapter, if the source category assumptions are inconsistent with
methods including, but not limited to: is subject to part 75 monitoring official U.S. Census projections of
(i) Procedures for monitoring requirements in accordance with part 75 population or with energy consumption
compliance with each of the selected of this chapter. projections contained in the U.S.
control measures; (B) In the absence of monitoring data Department of Energy’s most recent
(ii) Procedures for handling in accordance with part 75 of this Annual Energy Outlook, then the SIP
violations; and chapter, actual emissions must be revision must make adjustments to
(iii) A designation of agency quantified, to the maximum extent correct the inconsistency or must
responsibility for enforcement of practicable, with the same degree of demonstrate how the official planning
implementation. assurance with which emissions are assumptions are more accurate.
(2)(i) If a State elects to impose quantified for sources subject to part 75 (C) These inventories must account
control measures on EGUs, then those of this chapter and using source-specific for any changes in production method,
measures must impose an annual SO2 or source-category-specific assumptions materials, fuels, or efficiency that are
mass emissions cap on all such sources that ensure a source’s or source expected to occur between the historical
in the State. category’s actual emissions are not baseline year and 2010 or 2015, as
(ii) If a State elects to impose control overestimated. If a State uses factors to appropriate.
measures on fossil fuel-fired non-EGUs estimate emissions, production or (iii) A projection of SO2 mass
that are boilers or combustion turbines utilization, or effectiveness of controls emissions in 2010 and 2015 from the
with a maximum design heat input or rules for a source category, such source category assuming the same
greater than 250 mmBtu/hr, then those factors must be chosen to ensure that projected changes as under paragraph
measures must impose an annual SO2 emissions are not overestimated. (g)(2)(ii) of this section and resulting
mass emissions cap on all such sources (C) For measures to reduce emissions from implementation of each of the
in the State. from motor vehicles, emission estimates control measures specified in the SIP
(iii) If a State elects to impose control must be based on an emissions model revision.
measures on non-EGUs other than those that has been approved by EPA for use (A) These inventories must address
described in paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this in SIP development and must be the possibility that the State’s new
section, then those measures must consistent with the planning control measures may cause production
impose an annual SO2 mass emissions assumptions regarding vehicle miles or utilization, and emissions, to shift to
cap on all such sources in the State, or traveled and other factors current at the unregulated or less stringently regulated
the State must demonstrate why such time of the SIP development. sources in the source category in the
emissions cap is not practicable, and (D) For measures to reduce emissions same or another State, and these
adopt alternative requirements that from nonroad engines or vehicles, inventories must include any such
ensure that the State will comply with emission estimates methodologies must amounts of emissions that may shift to
its requirements under paragraph (e) of be approved by EPA. such other sources.
this section, as applicable, in 2010 and (ii) A detailed baseline inventory of (B) The State must provide EPA with
subsequent years. SO2 mass emissions from the source a summary of the computations,
(g)(1) Each SIP revision that contains category in the years 2010 and 2015, assumptions, and judgments used to
control measures covering non-EGUs as absent the control measures specified in determine the degree of reduction in
part or all of a State’s obligation in the SIP revision and reflecting changes projected 2010 and 2015 SO2 emissions
meeting its requirement under in these emissions from the historical that will be achieved from the
paragraph (a) of this section must baseline year to the years 2010 and implementation of the new control
demonstrate that such control measures 2015, based on projected changes in the measures compared to the relevant
are adequate to provide for the timely production input or output, population, baseline emissions inventory.
compliance with the State’s Annual vehicle miles traveled, economic (iv) The result of subtracting the
Non-EGU SO2 Reduction Requirement activity, or other factors as applicable to amounts in paragraph (g)(2)(iii) of this
under paragraph (e) of this section and this source category. section for 2010 and 2015, respectively,
are not adopted or implemented by the (A) These inventories must account from the lower of the amounts in
State, as of May 12, 2005, and are not for implementation of any control paragraph (g)(2)(i) or (g)(2)(ii) of this
adopted or implemented by the federal measures that are adopted or section for 2010 and 2015, respectively,
may be credited towards the State’s emissions are quantified for sources trading program in the State’s SIP
Annual Non-EGU SO2 Reduction subject to part 75 of this chapter. revision is automatically approved as
Requirement in paragraph (e)(3) of this (j) Each SIP revision must show that meeting the requirements of paragraph
section for the appropriate period. the State has legal authority to carry out (e) of this section, provided that the
(v) Each SIP revision must identify the SIP revision, including authority to: State has the legal authority to take such
the sources of the data used in each (1) Adopt emissions standards and action and to implement its
estimate and each projection of limitations and any other measures responsibilities under such regulations.
emissions. necessary for attainment and (2) If a State adopts an emissions
(h) Each SIP revision must comply maintenance of the State’s relevant trading program that differs
with § 51.116 (regarding data Annual EGU SO2 Budget or the Annual substantively from subparts AAA
availability). Non-EGU SO2 Reduction Requirement, through III of part 96 of this chapter
(i) Each SIP revision must provide for as applicable, under paragraph (e) of only as follows, then the emissions
monitoring the status of compliance this section; trading program is approved as set forth
with any control measures adopted to (2) Enforce applicable laws, in paragraph (o)(1) of this section.
meet the State’s requirements under regulations, and standards and seek (i) The State may decline to adopt the
paragraph (e) of this section, as follows: injunctive relief; CAIR SO2 opt-in provisions of subpart
(1) The SIP revision must provide for (3) Obtain information necessary to III of this part and the provisions
legally enforceable procedures for determine whether air pollution sources applicable only to CAIR SO2 opt-in
requiring owners or operators of are in compliance with applicable laws, units in subparts AAA through HHH of
stationary sources to maintain records regulations, and standards, including this part.
authority to require recordkeeping and (ii) The State may decline to adopt the
of, and periodically report to the State:
to make inspections and conduct tests of CAIR SO2 opt-in provisions of
(i) Information on the amount of SO2
air pollution sources; and § 96.288(b) of this chapter and the
emissions from the stationary sources;
(4)(i) Require owners or operators of provisions of subpart III of this part
and
stationary sources to install, maintain, applicable only to CAIR SO2 opt-in
(ii) Other information as may be
and use emissions monitoring devices units under § 96.288(b).
necessary to enable the State to (iii) The State may decline to adopt
determine whether the sources are in and to make periodic reports to the State
on the nature and amounts of emissions the CAIR SO2 opt-in provisions of
compliance with applicable portions of § 96.288(c) of this chapter and the
the control measures; from such stationary sources; and
(ii) Make the data described in provisions of subpart II of this part
(2) The SIP revision must comply applicable only to CAIR SO2 opt-in
paragraph (j)(4)(i) of this section
with § 51.212 (regarding testing, units under § 96.288(c).
available to the public within a
inspection, enforcement, and (3) A State that adopts an emissions
reasonable time after being reported and
complaints); trading program in accordance with
as correlated with any applicable
(3) If the SIP revision contains any paragraph (o)(1) or (2) of this section is
emissions standards or limitations.
transportation control measures, then (k)(1) The provisions of law or not required to adopt an emissions
the SIP revision must comply with regulation that the State determines trading program in accordance with
§ 51.213 (regarding transportation provide the authorities required under § 96.123 (o)(1) or (2) or (aa)(1) or (2) of
control measures); this section must be specifically this chapter.
(4)(i) If the SIP revision contains identified, and copies of such laws or (4) If a State adopts an emissions
measures to control EGUs, then the SIP regulations must be submitted with the trading program that differs
revision must require such sources to SIP revision. substantively from subparts AAA
comply with the monitoring, (2) Legal authority adequate to fulfill through III of part 96 of this chapter,
recordkeeping, and reporting provisions the requirements of paragraphs (j)(3) other than as set forth in paragraph
of part 75 of this chapter. and (4) of this section may be delegated (o)(2) of this section, then such
(ii) If the SIP revision contains to the State under section 114 of the emissions trading program is not
measures to control fossil fuel-fired non- CAA. automatically approved as set forth in
EGUs that are boilers or combustion (l)(1) A SIP revision may assign legal paragraph (o)(1) or (2) of this section
turbines with a maximum design heat authority to local agencies in and will be reviewed by the
input greater than 250 mmBtu/hr, then accordance with § 51.232. Administrator for approvability in
the SIP revision must require such (2) Each SIP revision must comply accordance with the other provisions of
sources to comply with the monitoring, with § 51.240 (regarding general plan this section, provided that the SO2
recordkeeping, and reporting provisions requirements). allowances issued under such emissions
of part 75 of this chapter. (m) Each SIP revision must comply trading program shall not, and the SIP
(iii) If the SIP revision contains with § 51.280 (regarding resources). revision shall state that such SO2
measures to control any other non-EGUs (n) Each SIP revision must provide for allowances shall not, qualify as CAIR
that are not described in paragraph State compliance with the reporting SO2 allowances under any emissions
(i)(4)(ii) of this section, then the SIP requirements in § 51.125. trading program approved under
revision must require such sources to (o)(1) Notwithstanding any other paragraph (o)(1) or (2) of this section.
comply with the monitoring, provision of this section, if a State (p) If a State’s SIP revision does not
recordkeeping, and reporting provisions adopts regulations substantively contain an emissions trading program
of part 75 of this chapter, or the State identical to subparts AAA through III of approved under paragraph (o)(1) or (2)
must demonstrate why such part 96 of this chapter (CAIR SO2 of this section but contains control
requirements are not practicable and Trading Program), incorporates such measures on EGUs as part or all of a
adopt alternative requirements that subparts by reference into its State’s obligation in meeting its
ensure that the required emissions regulations, or adopts regulations that requirement under paragraph (a) of this
reductions will be quantified, to the differ substantively from such subparts section:
maximum extent practicable, with the only as set forth in paragraph (o)(2) of (1) The SIP revision shall provide, for
same degree of assurance with which this section, then such emissions each year that the State has such
obligation, for the permanent retirement process is then used for electricity any calendar year more than one-third
of an amount of Acid Rain allowances production. of the unit’s potential electric output
allocated to sources in the State for that Clean Air Act or CAA means the capacity or 219,000 MWh, whichever is
year and not deducted by the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. greater, to any utility power distribution
Administrator under the Acid Rain Cogeneration unit means a stationary, system for sale. If a unit qualifies as a
Program and any emissions trading fossil-fuel-fired boiler or stationary, cogeneration unit during the 12-month
program approved under paragraph fossil-fuel-fired combustion turbine: period starting on the date the unit first
(o)(1) or (2) of this section, equal to the (1) Having equipment used to produce produces electricity but subsequently no
difference between— electricity and useful thermal energy for longer qualifies as a cogeneration unit,
(A) The total amount of Acid Rain industrial, commercial, heating, or the unit shall be subject to paragraph (1)
allowances allocated under the Acid cooling purposes through the sequential of this definition starting on the day on
Rain Program to the sources in the State use of energy; and which the unit first no longer qualifies
for that year; and (2) Producing during the 12-month as a cogeneration unit.
(B) If the State’s SIP revision contains period starting on the date the unit first Fossil fuel means natural gas,
only control measures on EGUs, the produces electricity and during any petroleum, coal, or any form of solid,
State’s Annual EGU SO2 Budget for the calendar year after which the unit first liquid, or gaseous fuel derived from
appropriate period as specified in produces electricity— such material.
paragraph (e)(2) of this section or, if the (i) For a topping-cycle cogeneration Fossil-fuel-fired means, with regard to
State’s SIP revision contains control unit, a unit, combusting any amount of fossil
measures on EGUs and non-EGUs, the (A) Useful thermal energy not less fuel in any calendar year.
State’s Annual EGU SO2 Budget for the than 5 percent of total energy output; Generator means a device that
appropriate period as specified in the and produces electricity.
SIP revision. (B) Useful power that, when added to Maximum design heat input means:
one-half of useful thermal energy (1) Starting from the initial
(2) The SIP revision providing for
produced, is not less then 42.5 percent installation of a unit, the maximum
permanent retirement of Acid Rain
of total energy input, if useful thermal amount of fuel per hour (in Btu/hr) that
allowances under paragraph (p)(1) of
energy produced is 15 percent or more a unit is capable of combusting on a
this section must ensure that such
of total energy output, or not less than steady state basis as specified by the
allowances are not available for
45 percent of total energy input, if manufacturer of the unit;
deduction by the Administrator under (2)(i) Except as provided in paragraph
useful thermal energy produced is less
the Acid Rain Program and any (2)(ii) of this definition, starting from
than 15 percent of total energy output.
emissions trading program approved the completion of any subsequent
(ii) For a bottoming-cycle
under paragraph (o)(1) or (2) of this physical change in the unit resulting in
cogeneration unit, useful power not less
section. an increase in the maximum amount of
than 45 percent of total energy input.
(q) The terms used in this section Combustion turbine means: fuel per hour (in Btu/hr) that a unit is
shall have the following meanings: (1) An enclosed device comprising a capable of combusting on a steady state
Acid Rain allowance means a limited compressor, a combustor, and a turbine basis, such increased maximum amount
authorization issued by the and in which the flue gas resulting from as specified by the person conducting
Administrator under the Acid Rain the combustion of fuel in the combustor the physical change; or
Program to emit up to one ton of sulfur passes through the turbine, rotating the (ii) For purposes of applying the
dioxide during the specified year or any turbine; and definition of the term ‘‘potential
year thereafter, except as otherwise (2) If the enclosed device under electrical output capacity,’’ starting from
provided by the Administrator. paragraph (1) of this definition is the completion of any subsequent
Acid Rain Program means a multi- combined cycle, any associated heat physical change in the unit resulting in
State sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides recovery steam generator and steam a decrease in the maximum amount of
air pollution control and emissions turbine. fuel per hour (in Btu/hr) that a unit is
reduction program established by the Commence operation means to have capable of combusting on a steady state
Administrator under title IV of the CAA begun any mechanical, chemical, or basis, such decreased maximum amount
and parts 72 through 78 of this chapter. electronic process, including, with as specified by the person conducting
Administrator means the regard to a unit, start-up of a unit’s the physical change.
Administrator of the United States combustion chamber. NAAQS means National Ambient Air
Environmental Protection Agency or the Electric generating unit or EGU Quality Standard.
Administrator’s duly authorized means: Nameplate capacity means, starting
representative. (1) Except as provided in paragraph from the initial installation of a
Allocate or allocation means, with (2) of this definition, a stationary, fossil- generator, the maximum electrical
regard to allowances, the determination fuel-fired boiler or stationary, fossil- generating output (in MWe) that the
of the amount of allowances to be fuel-fired combustion turbine serving at generator is capable of producing on a
initially credited to a source. any time, since the start-up of the unit’s steady state basis and during continuous
Boiler means an enclosed fossil- or combustion chamber, a generator with operation (when not restricted by
other-fuel-fired combustion device used nameplate capacity of more than 25 seasonal or other deratings) as specified
to produce heat and to transfer heat to MWe producing electricity for sale. by the manufacturer of the generator or,
recirculating water, steam, or other (2) For a unit that qualifies as a starting from the completion of any
medium. cogeneration unit during the 12-month subsequent physical change in the
Bottoming-cycle cogeneration unit period starting on the date the unit first generator resulting in an increase in the
means a cogeneration unit in which the produces electricity and continues to maximum electrical generating output
energy input to the unit is first used to qualify as a cogeneration unit, a (in MWe) that the generator is capable
produce useful thermal energy and at cogeneration unit serving at any time a of producing on a steady state basis and
least some of the reject heat from the generator with nameplate capacity of during continuous operation (when not
useful thermal energy application or more than 25 MWe and supplying in restricted by seasonal or other
deratings), such increased maximum ■ 6. Part 51 is amended by adding of SO2 and NOX emissions data from all
amount as specified by the person § 51.125 to Subpart G to read as follows: sources within the State.
conducting the physical change. (i) The States identified in paragraph
§ 51.125 Emissions reporting (a)(1) of this section must report to EPA
Non-EGU means a source of SO2
requirements for SIP revisions relating to
emissions that is not an EGU. budgets for SO2 and NOX emissions.
annual emissions data every third year
Potential electrical output capacity from all SO2 and NOX sources within
(a) For its transport SIP revision under the State.
means 33 percent of a unit’s maximum
§ 51.123 and/or 51.124, each State must (ii) The States identified in paragraph
design heat input, divided by 3,413 Btu/
submit to EPA SO2 and/or NOX (a)(2) of this section must report to EPA
kWh, divided by 1,000 kWh/MWh, and
emissions data as described in this ozone season and ozone daily emissions
multiplied by 8,760 hr/yr.
section. data every third year from all NOX
Sequential use of energy means: (1) Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Illinois,
(1) For a topping-cycle cogeneration sources within the State.
Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, (3) The data availability requirements
unit, the use of reject heat from Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota,
electricity production in a useful in § 51.116 must be followed for all data
Mississippi, Missouri, New York, North submitted to meet the requirements of
thermal energy application or process; Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South
or paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, (c) The data reported in paragraph (b)
(2) For a bottoming-cycle cogeneration West Virginia, Wisconsin and the
unit, the use of reject heat from useful of this section must meet the
District of Columbia, must report annual requirements of subpart A of this part.
thermal energy application or process in (12 months) emissions of SO2 and NOX.
electricity production. (d) Approval of annual and ozone
(2) Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, season calculation by EPA. Each State
Topping-cycle cogeneration unit Deleware, Florida, Illinois, Indinia,
means a cogeneration unit in which the must submit for EPA approval an
Iowa, Kentucky, Lousianna, Maryland, example of the calculation procedure
energy input to the unit is first used to Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi,
produce useful power, including used to calculate annual and ozone
Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North season emissions along with sufficient
electricity, and at least some of the Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South
reject heat from the electricity information for EPA to verify the
Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West calculated value of annual and ozone
production is then used to provide Virginia, Wisconsin and the District of
useful thermal energy. season emissions.
Columbia must report ozone season (e) Reporting schedules. (1) Reports
Total energy input means, with regard (May 1 through September 30)
to a cogeneration unit, total energy of all are to begin with data for emissions
emissions of NOX. occurring in the year 2008, which is the
forms supplied to the cogeneration unit, (b) Each revision must provide for
excluding energy produced by the first year of the 3-year cycle.
periodic reporting by the State of SO2 (2) After 2008, 3-year cycle reports are
cogeneration unit itself. and/or NOX emissions data as specified to be submitted every third year and
Total energy output means, with in paragraph (a) of this section to every-year cycle reports are to be
regard to a cogeneration unit, the sum demonstrate whether the State’s submitted each year that a triennial
of useful power and useful thermal emissions are consistent with the report is not required.
energy produced by the cogeneration projections contained in its approved (3) States must submit data for a
unit. SIP submission. required year no later than 17 months
Unit means a stationary, fossil-fuel- (1) Every-year reporting cycle. As after the end of the calendar year for
fired boiler or a stationary, fossil-fuel applicable, each revision must provide which the data are collected.
fired combustion turbine. for reporting of SO2 and NOX emissions (f) Data reporting procedures are given
Useful power means, with regard to a data every year as follows: in subpart A of this part. When
cogeneration unit, electricity or (i) The States identified in paragraph submitting a formal NOX budget
mechanical energy made available for (a)(1) of this section must report to EPA emissions report and associated data,
use, excluding any such energy used in annual emissions data every year from States shall notify the appropriate EPA
the power production process (which all SO2 and NOX sources within the Regional Office.
process includes, but is not limited to, State for which the State specified (g) Definitions. (1) As used in this
any on-site processing or treatment of control measures in its SIP submission section, ‘‘ozone season’’ is defined as
fuel combusted at the unit and any on- under §§ 51.123 and/or 51.124. follows:
site emission controls). (ii) The States identified in paragraph Ozone season.—The five month
Useful thermal energy means, with (a)(2) of this section must report to EPA period from May 1 through September
regard to a cogeneration unit, thermal ozone season and summer daily 30.
energy that is: emissions data every year from all NOX (2) Other words and terms shall have
(1) Made available to an industrial or sources within the State for which the the meanings set forth in appendix A of
commercial process, excluding any heat State specified control measures in its subpart A of this part.
contained in condensate return or SIP submission under § 51.123.
makeup water; (iii) If sources report SO2 and NOX PART 72—PERMITS REGULATION
(2) Used in a heat application (e.g., emissions data to EPA in a given year
space heating or domestic hot water pursuant to a trading program approved ■ 1. The authority citation for part 72
heating); or under § 51.123(o) or § 51.124(o) of this continues to read as follows:
(3) Used in a space cooling part or pursuant to the monitoring and Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7601 and 7651, et seq.
application (i.e., thermal energy used by reporting requirements of 40 CFR part
an absorption chiller). 75, then the State need not provide § 72.2 [Amended]
Utility power distribution system annual reporting of these pollutants to ■ 2. Section 72.2 is amended by:
means the portion of an electricity grid EPA for such sources. ■ a. Amend the definition of ‘‘Acid rain
owned or operated by a utility and (2) Three-year reporting cycle. As emissions limitation’’ by replacing, in
dedicated to delivering electricity to applicable, each plan must provide for paragraph (1)(i), the words ‘‘an affected
customers. triennial (i.e., every third year) reporting unit’’ with the words ‘‘the affected units
at a source’’ and replacing, in paragraph ■ m. Amend the definition of ‘‘Spot ■ b. In paragraph (e)(2), replace the
(1)(ii)(C), the words ‘‘compliance allowance’’ by replacing the word words ‘‘unit account’’ with the words
subaccount for that unit’’ with the words ‘‘unit’s’’ with the word ‘‘source’s’’; and ‘‘compliance account’’.
‘‘compliance account for that source’’; ■ n. Revise the definition of
■ b. Amend the definition of ‘‘Advance § 72.24 [Amended]
‘‘Cogeneration unit’’;
allowance’’ by replacing the word ■ o. Add a new definition of ■ 6. Section 72.24 is amended by
‘‘unit’s’’ with the word ‘‘source’’; ‘‘Compliance account’’; and removing and reserving paragraphs
■ c. Amend the definition of ‘‘Allocate or (a)(5), (a)(7), and (a)(10).
■ p. Remove the definitions of
allocation’’ by replacing the words ‘‘unit ‘‘Compliance subaccount’’, ‘‘Current
account’’ with the words ‘‘compliance § 72.40 [Amended]
year subaccount’’, ‘‘Direct Sale
account’’; Subaccount’’, ‘‘Future year subaccount’’, ■ 7–8. Section 72.40 is amended, in
■ d. Amend the definition of ‘‘Allowance paragraph (a)(1), replace the words
and ‘‘Unit account’’.
deduction, or deduct’’ by replacing the ‘‘unit’s compliance subaccount’’ with
words ‘‘compliance subaccount, or § 72.2 Definitions. the words ‘‘compliance account of the
future year subaccount,’’ with the words * * * * * source where the unit is located’’;
‘‘compliance account’’ and replacing the Cogeneration unit means a unit that remove the words ‘‘, or in the compliance
words ‘‘from an affected unit’’ with the has equipment used to produce electric subaccount of another affected unit at the
words ‘‘from the affected units at an energy and forms of useful thermal source to the extent provided in
affected source’’; energy (such as heat or steam) for § 73.35(b)(3),’’; and replace the words
■ e. Amend the definition of ‘‘Allowance ‘‘from the unit’’ with the words ‘‘from the
industrial, commercial, heating, or
transfer deadline’’ by replacing the cooling purposes, through sequential affected units at the source’’.
words ‘‘affected unit’s compliance use of energy.
subaccount’’ with the words ‘‘an affected § 72.72 [Amended]
source’s compliance account’’ and * * * * *
■ 9. Section 72.72 is amended by:
replacing the words ‘‘the unit’s’’ with the Compliance account means an ■ a. In paragraph (a)(1), add the words
words ‘‘the source’s’’; Allowance Tracking System account, ‘‘or affected source’’ after the words
■ f. Amend the definition of ‘‘Authorized established by the Administrator under ‘‘affected unit’’;
account representative’’ by replacing the § 73.31(a) or (b) of this chapter or ■ b. In paragraph (a)(2), add the words
words ‘‘unit account’’ with the words § 74.40(a) of this chapter for an affected ‘‘or an affected source’s’’ after the words
‘‘compliance account’’ and replacing the source and for each affected unit at the ‘‘affected unit’s’’; and
words ‘‘affected unit’’ with the words source. ■ c. In paragraph (a)(3), add the words
‘‘affected source and the affected units at * * * * * ‘‘or affected source’’ after the words
the source’’; ‘‘affected unit’’ whenever they appear.
■ g. Amend the definition of
§ 72.7 [Amended]
‘‘Compliance use date’’ by replacing the ■ 3. Section 72.7 is amended in § 72.73 [Amended]
word ‘‘unit’s’’ with the word ‘‘source’s’’; paragraph (c)(1)(ii), in the first sentence, ■ 10. Section 72.73 is amended in
■ h. Amend the definition of ‘‘Excess by replacing the word ‘‘unit’s Allowance paragraph (b)(2) by replacing the words
emissions’’ by, in paragraph (1), Tracking System account’’ with the ‘‘the first Acid Rain permit’’ with the
replacing the words ‘‘an affected unit’’ words ‘‘compliance account of the words ‘‘an Acid Rain permit’’.
with the words ‘‘the affected units at an source that includes the unit’’, and by
affected source’’ and replacing the words § 72.90 [Amended]
removing the third sentence of paragraph
‘‘for the unit’’ with the words ‘‘for the (c)(1)(ii). ■ 11. Section 72.90 is amended by, in
source’’; paragraph (a), add, after the words ‘‘each
■ i. Amend the definition of ‘‘General § 72.9 [Amended] calendar year’’, the words ‘‘during 1995
account’’ by replacing the words ‘‘unit ■ 4. Section 72.9 is amended by: through 2005’’.
account’’ with the words ‘‘compliance ■ a. In paragraph (b)(2), replace the word
account’’; § 72.95 [Amended]
‘‘unit’’ with the words ‘‘source or unit, as
■ j. Amend the definition of ‘‘Offset ■ 12. Section 72.95 is amended by:
appropriate,’’;
Plan’’ by replacing the word ‘‘unit’’ with ■ a. In the introductory text, replace the
■ b. In paragraph (c)(1)(i), replace the
the word ‘‘source’’; words ‘‘an affected unit’s compliance
■ k. Amend the definition of
words ‘‘unit’s compliance subaccount’’
with the words ‘‘source’s compliance subaccount’’ with the words ‘‘an affected
‘‘Recordation, record, or recorded’’ by source’s compliance account’’; and
removing the words ‘‘or subaccount’’; account’’ and replace the words ‘‘from
■ b. In paragraph (a), replace the words
■ l. Amend the definition of ‘‘Source’’ by
the unit’’ with the words ‘‘from the
affected units at the source’’; ‘‘by the unit’’ with the words ‘‘by the
replacing the words ‘‘under the Act.’’ affected units at the source’’.
with the words ‘‘under the Act, provided ■ c. In paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2)
that one or more combustion or process introductory text, replace the words ‘‘an § 72.96 [Amended]
sources that have, under § 74.4(c) of this affected unit’’ with the words ‘‘an ■ 13. Section 72.96 is amended in
chapter, a different designated affected source’’; paragraph (b), by replacing the words
representative than the designated ■ d. In paragraph (g)(6), remove the
‘‘unit’’s Allowance Tracking System
representative for one or more affected second sentence; and account’’ with the words ‘‘source’s
utility units at a source shall be treated ■ e. In paragraph (h)(2), replace the word compliance account’’.
as being included in a separate source ‘‘unit’’ with the word ‘‘source’’ wherever
from the source that includes such utility it appears. PART 73—SULFUR DIOXIDE
units for purposes of parts 72 through 78 ALLOWANCE SYSTEM
§ 72.21 [Amended]
of this chapter, but shall be treated as
being included in the same source as the ■ 5. Section 72.21 is amended by: ■ 1. The authority citation for part 73
source that includes such utility units for ■ a. In paragraph (b)(1), remove the word continues to read as follows:
purposes of section 502(c) of the Act.’’ ‘‘affected’’ wherever it appears; and Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7601 and 7651, et seq.
§ 73.10 [Amended] § 73.34 [Amended] ■ c. In paragraph (a)(2)(i), replace the

■ 2. Section 73.10 is amended by: ■ 8. Section 73.34 is amended by: words ‘‘the unit’s compliance
■ a. In paragraph (a), replace the words ■ a. Revise paragraphs (a) and (b) to read subaccount’’ with the words ‘‘the
‘‘unit account for each’’ with the words as set forth below; source’s compliance account’’;
‘‘compliance account for each source ■ b. In paragraph (c) introductory text, ■ d. In paragraph (a)(2)(ii), replace the
that includes a’’ and remove the words remove the paragraph heading and words ‘‘the unit’s compliance
‘‘in each future year subaccount’’; and replace the words ‘‘compliance, current subaccount’’ with the words ‘‘the
■ b. In paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2), year, and future year’’ with the words source’s compliance account’’, replace
replace the words ‘‘unit account for ‘‘compliance account and general the words ‘‘compliance subaccount for
each’’ with the words ‘‘compliance account’’. the unit’’ with the words ‘‘source’s
account for each source that includes a’’ compliance account’’, and replace the
and replace the words ‘‘in the future year § 73.34 Recordation in accounts. word ‘‘or’’ with the word ‘‘and’’;
subaccounts representing calendar (a) After a compliance account is ■ e. Remove paragraph (a)(2)(iii);
years’’ with the words ‘‘for the years’’. established under § 73.31(a) or (b), the ■ f. Add a new paragraph (a)(3);
Administrator will record in the ■ g. In paragraph (b)(1), replace the
§ 73.27 [Amended] compliance account any allowance words ‘‘compliance subaccount’’ with
■ 3. Section 73.27 is amended in allocated to any affected unit at the the words ‘‘compliance account’’, add
paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(5) by replacing source for 30 years starting with the the words ‘‘available for deduction
the words ‘‘unit’s Allowance Tracking later of 1995 or the year in which the under paragraph (a) of this section’’ after
System account’’ with the words compliance account is established and the words ‘‘deduct allowances’’, and
‘‘compliance account of the source that any allowance allocated for 30 years replace the words ‘‘each affected unit’s
includes the unit’’. starting with the later of 1995 or the compliance subaccount’’ with the words
year in which the compliance account is ‘‘each affected source’s compliance
§ 73.30 [Amended] account’’;
established and transferred to the source
■ 4. Section 73.30 is amended by: ■ h. In paragraph (b)(2), replace the
with the transfer submitted in
■ a. In paragraph (a), add the word accordance with § 73.50. In 1996 and words ‘‘allowances remain in the
‘‘compliance’’ after the word ‘‘establish’’; each year thereafter, after Administrator compliance subaccount’’ with the words
replace the words ‘‘affected units’’ with has completed the deductions pursuant ‘‘allowances available for deduction
the words ‘‘affected sources’’; and to § 73.35(b), the Administrator will under paragraph (a) of this section
replace the words ‘‘unit’s Allowance record in the compliance account any remain in the compliance account’’;
Tracking System account’’ with the ■ i. Remove paragraph (b)(3);
allowance allocated to any affected unit
words ‘‘source’s compliance account’’; ■ j. Revise paragraph (c)(1) to read as set
at the source for the new 30th year (i.e.,
and forth below;
the year that is 30 years after the
■ b. In paragraph (b), replace the word ■ k. In paragraph (c)(2), replace the
calendar year for which such
‘‘unit’’ with the word ‘‘source’’ and words ‘‘for the unit’’ with the words ‘‘for
deductions are made) and any
replace the words ‘‘Allowance Tracking allowance allocated for the new 30th the units at the source’’, replace the
System account’’ with the words words ‘‘in its compliance subaccount.’’
year and transferred to the source with
‘‘general account’’. with the words ‘‘in the source’s
the transfer submitted in accordance
compliance account.’’, replace the words
§ 73.31 [Amended] with § 73.50.
‘‘from the compliance subaccount’’ with
(b) After a general account is
■ 5. Section 73.31 is amended by: the words ‘‘from the compliance
established under § 73.31(c), the
■ a. In paragraph (a), replace the words account’’, and replace the words ‘‘unit’s
Administrator will record in the general
‘‘an Allowance Tracking System compliance subaccount’’ with the words
account any allowance allocated for 30
account’’ with the words ‘‘a compliance ‘‘source’s compliance account’’;
years starting with the later of 1995 or ■ l. In paragraph (d), replace the words
account’’ and replace the words ‘‘each
the year in which the general account is ‘‘for each unit’’ with the words ‘‘for each
unit’’ with the words ‘‘each source that
established and transferred to the source’’ and replace the word ‘‘unit’s’’
includes a unit’’;
■ b. In paragraph (b), replace the words
general account with the transfer with the word ‘‘source’s’’; and
‘‘an Allowance Tracking System account submitted in accordance with § 73.50. In ■ m. Remove paragraph (e).
for the unit.’’ with the words ‘‘a 1996 and each year thereafter, after the
compliance account for the source that Administrator has completed the § 73.35 Compliance.
includes the unit, unless the source deductions pursuant to § 73.35(b), the (a) * * *
already has a compliance account.’’; and Administrator will record in the general (3) The allowance was not previously
■ c. In paragraph (c)(1)(v), replace the
account any allowance allocated for the deducted by the Administrator in
words ‘‘Allowance Tracking System new 30th year (i.e., the year that is 30 accordance with a State SO2 mass
account’’ with the words ‘‘general years after the calendar year for which emissions reduction program under
account’’ and remove the words ‘‘I shall such deductions are made) and § 51.124(o) of this chapter or otherwise
abide by any fiduciary responsibilities transferred to the general account with permanently retired in accordance with
assigned pursuant to the binding the transfer submitted in accordance § 51.124(p) of this chapter.
agreement.’’. with § 73.50. * * * * *
* * * * * (c)(1) Identification of allowances by
§ 73.32 [Removed and Reserved] serial number. The authorized account
§ 73.35 [Amended] representative for a source’s compliance
■ 6. Section 73.32 is removed and
reserved. ■ 9. Section 73.35 is amended by: account may request that specific
■ a. In paragraph (a) introductory text allowances, identified by serial number,
§ 73.33 [Amended] and paragraph (a)(1), replace the words in the compliance account be deducted
■ 7. Section 73.33 is amended by ‘‘unit’s’’ with the word ‘‘source’s’’; for a calendar year in accordance with
removing and reserving paragraphs (b) ■ b. In paragraph (a)(2), replace the word paragraph (b) or (d) of this section. Such
and (c). ‘‘Such’’ with the word ‘‘The’’; request shall be submitted to the
Administrator by the allowance transfer ■ c. In paragraph (b)(2)(ii), remove the ‘‘Allowance Tracking System account of
deadline for the year and include, in a words ‘‘Allowance Tracking System’’ each’’.
format prescribed by the Administrator, and ‘‘under 40 CFR part 73, or any other
the identification of the source and the remedies’’ and remove the comma after PART 74—SULFUR DIOXIDE OPT-INS
appropriate serial numbers. the words ‘‘under State or Federal law’’;
and ■ 1. The authority citation for part 74
* * * * * continues to read as follows:
■ d. Remove paragraph (b)(3).
§ 73.36 [Amended] Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7601 and 7651, et seq.
§ 73.51 [Removed and Reserved]
■ 10. Section 73.36 is amended by: § 74.4 [Amended]
■ a. In paragraph (a), replace the words ■ 14. Section 73.51 is removed and
‘‘Unit accounts.’’ with the words reserved. 2. Section 74.4 is amended by:
■
‘‘Compliance accounts.’’ and replace a. In paragraph (c)(1), replace the
■
§ 73.52 [Amended] words ‘‘a combustion or process source
with words ‘‘compliance subaccount’’
with the words ‘‘compliance account’’ ■ 15. Section 73.52 is amended by: that is located’’ with the words ‘‘one or
■ a. In paragraph (a) introductory text, more combustion or process sources that
whenever they appear; and
■ b. In paragraph (b), replace the words remove the words ‘‘§ 73.50, § 73.51, and’’ are located’’, replace the words ‘‘such
‘‘current year subaccount’’ with the and add the words ‘‘(or longer as combustion or process source and
words ‘‘general account’’ whenever they necessary to perform a transfer in thereafter, does’’ with the words ‘‘such
appear and replace the words ‘‘at the end perpetuity of allowances allocated to a combustion or process sources and
of the current calendar year’’ with the unit)’’ after the words ‘‘five business thereafter, do’’, and replace the words
words ‘‘not transferred pursuant to days’’; ‘‘designate, for such combustion or
■ b. Revise paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2) and process source’’ with the words
subpart D to another Allowance Tracking
System account’’. (a)(3); ‘‘designate, for such combustion or
■ c. Remove paragraph (a)(4); process sources’’; and
■ 11. Section 73.37 is revised to read as ■ d. Revise paragraph (b); and ■ b. In paragraph (c)(2), replace the
follows: ■ e. Add a new paragraph (c) to read as
words ‘‘the combustion or process
§ 73.37 Account error. follows: source’’ with the words ‘‘the combustion
The Administrator may, at his or her § 73.52 EPA recordation. or process sources’’ whenever they occur
sole discretion and on his or her own (a) * * * and replace the word ‘‘meets’’ with the
motion, correct any error in any (1) The transfer is correctly submitted word ‘‘meet’’ in the first sentence.
Allowance Tracking System account. under § 73.50; § 74.18 [Amended]
Within 10 business days of making such (2) The transferor account includes
correction, the Administrator will notify each allowance identified by serial ■ 3. Section 74.18 is amended in
the authorized account representative number in the transfer; and paragraph (d) by removing the last
for the account. (3) If the allowances identified by sentence.
serial number specified pursuant to
§ 73.38 [Amended] § 74.40 [Amended]
§ 73.50(b)(1)(ii) are subject to the
■ 12. Section 73.38 is amended by: limitation on transfer imposed pursuant ■ 4. Section 74.40 is amended by:
■ a. In paragraph (a), replace the words to § 72.44(h)(1)(i) of this chapter, § 74.42 ■ a. In paragraph (a), replace the words
‘‘delete the general account from the of this chapter, or § 74.47(c) of this ‘‘an opt-in account’’ with the words ‘‘a
Allowance Tracking System.’’ with the chapter, the transfer is in accordance compliance account’’, replace the words
words ‘‘close the general account.’’; and with such limitation. ‘‘an account’’ with the words ‘‘a
■ b. In paragraph (b), replace the words (b) To the extent an allowance transfer compliance account (unless the source
‘‘for a period of a year or more’’ with the submitted for recordation after the that includes the opt-in source already
words ‘‘for a 12-month period or longer’’; allowance transfer deadline includes has a compliance account or the opt-in
remove the words ‘‘in its subaccounts’’; allowances allocated for any year before source has, under § 74.4(c), a different
replace the words ‘‘will notify’’ with the the year in which the allowance transfer designated representative than the
words ‘‘may notify’’; remove the words deadline occurs, the transfer of such designated representative for the
‘‘and eliminated from the Allowance allowance will not be recorded until source)’’, and remove the last sentence.
Tracking System’’; and remove the last after completion of the deductions ■ b. In paragraph (b), replace the words
sentence. pursuant to § 73.35(b) for year before the ‘‘allowance account in the Allowance
year in which the allowance transfer Tracking System’’ with the words
§ 73.50 [Amended] ‘‘compliance account (unless the source
deadline occurs.
■ 13. Section 73.50 is amended by: (c) Where an allowance transfer that includes the opt-in source already
■ a. In paragraph (a), remove the words submitted for recordation fails to meet has a compliance account or the opt-in
‘‘, including, but not limited to, transfers the requirements of paragraph (a) of this source has, under § 74.4(c), a different
of an allowance to and from section, the Administrator will not designated representative than the
contemporaneous future year record such transfer. designated representative for the
subaccounts, and transfers of an source)’’.
allowance to and from compliance § 73.70 [Amended] ■ 5. Section 74.42 is revised to read as
subaccounts and current year ■ 16. Section 73.70 is amended by: follows:
subaccounts, and transfers of all ■ a. In paragraph (e), remove the last two
allowances allocated for a unit for each sentences. § 74.42 Limitation on transfers.
calendar year in perpetuity’’; ■ b. In paragraph (f), replace the words (a) With regard to a transfer request
■ b. In paragraph (b)(1)(ii), remove the ‘‘the subaccount’’ by the words ‘‘the submitted for recordation during the
words ‘‘, or correct indication on the Allowance Tracking System account’’; period starting January 1 and ending
allowance transfer where a request and with the allowance transfer deadline in
involves the transfer of the unit’s ■ c. In paragraph (i)(1), add the words the same year, the Administrator will
allowance in perpetuity’’; ‘‘source that includes a’’ after the words not record a transfer of an opt-in
allowance that is allocated to an opt-in c. In paragraph (a)(6), replace the

■ the words ‘‘the source that includes the
source for the year in which the transfer words ‘‘Allowance Tracking System opt-in source does not hold’’.
request is submitted or a subsequent account of each replacement unit’’ with
year. the words ‘‘compliance account of each PART 77—EXCESS EMISSIONS
(b) With regard to a transfer request source that includes a replacement
during the period starting with the day unit’’; ■ 1. The authority citation for part 77
after an allowance transfer deadline and continues to read as follows:
■ d. In paragraph (c), replace the words
ending December 31 in the same year, ‘‘unit account’’ with the words Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7601 and 7651, et seq.
the Administrator will not record a ‘‘compliance account of the source that § 77.3 [Amended]
transfer of an opt-in allowance that is includes the replacement unit’’ and
allocated to an opt-in source for a year replace the words ‘‘account in the ■ 2. Section 77.3 is amended by:
after the year in which the transfer Allowance Tracking System’’ with the ■ a. In paragraph (a), replace the words
request is submitted. words ‘‘Allowance Tracking System ‘‘affected unit’’ with the words ‘‘affected
account’’; source’’ and replace the word ‘‘unit’s
§ 74.43 [Amended] Allowance Tracking System account’’
■ e. In paragraph (d)(1)(ii)(C), remove the
■ 6. Section 74.43 is amended by: words ‘‘opt-in source’s’’ and ‘‘(ATS)’’ with the words ‘‘source’s compliance
■ a. In paragraph (a), remove the words and add the words ‘‘of the source that account’’;
‘‘in lieu of any annual compliance includes the opt-in source’’ after the ■ b. In paragraphs (b) and (c), replace the
certification report required under word ‘‘System’’; word ‘‘unit’’ with the word ‘‘source’’
subpart I of part 72 of this chapter’’; ■ f. In paragraph (d)(1)(ii)(D), replace the wherever it appears; and
■ b. In paragraph (b)(7), replace the word ■ c. In paragraph (d) introductory text
words ‘‘(ATS) for each’’ with the words
‘‘At’’ with the words, ‘‘In an annual ‘‘of each source that includes a’’; and paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2), replace
compliance certification report for a year ■ g. In paragraph (d)(2)(i), replace the the word ‘‘unit’’ with the word ‘‘source’’
during 1995 through 2005, at’’; and words ‘‘Allowance Tracking System whenever it appears;
■ c. In paragraph (b)(8), replace the word ■ d. In paragraphs (d)(3) and (d)(4),
accounts for the opt-in source and for
‘‘The’’ with the words, ‘‘In an annual each replacement unit’’ with the words replace the words ‘‘unit’s Allowance
compliance certification report for a year ‘‘compliance account for each source Tracking System account’’ with the
during 1995 through 2005, the’’. that includes the opt-in source or a words ‘‘source’s compliance account’s’’
replacement unit’’; whenever they appear; and
§ 74.44 [Amended] ■ e. In paragraph (d)(5), replace the
■ h. In paragraph (d)(2)(i)(B), replace the
■ 7. Section 74.44 is amended by: words ‘‘unit’s compliance subaccount’’
words ‘‘Allowance Tracking System
■ a. In paragraph (c)(1)(ii), remove the with the words ‘‘source’s compliance
account of the opt-in source’’ with the
words ‘‘opt-in source’s’’ and add the account’’.
words ‘‘compliance account of the
words ‘‘of the source that includes the
source that includes the opt-in source’’; § 77.4 [Amended]
opt-in source’’ after the word ‘‘System’’;
■ b. In paragraphs (c)(2)(iii)(C),
and
■ i. In paragraph (d)(2)(ii), replace the
(c)(2)(iii)(D), (c)(2)(iii)(E) introductory ■ a. In paragraph (b)(1), replace the
text, and (c)(2)(iii)(E)(3), replace the words ‘‘Allowance Tracking System words ‘‘unit’s compliance subaccount’’
words ‘‘opt-in source’s compliance accounts for the opt-in source and for with the words ‘‘source’s compliance
subaccount’’ with the words each replacement unit’’ with the words account’’; and
‘‘compliance account of the source that ‘‘compliance account for each source ■ b. In paragraphs (c)(1)(ii)(A), (d)(1),
includes the opt-in source’’ whenever that includes the opt-in source or a (d)(2), (d)(3), (e)(iv), (g)(2)(ii), (g)(3)(ii),
they occur; and replacement unit’’. and (g)(3)(iii), replace the word ‘‘unit’’
■ c. In paragraph (c)(2)(iii)(F), replace § 74.49 [Amended] with the word ‘‘source’’; and
the words ‘‘opt-in source’s compliance ■ c. In paragraph (k)(2), replace the
subaccount’’ with the words ■ 10. Section 74.49 is amended, in words ‘‘unit’s compliance subaccount’’
‘‘compliance account of the source that paragraph (a) introductory text, by with the words ‘‘source’s compliance
includes the opt-in source’’ and replace replacing the words ‘‘an opt-in source’s account’’ and replace the word ‘‘unit’’
the words ‘‘source’s compliance compliance subaccount’’ with the words with the word ‘‘source’’.
subaccount’’ with the words ‘‘the compliance account of a source that
‘‘compliance account of the source that includes an opt-in source’’. § 77.5 [Amended]
includes the opt-in source’’. § 74.50 [Amended] ■ 4. Section 77.5 is amended by:
■ a. In paragraph (b), replace the words
§ 74.46 [Amended] ■ 11. Section 74.50 is amended by: ‘‘compliance subaccount’’ with the
■ 8. Section 74.46 is amended by ■ a. In paragraph (a)(2) introductory text, words ‘‘compliance account’’;
removing and reserving paragraph (b)(2). add the words ‘‘source that includes’’ ■ b. In paragraph (c), replace the words
after the words ‘‘the account of the’’; ‘‘, from the unit’s compliance
§ 74.47 [Amended] ■ b. In paragraph (a)(2)(i), replace the subaccount’’ with the words ‘‘allocated
■ 9. Section 74.47 is amended by: words ‘‘opt-in source’s compliance for the year after the year in which the
■ a. In paragraph (a)(3)(iv), remove the subaccount’’ with the words ‘‘the source has excess emissions, from the
words ‘‘opt-in source’s’’ and add the compliance account of the source that source’s compliance account’’, and
words ‘‘of the source that includes the includes the opt-in source’’; and replace the word ‘‘unit’s’’ with the word
opt-in source’’ after the word ‘‘System’’; ■ c. In paragraph (b), replace the words ‘‘source’s’’; and
■ b. In paragraph (a)(3)(v), replace the ‘‘the opt-in source’s unit account’’ with ■ c. Remove paragraph (d).
word ‘‘Each’’ with the word ‘‘The’’, the words ‘‘the compliance account of
remove the words ‘‘replacement unit’s’’ the source that includes the opt-in § 77.6 [Amended]
and ‘‘(ATS)’’, and add the words ‘‘of each source’’; and ■ 5. Section 77.6 is amended by:
source that includes a replacement unit’’ ■ d. In paragraph (d), replace the words ■ a. In paragraph (a)(1), add the words
after the word ‘‘System’’; ‘‘an opt-in source does not hold’’ with ‘‘occur at the affected source’’ after the
words ‘‘sulfur dioxide’’ and replace the (i) The decision on the deduction of representation submitted by a CAIR
words ‘‘owners and operators of the CAIR SO2 allowances, and the designated representative or an
affected unit’’ with the words ‘‘owners adjustment of the information in a application for a general account
and operators respectively of the affected submission and the decision on the submitted by a CAIR authorized account
source and the affected units at the deduction or transfer of CAIR SO2 representative under subparts AA
source or of the affected unit’’; allowances based on the information as through II, subparts AAA through III, or
■ b. In paragraph (b)(1)(i)(A), replace the adjusted, under § 96.254 of this chapter; subparts AAAA through IIII of part 96 of
word ‘‘unit’’ with the words ‘‘source or (ii) The correction of an error in a this chapter’’ after the words ‘‘under the
unit as appropriate’’; and CAIR SO2 Allowance Tracking System NOX Budget Trading Program’’;
■ c. In paragraphs (b)(3),(c), and (f), account under § 97.256 of this chapter; ■ d. Add new paragraphs (a)(4), (a)(5),
replace the word ‘‘unit’’ with the words (iii) The decision on the transfer of (a)(6), (d)(5), (d)(6), and (d)(7) to read as
‘‘source or unit as appropriate’’. CAIR SO2 allowances under § 96.261 of follows:
this chapter;
PART 78—APPEAL PROCEDURES § 78.3 Petition for administrative review
(iv) The finalization of control period
and request for evidentiary hearing.
■ 1. The title of part 78 is revised to read emissions data, including retroactive
adjustment based on audit; (a) * * *
as set forth above.
(v) The approval or disapproval of a (4) The following persons may
■ 2. The authority citation for part 78
petition under § 96.275 of this chapter. petition for administrative review of a
continues to read as follows: decision of the Administrator that is
(9) Under subparts AAAA through IIII
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7403, 7410, of part 96 of this chapter, made under subparts AA through II of
7426, 7601, and 7651, et seq. part 96 of this chapter and that is
(i) The decision on the allocation of
§ 78.1 [Amended] CAIR NOX Ozone Season allowances appealable under § 78.1(a):
under § 96.341(b)(2) or (c)(2)of this (i) The CAIR designated
■ 3. Section 78.1 is amended by: representative for a unit or source, or
■ a. In paragraph (a)(1), replace the chapter.
(ii) The decision on the deduction of the CAIR authorized account
words ‘‘parts 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, or 77 of
CAIR NOX Ozone Season allowances, representative for any CAIR NOX
this chapter or part 97 of this chapter’’
and the adjustment of the information in Allowance Tracking System account,
with the words ‘‘part 72, 73, 74, 75, 76,
a submission and the decision on the covered by the decision; or
or 77 of this chapter, subparts AA
deduction or transfer of CAIR NOX (ii) Any interested person.
through II of part 96 of this chapter,
Ozone Season allowances based on the (5) The following persons may
subparts AAA through III of part 96 of
information as adjusted, under § 96.354 petition for administrative review of a
this chapter, and subparts AAAA
of this chapter; decision of the Administrator that is
through subparts IIII of part 96 of this
(iii) The correction of an error in a made under subparts AAA through III of
chapter, or part 97 of this chapter’’;
■ b. Revise paragraph (b)(2)(i); CAIR NOX Ozone Season Allowance part 96 of this chapter and that is
■ c. Add new paragraphs (b)(7), (b)(8), Tracking System account under § 96.356 appealable under § 78.1(a):
and (b)(9) to read as follows: of this chapter; (i) The CAIR designated
(iv) The decision on the transfer of representative for a unit or source, or
§ 78.1 Purpose and scope. CAIR NOX Ozone Season allowances the CAIR authorized account
* * * * * under § 96.361; representative for any CAIR SO2
(b) * * * (v) The finalization of control period Allowance Tracking System account,
(2) * * * emissions data, including retroactive covered by the decision; or
(i) The correction of an error in an adjustment based on audit; (ii) Any interested person.
Allowance Tracking System account; (vi) The approval or disapproval of a (6) The following persons may
* * * * * petition under § 96.375 of this chapter. petition for administrative review of a
(7) Under subparts AA through II of * * * * * decision of the Administrator that is
part 96 of this chapter, made under subparts AAAA through IIII
(i) The decision on the allocation of § 78.3 [Amended] of part 96 of this chapter and that is
CAIR NOX allowances under appealable under § 78.1(a):
§ 96.141(b)(2) or (c)(2) of this chapter. (i) The CAIR designated
■ a. In paragraph (b)(3)(i), add the words
(ii) The decision on the deduction of representative for a unit or source, or
CAIR NOX allowances, and the ‘‘or the CAIR designated representative
or CAIR authorized account the CAIR authorized account
adjustment of the information in a representative for any CAIR Ozone
submission and the decision on the representative under paragraph (a)(4),
deduction or transfer of CAIR NOX (5), or (6) of this section (unless the CAIR Season NOX Allowance Tracking
designated representative or CAIR System account, covered by the
allowances based on the information as
adjusted, under § 96.154 of this chapter; authorized account representative is the decision; or
petitioner)’’ after the words ‘‘(unless the (ii) Any interested person.
(iii) The correction of an error in a
CAIR NOX Allowance Tracking System NOX authorized account representative * * * * *
account under § 96.156 of this chapter; is the petitioner)’’; (d) * * *
(iv) The decision on the transfer of ■ b. In paragraph (c)(7), replace the (5) Any provision or requirement of
CAIR NOX allowances under § 96.161 of words ‘‘or part 97 of this chapter, as subparts AA through II of part 96 of this
this chapter; appropriate’’ with the words ‘‘, subparts chapter, including the standard
(v) The finalization of control period AA through II of part 96 of this chapter, requirements under § 96.106 of this
emissions data, including retroactive subparts AAA through III of part 96 of chapter and any emission monitoring or
adjustment based on audit; this chapter, subparts AAAA through IIII reporting requirements.
(vi) The approval or disapproval of a of part 96 of this chapter, or part 97 of (6) Any provision or requirement of
petition under § 96.175 of this chapter. this chapter, as appropriate’’; subparts AAA through III of part 96 of
(8) Under subparts AAA through III of ■ c. In paragraph (d)(3), add the words this chapter, including the standard
part 96 of this chapter, ‘‘or on an account certificate of requirements under § 96.206 of this
chapter and any emission monitoring or 96.105 Retired unit exemption. 96.185 CAIR opt-in permit contents.
reporting requirements. 96.106 Standard requirements. 96.186 Withdrawal from CAIR NOX Annual
(7) Any provision or requirement of 96.107 Computation of time. Trading Program.
subparts AAAA through IIII of part 96 96.108 Appeal procedures. 96.187 Change in regulatory status.
96.188 NOX allowance allocations to CAIR
of this chapter, including the standard Subpart BB—CAIR Designated
NOX opt-in units.
requirements under § 96.306 of this Representative for CAIR NOX Sources
chapter and any emission monitoring or 96.110 Authorization and responsibilities of Subpart AA—CAIR NOX Annual
reporting requirements. CAIR designated representative. Trading Program General Provisions
96.111 Alternate CAIR designated
§ 78.4 [Amended] representative. § 96.101 Purpose.
■ 5. Section 78.4 is amended by adding 96.112 Changing CAIR designated This subpart and subparts BB through
two new sentences after the fifth representative and alternate CAIR
designated representative; changes in
II establish the model rule comprising
sentence in paragraph (a) to read as general provisions and the designated
owners and operators.
follows: representative, permitting, allowance,
96.113 Certificate of representation.
§ 78.4 Filings. 96.114 Objections concerning CAIR monitoring, and opt-in provisions for
designated representative. the State Clean Air Interstate Rule
(a) * * * Any filings on behalf of
(CAIR) NOX Annual Trading Program,
owners and operators of a CAIR NOX, Subpart CC—Permits
under section 110 of the Clean Air Act
SO2, or NOX Ozone Season unit or 96.120 General CAIR NOX Annual Trading and § 51.123 of this chapter, as a means
source shall be signed by the CAIR Program permit requirements.
of mitigating interstate transport of fine
designated representative. Any filings 96.121 Submission of CAIR permit
applications. particulates and nitrogen oxides. The
on behalf of persons with an interest in
96.122 Information requirements for CAIR owner or operator of a unit or a source
CAIR NOX allowances, CAIR SO2
permit applications. shall comply with the requirements of
allowances, or CAIR NOX Ozone Season
96.123 CAIR permit contents and term. this subpart and subparts BB through II
allowances in a general account shall be 96.124 CAIR permit revisions. as a matter of federal law only if the
signed by the CAIR authorized account
Subpart DD—[Reserved] State with jurisdiction over the unit and
representative. * * *
the source incorporates by reference
* * * * * Subpart EE—CAIR NOX Allowance such subparts or otherwise adopts the
Allocations requirements of such subparts in
§ 78.5 [Amended]
96.140 State trading budgets. accordance with § 51.123(o)(1) or (2) of
■ 6. Section 78.5 is amended, in 96.141 Timing requirements for CAIR NOX this chapter, the State submits to the
paragraph (a), by removing the words ‘‘, allowance allocations. Administrator one or more revisions of
or a claim or error notification was 96.142 CAIR NOX allowance allocations.
96.143 Compliance supplement pool.
the State implementation plan that
submitted,’’ the words ‘‘or in the claim include such adoption, and the
of error notification’’, and the words ‘‘or Subpart FF—CAIR NOX Allowance Tracking Administrator approves such revisions.
the period for submitting a claim of error System If the State adopts the requirements of
notification’’. 96.150 [Reserved] such subparts in accordance with
§ 78.12 [Amended] 96.151 Establishment of accounts. § 51.123(o)(1) or (2) of this chapter, then
96.152 Responsibilities of CAIR authorized the State authorizes the Administrator
■ 7. Section 78.12 is amended by: account representative. to assist the State in implementing the
■ a. In paragraph (a) introductory text, 96.153 Recordation of CAIR NOX allowance
CAIR NOX Annual Trading Program by
remove the words ‘‘, or to submit a claim allocations.
of error notification’’; and 96.154 Compliance with CAIR NOX carrying out the functions set forth for
■ b. In paragraph (a)(2), replace the emissions limitation. the Administrator in such subparts.
words ‘‘NOX Budget permit’’ with the 96.155 Banking.
§ 96.102 Definitions.
words ‘‘, NOX Budget permit, CAIR 96.156 Account error.
96.157 Closing of general accounts. The terms used in this subpart and
permit,’’.
subparts BB through II shall have the
Subpart GG—CAIR NOX Allowance
§ 78.13 [Amended] Transfers meanings set forth in this section as
■ 8. Section 78.13 is amended by, in
follows:
96.160 Submission of CAIR NOX allowance
paragraph (b), removing the word ‘‘also’’. transfers. Account number means the
96.161 EPA recordation. identification number given by the
PART 96—[AMENDED] 96.162 Notification. Administrator to each CAIR NOX
Allowance Tracking System account.
■ 1. Authority citation for Part 96 is Subpart HH—Monitoring and Reporting
Acid Rain emissions limitation means
revised to read as follows: 96.170 General requirements. a limitation on emissions of sulfur
96.171 Initial certification and dioxide or nitrogen oxides under the
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7403, 7410,
recertification procedures.
7601, and 7651, et seq.
96.172 Out of control periods.
Acid Rain Program.
■ 2. Part 96 is amended by adding 96.173 Notifications. Acid Rain Program means a multi-
subparts AA through II, to read as 96.174 Recordkeeping and reporting. state sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides
follows: 96.175 Petitions. air pollution control and emission
96.176 Additional requirements to provide reduction program established by the
Subpart AA—CAIR NOX Annual Trading
heat input data. Administrator under title IV of the CAA
Program General Provisions
Subpart II—CAIR NOX Opt-in Units and parts 72 through 78 of this chapter.
Sec.
96.101 Purpose. 96.180 Applicability.
Administrator means the
96.102 Definitions. 96.181 General. Administrator of the United States
96.103 Measurements, abbreviations, and 96.182 CAIR designated representative. Environmental Protection Agency or the
acronyms. 96.183 Applying for CAIR opt-in permit. Administrator’s duly authorized
96.104 Applicability. 96.184 Opt-in process. representative.
Allocate or allocation means, with Boiler means an enclosed fossil- or NOX units at a CAIR NOX source for a
regard to CAIR NOX allowances issued other-fuel-fired combustion device used control period, determined in
under subpart EE, the determination by to produce heat and to transfer heat to accordance with subpart HH of this part,
the permitting authority or the recirculating water, steam, or other or to account for excess emissions.
Administrator of the amount of such medium. CAIR NOX Allowance Tracking
CAIR NOX allowances to be initially Bottoming-cycle cogeneration unit System means the system by which the
credited to a CAIR NOX unit or a new means a cogeneration unit in which the Administrator records allocations,
unit set-aside and, with regard to CAIR energy input to the unit is first used to deductions, and transfers of CAIR NOX
NOX allowances issued under § 96.188, produce useful thermal energy and at allowances under the CAIR NOX Annual
the determination by the permitting least some of the reject heat from the Trading Program. Such allowances will
authority of the amount of such CAIR useful thermal energy application or be allocated, held, deducted, or
NOX allowances to be initially credited process is then used for electricity transferred only as whole allowances.
to a CAIR NOX unit. production. CAIR NOX Allowance Tracking
Allowance transfer deadline means, CAIR authorized account System account means an account in the
for a control period, midnight of March representative means, with regard to a CAIR NOX Allowance Tracking System
1, if it is a business day, or, if March 1 general account, a responsible natural established by the Administrator for
is not a business day, midnight of the person who is authorized, in accordance purposes of recording the allocation,
first business day thereafter with subparts BB and II of this part, to holding, transferring, or deducting of
immediately following the control transfer and otherwise dispose of CAIR CAIR NOX allowances.
period and is the deadline by which a NOX allowances held in the general CAIR NOX allowances held or hold
CAIR NOX allowance transfer must be account and, with regard to a CAIR NOX allowances means the CAIR
submitted for recordation in a CAIR compliance account, the CAIR NOX allowances recorded by the
NOX source’s compliance account in designated representative of the source. Administrator, or submitted to the
order to be used to meet the source’s CAIR designated representative
Administrator for recordation, in
CAIR NOX emissions limitation for such means, for a CAIR NOX source and each
accordance with subparts FF, GG, and II
control period in accordance with CAIR NOX unit at the source, the natural
of this part, in a CAIR NOX Allowance
§ 96.154. person who is authorized by the owners
Tracking System account.
Alternate CAIR designated and operators of the source and all such
units at the source, in accordance with CAIR NOX Annual Trading Program
representative means, for a CAIR NOX
subparts BB and II of this part, to means a multi-state nitrogen oxides air
source and each CAIR NOX unit at the
represent and legally bind each owner pollution control and emission
source, the natural person who is
and operator in matters pertaining to the reduction program approved and
authorized by the owners and operators
CAIR NOX Annual Trading Program. If administered by the Administrator in
of the source and all such units at the
the CAIR NOX source is also a CAIR SO2 accordance with subparts AA through II
source in accordance with subparts BB
and II of this part, to act on behalf of the source, then this natural person shall be of this part and § 51.123 of this chapter,
CAIR designated representative in the same person as the CAIR designated as a means of mitigating interstate
matters pertaining to the CAIR NOX representative under the CAIR SO2 transport of fine particulates and
Annual Trading Program. If the CAIR Trading Program. If the CAIR NOX nitrogen oxides.
NOX source is also a CAIR SO2 source, source is also a CAIR NOX Ozone CAIR NOX emissions limitation
then this natural person shall be the Season source, then this natural person means, for a CAIR NOX source, the
same person as the alternate CAIR shall be the same person as the CAIR tonnage equivalent of the CAIR NOX
designated representative under the designated representative under the allowances available for deduction for
CAIR SO2 Trading Program. If the CAIR CAIR NOX Ozone Season Trading the source under § 96.154(a) and (b) for
NOX source is also a CAIR NOX Ozone Program. If the CAIR NOX source is also a control period.
Season source, then this natural person subject to the Acid Rain Program, then CAIR NOX Ozone Season source
shall be the same person as the alternate this natural person shall be the same means a source that includes one or
CAIR designated representative under person as the designated representative more CAIR NOX Ozone Season units.
the CAIR NOX Ozone Season Trading under the Acid Rain Program. CAIR NOX Ozone Season Trading
Program. If the CAIR NOX source is also CAIR NOX allowance means a limited Program means a multi-state nitrogen
subject to the Acid Rain Program, then authorization issued by the permitting oxides air pollution control and
this natural person shall be the same authority under subpart EE of this part emission reduction program approved
person as the alternate designated or § 96.188 to emit one ton of nitrogen and administered by the Administrator
representative under the Acid Rain oxides during a control period of the in accordance with subparts AAAA
Program. specified calendar year for which the through IIII of this part and § 51.123 of
Automated data acquisition and authorization is allocated or of any this chapter, as a means of mitigating
handling system or DAHS means that calendar year thereafter under the CAIR interstate transport of ozone and
component of the continuous emission NOX Program. An authorization to emit nitrogen oxides.
monitoring system, or other emissions nitrogen oxides that is not issued under CAIR NOX Ozone Season unit means
monitoring system approved for use provisions of a State implementation a unit that is subject to the CAIR NOX
under subpart HH of this part, designed plan that are approved under Ozone Season Trading Program under
to interpret and convert individual § 51.123(o)(1) or (2) of this chapter shall § 96.304 and a CAIR NOX Ozone Season
output signals from pollutant not be a CAIR NOX allowance. opt-in unit under subpart IIII of this
concentration monitors, flow monitors, CAIR NOX allowance deduction or part.
diluent gas monitors, and other deduct CAIR NOX allowances means the CAIR NOX source means a source that
component parts of the monitoring permanent withdrawal of CAIR NOX includes one or more CAIR NOX units.
system to produce a continuous record allowances by the Administrator from a CAIR NOX unit means a unit that is
of the measured parameters in the compliance account in order to account subject to the CAIR NOX Annual
measurement units required by subpart for a specified number of tons of total Trading Program under § 96.104 and,
HH of this part. nitrogen oxides emissions from all CAIR except for purposes of § 96.105 and
subpart EE of this part, a CAIR NOX opt- produced, is not less then 42.5 percent replacement of the unit by a unit at the
in unit under subpart II of this part. of total energy input, if useful thermal same source), such date shall remain the
CAIR permit means the legally energy produced is 15 percent or more unit’s date of commencement of
binding and federally enforceable of total energy output, or not less than commercial operation.
written document, or portion of such 45 percent of total energy input, if (ii) For a unit with a date for
document, issued by the permitting useful thermal energy produced is less commencement of commercial
authority under subpart CC of this part, than 15 percent of total energy output. operation as defined in paragraph (2) of
including any permit revisions, (ii) For a bottoming-cycle this definition and that is subsequently
specifying the CAIR NOX Annual cogeneration unit, useful power not less replaced by a unit at the same source
Trading Program requirements than 45 percent of total energy input. (e.g., repowered), the replacement unit
applicable to a CAIR NOX source, to Combustion turbine means: shall be treated as a separate unit with
each CAIR NOX unit at the source, and (1) An enclosed device comprising a a separate date for commencement of
to the owners and operators and the compressor, a combustor, and a turbine commercial operation as defined in
CAIR designated representative of the and in which the flue gas resulting from paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this
source and each such unit. the combustion of fuel in the combustor definition as appropriate.
CAIR SO2 source means a source that passes through the turbine, rotating the (3) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) of
includes one or more CAIR SO2 units. turbine; and this definition and except as provided
CAIR SO2 Trading Program means a (2) If the enclosed device under in § 96.184(h) or § 96.187(b)(3), for a
multi-state sulfur dioxide air pollution paragraph (1) of this definition is CAIR NOX opt-in unit or a unit for
control and emission reduction program combined cycle, any associated heat which a CAIR opt-in permit application
approved and administered by the recovery steam generator and steam is submitted and not withdrawn and a
Administrator in accordance with turbine. CAIR opt-in permit is not yet issued or
subparts AAA through III of this part Commence commercial operation denied under subpart II of this part, the
and § 51.124 of this chapter, as a means means, with regard to a unit serving a unit’s date for commencement of
of mitigating interstate transport of fine generator: commercial operation shall be the date
particulates and sulfur dioxide. (1) To have begun to produce steam, on which the owner or operator is
CAIR SO2 unit means a unit that is gas, or other heated medium used to required to start monitoring and
subject to the CAIR SO2 Trading generate electricity for sale or use, reporting the NOX emissions rate and
Program under § 96.204 and a CAIR SO2 including test generation, except as the heat input of the unit under
opt-in unit under subpart III of this part. provided in § 96.105. § 96.184(b)(1)(i).
Clean Air Act or CAA means the (i) For a unit that is a CAIR NOX unit (i) For a unit with a date for
Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. under § 96.104 on the date the unit commencement of commercial
Coal means any solid fuel classified as commences commercial operation as operation as defined in paragraph (3) of
anthracite, bituminous, subbituminous, defined in paragraph (1) of this this definition and that subsequently
or lignite. definition and that subsequently undergoes a physical change (other than
Coal-derived fuel means any fuel undergoes a physical change (other than replacement of the unit by a unit at the
(whether in a solid, liquid, or gaseous replacement of the unit by a unit at the same source), such date shall remain the
state) produced by the mechanical, same source), such date shall remain the unit’s date of commencement of
thermal, or chemical processing of coal. unit’s date of commencement of commercial operation.
Coal-fired means: commercial operation. (ii) For a unit with a date for
(1) Except for purposes of subpart EE (ii) For a unit that is a CAIR NOX unit
of this part, combusting any amount of commencement of commercial
under § 96.104 on the date the unit operation as defined in paragraph (3) of
coal or coal-derived fuel, alone or in commences commercial operation as
combination with any amount of any this definition and that is subsequently
defined in paragraph (1) of this replaced by a unit at the same source
other fuel, during any year; or definition and that is subsequently
(2) For purposes of subpart EE of this (e.g., repowered), the replacement unit
replaced by a unit at the same source shall be treated as a separate unit with
part, combusting any amount of coal or
(e.g., repowered), the replacement unit a separate date for commencement of
coal-derived fuel, alone or in
shall be treated as a separate unit with commercial operation as defined in
combination with any amount of any
other fuel, during a specified year. a separate date for commencement of paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this
Cogeneration unit means a stationary, commercial operation as defined in definition as appropriate.
fossil-fuel-fired boiler or stationary, paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this (4) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1)
fossil-fuel-fired combustion turbine: definition as appropriate. through (3) of this definition, for a unit
(1) Having equipment used to produce (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) of not serving a generator producing
electricity and useful thermal energy for this definition and except as provided electricity for sale, the unit’s date of
industrial, commercial, heating, or in § 96.105, for a unit that is not a CAIR commencement of operation shall also
cooling purposes through the sequential NOX unit under § 96.104 on the date the be the unit’s date of commencement of
use of energy; and unit commences commercial operation commercial operation.
(2) Producing during the 12-month as defined in paragraph (1) of this Commence operation means:
period starting on the date the unit first definition and is not a unit under (1) To have begun any mechanical,
produces electricity and during any paragraph (3) of this definition, the chemical, or electronic process,
calendar year after which the unit first unit’s date for commencement of including, with regard to a unit, start-up
produces electricity— commercial operation shall be the date of a unit’s combustion chamber, except
(i) For a topping-cycle cogeneration on which the unit becomes a CAIR NOX as provided in § 96.105.
unit, unit under § 96.104. (i) For a unit that is a CAIR NOX unit
(A) Useful thermal energy not less (i) For a unit with a date for under § 96.104 on the date the unit
than 5 percent of total energy output; commencement of commercial commences operation as defined in
and operation as defined in paragraph (2) of paragraph (1) of this definition and that
(B) Useful power that, when added to this definition and that subsequently subsequently undergoes a physical
one-half of useful thermal energy undergoes a physical change (other than change (other than replacement of the
unit by a unit at the same source), such at the same source (e.g., repowered), the record of the stack gas moisture content,
date shall remain the unit’s date of replacement unit shall be treated as a in percent H2O;
commencement of operation. separate unit with a separate date for (5) A carbon dioxide monitoring
(ii) For a unit that is a CAIR NOX unit commencement of operation as defined system, consisting of a CO2 pollutant
under § 96.104 on the date the unit in paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this concentration monitor (or an oxygen
commences operation as defined in definition as appropriate. monitor plus suitable mathematical
paragraph (1) of this definition and that Common stack means a single flue equations from which the CO2
is subsequently replaced by a unit at the through which emissions from 2 or concentration is derived) and an
same source (e.g., repowered), the more units are exhausted. automated data acquisition and
replacement unit shall be treated as a Compliance account means a CAIR handling system and providing a
separate unit with a separate date for NOX Allowance Tracking System permanent, continuous record of CO2
commencement of operation as defined account, established by the emissions, in percent CO2; and
in paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this Administrator for a CAIR NOX source (6) An oxygen monitoring system,
definition as appropriate. under subpart FF or II of this part, in consisting of an O2 concentration
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) of which any CAIR NOX allowance monitor and an automated data
this definition and except as provided allocations for the CAIR NOX units at acquisition and handling system and
in § 96.105, for a unit that is not a CAIR the source are initially recorded and in providing a permanent, continuous
NOX unit under § 96.104 on the date the which are held any CAIR NOX record of O2, in percent O2.
unit commences operation as defined in allowances available for use for a Control period means the period
paragraph (1) of this definition and is control period in order to meet the beginning January 1 of a calendar year
not a unit under paragraph (3) of this source’s CAIR NOX emissions limitation and ending on December 31 of the same
definition, the unit’s date for in accordance with § 96.154. year, inclusive.
commencement of operation shall be the Continuous emission monitoring Emissions means air pollutants
date on which the unit becomes a CAIR system or CEMS means the equipment exhausted from a unit or source into the
NOX unit under § 96.104. required under subpart HH of this part atmosphere, as measured, recorded, and
(i) For a unit with a date for to sample, analyze, measure, and reported to the Administrator by the
commencement of operation as defined provide, by means of readings recorded CAIR designated representative and as
in paragraph (2) of this definition and at least once every 15 minutes (using an determined by the Administrator in
that subsequently undergoes a physical automated data acquisition and accordance with subpart HH of this part.
change (other than replacement of the handling system (DAHS)), a permanent Excess emissions means any ton of
unit by a unit at the same source), such record of nitrogen oxides emissions, nitrogen oxides emitted by the CAIR
date shall remain the unit’s date of stack gas volumetric flow rate, stack gas NOX units at a CAIR NOX source during
commencement of operation. moisture content, and oxygen or carbon a control period that exceeds the CAIR
(ii) For a unit with a date for dioxide concentration (as applicable), in NOX emissions limitation for the source.
commencement of operation as defined a manner consistent with part 75 of this Fossil fuel means natural gas,
in paragraph (2) of this definition and chapter. The following systems are the petroleum, coal, or any form of solid,
that is subsequently replaced by a unit principal types of continuous emission liquid, or gaseous fuel derived from
at the same source (e.g., repowered), the monitoring systems required under such material.
replacement unit shall be treated as a subpart HH of this part: Fossil-fuel-fired means, with regard to
separate unit with a separate date for (1) A flow monitoring system, a unit, combusting any amount of fossil
commencement of operation as defined consisting of a stack flow rate monitor fuel in any calendar year.
in paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this and an automated data acquisition and Fuel oil means any petroleum-based
definition as appropriate. handling system and providing a fuel (including diesel fuel or petroleum
(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) of permanent, continuous record of stack derivatives such as oil tar) and any
this definition and except as provided gas volumetric flow rate, in standard recycled or blended petroleum products
in § 96.184(h) or § 96.187(b)(3), for a cubic feet per hour (scfh); or petroleum by-products used as a fuel
CAIR NOX opt-in unit or a unit for (2) A nitrogen oxides concentration whether in a liquid, solid, or gaseous
which a CAIR opt-in permit application monitoring system, consisting of a NOX state.
is submitted and not withdrawn and a pollutant concentration monitor and an General account means a CAIR NOX
CAIR opt-in permit is not yet issued or automated data acquisition and Allowance Tracking System account,
denied under subpart II of this part, the handling system and providing a established under subpart FF of this
unit’s date for commencement of permanent, continuous record of NOX part, that is not a compliance account.
operation shall be the date on which the emissions, in parts per million (ppm); Generator means a device that
owner or operator is required to start (3) A nitrogen oxides emission rate (or produces electricity.
monitoring and reporting the NOX NOX-diluent) monitoring system, Gross electrical output means, with
emissions rate and the heat input of the consisting of a NOX pollutant regard to a cogeneration unit, electricity
unit under § 96.184(b)(1)(i). concentration monitor, a diluent gas made available for use, including any
(i) For a unit with a date for (CO2 or O2) monitor, and an automated such electricity used in the power
commencement of operation as defined data acquisition and handling system production process (which process
in paragraph (3) of this definition and and providing a permanent, continuous includes, but is not limited to, any on-
that subsequently undergoes a physical record of NOX concentration, in parts site processing or treatment of fuel
change (other than replacement of the per million (ppm), diluent gas combusted at the unit and any on-site
unit by a unit at the same source), such concentration, in percent CO2 or O2; and emission controls).
date shall remain the unit’s date of NOX emission rate, in pounds per Heat input means, with regard to a
commencement of operation. million British thermal units (lb/ specified period of time, the product (in
(ii) For a unit with a date for mmBtu); mmBtu/time) of the gross calorific value
commencement of operation as defined (4) A moisture monitoring system, as of the fuel (in Btu/lb) divided by
in paragraph (3) of this definition and defined in § 75.11(b)(2) of this chapter 1,000,000 Btu/mmBtu and multiplied by
that is subsequently replaced by a unit and providing a permanent, continuous the fuel feed rate into a combustion
device (in lb of fuel/time), as measured, Federal law, regardless of the averaging agency authorized by the Administrator
recorded, and reported to the period to which the emissions to issue or revise permits to meet the
Administrator by the CAIR designated limitation applies. requirements of the CAIR NOX Annual
representative and determined by the Nameplate capacity means, starting Trading Program in accordance with
Administrator in accordance with from the initial installation of a subpart CC of this part or, if no such
subpart HH of this part and excluding generator, the maximum electrical agency has been so authorized, the
the heat derived from preheated generating output (in MWe) that the Administrator.
combustion air, recirculated flue gases, generator is capable of producing on a Potential electrical output capacity
or exhaust from other sources. steady state basis and during continuous means 33 percent of a unit’s maximum
Heat input rate means the amount of operation (when not restricted by design heat input, divided by 3,413 Btu/
heat input (in mmBtu) divided by unit seasonal or other deratings) as specified kWh, divided by 1,000 kWh/MWh, and
operating time (in hr) or, with regard to by the manufacturer of the generator or, multiplied by 8,760 hr/yr.
a specific fuel, the amount of heat input starting from the completion of any Receive or receipt of means, when
attributed to the fuel (in mmBtu) subsequent physical change in the referring to the permitting authority or
divided by the unit operating time (in generator resulting in an increase in the the Administrator, to come into
hr) during which the unit combusts the maximum electrical generating output possession of a document, information,
fuel. (in MWe) that the generator is capable or correspondence (whether sent in hard
Life-of-the-unit, firm power of producing on a steady state basis and copy or by authorized electronic
contractual arrangement means a unit during continuous operation (when not transmission), as indicated in an official
participation power sales agreement restricted by seasonal or other correspondence log, or by a notation
under which a utility or industrial deratings), such increased maximum made on the document, information, or
customer reserves, or is entitled to amount as specified by the person correspondence, by the permitting
receive, a specified amount or conducting the physical change. authority or the Administrator in the
percentage of nameplate capacity and Oil-fired means, for purposes of regular course of business.
associated energy generated by any subpart EE of this part, combusting fuel Recordation, record, or recorded
specified unit and pays its proportional oil for more than 15.0 percent of the means, with regard to CAIR NOX
amount of such unit’s total costs, annual heat input in a specified year. allowances, the movement of CAIR NOX
pursuant to a contract: Operator means any person who allowances by the Administrator into or
(1) For the life of the unit; operates, controls, or supervises a CAIR between CAIR NOX Allowance Tracking
(2) For a cumulative term of no less NOX unit or a CAIR NOX source and System accounts, for purposes of
than 30 years, including contracts that shall include, but not be limited to, any allocation, transfer, or deduction.
permit an election for early termination; holding company, utility system, or Reference method means any direct
or plant manager of such a unit or source. test method of sampling and analyzing
(3) For a period no less than 25 years Owner means any of the following for an air pollutant as specified in
or 70 percent of the economic useful life persons: § 75.22 of this chapter.
of the unit determined as of the time the (1) With regard to a CAIR NOX source Repowered means, with regard to a
unit is built, with option rights to or a CAIR NOX unit at a source, unit, replacement of a coal-fired boiler
purchase or release some portion of the respectively: with one of the following coal-fired
nameplate capacity and associated (i) Any holder of any portion of the technologies at the same source as the
energy generated by the unit at the end legal or equitable title in a CAIR NOX coal-fired boiler:
of the period. unit at the source or the CAIR NOX unit; (1) Atmospheric or pressurized
Maximum design heat input means, (ii) Any holder of a leasehold interest fluidized bed combustion;
starting from the initial installation of a in a CAIR NOX unit at the source or the (2) Integrated gasification combined
unit, the maximum amount of fuel per CAIR NOX unit; or cycle;
hour (in Btu/hr) that a unit is capable of (iii) Any purchaser of power from a (3) Magnetohydrodynamics;
combusting on a steady state basis as CAIR NOX unit at the source or the (4) Direct and indirect coal-fired
specified by the manufacturer of the CAIR NOX unit under a life-of-the-unit, turbines;
unit, or, starting from the completion of firm power contractual arrangement; (5) Integrated gasification fuel cells; or
any subsequent physical change in the provided that, unless expressly (6) As determined by the
unit resulting in a decrease in the provided for in a leasehold agreement, Administrator in consultation with the
maximum amount of fuel per hour (in owner shall not include a passive lessor, Secretary of Energy, a derivative of one
Btu/hr) that a unit is capable of or a person who has an equitable or more of the technologies under
combusting on a steady state basis, such interest through such lessor, whose paragraphs (1) through (5) of this
decreased maximum amount as rental payments are not based (either definition and any other coal-fired
specified by the person conducting the directly or indirectly) on the revenues or technology capable of controlling
physical change. income from such CAIR NOX unit; or multiple combustion emissions
Monitoring system means any (2) With regard to any general simultaneously with improved boiler or
monitoring system that meets the account, any person who has an generation efficiency and with
requirements of subpart HH of this part, ownership interest with respect to the significantly greater waste reduction
including a continuous emissions CAIR NOX allowances held in the relative to the performance of
monitoring system, an alternative general account and who is subject to technology in widespread commercial
monitoring system, or an excepted the binding agreement for the CAIR use as of January 1, 2005.
monitoring system under part 75 of this authorized account representative to Serial number means, for a CAIR NOX
chapter. represent the person’s ownership allowance, the unique identification
Most stringent State or Federal NOX interest with respect to CAIR NOX number assigned to each CAIR NOX
emissions limitation means, with regard allowances. allowance by the Administrator.
to a unit, the lowest NOX emissions Permitting authority means the State Sequential use of energy means:
limitation (in terms of lb/mmBtu) that is air pollution control agency, local (1) For a topping-cycle cogeneration
applicable to the unit under State or agency, other State agency, or other unit, the use of reject heat from
electricity production in a useful forms supplied to the cogeneration unit, includes one or more such units shall be
thermal energy application or process; excluding energy produced by the a CAIR NOX source, subject to the
or cogeneration unit itself. requirements of this subpart and
(2) For a bottoming-cycle cogeneration Total energy output means, with subparts BB through HH of this part:
unit, the use of reject heat from useful regard to a cogeneration unit, the sum (a) Except as provided in paragraph
thermal energy application or process in of useful power and useful thermal (b) of this section, a stationary, fossil-
electricity production. energy produced by the cogeneration fuel-fired boiler or stationary, fossil-
Source means all buildings, unit. fuel-fired combustion turbine serving at
structures, or installations located in Unit means a stationary, fossil-fuel- any time, since the start-up of the unit’s
one or more contiguous or adjacent fired boiler or combustion turbine or combustion chamber, a generator with
properties under common control of the other stationary, fossil-fuel-fired nameplate capacity of more than 25
same person or persons. For purposes of combustion device. MWe producing electricity for sale.
section 502(c) of the Clean Air Act, a Unit operating day means a calendar (b) For a unit that qualifies as a
‘‘source,’’ including a ‘‘source’’ with day in which a unit combusts any fuel. cogeneration unit during the 12-month
multiple units, shall be considered a Unit operating hour or hour of unit period starting on the date the unit first
single ‘‘facility.’’ operation means an hour in which a produces electricity and continues to
State means one of the States or the unit combusts any fuel. qualify as a cogeneration unit, a
District of Columbia that adopts the Useful power means, with regard to a cogeneration unit serving at any time a
CAIR NOX Annual Trading Program cogeneration unit, electricity or generator with nameplate capacity of
pursuant to § 51.123(o)(1) or (2) of this mechanical energy made available for more than 25 MWe and supplying in
chapter. use, excluding any such energy used in any calendar year more than one-third
Submit or serve means to send or the power production process (which of the unit’s potential electric output
transmit a document, information, or process includes, but is not limited to, capacity or 219,000 MWh, whichever is
correspondence to the person specified any on-site processing or treatment of greater, to any utility power distribution
in accordance with the applicable fuel combusted at the unit and any on- system for sale. If a unit qualifies as a
regulation: site emission controls). cogeneration unit during the 12-month
(1) In person; Useful thermal energy means, with period starting on the date the unit first
(2) By United States Postal Service; or regard to a cogeneration unit, thermal produces electricity but subsequently no
(3) By other means of dispatch or energy that is: longer qualifies as a cogeneration unit,
transmission and delivery. Compliance (1) Made available to an industrial or the unit shall be subject to paragraph (a)
with any ‘‘submission’’ or ‘‘service’’ commercial process (not a power of this section starting on the day on
deadline shall be determined by the production process), excluding any heat which the unit first no longer qualifies
date of dispatch, transmission, or contained in condensate return or as a cogeneration unit.
mailing and not the date of receipt. makeup water;
Title V operating permit means a (2) Used in a heating application (e.g., § 96.105 Retired unit exemption.
permit issued under title V of the Clean space heating or domestic hot water (a)(1) Any CAIR NOX unit that is
Air Act and part 70 or part 71 of this heating); or permanently retired and is not a CAIR
chapter. (3) Used in a space cooling NOX opt-in unit under subpart II of this
Title V operating permit regulations application (i.e., thermal energy used by part shall be exempt from the CAIR NOX
means the regulations that the an absorption chiller). Annual Trading Program, except for the
Administrator has approved or issued as Utility power distribution system provisions of this section, § 96.102,
meeting the requirements of title V of means the portion of an electricity grid § 96.103, § 96.104, § 96.106(c)(4)
the Clean Air Act and part 70 or 71 of owned or operated by a utility and through (8), § 96.107, and subparts EE
this chapter. dedicated to delivering electricity to through GG of this part.
Ton means 2,000 pounds. For the customers. (2) The exemption under paragraph
purpose of determining compliance § 96.103 Measurements, abbreviations, (a)(1) of this section shall become
with the CAIR NOX emissions and acronyms. effective the day on which the CAIR
limitation, total tons of nitrogen oxides Measurements, abbreviations, and NOX unit is permanently retired. Within
emissions for a control period shall be acronyms used in this part are defined 30 days of the unit’s permanent
calculated as the sum of all recorded as follows: retirement, the CAIR designated
hourly emissions (or the mass Btu—British thermal unit. representative shall submit a statement
equivalent of the recorded hourly CO2—carbon dioxide. to the permitting authority otherwise
emission rates) in accordance with NOX—nitrogen oxides. responsible for administering any CAIR
subpart HH of this part, but with any hr—hour. permit for the unit and shall submit a
remaining fraction of a ton equal to or kW—kilowatt electrical. copy of the statement to the
greater than 0.50 tons deemed to equal kWh—kilowatt hour. Administrator. The statement shall
one ton and any remaining fraction of a mmBtu—million Btu. state, in a format prescribed by the
ton less than 0.50 tons deemed to equal MWe—megawatt electrical. permitting authority, that the unit was
zero tons. MWh—megawatt hour. permanently retired on a specific date
Topping-cycle cogeneration unit O2—oxygen. and will comply with the requirements
means a cogeneration unit in which the ppm—parts per million. of paragraph (b) of this section.
energy input to the unit is first used to lb—pound. (3) After receipt of the statement
scfh—standard cubic feet per hour.
produce useful power, including under paragraph (a)(2) of this section,
SO2—sulfur dioxide.
electricity, and at least some of the H2O—water. the permitting authority will amend any
reject heat from the electricity yr—year. permit under subpart CC of this part
production is then used to provide covering the source at which the unit is
useful thermal energy. § 96.104 Applicability. located to add the provisions and
Total energy input means, with regard The following units in a State shall be requirements of the exemption under
to a cogeneration unit, total energy of all CAIR NOX units, and any source that paragraphs (a)(1) and (b) of this section.
(b) Special provisions. (1) A unit this section shall be treated as a unit § 96.154(a) in an amount not less than
exempt under paragraph (a) of this that commences operation and the tons of total nitrogen oxides
section shall not emit any nitrogen commercial operation on the first date emissions for the control period from all
oxides, starting on the date that the on which the unit resumes operation. CAIR NOX units at the source, as
exemption takes effect. determined in accordance with subpart
(2) The permitting authority will § 96.106 Standard requirements. HH of this part.
allocate CAIR NOX allowances under (a) Permit requirements. (1) The CAIR (2) A CAIR NOX unit shall be subject
subpart EE of this part to a unit exempt designated representative of each CAIR to the requirements under paragraph
under paragraph (a) of this section. NOX source required to have a title V (c)(1) of this section starting on the later
(3) For a period of 5 years from the operating permit and each CAIR NOX of January 1, 2009 or the deadline for
date the records are created, the owners unit required to have a title V operating meeting the unit’s monitor certification
and operators of a unit exempt under permit at the source shall: requirements under § 96.170(b)(1),(2), or
paragraph (a) of this section shall retain (i) Submit to the permitting authority (5).
at the source that includes the unit, a complete CAIR permit application (3) A CAIR NOX allowance shall not
records demonstrating that the unit is under § 96.122 in accordance with the be deducted, for compliance with the
permanently retired. The 5-year period deadlines specified in § 96.121(a) and requirements under paragraph (c)(1) of
for keeping records may be extended for (b); and this section, for a control period in a
cause, at any time before the end of the (ii) Submit in a timely manner any calendar year before the year for which
period, in writing by the permitting supplemental information that the the CAIR NOX allowance was allocated.
authority or the Administrator. The permitting authority determines is (4) CAIR NOX allowances shall be
owners and operators bear the burden of necessary in order to review a CAIR held in, deducted from, or transferred
proof that the unit is permanently permit application and issue or deny a into or among CAIR NOX Allowance
retired. CAIR permit. Tracking System accounts in accordance
(4) The owners and operators and, to (2) The owners and operators of each with subpart EE of this part.
the extent applicable, the CAIR CAIR NOX source required to have a (5) A CAIR NOX allowance is a
designated representative of a unit title V operating permit and each CAIR limited authorization to emit one ton of
exempt under paragraph (a) of this NOX unit required to have a title V nitrogen oxides in accordance with the
section shall comply with the operating permit at the source shall CAIR NOX Annual Trading Program. No
requirements of the CAIR NOX Annual have a CAIR permit issued by the provision of the CAIR NOX Annual
Trading Program concerning all periods permitting authority under subpart CC Trading Program, the CAIR permit
for which the exemption is not in effect, of this part for the source and operate application, the CAIR permit, or an
even if such requirements arise, or must the source and the unit in compliance exemption under § 96.105 and no
be complied with, after the exemption with such CAIR permit. provision of law shall be construed to
takes effect. (3) Except as provided in subpart II of limit the authority of the State or the
(5) A unit exempt under paragraph (a) this part, the owners and operators of a United States to terminate or limit such
of this section and located at a source CAIR NOX source that is not otherwise authorization.
that is required, or but for this required to have a title V operating (6) A CAIR NOX allowance does not
exemption would be required, to have a permit and each CAIR NOX unit that is constitute a property right.
title V operating permit shall not resume not otherwise required to have a title V (7) Upon recordation by the
operation unless the CAIR designated operating permit are not required to Administrator under subpart FF, GG, or
representative of the source submits a submit a CAIR permit application, and II of this part, every allocation, transfer,
complete CAIR permit application to have a CAIR permit, under subpart or deduction of a CAIR NOX allowance
under § 96.122 for the unit not less than CC of this part for such CAIR NOX to or from a CAIR NOX unit’s
18 months (or such lesser time provided source and such CAIR NOX unit. compliance account is incorporated
by the permitting authority) before the (b) Monitoring, reporting, and automatically in any CAIR permit of the
later of January 1, 2009 or the date on recordkeeping requirements. (1) The source that includes the CAIR NOX unit.
which the unit resumes operation. owners and operators, and the CAIR (d) Excess emissions requirements. (1)
(6) On the earlier of the following designated representative, of each CAIR If a CAIR NOX source emits nitrogen
dates, a unit exempt under paragraph (a) NOX source and each CAIR NOX unit at oxides during any control period in
of this section shall lose its exemption: the source shall comply with the excess of the CAIR NOX emissions
(i) The date on which the CAIR monitoring, reporting, and limitation, then:
designated representative submits a recordkeeping requirements of subpart (i) The owners and operators of the
CAIR permit application for the unit HH of this part. source and each CAIR NOX unit at the
under paragraph (b)(5) of this section; (2) The emissions measurements source shall surrender the CAIR NOX
(ii) The date on which the CAIR recorded and reported in accordance allowances required for deduction
designated representative is required with subpart HH of this part shall be under § 96.154(d)(1) and pay any fine,
under paragraph (b)(5) of this section to used to determine compliance by each penalty, or assessment or comply with
submit a CAIR permit application for CAIR NOX source with the CAIR NOX any other remedy imposed, for the same
the unit; or emissions limitation under paragraph violations, under the Clean Air Act or
(iii) The date on which the unit (c) of this section. applicable State law; and
resumes operation, if the CAIR (c) Nitrogen oxides emission (ii) Each ton of such excess emissions
designated representative is not requirements. (1) As of the allowance and each day of such control period
required to submit a CAIR permit transfer deadline for a control period, shall constitute a separate violation of
application for the unit. the owners and operators of each CAIR this subpart, the Clean Air Act, and
(7) For the purpose of applying NOX source and each CAIR NOX unit at applicable State law.
monitoring, reporting, and the source shall hold, in the source’s (2) [Reserved.]
recordkeeping requirements under compliance account, CAIR NOX (e) Recordkeeping and reporting
subpart HH of this part, a unit that loses allowances available for compliance requirements. (1) Unless otherwise
its exemption under paragraph (a) of deductions for the control period under provided, the owners and operators of
the CAIR NOX source and each CAIR application, a CAIR permit, or an the CAIR designated representative and
NOX unit at the source shall keep on site exemption under § 96.105 shall be such owners and operators. The owners
at the source each of the following construed as exempting or excluding the and operators shall be bound by any
documents for a period of 5 years from owners and operators, and the CAIR decision or order issued to the CAIR
the date the document is created. This designated representative, of a CAIR designated representative by the
period may be extended for cause, at NOX source or CAIR NOX unit from permitting authority, the Administrator,
any time before the end of 5 years, in compliance with any other provision of or a court regarding the source or unit.
writing by the permitting authority or the applicable, approved State (d) No CAIR permit will be issued, no
the Administrator. implementation plan, a federally emissions data reports will be accepted,
(i) The certificate of representation enforceable permit, or the Clean Air Act. and no CAIR NOX Allowance Tracking
under § 96.113 for the CAIR designated System account will be established for
representative for the source and each § 96.107 Computation of time.
a CAIR NOX unit at a source, until the
CAIR NOX unit at the source and all (a) Unless otherwise stated, any time
Administrator has received a complete
documents that demonstrate the truth of period scheduled, under the CAIR NOX
certificate of representation under
the statements in the certificate of Annual Trading Program, to begin on
§ 96.113 for a CAIR designated
representation; provided that the the occurrence of an act or event shall
begin on the day the act or event occurs. representative of the source and the
certificate and documents shall be CAIR NOX units at the source.
retained on site at the source beyond (b) Unless otherwise stated, any time
period scheduled, under the CAIR NOX (e)(1) Each submission under the
such 5-year period until such CAIR NOX Annual Trading Program
documents are superseded because of Annual Trading Program, to begin
before the occurrence of an act or event shall be submitted, signed, and certified
the submission of a new certificate of by the CAIR designated representative
representation under § 96.113 changing shall be computed so that the period
ends the day before the act or event for each CAIR NOX source on behalf of
the CAIR designated representative. which the submission is made. Each
(ii) All emissions monitoring occurs.
(c) Unless otherwise stated, if the final such submission shall include the
information, in accordance with subpart
day of any time period, under the CAIR following certification statement by the
HH of this part, provided that to the
NOX Annual Trading Program, falls on CAIR designated representative: ‘‘I am
extent that subpart HH of this part
a weekend or a State or Federal holiday, authorized to make this submission on
provides for a 3-year period for
the time period shall be extended to the behalf of the owners and operators of
recordkeeping, the 3-year period shall
next business day. the source or units for which the
apply.
(iii) Copies of all reports, compliance submission is made. I certify under
§ 96.108 Appeal procedures. penalty of law that I have personally
certifications, and other submissions The appeal procedures for decisions
and all records made or required under examined, and am familiar with, the
of the Administrator under the CAIR statements and information submitted
the CAIR NOX Annual Trading Program. NOX Annual Trading Program are set
(iv) Copies of all documents used to in this document and all its
forth in part 78 of this chapter. attachments. Based on my inquiry of
complete a CAIR permit application and
any other submission under the CAIR those individuals with primary
Subpart BB—CAIR Designated
NOX Annual Trading Program or to responsibility for obtaining the
Representative for CAIR NOX Sources
demonstrate compliance with the information, I certify that the statements
requirements of the CAIR NOX Annual § 96.110 Authorization and responsibilities and information are to the best of my
Trading Program. of CAIR designated representative. knowledge and belief true, accurate, and
(2) The CAIR designated (a) Except as provided under § 96.111, complete. I am aware that there are
representative of a CAIR NOX source each CAIR NOX source, including all significant penalties for submitting false
and each CAIR NOX unit at the source CAIR NOX units at the source, shall statements and information or omitting
shall submit the reports required under have one and only one CAIR designated required statements and information,
the CAIR NOX Annual Trading Program, representative, with regard to all matters including the possibility of fine or
including those under subpart HH of under the CAIR NOX Annual Trading imprisonment.’’
this part. Program concerning the source or any (2) The permitting authority and the
(f) Liability. (1) Each CAIR NOX CAIR NOX unit at the source. Administrator will accept or act on a
source and each CAIR NOX unit shall (b) The CAIR designated submission made on behalf of owner or
meet the requirements of the CAIR NOX representative of the CAIR NOX source operators of a CAIR NOX source or a
Annual Trading Program. shall be selected by an agreement CAIR NOX unit only if the submission
(2) Any provision of the CAIR NOX binding on the owners and operators of has been made, signed, and certified in
Annual Trading Program that applies to the source and all CAIR NOX units at accordance with paragraph (e)(1) of this
a CAIR NOX source or the CAIR the source and shall act in accordance section.
designated representative of a CAIR with the certification statement in
NOX source shall also apply to the § 96.113(a)(4)(iv). § 96.111 Alternate CAIR designated
(c) Upon receipt by the Administrator representative.
owners and operators of such source
and of the CAIR NOX units at the of a complete certificate of (a) A certificate of representation
source. representation under § 96.113, the CAIR under § 96.113 may designate one and
(3) Any provision of the CAIR NOX designated representative of the source only one alternate CAIR designated
Annual Trading Program that applies to shall represent and, by his or her representative, who may act on behalf of
a CAIR NOX unit or the CAIR designated representations, actions, inactions, or the CAIR designated representative. The
representative of a CAIR NOX unit shall submissions, legally bind each owner agreement by which the alternate CAIR
also apply to the owners and operators and operator of the CAIR NOX source designated representative is selected
of such unit. represented and each CAIR NOX unit at shall include a procedure for
(g) Effect on other authorities. No the source in all matters pertaining to authorizing the alternate CAIR
provision of the CAIR NOX Annual the CAIR NOX Annual Trading Program, designated representative to act in lieu
Trading Program, a CAIR permit notwithstanding any agreement between of the CAIR designated representative.
(b) Upon receipt by the Administrator the CAIR designated representative and or where a customer purchases power
of a complete certificate of any alternate CAIR designated from a CAIR NOX unit under a life-of-
representation under § 96.113, any representative of the source or unit, and the-unit, firm power contractual
representation, action, inaction, or the decisions and orders of the arrangement, I certify that: I have given
submission by the alternate CAIR permitting authority, the Administrator, a written notice of my selection as the
designated representative shall be or a court, as if the new owner or ‘CAIR designated representative’ or
deemed to be a representation, action, operator were included in such list. ‘alternate CAIR designated
inaction, or submission by the CAIR (2) Within 30 days following any representative’, as applicable, and of the
designated representative. change in the owners and operators of agreement by which I was selected to
(c) Except in this section and a CAIR NOX source or a CAIR NOX unit, each owner and operator of the source
§§ 96.102, 96.110(a) and (d), 96.112, including the addition of a new owner and of each CAIR NOX unit at the
96.113, 96.151 and 96.182, whenever or operator, the CAIR designated source; and CAIR NOX allowances and
the term ‘‘CAIR designated representative or any alternate CAIR proceeds of transactions involving CAIR
representative’’ is used in subparts AA designated representative shall submit a NOX allowances will be deemed to be
through II of this part, the term shall be revision to the certificate of held or distributed in proportion to each
construed to include the CAIR representation under § 96.113 amending holder’s legal, equitable, leasehold, or
designated representative or any the list of owners and operators to contractual reservation or entitlement,
alternate CAIR designated include the change. except that, if such multiple holders
representative. have expressly provided for a different
§ 96.113 Certificate of representation. distribution of CAIR NOX allowances by
§ 96.112 Changing CAIR designated (a) A complete certificate of contract, CAIR NOX allowances and
representative and alternate CAIR representation for a CAIR designated
designated representative; changes in proceeds of transactions involving CAIR
representative or an alternate CAIR NOX allowances will be deemed to be
owners and operators.
designated representative shall include held or distributed in accordance with
(a) Changing CAIR designated the following elements in a format
representative. The CAIR designated the contract.’’
prescribed by the Administrator: (5) The signature of the CAIR
representative may be changed at any (1) Identification of the CAIR NOX designated representative and any
time upon receipt by the Administrator source, and each CAIR NOX unit at the alternate CAIR designated
of a superseding complete certificate of source, for which the certificate of representative and the dates signed.
representation under § 96.113. representation is submitted. (b) Unless otherwise required by the
Notwithstanding any such change, all (2) The name, address, e-mail address permitting authority or the
representations, actions, inactions, and (if any), telephone number, and Administrator, documents of agreement
submissions by the previous CAIR facsimile transmission number (if any) referred to in the certificate of
designated representative before the of the CAIR designated representative representation shall not be submitted to
time and date when the Administrator and any alternate CAIR designated the permitting authority or the
receives the superseding certificate of representative. Administrator. Neither the permitting
representation shall be binding on the (3) A list of the owners and operators authority nor the Administrator shall be
new CAIR designated representative and of the CAIR NOX source and of each under any obligation to review or
the owners and operators of the CAIR CAIR NOX unit at the source. evaluate the sufficiency of such
NOX source and the CAIR NOX units at (4) The following certification documents, if submitted.
the source. statements by the CAIR designated
(b) Changing alternate CAIR representative and any alternate CAIR § 96.114 Objections concerning CAIR
designated representative. The alternate designated representative— designated representative.
CAIR designated representative may be (i) ‘‘I certify that I was selected as the (a) Once a complete certificate of
changed at any time upon receipt by the CAIR designated representative or representation under § 96.113 has been
Administrator of a superseding alternate CAIR designated submitted and received, the permitting
complete certificate of representation representative, as applicable, by an authority and the Administrator will
under § 96.113. Notwithstanding any agreement binding on the owners and rely on the certificate of representation
such change, all representations, operators of the source and each CAIR unless and until a superseding complete
actions, inactions, and submissions by NOX unit at the source.’’ certificate of representation under
the previous alternate CAIR designated (ii) ‘‘I certify that I have all the § 96.113 is received by the
representative before the time and date necessary authority to carry out my Administrator.
when the Administrator receives the duties and responsibilities under the (b) Except as provided in § 96.112(a)
superseding certificate of representation CAIR NOX Annual Trading Program on or (b), no objection or other
shall be binding on the new alternate behalf of the owners and operators of communication submitted to the
CAIR designated representative and the the source and of each CAIR NOX unit permitting authority or the
owners and operators of the CAIR NOX at the source and that each such owner Administrator concerning the
source and the CAIR NOX units at the and operator shall be fully bound by my authorization, or any representation,
source. representations, actions, inactions, or action, inaction, or submission, of the
(c) Changes in owners and operators. submissions.’’ CAIR designated representative shall
(1) In the event a new owner or operator (iii) ‘‘I certify that the owners and affect any representation, action,
of a CAIR NOX source or a CAIR NOX operators of the source and of each inaction, or submission of the CAIR
unit is not included in the list of owners CAIR NOX unit at the source shall be designated representative or the finality
and operators in the certificate of bound by any order issued to me by the of any decision or order by the
representation under § 96.113, such new Administrator, the permitting authority, permitting authority or the
owner or operator shall be deemed to be or a court regarding the source or unit.’’ Administrator under the CAIR NOX
subject to and bound by the certificate (iv) ‘‘Where there are multiple holders Annual Trading Program.
of representation, the representations, of a legal or equitable title to, or a (c) Neither the permitting authority
actions, inactions, and submissions of leasehold interest in, a CAIR NOX unit, nor the Administrator will adjudicate
any private legal dispute concerning the § 96.121 Submission of CAIR permit complete CAIR permit application
authorization or any representation, applications. under § 96.122.
action, inaction, or submission of any (a) Duty to apply. The CAIR (b) Each CAIR permit is deemed to
CAIR designated representative, designated representative of any CAIR incorporate automatically the
including private legal disputes NOX source required to have a title V definitions of terms under § 96.102 and,
concerning the proceeds of CAIR NOX operating permit shall submit to the upon recordation by the Administrator
allowance transfers. permitting authority a complete CAIR
under subpart FF, GG, or II of this part,
permit application under § 96.122 for
Subpart CC—Permits every allocation, transfer, or deduction
the source covering each CAIR NOX unit
of a CAIR NOX allowance to or from the
§ 96.120 General CAIR Annual Trading at the source at least 18 months (or such
lesser time provided by the permitting compliance account of the CAIR NOX
Program permit requirements.
authority) before the later of January 1, source covered by the permit.
(a) For each CAIR NOX source
required to have a title V operating 2009 or the date on which the CAIR (c) The term of the CAIR permit will
permit or required, under subpart II of NOX unit commences operation. be set by the permitting authority, as
this part, to have a title V operating (b) Duty to Reapply. For a CAIR NOX necessary to facilitate coordination of
permit or other federally enforceable source required to have a title V the renewal of the CAIR permit with
permit, such permit shall include a operating permit, the CAIR designated issuance, revision, or renewal of the
CAIR permit administered by the representative shall submit a complete CAIR NOX source’s title V operating
permitting authority for the title V CAIR permit application under § 96.122 permit or other federally enforceable
operating permit or the federally for the source covering each CAIR NOX permit as applicable.
enforceable permit as applicable. The unit at the source to renew the CAIR
CAIR portion of the title V permit or permit in accordance with the § 96.124 CAIR permit revisions.
other federally enforceable permit as permitting authority’s title V operating Except as provided in § 96.123(b), the
applicable shall be administered in permits regulations addressing permit permitting authority will revise the
accordance with the permitting renewal. CAIR permit, as necessary, in
authority’s title V operating permits accordance with the permitting
§ 96.122 Information requirements for
regulations promulgated under part 70
CAIR permit applications. authority’s title V operating permits
or 71 of this chapter or the permitting
A complete CAIR permit application regulations or the permitting authority’s
authority’s regulations for other
federally enforceable permits as shall include the following elements regulations for other federally
applicable, except as provided concerning the CAIR NOX source for enforceable permits as applicable
otherwise by this subpart and subpart II which the application is submitted, in a addressing permit revisions.
of this part. format prescribed by the permitting
(b) Each CAIR permit shall contain, authority: Subpart DD—[Reserved]
with regard to the CAIR NOX source and (a) Identification of the CAIR NOX
the CAIR NOX units at the source source; Subpart EE—CAIR NOX Allowance
covered by the CAIR permit, all (b) Identification of each CAIR NOX Allocations
applicable CAIR NOX Annual Trading unit at the CAIR NOX source; and § 96.140 State trading budgets.
Program, CAIR NOX Ozone Season (c) The standard requirements under
Trading Program, and CAIR SO2 Trading § 96.106. The State trading budgets for annual
Program requirements and shall be a allocations of CAIR NOX allowances for
complete and separable portion of the § 96.123 CAIR permit contents and term. the control periods in 2009 through
title V operating permit or other (a) Each CAIR permit will contain, in 2014 and in 2015 and thereafter are
federally enforceable permit under a format prescribed by the permitting respectively as follows:
paragraph (a) of this section. authority, all elements required for a
State trading budget

State for 2015 and there-
for 2009–2014 (tons) after (tons)
Alabama ........................................................................................................................................... 69,020 57,517

Florida .............................................................................................................................................. 99,445 82,871
Georgia ............................................................................................................................................ 66,321 55,268
Illinois ............................................................................................................................................... 76,230 63,525
Indiana ............................................................................................................................................. 108,935 90,779
Iowa ................................................................................................................................................. 32,692 27,243
Kentucky .......................................................................................................................................... 83,205 69,337
Louisiana .......................................................................................................................................... 35,512 29,593
Maryland .......................................................................................................................................... 27,724 23,104
Michigan ........................................................................................................................................... 65,304 54,420
Minnesota ........................................................................................................................................ 31,443 26,203
Mississippi ........................................................................................................................................ 17,807 14,839
Missouri ............................................................................................................................................ 59,871 49,892
New York ......................................................................................................................................... 45,617 38,014
North Carolina .................................................................................................................................. 62,183 51,819
Ohio ................................................................................................................................................. 108,667 90,556
Pennsylvania .................................................................................................................................... 99,049 82,541
South Carolina ................................................................................................................................. 32,662 27,219
Tennessee ....................................................................................................................................... 50,973 42,478
Texas ............................................................................................................................................... 181,014 150,845

Virginia ............................................................................................................................................. 36,074 30,062

West Virginia .................................................................................................................................... 74,220 61,850
Wisconsin ......................................................................................................................................... 40,759 33,966
§ 96.141 Timing requirements for CAIR immediately precedes the applicable otherwise subject to the requirements of
NOX allowance allocations. control period and except that any CAIR part 75 of this chapter for the year.
(a) By October 31, 2006, the NOX unit that would otherwise be (ii) A unit’s converted control period
permitting authority will submit to the allocated CAIR NOX allowances under heat input for a calendar year specified
Administrator the CAIR NOX allowance § 96.142(a) and (b), as well as under under paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section
allocations, in a format prescribed by § 96.142(a), (c), and (d), for the equals:
the Administrator and in accordance applicable control period will be (A) Except as provided in paragraph
with § 96.142(a) and (b), for the control assumed to be allocated no CAIR NOX (a)(2)(ii)(B) or (C) of this section, the
periods in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, allowances under § 96.142(a), (c), and control period gross electrical output of
and 2014. (d) for the applicable control period. the generator or generators served by the
(b)(1) By October 31, 2009 and unit multiplied by 7,900 Btu/kWh, if the
October 31 of each year thereafter, the § 96.142 CAIR NOX allowance allocations. unit is coal-fired for the year, or 6,675
permitting authority will submit to the (a)(1) The baseline heat input (in Btu/kWh, if the unit is not coal-fired for
Administrator the CAIR NOX allowance mmBtu) used with respect to CAIR NOX the year, and divided by 1,000,000 Btu/
allocations, in a format prescribed by allowance allocations under paragraph mmBtu, provided that if a generator is
the Administrator and in accordance (b) of this section for each CAIR NOX served by 2 or more units, then the gross
with § 96.142(a) and (b), for the control unit will be: electrical output of the generator will be
period in the sixth year after the year of (i) For units commencing operation attributed to each unit in proportion to
the applicable deadline for submission before January 1, 2001 the average of the the unit’s share of the total control
under this paragraph. 3 highest amounts of the unit’s adjusted period heat input of such units for the
(2) If the permitting authority fails to control period heat input for 2000 year;
submit to the Administrator the CAIR through 2004, with the adjusted control (B) For a unit that is a boiler and has
NOX allowance allocations in period heat input for each year equipment used to produce electricity
accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of this calculated as follows: and useful thermal energy for industrial,
section, the Administrator will assume (A) If the unit is coal-fired during the commercial, heating, or cooling
that the allocations of CAIR NOX year, the unit’s control period heat input purposes through the sequential use of
allowances for the applicable control for such year is multiplied by 100 energy, the total heat energy (in Btu) of
period are the same as for the control percent; the steam produced by the boiler during
period that immediately precedes the the control period, divided by 0.8 and
(B) If the unit is oil-fired during the
applicable control period, except that, if by 1,000,000 Btu/mmBtu; or
year, the unit’s control period heat input (C) For a unit that is a combustion
the applicable control period is in 2015,
for such year is multiplied by 60 turbine and has equipment used to
the Administrator will assume that the
percent; and produce electricity and useful thermal
allocations equal 83 percent of the
allocations for the control period that (C) If the unit is not subject to energy for industrial, commercial,
immediately precedes the applicable paragraph (a)(1)(i)(A) or (B) of this heating, or cooling purposes through the
control period. section, the unit’s control period heat sequential use of energy, the control
(c)(1) By October 31, 2009 and input for such year is multiplied by 40 period gross electrical output of the
October 31 of each year thereafter, the percent. enclosed device comprising the
permitting authority will submit to the (ii) For units commencing operation compressor, combustor, and turbine
Administrator the CAIR NOX allowance on or after January 1, 2001 and multiplied by 3,414 Btu/kWh, plus the
allocations, in a format prescribed by operating each calendar year during a total heat energy (in Btu) of the steam
the Administrator and in accordance period of 5 or more consecutive produced by any associated heat
with § 96.142(a), (c), and (d), for the calendar years, the average of the 3 recovery steam generator during the
control period in the year of the highest amounts of the unit’s total control period divided by 0.8, and with
applicable deadline for submission converted control period heat input over the sum divided by 1,000,000 Btu/
under this paragraph. the first such 5 years. mmBtu.
(2) If the permitting authority fails to (2)(i) A unit’s control period heat (b)(1) For each control period in 2009
submit to the Administrator the CAIR input, and a unit’s status as coal-fired or and thereafter, the permitting authority
NOX allowance allocations in oil-fired, for a calendar year under will allocate to all CAIR NOX units in
accordance with paragraph (c)(1) of this paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, and a the State that have a baseline heat input
section, the Administrator will assume unit’s total tons of NOX emissions (as determined under paragraph (a) of
that the allocations of CAIR NOX during a calendar year under paragraph this section) a total amount of CAIR
allowances for the applicable control (c)(3) of this section, will be determined NOX allowances equal to 95 percent for
period are the same as for the control in accordance with part 75 of this a control period during 2009 through
period that immediately precedes the chapter, to the extent the unit was 2014, and 97 percent for a control
applicable control period, except that, if otherwise subject to the requirements of period during 2015 and thereafter, of the
the applicable control period is in 2015, part 75 of this chapter for the year, or tons of NOX emissions in the State
the Administrator will assume that the will be based on the best available data trading budget under § 96.140 (except as
allocations equal 83 percent of the reported to the permitting authority for provided in paragraph (d) of this
allocations for the control period that the unit, to the extent the unit was not section).
(2) The permitting authority will (i) The permitting authority will tons of NOX emissions in the State
allocate CAIR NOX allowances to each accept an allowance allocation request trading budget under § 96.140, and
CAIR NOX unit under paragraph (b)(1) only if the request meets, or is adjusted rounded to the nearest whole allowance
of this section in an amount determined by the permitting authority as necessary as appropriate.
by multiplying the total amount of CAIR to meet, the requirements of paragraphs
NOX allowances allocated under (c)(2) and (3) of this section. § 96.143 Compliance supplement pool.
paragraph (b)(1) of this section by the (ii) On or after July 1 of the control (a) In addition to the CAIR NOX
ratio of the baseline heat input of such period, the permitting authority will allowances allocated under § 96.142, the
CAIR NOX unit to the total amount of determine the sum of the CAIR NOX permitting authority may allocate for the
baseline heat input of all such CAIR allowances requested (as adjusted under control period in 2009 up to the
NOX units in the State and rounding to paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this section) in all following amount of CAIR NOX
the nearest whole allowance as allowance allocation requests accepted allowances to CAIR NOX units in the
appropriate. under paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this section respective State:
(c) For each control period in 2009 for the control period.
and thereafter, the permitting authority (iii) If the amount of CAIR NOX Compliance
allowances in the new unit set-aside for State supplement
will allocate CAIR NOX allowances to pool
CAIR NOX units in the State that the control period is greater than or
commenced operation on or after equal to the sum under paragraph Alabama .................................... 10,166
January 1, 2001 and do not yet have a (c)(4)(ii) of this section, then the District Of Columbia ................. 0
baseline heat input (as determined permitting authority will allocate the Florida ....................................... 8,335
under paragraph (a) of this section), in amount of CAIR NOX allowances Georgia ..................................... 12,397
accordance with the following requested (as adjusted under paragraph Illinois ........................................ 11,299
procedures: (c)(4)(i) of this section) to each CAIR Indiana ...................................... 20,155
(1) The permitting authority will NOX unit covered by an allowance Iowa .......................................... 6,978
Kentucky ................................... 14,935
establish a separate new unit set-aside allocation request accepted under Louisiana .................................. 2,251
for each control period. Each new unit paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this section. Maryland ................................... 4,670
set-aside will be allocated CAIR NOX (iv) If the amount of CAIR NOX Michigan ................................... 8,347
allowances equal to 5 percent for a allowances in the new unit set-aside for Minnesota ................................. 6,528
control period in 2009 through 2013, the control period is less than the sum Mississippi ................................ 3,066
and 3 percent for a control period in under paragraph (c)(4)(ii) of this section, Missouri .................................... 9,044
2014 and thereafter, of the amount of then the permitting authority will New York .................................. 0
tons of NOX emissions in the State allocate to each CAIR NOX unit covered North Carolina .......................... 0
trading budget under § 96.140. by an allowance allocation request Ohio .......................................... 25,037
Pennsylvania ............................ 16,009
(2) The CAIR designated accepted under paragraph (c)(4)(i) of
South Carolina .......................... 2,600
representative of such a CAIR NOX unit this section the amount of the CAIR Tennessee ................................ 8,944
may submit to the permitting authority NOX allowances requested (as adjusted Texas ........................................ 772
a request, in a format specified by the under paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this section), Virginia ...................................... 5,134
permitting authority, to be allocated multiplied by the amount of CAIR NOX West Virginia ............................ 16,929
CAIR NOX allowances, starting with the allowances in the new unit set-aside for Wisconsin ................................. 4,898
later of the control period in 2009 or the the control period, divided by the sum
first control period after the control determined under paragraph (c)(4)(ii) of (b) For any CAIR NOX unit in the
period in which the CAIR NOX unit this section, and rounded to the nearest State that achieves NOX emission
commences commercial operation and whole allowance as appropriate. reductions in 2007 and 2008 that are not
until the first control period for which (v) The permitting authority will necessary to comply with any State or
the unit is allocated CAIR NOX notify each CAIR designated federal emissions limitation applicable
allowances under paragraph (b) of this representative that submitted an during such years, the CAIR designated
section. The CAIR NOX allowance allowance allocation request of the representative of the unit may request
allocation request must be submitted on amount of CAIR NOX allowances (if early reduction credits, and allocation of
or before July 1 of the first control any) allocated for the control period to CAIR NOX allowances from the
period for which the CAIR NOX the CAIR NOX unit covered by the compliance supplement pool under
allowances are requested and after the request. paragraph (a) of this section for such
date on which the CAIR NOX unit (d) If, after completion of the early reduction credits, in accordance
commences commercial operation. procedures under paragraph (c)(4) of with the following:
(3) In a CAIR NOX allowance this section for a control period, any (1) The owners and operators of such
allocation request under paragraph unallocated CAIR NOX allowances CAIR NOX unit shall monitor and report
(c)(2) of this section, the CAIR remain in the new unit set-aside for the the NOX emissions rate and the heat
designated representative may request control period, the permitting authority input of the unit in accordance with
for a control period CAIR NOX will allocate to each CAIR NOX unit that subpart HH of this part in each control
allowances in an amount not exceeding was allocated CAIR NOX allowances period for which early reduction credit
the CAIR NOX unit’s total tons of NOX under paragraph (b) of this section an is requested.
emissions during the calendar year amount of CAIR NOX allowances equal (2) The CAIR designated
immediately before such control period. to the total amount of such remaining representative of such CAIR NOX unit
(4) The permitting authority will unallocated CAIR NOX allowances, shall submit to the permitting authority
review each CAIR NOX allowance multiplied by the unit’s allocation by July 1, 2009 a request, in a format
allocation request under paragraph under paragraph (b) of this section, specified by the permitting authority,
(c)(2) of this section and will allocate divided by 95 percent for a control for allocation of an amount of CAIR
CAIR NOX allowances for each control period during 2009 through 2014, and NOX allowances from the compliance
period pursuant to such request as 97 percent for a control period during supplement pool not exceeding the sum
follows: 2015 and thereafter, of the amount of of the amounts (in tons) of the unit’s
NOX emission reductions in 2007 and (2) If the State’s compliance certificate of representation was
2008 that are not necessary to comply supplement pool under paragraph (a) of submitted unless the source already has
with any State or federal emissions this section has an amount of CAIR NOX a compliance account.
limitation applicable during such years, allowances not less than the total (b) General accounts. (1) Application
determined in accordance with subpart amount of CAIR NOX allowances in all for general account.
HH of this part. such requests (as adjusted under (i) Any person may apply to open a
(c) For any CAIR NOX unit in the paragraph (d)(1) of this section), the general account for the purpose of
State whose compliance with CAIR NOX permitting authority will allocate to holding and transferring CAIR NOX
emissions limitation for the control each CAIR NOX unit covered by such allowances. An application for a general
period in 2009 would create an undue requests the amount of CAIR NOX account may designate one and only one
risk to the reliability of electricity allowances requested (as adjusted under CAIR authorized account representative
supply during such control period, the paragraph (d)(1) of this section). and one and only one alternate CAIR
CAIR designated representative of the (3) If the State’s compliance authorized account representative who
unit may request the allocation of CAIR supplement pool under paragraph (a) of may act on behalf of the CAIR
NOX allowances from the compliance this section has a smaller amount of authorized account representative. The
supplement pool under paragraph (a) of CAIR NOX allowances than the total agreement by which the alternate CAIR
this section, in accordance with the amount of CAIR NOX allowances in all authorized account representative is
following: such requests (as adjusted under selected shall include a procedure for
(1) The CAIR designated paragraph (d)(1) of this section), the authorizing the alternate CAIR
representative of such CAIR NOX unit permitting authority will allocate CAIR authorized account representative to act
shall submit to the permitting authority NOX allowances to each CAIR NOX unit in lieu of the CAIR authorized account
by July 1, 2009 a request, in a format covered by such requests according to representative.
specified by the permitting authority, the following formula and rounding to (ii) A complete application for a
for allocation of an amount of CAIR the nearest whole allowance as general account shall be submitted to
NOX allowances from the compliance appropriate: the Administrator and shall include the
supplement pool not exceeding the Unit’s allocation = Unit’s adjusted following elements in a format
minimum amount of CAIR NOX allocation × (State’s compliance prescribed by the Administrator:
allowances necessary to remove such supplement pool ÷ Total adjusted (A) Name, mailing address, e-mail
undue risk to the reliability of electricity allocations for all units) address (if any), telephone number, and
supply. facsimile transmission number (if any)
(2) In the request under paragraph Where: of the CAIR authorized account
(c)(1) of this section, the CAIR ‘‘Unit’s allocation’’ is the number of representative and any alternate CAIR
designated representative of such CAIR CAIR NOX allowances allocated to the authorized account representative;
NOX unit shall demonstrate that, in the unit from the State’s compliance (B) Organization name and type of
absence of allocation to the unit of the supplement pool. Unit’s adjusted organization, if applicable;
amount of CAIR NOX allowances allocation’’ is the amount of CAIR NOX (C) A list of all persons subject to a
requested, the unit’s compliance with allowances requested for the unit under binding agreement for the CAIR
CAIR NOX emissions limitation for the paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, as authorized account representative and
control period in 2009 would create an adjusted under paragraph (d)(1) of this any alternate CAIR authorized account
undue risk to the reliability of electricity section. ‘‘State’s compliance representative to represent their
supply during such control period. This supplement pool’’ is the amount of ownership interest with respect to the
demonstration must include a showing CAIR NOX allowances in the State’s CAIR NOX allowances held in the
that it would not be feasible for the compliance supplement pool. ‘‘Total general account;
owners and operators of the unit to: adjusted allocations for all units’’ is the (D) The following certification
(i) Obtain a sufficient amount of sum of the amounts of allocations statement by the CAIR authorized
electricity from other electricity requested for all units under paragraph account representative and any alternate
generation facilities, during the (b) or (c) of this section, as adjusted CAIR authorized account representative:
installation of control technology at the under paragraph (d)(1) of this section. ‘‘I certify that I was selected as the CAIR
unit for compliance with the CAIR NOX (4) By November 30, 2009, the authorized account representative or the
emissions limitation, to prevent such permitting authority will determine, and alternate CAIR authorized account
undue risk; or submit to the Administrator, the representative, as applicable, by an
(ii) Obtain under paragraphs (b) and allocations under paragraph (d)(3) or (4) agreement that is binding on all persons
(d) of this section, or otherwise obtain, of this section. who have an ownership interest with
a sufficient amount of CAIR NOX (5) By January 1, 2010, the respect to CAIR NOX allowances held in
allowances to prevent such undue risk. Administrator will record the the general account. I certify that I have
(d) The permitting authority will allocations under paragraph (d)(5) of all the necessary authority to carry out
review each request under paragraph (b) this section. my duties and responsibilities under the
or (c) of this section submitted by July CAIR NOX Annual Trading Program on
1, 2009 and will allocate CAIR NOX Subpart FF—CAIR NOX Allowance behalf of such persons and that each
allowances for the control period in Tracking System such person shall be fully bound by my
2009 to CAIR NOX units in the State and § 96.150 [Reserved] representations, actions, inactions, or
covered by such request as follows: submissions and by any order or
(1) Upon receipt of each such request, § 96.151 Establishment of accounts. decision issued to me by the
the permitting authority will make any (a) Compliance accounts. Except as Administrator or a court regarding the
necessary adjustments to the request to provided in § 96.184(e), upon receipt of general account.’’
ensure that the amount of the CAIR NOX a complete certificate of representation (E) The signature of the CAIR
allowances requested meets the under § 96.113, the Administrator will authorized account representative and
requirements of paragraph (b) or (c) of establish a compliance account for the any alternate CAIR authorized account
this section. CAIR NOX source for which the representative and the dates signed.
(iii) Unless otherwise required by the with, the statements and information bound by the application for a general
permitting authority or the submitted in this document and all its account, the representation, actions,
Administrator, documents of agreement attachments. Based on my inquiry of inactions, and submissions of the CAIR
referred to in the application for a those individuals with primary authorized account representative and
general account shall not be submitted responsibility for obtaining the any alternate CAIR authorized account
to the permitting authority or the information, I certify that the statements representative of the account, and the
Administrator. Neither the permitting and information are to the best of my decisions and orders of the
authority nor the Administrator shall be knowledge and belief true, accurate, and Administrator or a court, as if the new
under any obligation to review or complete. I am aware that there are person were included in such list.
evaluate the sufficiency of such significant penalties for submitting false (B) Within 30 days following any
documents, if submitted. statements and information or omitting change in the persons having an
(2) Authorization of CAIR authorized required statements and information, ownership interest with respect to CAIR
account representative. including the possibility of fine or NOX allowances in the general account,
(i) Upon receipt by the Administrator imprisonment.’’ including the addition of persons, the
of a complete application for a general (iii) The Administrator will accept or CAIR authorized account representative
account under paragraph (b)(1) of this act on a submission concerning the or any alternate CAIR authorized
section: general account only if the submission account representative shall submit a
(A) The Administrator will establish a has been made, signed, and certified in revision to the application for a general
general account for the person or accordance with paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of account amending the list of persons
persons for whom the application is this section. having an ownership interest with
submitted. (3) Changing CAIR authorized respect to the CAIR NOX allowances in
(B) The CAIR authorized account account representative and alternate the general account to include the
representative and any alternate CAIR CAIR authorized account
authorized account representative for change.
representative; changes in persons with
the general account shall represent and, (4) Objections concerning CAIR
ownership interest.
by his or her representations, actions, authorized account representative.
(i) The CAIR authorized account
inactions, or submissions, legally bind representative for a general account may (i) Once a complete application for a
each person who has an ownership be changed at any time upon receipt by general account under paragraph (b)(1)
interest with respect to CAIR NOX the Administrator of a superseding of this section has been submitted and
allowances held in the general account complete application for a general received, the Administrator will rely on
in all matters pertaining to the CAIR account under paragraph (b)(1) of this the application unless and until a
NOX Annual Trading Program, section. Notwithstanding any such superseding complete application for a
notwithstanding any agreement between change, all representations, actions, general account under paragraph (b)(1)
the CAIR authorized account inactions, and submissions by the of this section is received by the
representative or any alternate CAIR previous CAIR authorized account Administrator.
authorized account representative and representative before the time and date (ii) Except as provided in paragraph
such person. Any such person shall be when the Administrator receives the (b)(3)(i) or (ii) of this section, no
bound by any order or decision issued superseding application for a general objection or other communication
to the CAIR authorized account account shall be binding on the new submitted to the Administrator
representative or any alternate CAIR CAIR authorized account representative concerning the authorization, or any
authorized account representative by and the persons with an ownership representation, action, inaction, or
the Administrator or a court regarding interest with respect to the CAIR NOX submission of the CAIR authorized
the general account. allowances in the general account. account representative or any
(C) Any representation, action, (ii) The alternate CAIR authorized alternative CAIR authorized account
inaction, or submission by any alternate account representative for a general representative for a general account
CAIR authorized account representative account may be changed at any time shall affect any representation, action,
shall be deemed to be a representation, upon receipt by the Administrator of a inaction, or submission of the CAIR
action, inaction, or submission by the superseding complete application for a authorized account representative or
CAIR authorized account representative. general account under paragraph (b)(1) any alternative CAIR authorized account
(ii) Each submission concerning the of this section. Notwithstanding any representative or the finality of any
general account shall be submitted, such change, all representations, decision or order by the Administrator
signed, and certified by the CAIR actions, inactions, and submissions by under the CAIR NOX Annual Trading
authorized account representative or the previous alternate CAIR authorized Program.
any alternate CAIR authorized account account representative before the time (iii) The Administrator will not
representative for the persons having an and date when the Administrator adjudicate any private legal dispute
ownership interest with respect to CAIR receives the superseding application for concerning the authorization or any
NOX allowances held in the general a general account shall be binding on representation, action, inaction, or
account. Each such submission shall the new alternate CAIR authorized submission of the CAIR authorized
include the following certification account representative and the persons account representative or any
statement by the CAIR authorized with an ownership interest with respect alternative CAIR authorized account
account representative or any alternate to the CAIR NOX allowances in the representative for a general account,
CAIR authorized account representative: general account. including private legal disputes
‘‘I am authorized to make this (iii)(A) In the event a new person concerning the proceeds of CAIR NOX
submission on behalf of the persons having an ownership interest with allowance transfers.
having an ownership interest with respect to CAIR NOX allowances in the (c) Account identification. The
respect to the CAIR NOX allowances general account is not included in the Administrator will assign a unique
held in the general account. I certify list of such persons in the application identifying number to each account
under penalty of law that I have for a general account, such new person established under paragraph (a) or (b) of
personally examined, and am familiar shall be deemed to be subject to and this section.
§ 96.152 Responsibilities of CAIR period for which the CAIR NOX (2) First-in, first-out. The
authorized account representative. allowance is allocated. Administrator will deduct CAIR NOX
Following the establishment of a allowances under paragraph (b) or (d) of
§ 96.154 Compliance with CAIR NOX this section from the source’s
CAIR NOX Allowance Tracking System emissions limitation.
account, all submissions to the compliance account, in the absence of
(a) Allowance transfer deadline. The an identification or in the case of a
Administrator pertaining to the account,
CAIR NOX allowances are available to partial identification of CAIR NOX
including, but not limited to,
be deducted for compliance with a allowances by serial number under
submissions concerning the deduction
source’s CAIR NOX emissions limitation paragraph (c)(1) of this section, on a
or transfer of CAIR NOX allowances in
for a control period in a given calendar first-in, first-out (FIFO) accounting basis
the account, shall be made only by the
year only if the CAIR NOX allowances: in the following order:
CAIR authorized account representative
(1) Were allocated for the control
for the account. (i) Any CAIR NOX allowances that
period in the year or a prior year;
were allocated to the units at the source,
§ 96.153 Recordation of CAIR NOX (2) Are held in the compliance
in the order of recordation; and then
allowance allocations. account as of the allowance transfer
deadline for the control period or are (ii) Any CAIR NOX allowances that
(a) By December 1, 2006, the were allocated to any unit and
Administrator will record in the CAIR transferred into the compliance account
by a CAIR NOX allowance transfer transferred and recorded in the
NOX source’s compliance account the compliance account pursuant to subpart
CAIR NOX allowances allocated for the correctly submitted for recordation
under § 96.160 by the allowance transfer GG of this part, in the order of
CAIR NOX units at a source, as recordation.
submitted by the permitting authority in deadline for the control period; and
(3) Are not necessary for deductions (d) Deductions for excess emissions.
accordance with § 96.141(a), for the (1) After making the deductions for
control periods in 2009, 2010, 2011, for excess emissions for a prior control
period under paragraph (d) of this compliance under paragraph (b) of this
2012, 2013, and 2014. section for a control period in a calendar
section.
(b) By December 1, 2009, the (b) Deductions for compliance. year in which the CAIR NOX source has
Administrator will record in the CAIR Following the recordation, in excess emissions, the Administrator will
NOX source’s compliance account the accordance with § 96.161, of CAIR NOX deduct from the source’s compliance
CAIR NOX allowances allocated for the allowance transfers submitted for account an amount of CAIR NOX
CAIR NOX units at the source, as recordation in a source’s compliance allowances, allocated for the control
submitted by the permitting authority or account by the allowance transfer period in the immediately following
as determined by the Administrator in deadline for a control period, the calendar year, equal to 3 times the
accordance with § 96.141(b), for the Administrator will deduct from the number of tons of the source’s excess
control period in 2015. compliance account CAIR NOX emissions.
(c) In 2011 and each year thereafter, allowances available under paragraph (2) Any allowance deduction required
after the Administrator has made all (a) of this section in order to determine under paragraph (d)(1) of this section
deductions (if any) from a CAIR NOX whether the source meets the CAIR NOX shall not affect the liability of the
source’s compliance account under emissions limitation for the control owners and operators of the CAIR NOX
§ 96.154, the Administrator will record period, as follows: source or the CAIR NOX units at the
in the CAIR NOX source’s compliance (1) Until the amount of CAIR NOX source for any fine, penalty, or
account the CAIR NOX allowances allowances deducted equals the number assessment, or their obligation to
allocated for the CAIR NOX units at the of tons of total nitrogen oxides comply with any other remedy, for the
source, as submitted by the permitting emissions, determined in accordance same violations, as ordered under the
authority or determined by the with subpart HH of this part, from all Clean Air Act or applicable State law.
Administrator in accordance with CAIR NOX units at the source for the (e) Recordation of deductions. The
§ 96.141(b), for the control period in the control period; or Administrator will record in the
sixth year after the year of the control (2) If there are insufficient CAIR NOX appropriate compliance account all
period for which such deductions were allowances to complete the deductions deductions from such an account under
or could have been made. in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, until paragraph (b) or (d) of this section.
(d) By December 1, 2009 and no more CAIR NOX allowances available (f) Administrator’s action on
December 1 of each year thereafter, the under paragraph (a) of this section submissions.
Administrator will record in the CAIR remain in the compliance account. (1) The Administrator may review and
NOX source’s compliance account the (c)(1) Identification of CAIR NOX conduct independent audits concerning
CAIR NOX allowances allocated for the allowances by serial number. The CAIR any submission under the CAIR NOX
CAIR NOX units at the source, as authorized account representative for a Annual Trading Program and make
submitted by the permitting authority or source’s compliance account may appropriate adjustments of the
determined by the Administrator in request that specific CAIR NOX information in the submissions.
accordance with § 96.141(c), for the allowances, identified by serial number, (2) The Administrator may deduct
control period in the year of the in the compliance account be deducted CAIR NOX allowances from or transfer
applicable deadline for recordation for emissions or excess emissions for a CAIR NOX allowances to a source’s
under this paragraph. control period in accordance with compliance account based on the
(e) Serial numbers for allocated CAIR paragraph (b) or (d) of this section. Such information in the submissions, as
NOX allowances. When recording the request shall be submitted to the adjusted under paragraph (f)(1) of this
allocation of CAIR NOX allowances for Administrator by the allowance transfer section.
a CAIR NOX unit in a compliance deadline for the control period and
account, the Administrator will assign include, in a format prescribed by the § 96.155 Banking.
each CAIR NOX allowance a unique Administrator, the identification of the (a) CAIR NOX allowances may be
identification number that will include CAIR NOX source and the appropriate banked for future use or transfer in a
digits identifying the year of the control serial numbers. compliance account or a general
account in accordance with paragraph (c) The name and signature of the shall comply with the monitoring,
(b) of this section. CAIR authorized account representative recordkeeping, and reporting
(b) Any CAIR NOX allowance that is of the transferor account and the date requirements as provided in this subpart
held in a compliance account or a signed. and in subpart H of part 75 of this
general account will remain in such chapter. For purposes of complying
account unless and until the CAIR NOX § 96.161 EPA recordation. with such requirements, the definitions
allowance is deducted or transferred (a) Within 5 business days (except as in § 96.102 and in § 72.2 of this chapter
under § 96.154, § 96.156, or subpart GG provided in paragraph (b) of this shall apply, and the terms ‘‘affected
of this part. section) of receiving a CAIR NOX unit,’’ ‘‘designated representative,’’ and
allowance transfer, the Administrator ‘‘continuous emission monitoring
§ 96.156 Account error. will record a CAIR NOX allowance system’’ (or ‘‘CEMS’’) in part 75 of this
The Administrator may, at his or her transfer by moving each CAIR NOX chapter shall be deemed to refer to the
sole discretion and on his or her own allowance from the transferor account to terms ‘‘CAIR NOX unit,’’ ‘‘CAIR
motion, correct any error in any CAIR the transferee account as specified by designated representative,’’ and
NOX Allowance Tracking System the request, provided that: ‘‘continuous emission monitoring
account. Within 10 business days of (1) The transfer is correctly submitted system’’ (or ‘‘CEMS’’) respectively, as
making such correction, the under § 96.160; and defined in § 96.102. The owner or
Administrator will notify the CAIR (2) The transferor account includes operator of a unit that is not a CAIR
authorized account representative for each CAIR NOX allowance identified by NOX unit but that is monitored under
the account. serial number in the transfer. § 75.72(b)(2)(ii) of this chapter shall
§ 96.157 Closing of general accounts. (b) A CAIR NOX allowance transfer comply with the same monitoring,
(a) The CAIR authorized account that is submitted for recordation after recordkeeping, and reporting
representative of a general account may the allowance transfer deadline for a requirements as a CAIR NOX unit.
submit to the Administrator a request to control period and that includes any (a) Requirements for installation,
close the account, which shall include CAIR NOX allowances allocated for any certification, and data accounting. The
a correctly submitted allowance transfer control period before such allowance owner or operator of each CAIR NOX
under § 96.160 for any CAIR NOX transfer deadline will not be recorded unit shall:
allowances in the account to one or until after the Administrator completes (1) Install all monitoring systems
more other CAIR NOX Allowance the deductions under § 96.154 for the required under this subpart for
Tracking System accounts. control period immediately before such monitoring NOX mass emissions and
(b) If a general account has no allowance transfer deadline. individual unit heat input (including all
allowance transfers in or out of the (c) Where a CAIR NOX allowance systems required to monitor NOX
account for a 12-month period or longer transfer submitted for recordation fails emission rate, NOX concentration, stack
and does not contain any CAIR NOX to meet the requirements of paragraph gas moisture content, stack gas flow
allowances, the Administrator may (a) of this section, the Administrator rate, CO2 or O2 concentration, and fuel
notify the CAIR authorized account will not record such transfer. flow rate, as applicable, in accordance
representative for the account that the § 96.162 Notification. with §§ 75.71 and 75.72 of this chapter);
account will be closed following 20 (2) Successfully complete all
business days after the notice is sent. (a) Notification of recordation. Within
certification tests required under
The account will be closed after the 20- 5 business days of recordation of a CAIR
§ 96.171 and meet all other
day period unless, before the end of the NOX allowance transfer under § 96.161,
requirements of this subpart and part 75
20-day period, the Administrator the Administrator will notify the CAIR
of this chapter applicable to the
receives a correctly submitted transfer of authorized account representatives of
monitoring systems under paragraph
CAIR NOX allowances into the account both the transferor and transferee
(a)(1) of this section; and
under § 96.160 or a statement submitted accounts.
(3) Record, report, and quality-assure
by the CAIR authorized account (b) Notification of non-recordation.
the data from the monitoring systems
representative demonstrating to the Within 10 business days of receipt of a
under paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
satisfaction of the Administrator good CAIR NOX allowance transfer that fails
(b) Compliance deadlines. The owner
cause as to why the account should not to meet the requirements of § 96.161(a),
or operator shall meet the monitoring
be closed. the Administrator will notify the CAIR
system certification and other
authorized account representatives of
requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) and
Subpart GG—CAIR NOX Allowance both accounts subject to the transfer of:
(2) of this section on or before the
Transfers (1) A decision not to record the
following dates. The owner or operator
transfer, and
§ 96.160 Submission of CAIR NOX shall record, report, and quality-assure
(2) The reasons for such non-
allowance transfers. the data from the monitoring systems
recordation.
A CAIR authorized account under paragraph (a)(1) of this section on
(c) Nothing in this section shall
representative seeking recordation of a and after the following dates.
preclude the submission of a CAIR NOX
CAIR NOX allowance transfer shall (1) For the owner or operator of a
allowance transfer for recordation
submit the transfer to the Administrator. CAIR NOX unit that commences
following notification of non-
To be considered correctly submitted, commercial operation before July 1,
recordation.
the CAIR NOX allowance transfer shall 2007, by January 1, 2008.
include the following elements, in a Subpart HH—Monitoring and (2) For the owner or operator of a
format specified by the Administrator: Reporting CAIR NOX unit that commences
(a) The account numbers for both the commercial operation on or after July 1,
transferor and transferee accounts; § 96.170 General requirements. 2007, by the later of the following dates:
(b) The serial number of each CAIR The owners and operators, and to the (i) January 1, 2008; or
NOX allowance that is in the transferor extent applicable, the CAIR designated (ii) 90 unit operating days or 180
account and is to be transferred; and representative, of a CAIR NOX unit, calendar days, whichever occurs first,
after the date on which the unit after the construction or installation (1) The monitoring system has been
commences commercial operation. under paragraph (b)(3) of this section. previously certified in accordance with
(3) For the owner or operator of a (d) Prohibitions. (1) No owner or part 75 of this chapter; and
CAIR NOX unit for which construction operator of a CAIR NOX unit shall use (2) The applicable quality-assurance
of a new stack or flue or installation of any alternative monitoring system, and quality-control requirements of
add-on NOX emission controls is alternative reference method, or any § 75.21 of this chapter and appendix B,
completed after the applicable deadline other alternative to any requirement of appendix D, and appendix E to part 75
under paragraph (b)(1), (2), (4), or (5) of this subpart without having obtained of this chapter are fully met for the
this section, by 90 unit operating days prior written approval in accordance certified monitoring system described in
or 180 calendar days, whichever occurs with § 96.175. paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
first, after the date on which emissions (2) No owner or operator of a CAIR (b) The recertification provisions of
first exit to the atmosphere through the NOX unit shall operate the unit so as to this section shall apply to a monitoring
new stack or flue or add-on NOX discharge, or allow to be discharged, system under § 96.170(a)(1) exempt
emissions controls. NOX emissions to the atmosphere from initial certification requirements
(4) Notwithstanding the dates in without accounting for all such under paragraph (a) of this section.
paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section, (c) If the Administrator has previously
emissions in accordance with the
for the owner or operator of a unit for approved a petition under § 75.17(a) or
applicable provisions of this subpart
which a CAIR opt-in permit application (b) of this chapter for apportioning the
and part 75 of this chapter.
is submitted and not withdrawn and a NOX emission rate measured in a
(3) No owner or operator of a CAIR common stack or a petition under
CAIR opt-in permit is not yet issued or
NOX unit shall disrupt the continuous § 75.66 of this chapter for an alternative
denied under subpart II of this part, by
emission monitoring system, any to a requirement in § 75.12, § 75.17, or
the date specified in § 96.184(b).
(5) Notwithstanding the dates in portion thereof, or any other approved subpart H of part 75 of this chapter, the
paragraphs (b)(1), (2), and (4) of this emission monitoring method, and CAIR designated representative shall
section and solely for purposes of thereby avoid monitoring and recording resubmit the petition to the
§ 96.106(c)(2), for the owner or operator NOX mass emissions discharged into the Administrator under § 96.175(a) to
of a CAIR NOX opt-in unit under atmosphere, except for periods of determine whether the approval applies
subpart II of this part, by the date on recertification or periods when under the CAIR NOX Annual Trading
which the CAIR NOX opt-in unit enters calibration, quality assurance testing, or Program.
the CAIR NOX Annual Trading Program maintenance is performed in accordance (d) Except as provided in paragraph
as provided in § 96.184(g). with the applicable provisions of this (a) of this section, the owner or operator
(c) Reporting data. (1) Except as subpart and part 75 of this chapter. of a CAIR NOX unit shall comply with
provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this (4) No owner or operator of a CAIR the following initial certification and
section, the owner or operator of a CAIR NOX unit shall retire or permanently recertification procedures for a
NOX unit that does not meet the discontinue use of the continuous continuous monitoring system (i.e., a
applicable compliance date set forth in emission monitoring system, any continuous emission monitoring system
paragraph (b) of this section for any component thereof, or any other and an excepted monitoring system
monitoring system under paragraph approved monitoring system under this under appendices D and E to part 75 of
(a)(1) of this section shall, for each such subpart, except under any one of the this chapter) under § 96.170(a)(1). The
monitoring system, determine, record, following circumstances: owner or operator of a unit that qualifies
and report maximum potential (or, as (i) During the period that the unit is to use the low mass emissions excepted
appropriate, minimum potential) values covered by an exemption under § 96.105 monitoring methodology under § 75.19
for NOX concentration, NOX emission that is in effect; of this chapter or that qualifies to use an
rate, stack gas flow rate, stack gas (ii) The owner or operator is alternative monitoring system under
moisture content, fuel flow rate, and any monitoring emissions from the unit with subpart E of part 75 of this chapter shall
other parameters required to determine another certified monitoring system comply with the procedures in
NOX mass emissions and heat input in approved, in accordance with the paragraph (e) or (f) of this section
accordance with § 75.31(b)(2) or (c)(3) of applicable provisions of this subpart respectively.
this chapter, section 2.4 of appendix D and part 75 of this chapter, by the (1) Requirements for initial
to part 75 of this chapter, or section 2.5 permitting authority for use at that unit certification. The owner or operator
of appendix E to part 75 of this chapter, that provides emission data for the same shall ensure that each continuous
as applicable. pollutant or parameter as the retired or monitoring system under
(2) The owner or operator of a CAIR discontinued monitoring system; or § 96.170(a)(1)(including the automated
NOX unit that does not meet the (iii) The CAIR designated data acquisition and handling system)
applicable compliance date set forth in representative submits notification of successfully completes all of the initial
paragraph (b)(3) of this section for any the date of certification testing of a certification testing required under
monitoring system under paragraph replacement monitoring system for the § 75.20 of this chapter by the applicable
(a)(1) of this section shall, for each such retired or discontinued monitoring deadline in § 96.170(b). In addition,
monitoring system, determine, record, system in accordance with whenever the owner or operator installs
and report substitute data using the § 96.171(d)(3)(i). a monitoring system to meet the
applicable missing data procedures in requirements of this subpart in a
subpart D or subpart H of, or appendix § 96.171 Initial certification and location where no such monitoring
D or appendix E to, part 75 of this recertification procedures. system was previously installed, initial
chapter, in lieu of the maximum (a) The owner or operator of a CAIR certification in accordance with § 75.20
potential (or, as appropriate, minimum NOX unit shall be exempt from the of this chapter is required.
potential) values, for a parameter if the initial certification requirements of this (2) Requirements for recertification.
owner or operator demonstrates that section for a monitoring system under Whenever the owner or operator makes
there is continuity between the data § 96.170(a)(1) if the following conditions a replacement, modification, or change
streams for that parameter before and are met: in any certified continuous emission
monitoring system under § 96.170(a)(1) monitoring system may be used under application is incomplete and the
that may significantly affect the ability the CAIR NOX Annual Trading Program requirement for disapproval under
of the system to accurately measure or for a period not to exceed 120 days after paragraph (d)(3)(iv)(B) of this section is
record NOX mass emissions or heat receipt by the permitting authority of met, then the permitting authority will
input rate or to meet the quality- the complete certification application issue a written notice of disapproval of
assurance and quality-control for the monitoring system under the certification application. Upon
requirements of § 75.21 of this chapter paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of this section. Data issuance of such notice of disapproval,
or appendix B to part 75 of this chapter, measured and recorded by the the provisional certification is
the owner or operator shall recertify the provisionally certified monitoring invalidated by the permitting authority
monitoring system in accordance with system, in accordance with the and the data measured and recorded by
§ 75.20(b) of this chapter. Furthermore, requirements of part 75 of this chapter, each uncertified monitoring system
whenever the owner or operator makes will be considered valid quality-assured shall not be considered valid quality-
a replacement, modification, or change data (retroactive to the date and time of assured data beginning with the date
to the flue gas handling system or the provisional certification), provided that and hour of provisional certification (as
unit’s operation that may significantly the permitting authority does not defined under § 75.20(a)(3) of this
change the stack flow or concentration invalidate the provisional certification chapter). The owner or operator shall
profile, the owner or operator shall by issuing a notice of disapproval follow the procedures for loss of
recertify each continuous emission within 120 days of the date of receipt of certification in paragraph (d)(3)(v) of
monitoring system whose accuracy is the complete certification application by this section for each monitoring system
potentially affected by the change, in the permitting authority. that is disapproved for initial
accordance with § 75.20(b) of this (iv) Certification application approval certification.
chapter. Examples of changes to a process. The permitting authority will (D) Audit decertification. The
continuous emission monitoring system issue a written notice of approval or permitting authority or, for a CAIR NOX
that require recertification include disapproval of the certification opt-in unit or a unit for which a CAIR
replacement of the analyzer, complete application to the owner or operator opt-in permit application is submitted
replacement of an existing continuous within 120 days of receipt of the and not withdrawn and a CAIR opt-in
emission monitoring system, or change complete certification application under permit is not yet issued or denied under
in location or orientation of the paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of this section. In the subpart II of this part, the Administrator
sampling probe or site. Any fuel event the permitting authority does not may issue a notice of disapproval of the
flowmeter system, and any excepted issue such a notice within such 120-day certification status of a monitor in
NOX monitoring system under appendix period, each monitoring system that accordance with § 96.172(b).
E to part 75 of this chapter, under meets the applicable performance (v) Procedures for loss of certification.
§ 96.170(a)(1) are subject to the requirements of part 75 of this chapter If the permitting authority or the
recertification requirements in and is included in the certification Administrator issues a notice of
§ 75.20(g)(6) of this chapter. application will be deemed certified for disapproval of a certification
(3) Approval process for initial use under the CAIR NOX Annual application under paragraph
certification and recertification. Trading Program. (d)(3)(iv)(C) of this section or a notice of
Paragraphs (d)(3)(i) through (iv) of this (A) Approval notice. If the disapproval of certification status under
section apply to both initial certification certification application is complete and paragraph (d)(3)(iv)(D) of this section,
and recertification of a continuous shows that each monitoring system then:
monitoring system under § 96.170(a)(1). meets the applicable performance (A) The owner or operator shall
For recertifications, replace the words requirements of part 75 of this chapter, substitute the following values, for each
‘‘certification’’ and ‘‘initial certification’’ then the permitting authority will issue disapproved monitoring system, for
with the word ‘‘recertification’’, replace a written notice of approval of the each hour of unit operation during the
the word ‘‘certified’’ with the word certification application within 120 period of invalid data specified under
‘‘recertified,’’ and follow the procedures days of receipt. § 75.20(a)(4)(iii), § 75.20(g)(7), or
in §§ 75.20(b)(5) and (g)(7) of this (B) Incomplete application notice. If § 75.21(e) of this chapter and continuing
chapter in lieu of the procedures in the certification application is not until the applicable date and hour
paragraph (d)(3)(v) of this section. complete, then the permitting authority specified under § 75.20(a)(5)(i) or (g)(7)
(i) Notification of certification. The will issue a written notice of of this chapter:
CAIR designated representative shall incompleteness that sets a reasonable (1) For a disapproved NOX emission
submit to the permitting authority, the date by which the CAIR designated rate (i.e., NOX-diluent) system, the
appropriate EPA Regional Office, and representative must submit the maximum potential NOX emission rate,
the Administrator written notice of the additional information required to as defined in § 72.2 of this chapter.
dates of certification testing, in complete the certification application. If (2) For a disapproved NOX pollutant
accordance with § 96.173. the CAIR designated representative does concentration monitor and disapproved
(ii) Certification application. The not comply with the notice of flow monitor, respectively, the
CAIR designated representative shall incompleteness by the specified date, maximum potential concentration of
submit to the permitting authority a then the permitting authority may issue NOX and the maximum potential flow
certification application for each a notice of disapproval under paragraph rate, as defined in sections 2.1.2.1 and
monitoring system. A complete (d)(3)(iv)(C) of this section. The 120-day 2.1.4.1 of appendix A to part 75 of this
certification application shall include review period shall not begin before chapter.
the information specified in § 75.63 of receipt of a complete certification (3) For a disapproved moisture
this chapter. application. monitoring system and disapproved
(iii) Provisional certification date. The (C) Disapproval notice. If the diluent gas monitoring system,
provisional certification date for a certification application shows that any respectively, the minimum potential
monitoring system shall be determined monitoring system does not meet the moisture percentage and either the
in accordance with § 75.20(a)(3) of this performance requirements of part 75 of maximum potential CO2 concentration
chapter. A provisionally certified this chapter or if the certification or the minimum potential O2
concentration (as applicable), as defined (b) Audit decertification. Whenever which a CAIR opt-in permit application
in sections 2.1.5, 2.1.3.1, and 2.1.3.2 of both an audit of a monitoring system is submitted and not withdrawn and a
appendix A to part 75 of this chapter. and a review of the initial certification CAIR opt-in permit is not yet issued or
(4) For a disapproved fuel flowmeter or recertification application reveal that denied under subpart II of this part,
system, the maximum potential fuel any monitoring system should not have §§ 96.183 and 96.184(a).
flow rate, as defined in section 2.4.2.1 been certified or recertified because it (c) Certification Applications. The
of appendix D to part 75 of this chapter. did not meet a particular performance CAIR designated representative shall
(5) For a disapproved excepted NOX specification or other requirement under submit an application to the permitting
monitoring system under appendix E to § 96.171 or the applicable provisions of authority within 45 days after
part 75 of this chapter, the fuel-specific part 75 of this chapter, both at the time completing all initial certification or
maximum potential NOX emission rate, of the initial certification or recertification tests required under
as defined in § 72.2 of this chapter. recertification application submission § 96.171, including the information
(B) The CAIR designated and at the time of the audit, the required under § 75.63 of this chapter.
representative shall submit a permitting authority or, for a CAIR NOX (d) Quarterly reports. The CAIR
notification of certification retest dates opt-in unit or a unit for which a CAIR designated representative shall submit
and a new certification application in opt-in permit application is submitted quarterly reports, as follows:
accordance with paragraphs (d)(3)(i) and and not withdrawn and a CAIR opt-in (1) The CAIR designated
(ii) of this section. permit is not yet issued or denied under representative shall report the NOX
(C) The owner or operator shall repeat subpart II of this part, the Administrator mass emissions data and heat input data
all certification tests or other will issue a notice of disapproval of the for the CAIR NOX unit, in an electronic
requirements that were failed by the certification status of such monitoring quarterly report in a format prescribed
monitoring system, as indicated in the system. For the purposes of this by the Administrator, for each calendar
permitting authority’s or the paragraph, an audit shall be either a quarter beginning with:
Administrator’s notice of disapproval, field audit or an audit of any (i) For a unit that commences
no later than 30 unit operating days information submitted to the permitting commercial operation before July 1,
after the date of issuance of the notice authority or the Administrator. By 2007, the calendar quarter covering
of disapproval. issuing the notice of disapproval, the January 1, 2008 through March 31, 2008;
(e) Initial certification and permitting authority or the or
recertification procedures for units Administrator revokes prospectively the (ii) For a unit that commences
using the low mass emission excepted certification status of the monitoring commercial operation on or after July 1,
methodology under § 75.19 of this system. The data measured and 2007, the calendar quarter
chapter. The owner or operator of a unit recorded by the monitoring system shall corresponding to the earlier of the date
qualified to use the low mass emissions not be considered valid quality-assured of provisional certification or the
(LME) excepted methodology under data from the date of issuance of the applicable deadline for initial
§ 75.19 of this chapter shall meet the notification of the revoked certification certification under § 96.170(b), unless
applicable certification and status until the date and time that the that quarter is the third or fourth quarter
recertification requirements in owner or operator completes of 2007, in which case reporting shall
§§ 75.19(a)(2) and 75.20(h) of this subsequently approved initial commence in the quarter covering
chapter. If the owner or operator of such certification or recertification tests for January 1, 2008 through March 31, 2008.
a unit elects to certify a fuel flowmeter the monitoring system. The owner or (2) The CAIR designated
system for heat input determination, the operator shall follow the applicable representative shall submit each
owner or operator shall also meet the initial certification or recertification quarterly report to the Administrator
certification and recertification procedures in § 96.171 for each within 30 days following the end of the
requirements in § 75.20(g) of this disapproved monitoring system. calendar quarter covered by the report.
chapter. § 96.173 Notifications. Quarterly reports shall be submitted in
(f) Certification/recertification The CAIR designated representative the manner specified in § 75.73(f) of this
procedures for alternative monitoring for a CAIR NOX unit shall submit chapter.
systems. The CAIR designated written notice to the permitting (3) For CAIR NOX units that are also
representative of each unit for which the authority and the Administrator in subject to an Acid Rain emissions
owner or operator intends to use an accordance with § 75.61 of this chapter, limitation or the CAIR NOX Ozone
alternative monitoring system approved except that if the unit is not subject to Season Trading Program or CAIR SO2
by the Administrator and, if applicable, an Acid Rain emissions limitation, the Trading Program, quarterly reports shall
the permitting authority under subpart E notification is only required to be sent include the applicable data and
of part 75 of this chapter shall comply to the permitting authority. information required by subparts F
with the applicable notification and through H of part 75 of this chapter as
application procedures of § 75.20(f) of § 96.174 Recordkeeping and reporting. applicable, in addition to the NOX mass
this chapter. (a) General provisions. The CAIR emission data, heat input data, and
designated representative shall comply other information required by this
§ 96.172 Out of control periods. with all recordkeeping and reporting subpart.
(a) Whenever any monitoring system requirements in this section, the (e) Compliance certification. The
fails to meet the quality-assurance and applicable recordkeeping and reporting CAIR designated representative shall
quality-control requirements or data requirements under § 75.73 of this submit to the Administrator a
validation requirements of part 75 of chapter, and the requirements of compliance certification (in a format
this chapter, data shall be substituted § 96.110(e)(1). prescribed by the Administrator) in
using the applicable missing data (b) Monitoring Plans. The owner or support of each quarterly report based
procedures in subpart D or subpart H of, operator of a CAIR NOX unit shall on reasonable inquiry of those persons
or appendix D or appendix E to, part 75 comply with requirements of § 75.73(c) with primary responsibility for ensuring
of this chapter. and (e) of this chapter and, for a unit for that all of the unit’s emissions are
correctly and fully monitored. The § 96.176 Additional requirements to unit in § 96.180 may apply for an initial
certification shall state that: provide heat input data. CAIR opt-in permit at any time, except
(1) The monitoring data submitted The owner or operator of a CAIR NOX as provided under § 96.186(f) and (g),
were recorded in accordance with the unit that monitors and reports NOX and, in order to apply, must submit the
applicable requirements of this subpart mass emissions using a NOX following:
and part 75 of this chapter, including concentration system and a flow system (1) A complete CAIR permit
the quality assurance procedures and shall also monitor and report heat input application under § 96.122;
specifications; and rate at the unit level using the (2) A certification, in a format
(2) For a unit with add-on NOX procedures set forth in part 75 of this specified by the permitting authority,
emission controls and for all hours chapter. that the unit:
where NOX data are substituted in (i) Is not a CAIR NOX unit under
accordance with § 75.34(a)(1) of this Subpart II—CAIR NOX Opt-in Units § 96.104 and is not covered by a retired
chapter, the add-on emission controls unit exemption under § 96.105 that is in
§ 96.180 Applicability.
were operating within the range of effect;
A CAIR NOX opt-in unit must be a (ii) Is not covered by a retired unit
parameters listed in the quality unit that:
assurance/quality control program exemption under § 72.8 of this chapter
(a) Is located in the State; that is in effect;
under appendix B to part 75 of this (b) Is not a CAIR NOX unit under
chapter and the substitute data values (iii) Vents all of its emissions to a
§ 96.104 and is not covered by a retired
do not systematically underestimate stack, and
unit exemption under § 96.105 that is in (iv) Has documented heat input for
NOX emissions. effect; more than 876 hours during the 6
(c) Is not covered by a retired unit
§ 96.175 Petitions. months immediately preceding
exemption under § 72.8 of this chapter
(a) Except as provided in paragraph submission of the CAIR permit
that is in effect;
(b)(2) of this section, the CAIR (d) Has or is required or qualified to application under § 96.122;
designated representative of a CAIR (3) A monitoring plan in accordance
have a title V operating permit or other
NOX unit that is subject to an Acid Rain with subpart HH of this part;
federally enforceable permit; and (4) A complete certificate of
emissions limitation may submit a (e) Vents all of its emissions to a stack
petition under § 75.66 of this chapter to representation under § 96.113 consistent
and can meet the monitoring,
the Administrator requesting approval with § 96.182, if no CAIR designated
recordkeeping, and reporting
to apply an alternative to any representative has been previously
requirements of subpart HH of this part.
requirement of this subpart. Application designated for the source that includes
of an alternative to any requirement of § 96.181 General. the unit; and
(a) Except as otherwise provided in (5) A statement, in a format specified
this subpart is in accordance with this
§§ 96.101 through 96.104, §§ 96.106 by the permitting authority, whether the
subpart only to the extent that the
through 96.108, and subparts BB and CC CAIR designated representative requests
petition is approved in writing by the
and subparts FF through HH of this part, that the unit be allocated CAIR NOX
Administrator, in consultation with the
a CAIR NOX opt-in unit shall be treated allowances under § 96.188(c) (subject to
permitting authority.
as a CAIR NOX unit for purposes of the conditions in §§ 96.184(h) and
(b)(1) The CAIR designated 96.186(g)).
representative of a CAIR NOX unit that applying such sections and subparts of
this part. (b) Duty to reapply. (1) The CAIR
is not subject to an Acid Rain emissions designated representative of a CAIR
limitation may submit a petition under (b) Solely for purposes of applying, as
provided in this subpart, the NOX opt-in unit shall submit a complete
§ 75.66 of this chapter to the permitting CAIR permit application under § 96.122
authority and the Administrator requirements of subpart HH of this part
to a unit for which a CAIR opt-in permit to renew the CAIR opt-in unit permit in
requesting approval to apply an accordance with the permitting
alternative to any requirement of this application is submitted and not
withdrawn and a CAIR opt-in permit is authority’s regulations for title V
subpart. Application of an alternative to operating permits, or the permitting
any requirement of this subpart is in not yet issued or denied under this
subpart, such unit shall be treated as a authority’s regulations for other
accordance with this subpart only to the federally enforceable permits if
extent that the petition is approved in CAIR NOX unit before issuance of a
CAIR opt-in permit for such unit. applicable, addressing permit renewal.
writing by both the permitting authority (2) Unless the permitting authority
and the Administrator. § 96.182 CAIR designated representative. issues a notification of acceptance of
(2) The CAIR designated Any CAIR NOX opt-in unit, and any withdrawal of the CAIR opt-in unit from
representative of a CAIR NOX unit that unit for which a CAIR opt-in permit the CAIR NOX Annual Trading Program
is subject to an Acid Rain emissions application is submitted and not in accordance with § 96.186 or the unit
limitation may submit a petition under withdrawn and a CAIR opt-in permit is becomes a CAIR NOX unit under
§ 75.66 of this chapter to the permitting not yet issued or denied under this § 96.104, the CAIR NOX opt-in unit shall
authority and the Administrator subpart, located at the same source as remain subject to the requirements for a
requesting approval to apply an one or more CAIR NOX units shall have CAIR NOX opt-in unit, even if the CAIR
alternative to a requirement concerning the same CAIR designated designated representative for the CAIR
any additional continuous emission representative and alternate CAIR NOX opt-in unit fails to submit a CAIR
monitoring system required under designated representative as such CAIR permit application that is required for
§ 75.72 of this chapter. Application of NOX units. renewal of the CAIR opt-in permit under
an alternative to any such requirement paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
is in accordance with this subpart only § 96.183 Applying for CAIR opt-in permit.
to the extent that the petition is (a) Applying for initial CAIR opt-in § 96.184 Opt-in process.
approved in writing by both the permit. The CAIR designated The permitting authority will issue or
permitting authority and the representative of a unit meeting the deny a CAIR opt-in permit for a unit for
Administrator. requirements for a CAIR NOX opt-in which an initial application for a CAIR
opt-in permit under § 96.183 is used as provided in paragraphs (c) and includes the CAIR NOX opt-in unit
submitted in accordance with the (d) of this section. unless the source already has a
following: (c) Baseline heat input. The unit’s compliance account.
(a) Interim review of monitoring plan. baseline heat rate shall equal: (f) Issuance of denial of CAIR opt-in
The permitting authority and the (1) If the unit’s NOX emissions rate permit. Notwithstanding paragraphs (a)
Administrator will determine, on an and heat input are monitored and through (e) of this section, if at any time
interim basis, the sufficiency of the reported for only one control period, in before issuance of a CAIR opt-in permit
monitoring plan accompanying the accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of this for the unit, the permitting authority
initial application for a CAIR opt-in section, the unit’s total heat input (in determines that the CAIR designated
permit under § 96.183. A monitoring mmBtu) for the control period; or representative fails to show that the unit
plan is sufficient, for purposes of (2) If the unit’s NOX emissions rate meets the requirements for a CAIR NOX
interim review, if the plan appears to and heat input are monitored and opt-in unit in § 96.180 or meets the
contain information demonstrating that reported for more than one control elements certified in § 96.183(a)(2), the
the NOX emissions rate and heat input period, in accordance with paragraphs permitting authority will issue a denial
of the unit and all other applicable (b)(1) and (2) of this section, the average of a CAIR NOX opt-in permit for the
parameters are monitored and reported of the amounts of the unit’s total heat unit.
in accordance with subpart HH of this input (in mmBtu) for the control period
(g) Date of entry into CAIR NOX
part. A determination of sufficiency under paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section
Annual Trading Program. A unit for
shall not be construed as acceptance or and for the control periods under
which an initial CAIR opt-in permit is
approval of the monitoring plan. paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(d) Baseline NOX emission rate. The issued by the permitting authority shall
(b) Monitoring and reporting. (1)(i) If become a CAIR NOX opt-in unit, and a
the permitting authority and the unit’s baseline NOX emission rate shall
equal: CAIR NOX unit, as of the later of January
Administrator determine that the 1, 2009 or January 1 of the first control
monitoring plan is sufficient under (1) If the unit’s NOX emissions rate
and heat input are monitored and period during which such CAIR opt-in
paragraph (a) of this section, the owner
reported for only one control period, in permit is issued.
or operator shall monitor and report the
accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of this (h) Repowered CAIR NOX opt-in unit.
NOX emissions rate and the heat input
section, the unit’s NOX emissions rate (1) If CAIR designated representative
of the unit and all other applicable
(in lb/mmBtu) for the control period; requests, and the permitting authority
parameters, in accordance with subpart
(2) If the unit’s NOX emissions rate issues a CAIR opt-in permit providing
HH of this part, starting on the date of
certification of the appropriate and heat input are monitored and for, allocation to a CAIR NOX opt-in unit
monitoring systems under subpart HH reported for more than one control of CAIR NOX allowances under
of this part and continuing until a CAIR period, in accordance with paragraphs § 96.188(c) and such unit is repowered
opt-in permit is denied under § 96.184(f) (b)(1) and (2) of this section, and the after its date of entry into the CAIR NOX
or, if a CAIR opt-in permit is issued, the unit does not have add-on NOX Annual Trading Program under
date and time when the unit is emission controls during any such paragraph (g) of this section, the
withdrawn from the CAIR NOX Annual control periods, the average of the repowered unit shall be treated as a
Trading Program in accordance with amounts of the unit’s NOX emissions CAIR NOX opt-in unit replacing the
§ 96.186. rate (in lb/mmBtu) for the control period original CAIR NOX opt-in unit, as of the
(ii) The monitoring and reporting under paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section date of start-up of the repowered unit’s
under paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section and the control periods under paragraph combustion chamber.
shall include the entire control period (b)(2) of this section; or (2) Notwithstanding paragraphs (c)
immediately before the date on which (3) If the unit’s NOX emissions rate and (d) of this section, as of the date of
the unit enters the CAIR NOX Annual and heat input are monitored and start-up under paragraph (h)(1) of this
Trading Program under § 96.184(g), reported for more than one control section, the repowered unit shall be
during which period monitoring system period, in accordance with paragraphs deemed to have the same date of
availability must not be less than 90 (b)(1) and (2) of this section, and the commencement of operation, date of
percent under subpart HH of this part unit has add-on NOX emission controls commencement of commercial
and the unit must be in full compliance during any such control periods, the operation, baseline heat input, and
with any applicable State or Federal average of the amounts of the unit’s baseline NOX emission rate as the
emissions or emissions-related NOX emissions rate (in lb/mmBtu) for original CAIR NOX opt-in unit, and the
requirements. such control period during which the original CAIR NOX opt-in unit shall no
(2) To the extent the NOX emissions unit has add-on NOX emission controls. longer be treated as a CAIR opt-in unit
rate and the heat input of the unit are (e) Issuance of CAIR opt-in permit. or a CAIR NOX unit.
monitored and reported in accordance After calculating the baseline heat input
§ 96.185 CAIR opt-in permit contents.
with subpart HH of this part for one or and the baseline NOX emissions rate for
more control periods, in addition to the the unit under paragraphs (c) and (d) of (a) Each CAIR opt-in permit will
control period under paragraph (b)(1)(ii) this section and if the permitting contain:
of this section, during which control authority determines that the CAIR (1) All elements required for a
periods monitoring system availability designated representative shows that the complete CAIR permit application
is not less than 90 percent under unit meets the requirements for a CAIR under § 96.122;
subpart HH of this part and the unit is NOX opt-in unit in § 96.180 and meets (2) The certification in § 96.183(a)(2);
in full compliance with any applicable the elements certified in § 96.183(a)(2), (3) The unit’s baseline heat input
State or Federal emissions or emissions- the permitting authority will issue a under § 96.184(c);
related requirements and which control CAIR opt-in permit. The permitting (4) The unit’s baseline NOX emission
periods begin not more than 3 years authority will provide a copy of the rate under § 96.184(d);
before the unit enters the CAIR NOX CAIR opt-in permit to the (5) A statement whether the unit is to
Annual Trading Program under Administrator, who will then establish be allocated CAIR NOX allowances
§ 96.184(g), such information shall be a compliance account for the source that under § 96.188(c) (subject to the
conditions in §§ 96.184(h) and CAIR NOX opt-in unit CAIR NOX (f) Ability to reapply to the CAIR NOX
96.186(g)); allowances equal in number to and Annual Trading Program. Once a CAIR
(6) A statement that the unit may allocated for the same or a prior control NOX opt-in unit withdraws from the
withdraw from the CAIR NOX Annual period as any CAIR NOX allowances CAIR NOX Annual Trading Program and
Trading Program only in accordance allocated to the CAIR NOX opt-in unit its CAIR opt-in permit is terminated
with § 96.186; and under § 96.188 for any control period for under this section, the CAIR designated
(7) A statement that the unit is subject which the withdrawal is to be effective. representative may not submit another
to, and the owners and operators of the If there are no remaining CAIR NOX application for a CAIR opt-in permit
unit must comply with, the units at the source, the Administrator under § 96.183 for such CAIR NOX opt-
requirements of § 96.187. will close the compliance account, and in unit before the date that is 4 years
(b) Each CAIR opt-in permit is the owners and operators of the CAIR after the date on which the withdrawal
deemed to incorporate automatically the NOX opt-in unit may submit a CAIR became effective. Such new application
definitions of terms under § 96.102 and, NOX allowance transfer for any for a CAIR opt-in permit will be treated
upon recordation by the Administrator remaining CAIR NOX allowances to as an initial application for a CAIR opt-
under subpart FF or GG of this part or another CAIR NOX Allowance Tracking in permit under § 96.184.
this subpart, every allocation, transfer, System in accordance with subpart GG (g) Inability to withdraw.
or deduction of CAIR NOX allowances of this part. Notwithstanding paragraphs (a) through
to or from the compliance account of the (c) Notification. (1) After the (f) of this section, a CAIR NOX opt-in
source that includes a CAIR NOX opt-in requirements for withdrawal under unit shall not be eligible to withdraw
unit covered by the CAIR opt-in permit. paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section are from the CAIR NOX Annual Trading
met (including deduction of the full Program if the CAIR designated
§ 96.186 Withdrawal from CAIR NOX
Annual Trading Program. amount of CAIR NOX allowances representative of the CAIR NOX opt-in
required), the permitting authority will unit requests, and the permitting
Except as provided under paragraph
issue a notification to the CAIR authority issues a CAIR NOX opt-in
(g) of this section, a CAIR NOX opt-in
designated representative of the CAIR permit providing for, allocation to the
unit may withdraw from the CAIR NOX
NOX opt-in unit of the acceptance of the CAIR NOX opt-in unit of CAIR NOX
Annual Trading Program, but only if the
withdrawal of the CAIR NOX opt-in unit allowances under § 96.188(c).
permitting authority issues a
notification to the CAIR designated as of midnight on December 31 of the § 96.187 Change in regulatory status.
representative of the CAIR NOX opt-in calendar year for which the withdrawal
was requested. (a) Notification. If a CAIR NOX opt-in
unit of the acceptance of the withdrawal unit becomes a CAIR NOX unit under
of the CAIR NOX opt-in unit in (2) If the requirements for withdrawal
§ 96.104, then the CAIR designated
accordance with paragraph (d) of this under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this
representative shall notify in writing the
section. section are not met, the permitting
permitting authority and the
(a) Requesting withdrawal. In order to authority will issue a notification to the
Administrator of such change in the
withdraw a CAIR opt-in unit from the CAIR designated representative of the
CAIR NOX opt-in unit’s regulatory
CAIR NOX Annual Trading Program, the CAIR NOX opt-in unit that the CAIR
status, within 30 days of such change.
CAIR designated representative of the NOX opt-in unit’s request to withdraw is (b) Permitting authority’s and
CAIR NOX opt-in unit shall submit to denied. Such CAIR NOX opt-in unit Administrator’s actions.
the permitting authority a request to shall continue to be a CAIR NOX opt-in (1) If a CAIR NOX opt-in unit becomes
withdraw effective as of midnight of unit. a CAIR NOX unit under § 96.104, the
December 31 of a specified calendar (d) Permit amendment. After the permitting authority will revise the
year, which date must be at least 4 years permitting authority issues a CAIR NOX opt-in unit’s CAIR opt-in
after December 31 of the year of entry notification under paragraph (c)(1) of permit to meet the requirements of a
into the CAIR NOX Annual Trading this section that the requirements for CAIR permit under § 96.123 as of the
Program under § 96.184(g). The request withdrawal have been met, the date on which the CAIR NOX opt-in unit
must be submitted no later than 90 days permitting authority will revise the becomes a CAIR NOX unit under
before the requested effective date of CAIR permit covering the CAIR NOX § 96.104.
withdrawal. opt-in unit to terminate the CAIR opt-in (2)(i) The Administrator will deduct
(b) Conditions for withdrawal. Before permit for such unit as of the effective from the compliance account of the
a CAIR NOX opt-in unit covered by a date specified under paragraph (c)(1) of source that includes the CAIR NOX opt-
request under paragraph (a) of this this section. The unit shall continue to in unit that becomes a CAIR NOX unit
section may withdraw from the CAIR be a CAIR NOX opt-in unit until the under § 96.104, CAIR NOX allowances
NOX Annual Trading Program and the effective date of the termination and equal in number to and allocated for the
CAIR opt-in permit may be terminated shall comply with all requirements same or a prior control period as:
under paragraph (e) of this section, the under the CAIR NOX Annual Trading (A) Any CAIR NOX allowances
following conditions must be met: Program concerning any control periods allocated to the CAIR NOX opt-in unit
(1) For the control period ending on for which the unit is a CAIR NOX opt- under § 96.188 for any control period
the date on which the withdrawal is to in unit, even if such requirements arise after the date on which the CAIR NOX
be effective, the source that includes the or must be complied with after the opt-in unit becomes a CAIR NOX unit
CAIR NOX opt-in unit must meet the withdrawal takes effect. under § 96.104; and
requirement to hold CAIR NOX (e) Reapplication upon failure to meet (B) If the date on which the CAIR NOX
allowances under § 96.106(c) and conditions of withdrawal. If the opt-in unit becomes a CAIR NOX unit
cannot have any excess emissions. permitting authority denies the CAIR under § 96.104 is not December 31, the
(2) After the requirement for NOX opt-in unit’s request to withdraw, CAIR NOX allowances allocated to the
withdrawal under paragraph (b)(1) of the CAIR designated representative may CAIR NOX opt-in unit under § 96.188 for
this section is met, the Administrator submit another request to withdraw in the control period that includes the date
will deduct from the compliance accordance with paragraphs (a) and (b) on which the CAIR NOX opt-in unit
account of the source that includes the of this section. becomes a CAIR NOX unit under
§ 96.104, multiplied by the ratio of the (2) By no later than October 31 of the (1) For each control period in 2009
number of days, in the control period, control period in which a CAIR opt-in through 2014 for which the CAIR NOX
starting with the date on which the unit enters the CAIR NOX Annual opt-in unit is to be allocated CAIR NOX
CAIR NOX opt-in unit becomes a CAIR Trading Program under § 96.184(g) and allowances,
NOX unit under § 96.104 divided by the October 31 of each year thereafter, the (i) The heat input (in mmBtu) used for
total number of days in the control permitting authority will allocate CAIR calculating CAIR NOX allowance
period and rounded to the nearest NOX allowances to the CAIR NOX opt- allocations will be determined as
whole allowance as appropriate. in unit, and submit to the Administrator described in paragraph (b)(1) of this
(ii) The CAIR designated the allocation for the control period that section.
representative shall ensure that the includes such submission deadline and (ii) The NOX emission rate (in lb/
compliance account of the source that in which the unit is a CAIR NOX opt- mmBtu) used for calculating CAIR NOX
includes the CAIR NOX unit that in unit, in accordance with paragraph allowance allocations will be the lesser
becomes a CAIR NOX unit under (b) or (c) of this section. of:
§ 96.104 contains the CAIR NOX (b) Calculation of allocation. For each (A) The CAIR NOX opt-in unit’s
allowances necessary for completion of control period for which a CAIR NOX baseline NOX emissions rate (in lb/
the deduction under paragraph (b)(2)(i) opt-in unit is to be allocated CAIR NOX mmBtu) determined under § 96.184(d);
of this section. allowances, the permitting authority or
(3)(i) For every control period after will allocate in accordance with the (B) The most stringent State or
the date on which the CAIR NOX opt- following procedures: Federal NOX emissions limitation
in unit becomes a CAIR NOX unit under (1) The heat input (in mmBtu) used applicable to the CAIR NOX opt-in unit
§ 96.104, the CAIR NOX opt-in unit will for calculating the CAIR NOX allowance at any time during the control period in
be treated, solely for purposes of CAIR allocation will be the lesser of: which the CAIR NOX opt-in unit enters
NOX allowance allocations under (i) The CAIR NOX opt-in unit’s the CAIR NOX Annual Trading Program
§ 96.142, as a unit that commences baseline heat input determined under under § 96.184(g).
§ 96.184(c); or (iii) The permitting authority will
operation on the date on which the
(ii) The CAIR NOX opt-in unit’s heat allocate CAIR NOX allowances to the
CAIR NOX opt-in unit becomes a CAIR
input, as determined in accordance with CAIR NOX opt-in unit in an amount
NOX unit under § 96.104 and will be
subpart HH of this part, for the equaling the heat input under paragraph
allocated CAIR NOX allowances under
immediately prior control period, (c)(1)(i) of this section, multiplied by the
§ 96.142.
except when the allocation is being NOX emission rate under paragraph
(ii) Notwithstanding paragraph
calculated for the control period in (c)(1)(ii) of this section, divided by
(b)(3)(i) of this section, if the date on
which the CAIR NOX opt-in unit enters 2,000 lb/ton, and rounded to the nearest
which the CAIR NOX opt-in unit
the CAIR NOX Annual Trading Program whole allowance as appropriate.
becomes a CAIR NOX unit under (2) For each control period in 2015
§ 96.104 is not January 1, the following under § 96.184(g).
and thereafter for which the CAIR NOX
number of CAIR NOX allowances will be (2) The NOX emission rate (in lb/
opt-in unit is to be allocated CAIR NOX
allocated to the CAIR NOX opt-in unit mmBtu) used for calculating CAIR NOX
allowances,
(as a CAIR NOX unit) under § 96.142 for allowance allocations will be the lesser (i) The heat input (in mmBtu) used for
the control period that includes the date of: calculating the CAIR NOX allowance
on which the CAIR NOX opt-in unit (i) The CAIR NOX opt-in unit’s allocations will be determined as
becomes a CAIR NOX unit under baseline NOX emissions rate (in lb/ described in paragraph (b)(1) of this
§ 96.104: mmBtu) determined under § 96.184(d) section.
(A) The number of CAIR NOX and multiplied by 70 percent; or (ii) The NOX emission rate (in lb/
allowances otherwise allocated to the (ii) The most stringent State or mmBtu) used for calculating the CAIR
CAIR NOX opt-in unit (as a CAIR NOX Federal NOX emissions limitation NOX allowance allocation will be the
unit) under § 96.142 for the control applicable to the CAIR NOX opt-in unit lesser of:
period multiplied by; at any time during the control period for (A) 0.15 lb/mmBtu;
(B) The ratio of the number of days, which CAIR NOX allowances are to be (B) The CAIR NOX opt-in unit’s
in the control period, starting with the allocated. baseline NOX emissions rate (in lb/
date on which the CAIR NOX opt-in unit (3) The permitting authority will mmBtu) determined under § 96.184(d);
becomes a CAIR NOX unit under allocate CAIR NOX allowances to the or
§ 96.104, divided by the total number of CAIR NOX opt-in unit in an amount (C) The most stringent State or
days in the control period; and equaling the heat input under paragraph Federal NOX emissions limitation
(C) Rounded to the nearest whole (b)(1) of this section, multiplied by the applicable to the CAIR NOX opt-in unit
allowance as appropriate. NOX emission rate under paragraph at any time during the control period for
(b)(2) of this section, divided by 2,000 which CAIR NOX allowances are to be
§ 96.188 NOX allowance allocations to lb/ton, and rounded to the nearest allocated.
CAIR NOX opt-in units. whole allowance as appropriate. (iii) The permitting authority will
(a) Timing requirements. (1) When the (c) Notwithstanding paragraph (b) of allocate CAIR NOX allowances to the
CAIR opt-in permit is issued under this section and if the CAIR designated CAIR NOX opt-in unit in an amount
§ 96.184(e), the permitting authority will representative requests, and the equaling the heat input under paragraph
allocate CAIR NOX allowances to the permitting authority issues a CAIR opt- (c)(2)(i) of this section, multiplied by the
CAIR NOX opt-in unit, and submit to the in permit providing for, allocation to a NOX emission rate under paragraph
Administrator the allocation for the CAIR NOX opt-in unit of CAIR NOX (c)(2)(ii) of this section, divided by
control period in which a CAIR NOX allowances under this paragraph 2,000 lb/ton, and rounded to the nearest
opt-in unit enters the CAIR NOX Annual (subject to the conditions in whole allowance as appropriate.
Trading Program under § 96.184(g), in §§ 96.184(h) and 96.186(g)), the (d) Recordation. (1) The
accordance with paragraph (b) or (c) of permitting authority will allocate to the Administrator will record, in the
this section. CAIR NOX opt-in unit as follows: compliance account of the source that
includes the CAIR NOX opt-in unit, the 96.256 Account error. § 96.202 Definitions.
CAIR NOX allowances allocated by the 96.257 Closing of general accounts. The terms used in this subpart and
permitting authority to the CAIR NOX Subpart GGG—CAIR SO2 Allowance subparts BBB through III shall have the
opt-in unit under paragraph (a)(1) of this Transfers meanings set forth in this section as
section. 96.260 Submission of CAIR SO2 allowance follows:
(2) By December 1 of the control transfers. Account number means the
period in which a CAIR opt-in unit 96.261 EPA recordation. identification number given by the
enters the CAIR NOX Annual Trading 96.262 Notification. Administrator to each CAIR SO2
Program under § 96.184(g) and Allowance Tracking System account.
Subpart HHH—Monitoring and Reporting Acid Rain emissions limitation means
December 1 of each year thereafter, the
Administrator will record, in the 96.270 General requirements. a limitation on emissions of sulfur
96.271 Initial certification and dioxide or nitrogen oxides under the
compliance account of the source that
recertification procedures. Acid Rain Program.
includes the CAIR NOX opt-in unit, the 96.272 Out of control periods.
CAIR NOX allowances allocated by the Acid Rain Program means a multi-
96.273 Notifications.
permitting authority to the CAIR NOX 96.274 Recordkeeping and reporting.
state sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides
opt-in unit under paragraph (a)(2) of this 96.275 Petitions. air pollution control and emission
section. 96.276 Additional requirements to provide reduction program established by the
■ 3. Part 96 is amended by adding heat input data. Administrator under title IV of the CAA
subparts AAA through CCC, adding and and parts 72 through 78 of this chapter.
Subpart III—CAIR SO2 Opt-in Units Administrator means the
reserving subparts DDD and EEE and 96.280 Applicability. Administrator of the United States
adding subparts FFF through III to read 96.281 General. Environmental Protection Agency or the
as follows: 96.282 CAIR designated representative. Administrator’s duly authorized
96.283 Applying for CAIR opt-in permit.
Subpart AAA—CAIR SO2 Trading Program representative.
General Provisions 96.284 Opt-in process.
Allocate or allocation means, with
96.285 CAIR opt-in permit contents.
Sec. 96.286 Withdrawal from CAIR SO2 Trading regard to CAIR SO2 allowances issued
96.201 Purpose. Program. under the Acid Rain Program, the
96.202 Definitions. 96.287 Change in regulatory status. determination by the Administrator of
96.203 Measurements, abbreviations, and 96.288 SO2 allowance allocations to CAIR the amount of such CAIR SO2
acronyms. SO2 opt-in units. allowances to be initially credited to a
96.204 Applicability.
CAIR SO2 unit and, with regard to CAIR
96.205 Retired unit exemption. Subpart AAA—CAIR SO2 Trading
96.206 Standard requirements. SO2 allowances issued under § 96.288,
96.207 Computation of time.
Program General Provisions the determination by the permitting
96.208 Appeal procedures. § 96.201 Purpose.
authority of the amount of such CAIR
SO2 allowances to be initially credited
Subpart BBB—CAIR Designated This subpart and subparts BBB to a CAIR SO2 unit.
Representative for CAIR SO2 Sources through III establish the model rule Allowance transfer deadline means,
96.210 Authorization and responsibilities of comprising general provisions and the for a control period, midnight of March
CAIR designated representative. designated representative, permitting, 1, if it is a business day, or, if March 1
96.211 Alternate CAIR designated
allowance, monitoring, and opt-in is not a business day, midnight of the
representative.
96.212 Changing CAIR designated provisions for the State Clean Air first business day thereafter
representative and alternate CAIR Interstate Rule (CAIR) SO2 Trading immediately following the control
designated representative; changes in Program, under section 110 of the Clean period and is the deadline by which a
owners and operators. Air Act and § 51.124 of this chapter, as CAIR SO2 allowance transfer must be
96.213 Certificate of representation. a means of mitigating interstate submitted for recordation in a CAIR SO2
96.214 Objections concerning CAIR transport of fine particulates and sulfur source’s compliance account in order to
designated representative. dioxide. The owner or operator of a unit be used to meet the source’s CAIR SO2
Subpart CCC—Permits or a source shall comply with the emissions limitation for such control
96.220 General CAIR SO2 Trading Program requirements of this subpart and period in accordance with § 96.254.
permit requirements. subparts BBB through III as a matter of Alternate CAIR designated
96.221 Submission of CAIR permit federal law only if the State with representative means, for a CAIR SO2
applications. jurisdiction over the unit and the source source and each CAIR SO2 unit at the
96.222 Information requirements for CAIR incorporates by reference such subparts source, the natural person who is
permit applications. or otherwise adopts the requirements of authorized by the owners and operators
96.223 CAIR permit contents and term. such subparts in accordance with of the source and all such units at the
96.224 CAIR permit revisions.
§ 51.124(o)(1) or (2) of this chapter, the source in accordance with subparts BBB
Subpart DDD—[Reserved] State submits to the Administrator one and III of this part, to act on behalf of
Subpart EEE—[Reserved] or more revisions of the State the CAIR designated representative in
implementation plan that include such matters pertaining to the CAIR SO2
Subpart FFF—CAIR SO2 Allowance adoption, and the Administrator Trading Program. If the CAIR SO2
Tracking System approves such revisions. If the State source is also a CAIR NOX source, then
96.250 [Reserved] adopts the requirements of such this natural person shall be the same
96.251 Establishment of accounts. subparts in accordance with person as the alternate CAIR designated
96.252 Responsibilities of CAIR authorized § 51.124(o)(1) or (2) of this chapter, then representative under the CAIR NOX
account representative.
96.253 Recordation of CAIR SO2
the State authorizes the Administrator Annual Trading Program. If the CAIR
allowances. to assist the State in implementing the SO2 source is also a CAIR NOX Ozone
96.254 Compliance with CAIR SO2 CAIR SO2 Trading Program by carrying Season source, then this natural person
emissions limitation. out the functions set forth for the shall be the same person as the alternate
96.255 Banking. Administrator in such subparts. CAIR designated representative under
the CAIR NOX Ozone Season Trading person as the designated representative (3) For one CAIR SO2 allowance
Program. If the CAIR SO2 source is also under the Acid Rain Program. allocated for a control period in 2015 or
subject to the Acid Rain Program, then CAIR NO X Annual Trading Program later, 0.35 ton of sulfur dioxide, except
this natural person shall be the same means a multi-state nitrogen oxides air as provided in § 96.254(b).
person as the alternate designated pollution control and emission An authorization to emit sulfur
representative under the Acid Rain reduction program approved and dioxide that is not issued under the
Program. administered by the Administrator in Acid Rain Program or under the
Automated data acquisition and accordance with subparts AA through II provisions of a State implementation
handling system or DAHS means that of this part and § 51.123 of this chapter, plan that is approved under
component of the continuous emission as a means of mitigating interstate § 51.124(o)(1) or (2) of this chapter shall
monitoring system, or other emissions transport of fine particulates and not be a CAIR SO2 allowance.
monitoring system approved for use nitrogen oxides. CAIR SO2 allowance deduction or
under subpart HHH of this part, CAIR NOX Ozone Season source deduct CAIR SO2 allowances means the
designed to interpret and convert means a source that includes one or permanent withdrawal of CAIR SO2
individual output signals from pollutant more CAIR NOX Ozone Season units. allowances by the Administrator from a
concentration monitors, flow monitors, CAIR NOX Ozone Season Trading compliance account in order to account
diluent gas monitors, and other Program means a multi-state nitrogen for a specified number of tons of total
component parts of the monitoring oxides air pollution control and sulfur dioxide emissions from all CAIR
system to produce a continuous record emission reduction program approved SO2 units at a CAIR SO2 source for a
of the measured parameters in the and administered by the Administrator control period, determined in
measurement units required by subpart in accordance with subparts AAAA accordance with subpart HHH of this
HHH of this part. through IIII of this part and § 51.123 of part, or to account for excess emissions.
this chapter, as a means of mitigating CAIR SO2 Allowance Tracking System
Boiler means an enclosed fossil- or
interstate transport of ozone and means the system by which the
other-fuel-fired combustion device used
nitrogen oxides. Administrator records allocations,
to produce heat and to transfer heat to
CAIR NOX Ozone Season unit means deductions, and transfers of CAIR SO2
recirculating water, steam, or other
a unit that is subject to the CAIR NOX allowances under the CAIR SO2 Trading
medium.
Ozone Season Trading Program under Program. This is the same system as the
Bottoming-cycle cogeneration unit
§ 96.304 and a CAIR NOX Ozone Season Allowance Tracking System under
means a cogeneration unit in which the
opt-in unit under subpart IIII of this § 72.2 of this chapter by which the
energy input to the unit is first used to
part. Administrator records allocations,
produce useful thermal energy and at
CAIR NOX source means a source that deduction, and transfers of Acid Rain
least some of the reject heat from the
includes one or more CAIR NOX units. SO2 allowances under the Acid Rain
useful thermal energy application or CAIR NOX unit means a unit that is Program.
process is then used for electricity subject to the CAIR NOX Annual CAIR SO2 Allowance Tracking System
production. Trading Program under § 96.104 and a account means an account in the CAIR
CAIR authorized account CAIR NOX opt-in unit under subpart II SO2 Allowance Tracking System
representative means, with regard to a of this part. established by the Administrator for
general account, a responsible natural CAIR permit means the legally purposes of recording the allocation,
person who is authorized, in accordance binding and federally enforceable holding, transferring, or deducting of
with subparts BBB and III of this part, written document, or portion of such CAIR SO2 allowances. Such allowances
to transfer and otherwise dispose of document, issued by the permitting will be allocated, held, deducted, or
CAIR SO2 allowances held in the authority under subpart CCC of this transferred only as whole allowances.
general account and, with regard to a part, including any permit revisions, CAIR SO2 allowances held or hold
compliance account, the CAIR specifying the CAIR SO2 Trading CAIR SO2 allowances means the CAIR
designated representative of the source. Program requirements applicable to a SO2 allowances recorded by the
CAIR designated representative CAIR SO2 source, to each CAIR SO2 unit Administrator, or submitted to the
means, for a CAIR SO2 source and each at the source, and to the owners and Administrator for recordation, in
CAIR SO2 unit at the source, the natural operators and the CAIR designated accordance with subparts FFF, GGG,
person who is authorized by the owners representative of the source and each and III of this part or part 73 of this
and operators of the source and all such such unit. chapter, in a CAIR SO2 Allowance
units at the source, in accordance with CAIR SO2 allowance means a limited Tracking System account.
subparts BBB and III of this part, to authorization issued by the CAIR SO2 emissions limitation means,
represent and legally bind each owner Administrator under the Acid Rain for a CAIR SO2 source, the tonnage
and operator in matters pertaining to the Program, or by a permitting authority equivalent of the CAIR SO2 allowances
CAIR SO2 Trading Program. If the CAIR under § 96.288, to emit sulfur dioxide available for deduction for the source
SO2 source is also a CAIR NOX source, during the control period of the under § 96.254(a) and (b) for a control
then this natural person shall be the specified calendar year for which the period.
same person as the CAIR designated authorization is allocated or of any CAIR SO2 source means a source that
representative under the CAIR NOX calendar year thereafter under the CAIR includes one or more CAIR SO2 units.
Annual Trading Program. If the CAIR SO2 Trading Program as follows: CAIR SO2 Trading Program means a
SO2 source is also a CAIR NOX Ozone (1) For one CAIR SO2 allowance multi-state sulfur dioxide air pollution
Season source, then this natural person allocated for a control period in a year control and emission reduction program
shall be the same person as the CAIR before 2010, one ton of sulfur dioxide, approved and administered by the
designated representative under the except as provided in § 96.254(b); Administrator in accordance with
CAIR NOX Ozone Season Trading (2) For one CAIR SO2 allowance subparts AAA through III of this part
Program. If the CAIR SO2 source is also allocated for a control period in 2010 and § 51.124 of this chapter, as a means
subject to the Acid Rain Program, then through 2014, 0.50 ton of sulfur dioxide, of mitigating interstate transport of fine
this natural person shall be the same except as provided in § 96.254(b); and particulates and sulfur dioxide.
CAIR SO2 unit means a unit that is commences commercial operation as operation as defined in paragraph (3) of
subject to the CAIR SO2 Trading defined in paragraph (1) of this this definition and that subsequently
Program under § 96.204 and, except for definition and that subsequently undergoes a physical change (other than
purposes of § 96.205, a CAIR SO2 opt-in undergoes a physical change (other than replacement of the unit by a unit at the
unit under subpart III of this part. replacement of the unit by a unit at the same source), such date shall remain the
Clean Air Act or CAA means the same source), such date shall remain the unit’s date of commencement of
Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. unit’s date of commencement of commercial operation.
Coal means any solid fuel classified as commercial operation. (ii) For a unit with a date for
anthracite, bituminous, subbituminous, (ii) For a unit that is a CAIR SO2 unit commencement of commercial
or lignite. under § 96.204 on the date the unit operation as defined in paragraph (3) of
Coal-derived fuel means any fuel commences commercial operation as this definition and that is subsequently
(whether in a solid, liquid, or gaseous defined in paragraph (1) of this replaced by a unit at the same source
state) produced by the mechanical, definition and that is subsequently (e.g., repowered), the replacement unit
thermal, or chemical processing of coal. replaced by a unit at the same source shall be treated as a separate unit with
Coal-fired means combusting any (e.g., repowered), the replacement unit a separate date for commencement of
amount of coal or coal-derived fuel, shall be treated as a separate unit with commercial operation as defined in
alone, or in combination with any a separate date for commencement of paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this
amount of any other fuel. commercial operation as defined in
Cogeneration unit means a stationary, definition as appropriate.
paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this (4) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1)
fossil-fuel-fired boiler or stationary, definition as appropriate.
fossil-fuel-fired combustion turbine: through (3) of this definition, for a unit
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) of not serving a generator producing
(1) Having equipment used to produce this definition and except as provided
electricity and useful thermal energy for electricity for sale, the unit’s date of
in § 96.205, for a unit that is not a CAIR commencement of operation shall also
industrial, commercial, heating, or SO2 unit under § 96.204 on the date the
cooling purposes through the sequential be the unit’s date of commencement of
unit commences commercial operation commercial operation.
use of energy; and as defined in paragraph (1) of this
(2) Producing during the 12-month Commence operation means:
definition and is not a unit under
period starting on the date the unit first (1) To have begun any mechanical,
paragraph (3) of this definition, the
produces electricity and during any chemical, or electronic process,
unit’s date for commencement of
calendar year after which the unit first including, with regard to a unit, start-up
commercial operation shall be the date
produces electricity— on which the unit becomes a CAIR SO2 of a unit’s combustion chamber, except
(i) For a topping-cycle cogeneration unit under § 96.204. as provided in § 96.205.
unit, (i) For a unit with a date for (i) For a unit that is a CAIR SO2 unit
(A) Useful thermal energy not less commencement of commercial under § 96.204 on the date the unit
than 5 percent of total energy output; operation as defined in paragraph (2) of commences operation as defined in
and this definition and that subsequently paragraph (1) of this definition and that
(B) Useful power that, when added to subsequently undergoes a physical
undergoes a physical change (other than
one-half of useful thermal energy change (other than replacement of the
replacement of the unit by a unit at the
produced, is not less then 42.5 percent unit by a unit at the same source), such
same source), such date shall remain the
of total energy input, if useful thermal date shall remain the unit’s date of
unit’s date of commencement of
energy produced is 15 percent or more commencement of operation.
of total energy output, or not less than commercial operation.
(ii) For a unit with a date for (ii) For a unit that is a CAIR SO2 unit
45 percent of total energy input, if under § 96.204 on the date the unit
commencement of commercial
useful thermal energy produced is less commences operation as defined in
operation as defined in paragraph (2) of
than 15 percent of total energy output. paragraph (1) of this definition and that
(ii) For a bottoming-cycle this definition and that is subsequently
replaced by a unit at the same source is subsequently replaced by a unit at the
cogeneration unit, useful power not less same source (e.g., repowered), the
than 45 percent of total energy input. (e.g., repowered), the replacement unit
shall be treated as a separate unit with replacement unit shall be treated as a
Combustion turbine means:
(1) An enclosed device comprising a a separate date for commencement of separate unit with a separate date for
compressor, a combustor, and a turbine commercial operation as defined in commencement of operation as defined
and in which the flue gas resulting from paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this in paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this
the combustion of fuel in the combustor definition as appropriate. definition as appropriate.
passes through the turbine, rotating the (3) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) of (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) of
turbine; and this definition and except as provided this definition and except as provided
(2) If the enclosed device under in § 96.284(h) or § 96.287(b)(3), for a in § 96.205, for a unit that is not a CAIR
paragraph (1) of this definition is CAIR SO2 opt-in unit or a unit for which SO2 unit under § 96.204 on the date the
combined cycle, any associated heat a CAIR opt-in permit application is unit commences operation as defined in
recovery steam generator and steam submitted and not withdrawn and a paragraph (1) of this definition and is
turbine. CAIR opt-in permit is not yet issued or not a unit under paragraph (3) of this
Commence commercial operation denied under subpart III of this part, the definition, the unit’s date for
means, with regard to a unit serving a unit’s date for commencement of commencement of operation shall be the
generator: commercial operation shall be the date date on which the unit becomes a CAIR
(1) To have begun to produce steam, on which the owner or operator is SO2 unit under § 96.204.
gas, or other heated medium used to required to start monitoring and (i) For a unit with a date for
generate electricity for sale or use, reporting the SO2 emissions rate and the commencement of operation as defined
including test generation, except as heat input of the unit under in paragraph (2) of this definition and
provided in § 96.205. § 96.284(b)(1)(i). that subsequently undergoes a physical
(i) For a unit that is a CAIR SO2 unit (i) For a unit with a date for change (other than replacement of the
under § 96.204 on the date the unit commencement of commercial unit by a unit at the same source), such
date shall remain the unit’s date of automated data acquisition and liquid, or gaseous fuel derived from
commencement of operation. handling system (DAHS)), a permanent such material.
(ii) For a unit with a date for record of sulfur dioxide emissions, stack Fossil-fuel-fired means, with regard to
commencement of operation as defined gas volumetric flow rate, stack gas a unit, combusting any amount of fossil
in paragraph (2) of this definition and moisture content, and oxygen or carbon fuel in any calendar year.
that is subsequently replaced by a unit dioxide concentration (as applicable), in General account means a CAIR SO2
at the same source (e.g., repowered), the a manner consistent with part 75 of this Allowance Tracking System account,
replacement unit shall be treated as a chapter. The following systems are the established under subpart FFF of this
separate unit with a separate date for principal types of continuous emission part, that is not a compliance account.
commencement of operation as defined monitoring systems required under Generator means a device that
in paragraph (1),(2), or (3) of this subpart HHH of this part: produces electricity.
definition as appropriate. (1) A flow monitoring system, Heat input means, with regard to a
(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) of consisting of a stack flow rate monitor specified period of time, the product (in
this definition and except as provided and an automated data acquisition and mmBtu/time) of the gross calorific value
in § 96.284(h) or § 96.287(b)(3), for a handling system and providing a of the fuel (in Btu/lb) divided by
CAIR SO2 opt-in unit or a unit for which permanent, continuous record of stack 1,000,000 Btu/mmBtu and multiplied by
a CAIR opt-in permit application is gas volumetric flow rate, in standard the fuel feed rate into a combustion
submitted and not withdrawn and a cubic feet per hour (scfh); device (in lb of fuel/time), as measured,
CAIR opt-in permit is not yet issued or (2) A sulfur dioxide monitoring recorded, and reported to the
denied under subpart III of this part, the system, consisting of a SO2 pollutant Administrator by the CAIR designated
unit’s date for commencement of concentration monitor and an representative and determined by the
operation shall be the date on which the automated data acquisition handling Administrator in accordance with
owner or operator is required to start system and providing a permanent, subpart HHH of this part and excluding
monitoring and reporting the SO2 continuous record of SO2 emissions, in the heat derived from preheated
emissions rate and the heat input of the parts per million (ppm); combustion air, recirculated flue gases,
unit under § 96.284(b)(1)(i). (3) A moisture monitoring system, as or exhaust from other sources.
(i) For a unit with a date for defined in § 75.11(b)(2) of this chapter Heat input rate means the amount of
commencement of operation as defined and providing a permanent, continuous heat input (in mmBtu) divided by unit
in paragraph (3) of this definition and record of the stack gas moisture content, operating time (in hr) or, with regard to
that subsequently undergoes a physical in percent H2O; a specific fuel, the amount of heat input
change (other than replacement of the (4) A carbon dioxide monitoring attributed to the fuel (in mmBtu)
unit by a unit at the same source), such system, consisting of a CO2 pollutant divided by the unit operating time (in
date shall remain the unit’s date of concentration monitor (or an oxygen hr) during which the unit combusts the
commencement of operation. monitor plus suitable mathematical fuel.
(ii) For a unit with a date for equations from which the CO2 Life-of-the-unit, firm power
commencement of operation as defined concentration is derived) and an contractual arrangement means a unit
in paragraph (3) of this definition and automated data acquisition and participation power sales agreement
that is subsequently replaced by a unit handling system and providing a under which a utility or industrial
at the same source (e.g., repowered), the permanent, continuous record of CO2 customer reserves, or is entitled to
replacement unit shall be treated as a emissions, in percent CO2; and receive, a specified amount or
separate unit with a separate date for (5) An oxygen monitoring system, percentage of nameplate capacity and
commencement of operation as defined consisting of an O2 concentration associated energy generated by any
in paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this monitor and an automated data specified unit and pays its proportional
definition as appropriate. acquisition and handling system and amount of such unit’s total costs,
Common stack means a single flue providing a permanent, continuous pursuant to a contract:
through which emissions from 2 or record of O2 in percent O2. (1) For the life of the unit;
more units are exhausted. Control period means the period (2) For a cumulative term of no less
Compliance account means a CAIR beginning January 1 of a calendar year than 30 years, including contracts that
SO2 Allowance Tracking System and ending on December 31 of the same permit an election for early termination;
account, established by the year, inclusive. or
Administrator for a CAIR SO2 source Emissions means air pollutants (3) For a period no less than 25 years
subject to an Acid Rain emissions exhausted from a unit or source into the or 70 percent of the economic useful life
limitations under § 73.31(a) or (b) of this atmosphere, as measured, recorded, and of the unit determined as of the time the
chapter or for any other CAIR SO2 reported to the Administrator by the unit is built, with option rights to
source under subpart FFF or III of this CAIR designated representative and as purchase or release some portion of the
part, in which any CAIR SO2 allowance determined by the Administrator in nameplate capacity and associated
allocations for the CAIR SO2 units at the accordance with subpart HHH of this energy generated by the unit at the end
source are initially recorded and in part. of the period.
which are held any CAIR SO2 Excess emissions means any ton, or Maximum design heat input means,
allowances available for use for a portion of a ton, of sulfur dioxide starting from the initial installation of a
control period in order to meet the emitted by the CAIR SO2 units at a CAIR unit, the maximum amount of fuel per
source’s CAIR SO2 emissions limitation SO2 source during a control period that hour (in Btu/hr) that a unit is capable of
in accordance with § 96.254. exceeds the CAIR SO2 emissions combusting on a steady state basis as
Continuous emission monitoring limitation for the source, provided that specified by the manufacturer of the
system or CEMS means the equipment any portion of a ton of excess emissions unit, or, starting from the completion of
required under subpart HHH of this part shall be treated as one ton of excess any subsequent physical change in the
to sample, analyze, measure, and emissions. unit resulting in a decrease in the
provide, by means of readings recorded Fossil fuel means natural gas, maximum amount of fuel per hour (in
at least once every 15 minutes (using an petroleum, coal, or any form of solid, Btu/hr) that a unit is capable of
combusting on a steady state basis, such (2) With regard to any general simultaneously with improved boiler or
decreased maximum amount as account, any person who has an generation efficiency and with
specified by the person conducting the ownership interest with respect to the significantly greater waste reduction
physical change. CAIR SO2 allowances held in the relative to the performance of
Monitoring system means any general account and who is subject to technology in widespread commercial
monitoring system that meets the the binding agreement for the CAIR use as of January 1, 2005.
requirements of subpart HHH of this authorized account representative to Serial number means, for a CAIR SO2
part, including a continuous emissions represent the person’s ownership allowance, the unique identification
monitoring system, an alternative interest with respect to CAIR SO2 number assigned to each CAIR SO2
monitoring system, or an excepted allowances. allowance by the Administrator.
monitoring system under part 75 of this Permitting authority means the State Sequential use of energy means:
chapter. air pollution control agency, local (1) For a topping-cycle cogeneration
Most stringent State or Federal SO2 agency, other State agency, or other unit, the use of reject heat from
emissions limitation means, with regard agency authorized by the Administrator electricity production in a useful
to a unit, the lowest SO2 emissions to issue or revise permits to meet the thermal energy application or process;
limitation (in terms of lb/mmBtu) that is requirements of the CAIR SO2 Trading or
applicable to the unit under State or Program in accordance with subpart (2) For a bottoming-cycle cogeneration
Federal law, regardless of the averaging CCC of this part or, if no such agency unit, the use of reject heat from useful
period to which the emissions has been so authorized, the thermal energy application or process in
limitation applies. Administrator. electricity production.
Nameplate capacity means, starting Potential electrical output capacity Source means all buildings,
from the initial installation of a means 33 percent of a unit’s maximum structures, or installations located in
generator, the maximum electrical design heat input, divided by 3,413 one or more contiguous or adjacent
generating output (in MWe) that the Btu/kWh, divided by 1,000 kWh/MWh, properties under common control of the
generator is capable of producing on a and multiplied by 8,760 hr/yr. same person or persons. For purposes of
steady state basis and during continuous Receive or receipt of means, when section 502(c) of the Clean Air Act, a
operation (when not restricted by referring to the permitting authority or ‘‘source,’’ including a ‘‘source’’ with
seasonal or other deratings) as specified the Administrator, to come into multiple units, shall be considered a
by the manufacturer of the generator or, possession of a document, information, single ‘‘facility.’’
starting from the completion of any or correspondence (whether sent in hard State means one of the States or the
subsequent physical change in the copy or by authorized electronic District of Columbia that adopts the
generator resulting in an increase in the transmission), as indicated in an official CAIR SO2 Trading Program pursuant to
maximum electrical generating output correspondence log, or by a notation § 51.124 (o)(1) or (2) of this chapter.
(in MWe) that the generator is capable made on the document, information, or Submit or serve means to send or
of producing on a steady state basis and correspondence, by the permitting transmit a document, information, or
during continuous operation (when not authority or the Administrator in the correspondence to the person specified
restricted by seasonal or other regular course of business. in accordance with the applicable
deratings), such increased maximum Recordation, record, or recorded regulation:
amount as specified by the person means, with regard to CAIR SO2 (1) In person;
conducting the physical change. allowances, the movement of CAIR SO2
Operator means any person who (2) By United States Postal Service; or
allowances by the Administrator into or (3) By other means of dispatch or
operates, controls, or supervises a CAIR between CAIR SO2 Allowance Tracking
SO2 unit or a CAIR SO2 source and shall transmission and delivery. Compliance
System accounts, for purposes of with any ‘‘submission’’ or ‘‘service’’
include, but not be limited to, any allocation, transfer, or deduction.
holding company, utility system, or deadline shall be determined by the
Reference method means any direct
plant manager of such a unit or source. date of dispatch, transmission, or
test method of sampling and analyzing
Owner means any of the following mailing and not the date of receipt.
for an air pollutant as specified in
persons: Title V operating permit means a
§ 75.22 of this chapter.
(1) With regard to a CAIR SO2 source Repowered means, with regard to a permit issued under title V of the Clean
or a CAIR SO2 unit at a source, unit, replacement of a coal-fired boiler Air Act and part 70 or part 71 of this
respectively: with one of the following coal-fired chapter.
(i) Any holder of any portion of the technologies at the same source as the Title V operating permit regulations
legal or equitable title in a CAIR SO2 coal-fired boiler: means the regulations that the
unit at the source or the CAIR SO2 unit; (1) Atmospheric or pressurized Administrator has approved or issued as
(ii) Any holder of a leasehold interest fluidized bed combustion; meeting the requirements of title V of
in a CAIR SO2 unit at the source or the (2) Integrated gasification combined the Clean Air Act and part 70 or 71 of
CAIR SO2 unit; or cycle; this chapter.
(iii) Any purchaser of power from a (3) Magnetohydrodynamics; Ton means 2,000 pounds. For the
CAIR SO2 unit at the source or the CAIR (4) Direct and indirect coal-fired purpose of determining compliance
SO2 unit under a life-of-the-unit, firm turbines; with the CAIR SO2 emissions limitation,
power contractual arrangement; (5) Integrated gasification fuel cells; or total tons of sulfur dioxide emissions for
provided that, unless expressly (6) As determined by the a control period shall be calculated as
provided for in a leasehold agreement, Administrator in consultation with the the sum of all recorded hourly
owner shall not include a passive lessor, Secretary of Energy, a derivative of one emissions (or the mass equivalent of the
or a person who has an equitable or more of the technologies under recorded hourly emission rates) in
interest through such lessor, whose paragraphs (1) through (5) of this accordance with subpart HHH of this
rental payments are not based (either definition and any other coal-fired part, but with any remaining fraction of
directly or indirectly) on the revenues or technology capable of controlling a ton equal to or greater than 0.50 tons
income from such CAIR SO2 unit; or multiple combustion emissions deemed to equal one ton and any
remaining fraction of a ton less than mmBtu—million Btu. statement shall state, in a format
0.50 tons deemed to equal zero tons. MWe—megawatt electrical. prescribed by the permitting authority,
Topping-cycle cogeneration unit MWh—megawatt hour. that the unit was permanently retired on
means a cogeneration unit in which the O2—oxygen. a specific date and will comply with the
energy input to the unit is first used to ppm—parts per million. requirements of paragraph (b) of this
produce useful power, including lb—pound. section.
electricity, and at least some of the scfh—standard cubic feet per hour. (3) After receipt of the statement
reject heat from the electricity SO2—sulfur dioxide. under paragraph (a)(2) of this section,
production is then used to provide H2O—water. the permitting authority will amend any
useful thermal energy. yr—year. permit under subpart CCC of this part
Total energy input means, with regard covering the source at which the unit is
§ 96.204 Applicability.
to a cogeneration unit, total energy of all located to add the provisions and
forms supplied to the cogeneration unit, The following units in a State shall be requirements of the exemption under
excluding energy produced by the CAIR SO2 units, and any source that paragraphs (a)(1) and (b) of this section.
cogeneration unit itself. includes one or more such units shall be (b) Special provisions. (1) A unit
Total energy output means, with a CAIR SO2 source, subject to the exempt under paragraph (a) of this
regard to a cogeneration unit, the sum requirements of this subpart and section shall not emit any sulfur
of useful power and useful thermal subparts BBB through HHH of this part: dioxide, starting on the date that the
energy produced by the cogeneration (a) Except as provided in paragraph exemption takes effect.
unit. (b) of this section, a stationary, fossil- (2) For a period of 5 years from the
Unit means a stationary, fossil-fuel- fuel-fired boiler or stationary, fossil- date the records are created, the owners
fired boiler or combustion turbine or fuel-fired combustion turbine serving at and operators of a unit exempt under
other stationary, fossil-fuel-fired any time, since the start-up of the unit’s paragraph (a) of this section shall retain
combustion device. combustion chamber, a generator with at the source that includes the unit,
Unit operating day means a calendar nameplate capacity of more than 25 records demonstrating that the unit is
day in which a unit combusts any fuel. MWe producing electricity for sale. permanently retired. The 5-year period
Unit operating hour or hour of unit (b) For a unit that qualifies as a for keeping records may be extended for
operation means an hour in which a cogeneration unit during the 12-month cause, at any time before the end of the
unit combusts any fuel. period starting on the date the unit first period, in writing by the permitting
Useful power means, with regard to a produces electricity and continues to authority or the Administrator. The
cogeneration unit, electricity or qualify as a cogeneration unit, a owners and operators bear the burden of
mechanical energy made available for cogeneration unit serving at any time a proof that the unit is permanently
use, excluding any such energy used in generator with nameplate capacity of retired.
the power production process (which more than 25 MWe and supplying in (3) The owners and operators and, to
process includes, but is not limited to, any calendar year more than one-third the extent applicable, the CAIR
any on-site processing or treatment of of the unit’s potential electric output designated representative of a unit
fuel combusted at the unit and any on- capacity or 219,000 MWh, whichever is exempt under paragraph (a) of this
site emission controls). greater, to any utility power distribution section shall comply with the
Useful thermal energy means, with system for sale. If a unit qualifies as a requirements of the CAIR SO2 Trading
regard to a cogeneration unit, thermal cogeneration unit during the 12-month Program concerning all periods for
energy that is: period starting on the date the unit first which the exemption is not in effect,
(1) Made available to an industrial or produces electricity but subsequently no even if such requirements arise, or must
commercial process (not a power longer qualifies as a cogeneration unit, be complied with, after the exemption
production process), excluding any heat the unit shall be subject to paragraph (a) takes effect.
contained in condensate return or of this section starting on the day on (4) A unit exempt under paragraph (a)
makeup water; which the unit first no longer qualifies of this section and located at a source
(2) Used in a heat application (e.g., as a cogeneration unit. that is required, or but for this
space heating or domestic hot water exemption would be required, to have a
§ 96.205 Retired unit exemption. title V operating permit shall not resume
heating); or
(3) Used in a space cooling (a)(1) Any CAIR SO2 unit that is operation unless the CAIR designated
application (i.e., thermal energy used by permanently retired and is not a CAIR representative of the source submits a
an absorption chiller). SO2 opt-in unit under subpart III of this complete CAIR permit application
Utility power distribution system part shall be exempt from the CAIR SO2 under § 96.222 for the unit not less than
means the portion of an electricity grid Trading Program, except for the 18 months (or such lesser time provided
owned or operated by a utility and provisions of this section, § 96.202, by the permitting authority) before the
dedicated to delivering electricity to § 96.203, § 96.204, § 96.206(c)(4) later of January 1, 2010 or the date on
customers. through (8), § 96.207, and subparts FFF which the unit resumes operation.
and GGG of this part. (5) On the earlier of the following
§ 96.203 Measurements, abbreviations, (2) The exemption under paragraph dates, a unit exempt under paragraph (a)
and acronyms. (a)(1) of this section shall become of this section shall lose its exemption:
Measurements, abbreviations, and effective the day on which the CAIR SO2 (i) The date on which the CAIR
acronyms used in this part are defined unit is permanently retired. Within 30 designated representative submits a
as follows: days of the unit’s permanent retirement, CAIR permit application for the unit
Btu-British thermal unit. the CAIR designated representative shall under paragraph (b)(4) of this section;
CO2—carbon dioxide. submit a statement to the permitting (ii) The date on which the CAIR
NOX—nitrogen oxides. authority otherwise responsible for designated representative is required
hr—hour. administering any CAIR permit for the under paragraph (b)(4) of this section to
kW—kilowatt electrical. unit and shall submit a copy of the submit a CAIR permit application for
kWh—kilowatt hour. statement to the Administrator. The the unit; or
(iii) The date on which the unit emissions limitation under paragraph violations, under the Clean Air Act or
resumes operation, if the CAIR (c) of this section. applicable State law; and
designated representative is not (c) Sulfur dioxide emission (ii) Each ton of such excess emissions
required to submit a CAIR permit requirements. (1) As of the allowance and each day of such control period
application for the unit. transfer deadline for a control period, shall constitute a separate violation of
(6) For the purpose of applying the owners and operators of each CAIR this subpart, the Clean Air Act, and
monitoring, reporting, and SO2 source and each CAIR SO2 unit at applicable State law.
recordkeeping requirements under the source shall hold, in the source’s (2) [Reserved]
subpart HHH of this part, a unit that compliance account, a tonnage (e) Recordkeeping and reporting
loses its exemption under paragraph (a) equivalent in CAIR SO2 allowances requirements. (1) Unless otherwise
of this section shall be treated as a unit available for compliance deductions for provided, the owners and operators of
that commences operation and the control period, as determined in the CAIR SO2 source and each CAIR SO2
commercial operation on the first date accordance with § 96.254(a) and (b), not unit at the source shall keep on site at
on which the unit resumes operation. less than the tons of total sulfur dioxide the source each of the following
emissions for the control period from all documents for a period of 5 years from
§ 96.206 Standard requirements. CAIR SO2 units at the source, as the date the document is created. This
(a) Permit requirements. (1) The CAIR determined in accordance with subpart period may be extended for cause, at
designated representative of each CAIR HHH of this part. any time before the end of 5 years, in
SO2 source required to have a title V (2) A CAIR SO2 unit shall be subject writing by the permitting authority or
operating permit and each CAIR SO2 to the requirements under paragraph the Administrator.
unit required to have a title V operating (c)(1) of this section starting on the later (i) The certificate of representation
permit at the source shall: of January 1, 2010 or the deadline for under § 96.213 for the CAIR designated
(i) Submit to the permitting authority meeting the unit’s monitor certification representative for the source and each
a complete CAIR permit application requirements under § 96.270(b)(1),(2), or CAIR SO2 unit at the source and all
under § 96.222 in accordance with the (5). documents that demonstrate the truth of
deadlines specified in § 96.221(a) and (3) A CAIR SO2 allowance shall not be the statements in the certificate of
(b); and deducted, for compliance with the representation; provided that the
(ii) Submit in a timely manner any requirements under paragraph (c)(1) of certificate and documents shall be
supplemental information that the this section, for a control period in a retained on site at the source beyond
permitting authority determines is calendar year before the year for which such 5-year period until such
necessary in order to review a CAIR the CAIR SO2 allowance was allocated. documents are superseded because of
permit application and issue or deny a (4) CAIR SO2 allowances shall be held
the submission of a new certificate of
CAIR permit. in, deducted from, or transferred into or
representation under § 96.213 changing
among CAIR SO2 Allowance Tracking
(2) The owners and operators of each the CAIR designated representative.
CAIR SO2 source required to have a title System accounts in accordance with
(ii) All emissions monitoring
V operating permit and each CAIR SO2 subparts FFF and GGG of this part.
(5) A CAIR SO2 allowance is a limited information, in accordance with subpart
unit required to have a title V operating HHH of this part, provided that to the
authorization to emit sulfur dioxide in
permit at the source shall have a CAIR extent that subpart HHH of this part
accordance with the CAIR SO2 Trading
permit issued by the permitting provides for a 3-year period for
Program. No provision of the CAIR SO2
authority under subpart CCC of this part recordkeeping, the 3-year period shall
Trading Program, the CAIR permit
for the source and operate the source apply.
application, the CAIR permit, or an
and the unit in compliance with such (iii) Copies of all reports, compliance
exemption under § 96.205 and no
CAIR permit. certifications, and other submissions
provision of law shall be construed to
(3) Except as provided in subpart III limit the authority of the State or the and all records made or required under
of this part, the owners and operators of United States to terminate or limit such the CAIR SO2 Trading Program.
a CAIR SO2 source that is not otherwise authorization. (iv) Copies of all documents used to
required to have a title V operating (6) A CAIR SO2 allowance does not complete a CAIR permit application and
permit and each CAIR SO2 unit that is constitute a property right. any other submission under the CAIR
not otherwise required to have a title V (7) Upon recordation by the SO2 Trading Program or to demonstrate
operating permit are not required to Administrator under subpart FFF, GGG, compliance with the requirements of the
submit a CAIR permit application, and or III of this part, every allocation, CAIR SO2 Trading Program.
to have a CAIR permit, under subpart transfer, or deduction of a CAIR SO2 (2) The CAIR designated
CCC of this part for such CAIR SO2 allowance to or from a CAIR SO2 unit’s representative of a CAIR SO2 source and
source and such CAIR SO2 unit. compliance account is incorporated each CAIR SO2 unit at the source shall
(b) Monitoring, reporting, and automatically in any CAIR permit of the submit the reports required under the
recordkeeping requirements. (1) The source that includes the CAIR SO2 unit. CAIR SO2 Trading Program, including
owners and operators, and the CAIR (d) Excess emissions requirements— those under subpart HHH of this part.
designated representative, of each CAIR (1) If a CAIR SO2 source emits sulfur (f) Liability. (1) Each CAIR SO2 source
SO2 source and each CAIR SO2 unit at dioxide during any control period in and each CAIR SO2 unit shall meet the
the source shall comply with the excess of the CAIR SO2 emissions requirements of the CAIR SO2 Trading
monitoring, reporting, and limitation, then: Program.
recordkeeping requirements of subpart (i) The owners and operators of the (2) Any provision of the CAIR SO2
HHH of this part. source and each CAIR SO2 unit at the Trading Program that applies to a CAIR
(2) The emissions measurements source shall surrender the CAIR SO2 SO2 source or the CAIR designated
recorded and reported in accordance allowances required for deduction representative of a CAIR SO2 source
with subpart HHH of this part shall be under § 96.254(d)(1) and pay any fine, shall also apply to the owners and
used to determine compliance by each penalty, or assessment or comply with operators of such source and of the
CAIR SO2 source with the CAIR SO2 any other remedy imposed, for the same CAIR SO2 units at the source.
(3) Any provision of the CAIR SO2 shall represent and, by his or her the CAIR designated representative. The
Trading Program that applies to a CAIR representations, actions, inactions, or agreement by which the alternate CAIR
SO2 unit or the CAIR designated submissions, legally bind each owner designated representative is selected
representative of a CAIR SO2 unit shall and operator of the CAIR SO2 source shall include a procedure for
also apply to the owners and operators represented and each CAIR SO2 unit at authorizing the alternate CAIR
of such unit. the source in all matters pertaining to designated representative to act in lieu
(g) Effect on other authorities. No the CAIR SO2 Trading Program, of the CAIR designated representative.
provision of the CAIR SO2 Trading notwithstanding any agreement between (b) Upon receipt by the Administrator
Program, a CAIR permit application, a the CAIR designated representative and of a complete certificate of
CAIR permit, or an exemption under such owners and operators. The owners representation under § 96.213, any
§ 96.205 shall be construed as and operators shall be bound by any representation, action, inaction, or
exempting or excluding the owners and decision or order issued to the CAIR submission by the alternate CAIR
operators, and the CAIR designated designated representative by the designated representative shall be
representative, of a CAIR SO2 source or permitting authority, the Administrator, deemed to be a representation, action,
CAIR SO2 unit from compliance with or a court regarding the source or unit. inaction, or submission by the CAIR
any other provision of the applicable, (d) No CAIR permit will be issued, no designated representative.
approved State implementation plan, a emissions data reports will be accepted, (c) Except in this section and
federally enforceable permit, or the and no CAIR SO2 Allowance Tracking §§ 96.202, 96.210(a) and (d), 96.212,
Clean Air Act. System account will be established for 96.213, 96.251, and 96.282, whenever
a CAIR SO2 unit at a source, until the the term ‘‘CAIR designated
§ 96.207 Computation of time.
Administrator has received a complete representative’’ is used in subparts AAA
(a) Unless otherwise stated, any time certificate of representation under through III of this part, the term shall be
period scheduled, under the CAIR SO2 § 96.213 for a CAIR designated construed to include the CAIR
Trading Program, to begin on the representative of the source and the designated representative or any
occurrence of an act or event shall begin CAIR SO2 units at the source. alternate CAIR designated
on the day the act or event occurs. (e)(1) Each submission under the representative.
(b) Unless otherwise stated, any time CAIR SO2 Trading Program shall be
period scheduled, under the CAIR SO2 submitted, signed, and certified by the § 96.212 Changing CAIR designated
Trading Program, to begin before the CAIR designated representative for each representative and alternate CAIR
occurrence of an act or event shall be CAIR SO2 source on behalf of which the designated representative; changes in
computed so that the period ends the owners and operators.
submission is made. Each such
day before the act or event occurs. submission shall include the following (a) Changing CAIR designated
(c) Unless otherwise stated, if the final certification statement by the CAIR representative. The CAIR designated
day of any time period, under the CAIR designated representative: ‘‘I am representative may be changed at any
SO2 Trading Program, falls on a authorized to make this submission on time upon receipt by the Administrator
weekend or a State or Federal holiday, behalf of the owners and operators of of a superseding complete certificate of
the time period shall be extended to the the source or units for which the representation under § 96.213.
next business day. submission is made. I certify under Notwithstanding any such change, all
penalty of law that I have personally representations, actions, inactions, and
§ 96.208 Appeal procedures.
examined, and am familiar with, the submissions by the previous CAIR
The appeal procedures for decisions designated representative before the
of the Administrator under the CAIR statements and information submitted
in this document and all its time and date when the Administrator
SO2 Trading Program are set forth in receives the superseding certificate of
part 78 of this chapter. attachments. Based on my inquiry of
those individuals with primary representation shall be binding on the
Subpart BBB—CAIR Designated responsibility for obtaining the new CAIR designated representative and
Representative for CAIR SO2 Sources information, I certify that the statements the owners and operators of the CAIR
and information are to the best of my SO2 source and the CAIR SO2 units at
§ 96.210 Authorization and responsibilities knowledge and belief true, accurate, and the source.
of CAIR designated representative.
complete. I am aware that there are (b) Changing alternate CAIR
(a) Except as provided under § 96.211, significant penalties for submitting false designated representative. The alternate
each CAIR SO2 source, including all statements and information or omitting CAIR designated representative may be
CAIR SO2 units at the source, shall have required statements and information, changed at any time upon receipt by the
one and only one CAIR designated including the possibility of fine or Administrator of a superseding
representative, with regard to all matters imprisonment.’’ complete certificate of representation
under the CAIR SO2 Trading Program (2) The permitting authority and the under § 96.213. Notwithstanding any
concerning the source or any CAIR SO2 Administrator will accept or act on a such change, all representations,
unit at the source. submission made on behalf of owner or actions, inactions, and submissions by
(b) The CAIR designated operators of a CAIR SO2 source or a the previous alternate CAIR designated
representative of the CAIR SO2 source CAIR SO2 unit only if the submission representative before the time and date
shall be selected by an agreement has been made, signed, and certified in when the Administrator receives the
binding on the owners and operators of accordance with paragraph (e)(1) of this superseding certificate of representation
the source and all CAIR SO2 units at the section. shall be binding on the new alternate
source and shall act in accordance with CAIR designated representative and the
the certification statement in § 96.211 Alternate CAIR designated owners and operators of the CAIR SO2
§ 96.213(a)(4)(iv). representative. source and the CAIR SO2 units at the
(c) Upon receipt by the Administrator (a) A certificate of representation source.
of a complete certificate of under § 96.213 may designate one and (c) Changes in owners and operators.
representation under § 96.213, the CAIR only one alternate CAIR designated (1) In the event a new owner or operator
designated representative of the source representative, who may act on behalf of of a CAIR SO2 source or a CAIR SO2 unit
is not included in the list of owners and CAIR SO2 unit at the source shall be designated representative or the finality
operators in the certificate of bound by any order issued to me by the of any decision or order by the
representation under § 96.213, such new Administrator, the permitting authority, permitting authority or the
owner or operator shall be deemed to be or a court regarding the source or unit.’’ Administrator under the CAIR SO2
subject to and bound by the certificate (iv) ‘‘Where there are multiple holders Trading Program.
of representation, the representations, of a legal or equitable title to, or a (c) Neither the permitting authority
actions, inactions, and submissions of leasehold interest in, a CAIR SO2 unit, nor the Administrator will adjudicate
the CAIR designated representative and or where a customer purchases power any private legal dispute concerning the
any alternate CAIR designated from a CAIR SO2 unit under a life-of- authorization or any representation,
representative of the source or unit, and the-unit, firm power contractual action, inaction, or submission of any
the decisions and orders of the arrangement, I certify that: I have given CAIR designated representative,
permitting authority, the Administrator, a written notice of my selection as the including private legal disputes
or a court, as if the new owner or ‘CAIR designated representative’ or concerning the proceeds of CAIR SO2
operator were included in such list. ‘alternate CAIR designated allowance transfers.
(2) Within 30 days following any representative’, as applicable, and of the
change in the owners and operators of agreement by which I was selected to Subpart CCC—Permits
a CAIR SO2 source or a CAIR SO2 unit, each owner and operator of the source
§ 96.220 General CAIR SO2 Trading
including the addition of a new owner and of each CAIR SO2 unit at the source;
Program permit requirements.
or operator, the CAIR designated and CAIR SO2 allowances and proceeds
representative or any alternate CAIR of transactions involving CAIR SO2 (a) For each CAIR SO2 source required
designated representative shall submit a allowances will be deemed to be held or to have a title V operating permit or
revision to the certificate of distributed in proportion to each required, under subpart III of this part,
representation under § 96.213 amending holder’s legal, equitable, leasehold, or to have a title V operating permit or
the list of owners and operators to contractual reservation or entitlement, other federally enforceable permit, such
include the change. except that, if such multiple holders permit shall include a CAIR permit
have expressly provided for a different administered by the permitting
§ 96.213 Certificate of representation. distribution of CAIR SO2 allowances by authority for the title V operating permit
(a) A complete certificate of contract, CAIR SO2 allowances and or the federally enforceable permit as
representation for a CAIR designated proceeds of transactions involving CAIR applicable. The CAIR portion of the title
representative or an alternate CAIR SO2 allowances will be deemed to be V permit or other federally enforceable
designated representative shall include held or distributed in accordance with permit as applicable shall be
the following elements in a format the contract.’’ administered in accordance with the
prescribed by the Administrator: (5) The signature of the CAIR permitting authority’s title V operating
(1) Identification of the CAIR SO2 designated representative and any permits regulations promulgated under
source, and each CAIR SO2 unit at the alternate CAIR designated part 70 or 71 of this chapter or the
source, for which the certificate of representative and the dates signed. permitting authority’s regulations for
representation is submitted. (b) Unless otherwise required by the other federally enforceable permits as
(2) The name, address, e-mail address permitting authority or the applicable, except as provided
(if any), telephone number, and Administrator, documents of agreement otherwise by this subpart and subpart III
facsimile transmission number (if any) referred to in the certificate of of this part.
of the CAIR designated representative representation shall not be submitted to (b) Each CAIR permit shall contain,
and any alternate CAIR designated the permitting authority or the with regard to the CAIR SO2 source and
representative. Administrator. Neither the permitting the CAIR SO2 units at the source, all
(3) A list of the owners and operators authority nor the Administrator shall be applicable CAIR SO2 Trading Program,
of the CAIR SO2 source and of each under any obligation to review or CAIR NOX Annual Trading Program,
CAIR SO2 unit at the source. evaluate the sufficiency of such and CAIR NOX Ozone Season Trading
(4) The following certification documents, if submitted. Program requirements and shall be a
statements by the CAIR designated complete and separable portion of the
representative and any alternate CAIR § 96.214 Objections concerning CAIR title V operating permit or other
designated representative— designated representative. federally enforceable permit under
(i) ‘‘I certify that I was selected as the (a) Once a complete certificate of paragraph (a) of this section.
CAIR designated representative or representation under § 96.213 has been
alternate CAIR designated submitted and received, the permitting § 96.221 Submission of CAIR permit
representative, as applicable, by an authority and the Administrator will applications.
agreement binding on the owners and rely on the certificate of representation (a) Duty to apply. The CAIR
operators of the source and each CAIR unless and until a superseding complete designated representative of any CAIR
SO2 unit at the source.’’ certificate of representation under SO2 source required to have a title V
(ii) ‘‘I certify that I have all the § 96.213 is received by the operating permit shall submit to the
necessary authority to carry out my Administrator. permitting authority a complete CAIR
duties and responsibilities under the (b) Except as provided in § 96.212(a) permit application under § 96.222 for
CAIR SO2 Trading Program on behalf of or (b), no objection or other the source covering each CAIR SO2 unit
the owners and operators of the source communication submitted to the at the source at least 18 months (or such
and of each CAIR SO2 unit at the source permitting authority or the lesser time provided by the permitting
and that each such owner and operator Administrator concerning the authority) before the later of January 1,
shall be fully bound by my authorization, or any representation, 2010 or the date on which the CAIR SO2
representations, actions, inactions, or action, inaction, or submission, of the unit commences operation.
submissions.’’ CAIR designated representative shall (b) Duty to Reapply. For a CAIR SO2
(iii) ‘‘I certify that the owners and affect any representation, action, source required to have a title V
operators of the source and of each inaction, or submission of the CAIR operating permit, the CAIR designated
representative shall submit a complete a complete certificate of representation (E) The signature of the CAIR
CAIR permit application under § 96.222 under § 96.213, the Administrator will authorized account representative and
for the source covering each CAIR SO2 establish a compliance account for the any alternate CAIR authorized account
unit at the source to renew the CAIR CAIR SO2 source for which the representative and the dates signed.
permit in accordance with the certificate of representation was (iii) Unless otherwise required by the
permitting authority’s title V operating submitted, unless the source already has permitting authority or the
permits regulations addressing permit a compliance account. Administrator, documents of agreement
renewal. (b) General accounts—(1) Application referred to in the application for a
for general account. general account shall not be submitted
§ 96.222 Information requirements for (i) Any person may apply to open a to the permitting authority or the
CAIR permit applications. general account for the purpose of Administrator. Neither the permitting
A complete CAIR permit application holding and transferring CAIR SO2 authority nor the Administrator shall be
shall include the following elements allowances. An application for a general under any obligation to review or
concerning the CAIR SO2 source for account may designate one and only one evaluate the sufficiency of such
which the application is submitted, in a CAIR authorized account representative documents, if submitted.
format prescribed by the permitting and one and only one alternate CAIR (2) Authorization of CAIR authorized
authority: authorized account representative who account representative.
(a) Identification of the CAIR SO2 may act on behalf of the CAIR (i) Upon receipt by the Administrator
source; authorized account representative. The of a complete application for a general
(b) Identification of each CAIR SO2 agreement by which the alternate CAIR account under paragraph (b)(1) of this
unit at the CAIR SO2 source; and authorized account representative is section:
(c) The standard requirements under selected shall include a procedure for (A) The Administrator will establish a
§ 96.206. authorizing the alternate CAIR general account for the person or
§ 96.223 CAIR permit contents and term. authorized account representative to act persons for whom the application is
(a) Each CAIR permit will contain, in in lieu of the CAIR authorized account submitted.
representative. (B) The CAIR authorized account
a format prescribed by the permitting
(ii) A complete application for a representative and any alternate CAIR
authority, all elements required for a
general account shall be submitted to authorized account representative for
complete CAIR permit application
the Administrator and shall include the the general account shall represent and,
under § 96.222.
(b) Each CAIR permit is deemed to following elements in a format by his or her representations, actions,
incorporate automatically the prescribed by the Administrator: inactions, or submissions, legally bind
definitions of terms under § 96.202 and, (A) Name, mailing address, e-mail each person who has an ownership
upon recordation by the Administrator address (if any), telephone number, and interest with respect to CAIR SO2
under subpart FFF, GGG, or III of this facsimile transmission number (if any) allowances held in the general account
part, every allocation, transfer, or of the CAIR authorized account in all matters pertaining to the CAIR
deduction of a CAIR SO2 allowance to representative and any alternate CAIR SO2 Trading Program, notwithstanding
or from the compliance account of the authorized account representative; any agreement between the CAIR
CAIR SO2 source covered by the permit. (B) Organization name and type of authorized account representative or
(c) The term of the CAIR permit will organization, if applicable; any alternate CAIR authorized account
be set by the permitting authority, as (C) A list of all persons subject to a representative and such person. Any
necessary to facilitate coordination of binding agreement for the CAIR such person shall be bound by any order
the renewal of the CAIR permit with authorized account representative and or decision issued to the CAIR
issuance, revision, or renewal of the any alternate CAIR authorized account authorized account representative or
CAIR SO2 source’s title V operating representative to represent their any alternate CAIR authorized account
permit or other federally enforceable ownership interest with respect to the representative by the Administrator or a
permit as applicable. CAIR SO2 allowances held in the court regarding the general account.
general account; (C) Any representation, action,
§ 96.224 CAIR permit revisions. (D) The following certification inaction, or submission by any alternate
Except as provided in § 96.223(b), the statement by the CAIR authorized CAIR authorized account representative
permitting authority will revise the account representative and any alternate shall be deemed to be a representation,
CAIR permit, as necessary, in CAIR authorized account representative: action, inaction, or submission by the
accordance with the permitting ‘‘I certify that I was selected as the CAIR CAIR authorized account representative.
authority’s title V operating permits authorized account representative or the (ii) Each submission concerning the
regulations or the permitting authority’s alternate CAIR authorized account general account shall be submitted,
regulations for other federally representative, as applicable, by an signed, and certified by the CAIR
enforceable permits as applicable agreement that is binding on all persons authorized account representative or
addressing permit revisions. who have an ownership interest with any alternate CAIR authorized account
respect to CAIR SO2 allowances held in representative for the persons having an
Subpart DDD—[Reserved] the general account. I certify that I have ownership interest with respect to CAIR
all the necessary authority to carry out SO2 allowances held in the general
Subpart EEE—[Reserved] my duties and responsibilities under the account. Each such submission shall
CAIR SO2 Trading Program on behalf of include the following certification
Subpart FFF—CAIR SO2 Allowance such persons and that each such person statement by the CAIR authorized
Tracking System shall be fully bound by my account representative or any alternate
§ 96.250 [Reserved] representations, actions, inactions, or CAIR authorized account representative:
submissions and by any order or ‘‘I am authorized to make this
§ 96.251 Establishment of accounts. decision issued to me by the submission on behalf of the persons
(a) Compliance accounts. Except as Administrator or a court regarding the having an ownership interest with
provided in § 96.284(e), upon receipt of general account.’’ respect to the CAIR SO2 allowances held
in the general account. I certify under list of such persons in the application established under paragraph (a) or (b) of
penalty of law that I have personally for a general account, such new person this section.
examined, and am familiar with, the shall be deemed to be subject to and
statements and information submitted bound by the application for a general § 96.252 Responsibilities of CAIR
authorized account representative.
in this document and all its account, the representation, actions,
attachments. Based on my inquiry of inactions, and submissions of the CAIR Following the establishment of a
those individuals with primary authorized account representative and CAIR SO2 Allowance Tracking System
responsibility for obtaining the any alternate CAIR authorized account account, all submissions to the
information, I certify that the statements representative of the account, and the Administrator pertaining to the account,
and information are to the best of my decisions and orders of the including, but not limited to,
knowledge and belief true, accurate, and Administrator or a court, as if the new submissions concerning the deduction
complete. I am aware that there are person were included in such list. or transfer of CAIR SO2 allowances in
significant penalties for submitting false (B) Within 30 days following any the account, shall be made only by the
statements and information or omitting change in the persons having an CAIR authorized account representative
required statements and information, ownership interest with respect to CAIR for the account.
including the possibility of fine or SO2 allowances in the general account, § 96.253 Recordation of CAIR SO2
imprisonment.’’ including the addition of persons, the allowances.
(iii) The Administrator will accept or CAIR authorized account representative
act on a submission concerning the (a)(1) After a compliance account is
or any alternate CAIR authorized established under § 96.251(a) or
general account only if the submission account representative shall submit a
has been made, signed, and certified in § 73.31(a) or (b) of this chapter, the
revision to the application for a general Administrator will record in the
accordance with paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of account amending the list of persons
this section. compliance account any CAIR SO2
having an ownership interest with allowance allocated to any CAIR SO2
(3) Changing CAIR authorized respect to the CAIR SO2 allowances in
account representative and alternate unit at the source for each of the 30
the general account to include the years starting the later of 2010 or the
CAIR authorized account change.
representative; changes in persons with year in which the compliance account is
(4) Objections concerning CAIR established and any CAIR SO2
ownership interest.
(i) The CAIR authorized account authorized account representative. allowance allocated for each of the 30
representative for a general account may (i) Once a complete application for a years starting the later of 2010 or the
be changed at any time upon receipt by general account under paragraph (b)(1) year in which the compliance account is
the Administrator of a superseding of this section has been submitted and established and transferred to the source
complete application for a general received, the Administrator will rely on in accordance with subpart GGG of this
account under paragraph (b)(1) of this the application unless and until a part or subpart D of part 73 of this
section. Notwithstanding any such superseding complete application for a chapter.
change, all representations, actions, general account under paragraph (b)(1) (2) In 2011 and each year thereafter,
inactions, and submissions by the of this section is received by the after Administrator has completed all
previous CAIR authorized account Administrator. deductions under § 96.254(b), the
representative before the time and date (ii) Except as provided in paragraph Administrator will record in the
when the Administrator receives the (b)(3)(i) or (ii) of this section, no compliance account any CAIR SO2
superseding application for a general objection or other communication allowance allocated to any CAIR SO2
account shall be binding on the new submitted to the Administrator unit at the source for the new 30th year
CAIR authorized account representative concerning the authorization, or any (i.e., the year that is 30 years after the
and the persons with an ownership representation, action, inaction, or calendar year for which such
interest with respect to the CAIR SO2 submission of the CAIR authorized deductions are or could be made) and
allowances in the general account. account representative or any any CAIR SO2 allowance allocated for
(ii) The alternate CAIR authorized alternative CAIR authorized account the new 30th year and transferred to the
account representative for a general representative for a general account source in accordance with subpart GGG
account may be changed at any time shall affect any representation, action, of this part or subpart D of part 73 of
upon receipt by the Administrator of a inaction, or submission of the CAIR this chapter.
superseding complete application for a authorized account representative or (b)(1) After a general account is
general account under paragraph (b)(1) any alternative CAIR authorized account established under § 96.251(b) or
of this section. Notwithstanding any representative or the finality of any § 73.31(c) of this chapter, the
such change, all representations, decision or order by the Administrator Administrator will record in the general
actions, inactions, and submissions by under the CAIR SO2 Trading Program. account any CAIR SO2 allowance
the previous alternate CAIR authorized (iii) The Administrator will not allocated for each of the 30 years
account representative before the time adjudicate any private legal dispute starting the later of 2010 or the year in
and date when the Administrator concerning the authorization or any which the general account is established
receives the superseding application for representation, action, inaction, or and transferred to the general account in
a general account shall be binding on submission of the CAIR authorized accordance with subpart GGG of this
the new alternate CAIR authorized account representative or any part or subpart D of part 73 of this
account representative and the persons alternative CAIR authorized account chapter.
with an ownership interest with respect representative for a general account, (2) In 2011 and each year thereafter,
to the CAIR SO2 allowances in the including private legal disputes after Administrator has completed all
general account. concerning the proceeds of CAIR SO2 deductions under § 96.254(b), the
(iii)(A) In the event a new person allowance transfers. Administrator will record in the general
having an ownership interest with (c) Account identification. The account any CAIR SO2 allowance
respect to CAIR SO2 allowances in the Administrator will assign a unique allocated for the new 30th year (i.e., the
general account is not included in the identifying number to each account year that is 30 years after the calendar
year for which such deductions are or (a) of this section and not issued by a in the compliance account be deducted
could be made) and transferred to the permitting authority under § 96.288, for emissions or excess emissions for a
general account in accordance with that is required under §§ 73.35(d) and control period in accordance with
subpart GGG of this part or subpart D of 77.5 of this part. If there are sufficient paragraph (b) or (d) of this section. Such
part 73 of this chapter. CAIR SO2 allowances to complete this request shall be submitted to the
(c) Serial numbers for allocated CAIR deduction, the deduction will be treated Administrator by the allowance transfer
SO2 allowances. When recording the as satisfying the requirements of deadline for the control period and
allocation of CAIR SO2 allowances §§ 73.35(d) and 77.5 of this chapter. include, in a format prescribed by the
issued by a permitting authority under (iii) Treating the CAIR SO2 allowances Administrator, the identification of the
§ 96.288, the Administrator will assign deducted under paragraph (b)(1)(i) of CAIR SO2 source and the appropriate
each such CAIR SO2 allowance a unique this section as also being deducted serial numbers.
identification number that will include under this paragraph (b)(1)(iii), deduct (2) First-in, first-out. The
digits identifying the year of the control CAIR SO2 allowances available under Administrator will deduct CAIR SO2
period for which the CAIR SO2 paragraph (a) of this section (including allowances under paragraph (b) or (d) of
allowance is allocated. any issued by a permitting authority this section from the source’s
under § 96.288) in order to determine compliance account, in the absence of
§ 96.254 Compliance with CAIR SO2 whether the source meets the CAIR SO2 an identification or in the case of a
emissions limitation. emissions limitation for the control partial identification of CAIR SO2
(a) Allowance transfer deadline. The period, as follows: allowances by serial number under
CAIR SO2 allowances are available to be (A) Until the tonnage equivalent of paragraph (c)(1) of this section, on a
deducted for compliance with a source’s the CAIR SO2 allowances deducted first-in, first-out (FIFO) accounting basis
CAIR SO2 emissions limitation for a equals, or exceeds in accordance with in the following order:
control period in a given calendar year paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section, (i) Any CAIR SO2 allowances that
only if the CAIR SO2 allowances: the number of tons of total sulfur were allocated to the units at the source
(1) Were allocated for the control dioxide emissions, determined in for a control period before 2010, in the
period in the year or a prior year; accordance with subpart HHH of this order of recordation;
(2) Are held in the compliance part, from all CAIR SO2 units at the (ii) Any CAIR SO2 allowances that
account as of the allowance transfer source for the control period; or were allocated to any unit for a control
deadline for the control period or are (B) If there are insufficient CAIR SO2 period before 2010 and transferred and
transferred into the compliance account allowances to complete the deductions recorded in the compliance account
by a CAIR SO2 allowance transfer in paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(A) of this section, pursuant to subpart GGG of this part or
correctly submitted for recordation until no more CAIR SO2 allowances subpart D of part 73 of this chapter, in
under § 96.260 by the allowance transfer available under paragraph (a) of this the order of recordation;
deadline for the control period; and section (including any issued by a (iii) Any CAIR SO2 allowances that
(3) Are not necessary for deduction permitting authority under § 96.288) were allocated to the units at the source
for excess emissions for a prior control remain in the compliance account. for a control period during 2010 through
period under paragraph (d) of this (2) For a CAIR SO2 source not subject 2014, in the order of recordation;
section or for deduction under part 77 to an Acid Rain emissions limitation, (iv) Any CAIR SO2 allowances that
of this chapter. the Administrator will deduct CAIR SO2 were allocated to any unit for a control
(b) Deductions for compliance. allowances available under paragraph period during 2010 through 2014 and
Following the recordation, in (a) of this section (including any issued transferred and recorded in the
accordance with § 96.261, of CAIR SO2 by a permitting authority under compliance account pursuant to subpart
allowance transfers submitted for § 96.288) in order to determine whether GGG of this part or subpart D of part 73
recordation in a source’s compliance the source meets the CAIR SO2 of this chapter, in the order of
account by the allowance transfer emissions limitation for the control recordation;
deadline for a control period, the period, as follows: (v) Any CAIR SO2 allowances that
Administrator will deduct from the (i) Until the tonnage equivalent of the were allocated to the units at the source
compliance account CAIR SO2 CAIR SO2 allowances deducted equals, for a control period in 2015 or later, in
allowances available under paragraph or exceeds in accordance with the order of recordation; and
(a) of this section in order to determine paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section, (vi) Any CAIR SO2 allowances that
whether the source meets the CAIR SO2 the number of tons of total sulfur were allocated to any unit for a control
emissions limitation for the control dioxide emissions, determined in period in 2015 or later and transferred
period as follows: accordance with subpart HHH of this and recorded in the compliance account
(1) For a CAIR SO2 source subject to part, from all CAIR SO2 units at the pursuant to subpart GGG of this part or
an Acid Rain emissions limitation, the source for the control period; or subpart D of part 73 of this chapter, in
Administrator will, in the following (ii) If there are insufficient CAIR SO2 the order of recordation.
order: allowances to complete the deductions (d) Deductions for excess emissions.
(i) Deduct the amount of CAIR SO2 in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, (1) After making the deductions for
allowances, available under paragraph until no more CAIR SO2 allowances compliance under paragraph (b) of this
(a) of this section and not issued by a available under paragraph (a) of this section for a control period in a calendar
permitting authority under § 96.288, section (including any issued by a year in which the CAIR SO2 source has
that is required under §§ 73.35(b) and permitting authority under § 96.288) excess emissions, the Administrator will
(c) of this part. If there are sufficient remain in the compliance account. deduct from the source’s compliance
CAIR SO2 allowances to complete this (c)(1) Identification of CAIR SO2 account the tonnage equivalent in CAIR
deduction, the deduction will be treated allowances by serial number. The CAIR SO2 allowances, allocated for the
as satisfying the requirements of authorized account representative for a control period in the immediately
§§ 73.35(b) and (c) of this chapter. source’s compliance account may following calendar year (including any
(ii) Deduct the amount of CAIR SO2 request that specific CAIR SO2 issued by a permitting authority under
allowances, available under paragraph allowances, identified by serial number, § 96.288), equal to, or exceeding in
accordance with paragraphs (c)(1) and account for a 12-month period or longer Federal law to obtain correction of any
(2) of this section, 3 times the number and does not contain any CAIR SO2 erroneous transfers into such accounts.
of tons of the source’s excess emissions. allowances, the Administrator may This authorization shall be binding on
(2) Any allowance deduction required notify the CAIR authorized account any CAIR authorized account
under paragraph (d)(1) of this section representative for the account that the representative for such account unless
shall not affect the liability of the account will be closed following 20 and until a statement signed by the
owners and operators of the CAIR SO2 business days after the notice is sent. CAIR authorized account representative
source or the CAIR SO2 units at the The account will be closed after the 20- retracting this authorization for the
source for any fine, penalty, or day period unless, before the end of the account is received by the
assessment, or their obligation to 20-day period, the Administrator Administrator.’’
comply with any other remedy, for the receives a correctly submitted transfer of
same violations, as ordered under the CAIR SO2 allowances into the account § 96.261 EPA recordation.
Clean Air Act or applicable State law. under § 96.260 or a statement submitted (a) Within 5 business days (except as
(e) Recordation of deductions. The by the CAIR authorized account necessary to perform a transfer in
Administrator will record in the representative demonstrating to the perpetuity of CAIR SO2 allowances
appropriate compliance account all satisfaction of the Administrator good allocated to a CAIR SO2 unit or as
deductions from such an account under cause as to why the account should not provided in paragraph (b) of this
paragraph (b) or (d) of this section. be closed. section) of receiving a CAIR SO2
(f) Administrator’s action on allowance transfer, the Administrator
submissions. (1) The Administrator may Subpart GGG—CAIR SO2 Allowance will record a CAIR SO2 allowance
review and conduct independent audits Transfers transfer by moving each CAIR SO2
concerning any submission under the allowance from the transferor account to
CAIR SO2 Trading Program and make § 96.260 Submission of CAIR SO2
allowance transfers.
the transferee account as specified by
appropriate adjustments of the the request, provided that:
information in the submissions. (a) A CAIR authorized account
(1) The transfer is correctly submitted
(2) The Administrator may deduct representative seeking recordation of a
under § 96.260; and
CAIR SO2 allowances from or transfer CAIR SO2 allowance transfer shall
(2) The transferor account includes
CAIR SO2 allowances to a source’s submit the transfer to the Administrator.
each CAIR SO2 allowance identified by
compliance account based on the To be considered correctly submitted,
serial number in the transfer.
information in the submissions, as the CAIR SO2 allowance transfer shall
adjusted under paragraph (f)(1) of this include the following elements, in a (b) A CAIR SO2 allowance transfer
section. format specified by the Administrator: that is submitted for recordation after
(1) The account numbers of both the the allowance transfer deadline for a
§ 96.255 Banking.
transferor and transferee accounts; control period and that includes any
(a) CAIR SO2 allowances may be (2) The serial number of each CAIR CAIR SO2 allowances allocated for any
banked for future use or transfer in a SO2 allowance that is in the transferor control period before such allowance
compliance account or a general account and is to be transferred; and transfer deadline will not be recorded
account in accordance with paragraph (3) The name and signature of the until after the Administrator completes
(b) of this section. CAIR authorized account the deductions under § 96.254 for the
(b) Any CAIR SO2 allowance that is representatives of the transferor and control period immediately before such
held in a compliance account or a transferee accounts and the dates allowance transfer deadline.
general account will remain in such signed. (c) Where a CAIR SO2 allowance
account unless and until the CAIR SO2 (b)(1) The CAIR authorized account transfer submitted for recordation fails
allowance is deducted or transferred representative for the transferee account to meet the requirements of paragraph
under § 96.254, § 96.256, or subpart can meet the requirements in paragraph (a) of this section, the Administrator
GGG of this part. (a)(3) of this section by submitting, in a will not record such transfer.
§ 96.256 Account error. format prescribed by the Administrator, § 96.262 Notification.
The Administrator may, at his or her a statement signed by the CAIR
authorized account representative and (a) Notification of recordation. Within
sole discretion and on his or her own 5 business days of recordation of a CAIR
motion, correct any error in any CAIR identifying each account into which any
transfer of allowances, submitted on or SO2 allowance transfer under § 96.261,
SO2 Allowance Tracking System the Administrator will notify the CAIR
account. Within 10 business days of after the date on which the
Administrator receives such statement, authorized account representatives of
making such correction, the both the transferor and transferee
Administrator will notify the CAIR is authorized. Such authorization shall
be binding on any CAIR authorized accounts.
authorized account representative for (b) Notification of non-recordation.
the account. account representative for such account
and shall apply to all transfers into the Within 10 business days of receipt of a
§ 96.257 Closing of general accounts. account that are submitted on or after CAIR SO2 allowance transfer that fails to
(a) The CAIR authorized account such date of receipt, unless and until meet the requirements of § 96.261(a), the
representative of a general account may the Administrator receives a statement Administrator will notify the CAIR
submit to the Administrator a request to signed by the CAIR authorized account authorized account representatives of
close the account, which shall include representative retracting the both accounts subject to the transfer of:
a correctly submitted allowance transfer authorization for the account. (1) A decision not to record the
under § 96.260 for any CAIR SO2 (2) The statement under paragraph transfer, and
allowances in the account to one or (b)(1) of this section shall include the (2) The reasons for such non-
more other CAIR SO2 Allowance following: ‘‘By this signature I authorize recordation.
Tracking System accounts. any transfer of allowances into each (c) Nothing in this section shall
(b) If a general account has no account listed herein, except that I do preclude the submission of a CAIR SO2
allowance transfers in or out of the not waive any remedies under State or allowance transfer for recordation
following notification of non- commercial operation before July 1, of this chapter, in lieu of the maximum
recordation. 2008, by January 1, 2009. potential (or, as appropriate, minimum
(2) For the owner or operator of a potential) values, for a parameter if the
Subpart HHH—Monitoring and CAIR SO2 unit that commences owner or operator demonstrates that
Reporting commercial operation on or after July 1, there is continuity between the data
2008, by the later of the following dates: streams for that parameter before and
§ 96.270 General requirements. (i) January 1, 2009; or
The owners and operators, and to the after the construction or installation
(ii) 90 unit operating days or 180 under paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
extent applicable, the CAIR designated calendar days, whichever occurs first,
representative, of a CAIR SO2 unit, shall after the date on which the unit (d) Prohibitions. (1) No owner or
comply with the monitoring, commences commercial operation. operator of a CAIR SO2 unit shall use
recordkeeping, and reporting (3) For the owner or operator of a any alternative monitoring system,
requirements as provided in this subpart CAIR SO2 unit for which construction of alternative reference method, or any
and in subparts F and G of part 75 of a new stack or flue or installation of other alternative to any requirement of
this chapter. For purposes of complying add-on SO2 emission controls is this subpart without having obtained
with such requirements, the definitions completed after the applicable deadline prior written approval in accordance
in § 96.202 and in § 72.2 of this chapter under paragraph (b)(1), (2), (4), or (5) of with § 96.275.
shall apply, and the terms ‘‘affected this section, by 90 unit operating days (2) No owner or operator of a CAIR
unit,’’ ‘‘designated representative,’’ and or 180 calendar days, whichever occurs SO2 unit shall operate the unit so as to
‘‘continuous emission monitoring first, after the date on which emissions discharge, or allow to be discharged,
system’’ (or ‘‘CEMS’’) in part 75 of this first exit to the atmosphere through the
SO2 emissions to the atmosphere
chapter shall be deemed to refer to the new stack or flue or add-on SO2
without accounting for all such
terms ‘‘CAIR SO2 unit,’’ ‘‘CAIR emissions controls.
(4) Notwithstanding the dates in emissions in accordance with the
designated representative,’’ and
paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section, applicable provisions of this subpart
‘‘continuous emission monitoring
for the owner or operator of a unit for and part 75 of this chapter.
system’’ (or ‘‘CEMS’’) respectively, as
defined in § 96.202. The owner or which a CAIR opt-in permit application (3) No owner or operator of a CAIR
operator of a unit that is not a CAIR SO2 is submitted and not withdrawn and a SO2 unit shall disrupt the continuous
unit but that is monitored under CAIR opt-in permit is not yet issued or emission monitoring system, any
§ 75.16(b)(2) of this chapter shall denied under subpart III of this part, by portion thereof, or any other approved
comply with the same monitoring, the date specified in § 96.284(b). emission monitoring method, and
recordkeeping, and reporting (5) Notwithstanding the dates in thereby avoid monitoring and recording
requirements as a CAIR SO2 unit. paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section SO2 mass emissions discharged into the
(a) Requirements for installation, and solely for purposes of § 96.206(c)(2), atmosphere, except for periods of
certification, and data accounting. The for the owner or operator of a CAIR SO2 recertification or periods when
owner or operator of each CAIR SO2 opt-in unit under subpart III of this part, calibration, quality assurance testing, or
unit shall: by the date on which the CAIR SO2 opt- maintenance is performed in accordance
(1) Install all monitoring systems in unit enters the CAIR SO2 Trading with the applicable provisions of this
required under this subpart for Program as provided in § 96.284(g). subpart and part 75 of this chapter.
monitoring SO2 mass emissions and (c) Reporting data. (1) Except as
provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this (4) No owner or operator of a CAIR
individual unit heat input (including all
section, the owner or operator of a CAIR SO2 unit shall retire or permanently
systems required to monitor SO2
concentration, stack gas moisture SO2 unit that does not meet the discontinue use of the continuous
content, stack gas flow rate, CO2 or O2 applicable compliance date set forth in emission monitoring system, any
concentration, and fuel flow rate, as paragraph (b) of this section for any component thereof, or any other
applicable, in accordance with §§ 75.11 monitoring system under paragraph approved monitoring system under this
and 75.16 of this chapter); (a)(1) of this section shall, for each such subpart, except under any one of the
(2) Successfully complete all monitoring system, determine, record, following circumstances:
certification tests required under and report maximum potential (or, as (i) During the period that the unit is
§ 96.271 and meet all other appropriate, minimum potential) values covered by an exemption under § 96.205
requirements of this subpart and part 75 for SO2 concentration, SO2 emission that is in effect;
of this chapter applicable to the rate, stack gas flow rate, stack gas (ii) The owner or operator is
monitoring systems under paragraph moisture content, fuel flow rate, and any
monitoring emissions from the unit with
(a)(1) of this section; and other parameters required to determine
another certified monitoring system
(3) Record, report, and quality-assure SO2 mass emissions and heat input in
approved, in accordance with the
the data from the monitoring systems accordance with § 75.31(b)(2) or (c)(3) of
applicable provisions of this subpart
under paragraph (a)(1) of this section. this chapter or section 2.4 of appendix
and part 75 of this chapter, by the
(b) Compliance deadlines. The owner D to part 75 of this chapter, as
permitting authority for use at that unit
or operator shall meet the monitoring applicable.
(2) The owner or operator of a CAIR that provides emission data for the same
system certification and other
requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) and SO2 unit that does not meet the pollutant or parameter as the retired or
(2) of this section on or before the applicable compliance date set forth in discontinued monitoring system; or
following dates. The owner or operator paragraph (b)(3) of this section for any (iii) The CAIR designated
shall record, report, and quality-assure monitoring system under paragraph representative submits notification of
the data from the monitoring systems (a)(1) of this section shall, for each such the date of certification testing of a
under paragraph (a)(1) of this section on monitoring system, determine, record, replacement monitoring system for the
and after the following dates. and report substitute data using the retired or discontinued monitoring
(1) For the owner or operator of a applicable missing data procedures in system in accordance with
CAIR SO2 unit that commences subpart D of or appendix D to part 75 § 96.271(d)(3)(i).
§ 96.271 Initial certification and system was previously installed, initial (iii) Provisional certification date. The
recertification procedures. certification in accordance with § 75.20 provisional certification date for a
(a) The owner or operator of a CAIR of this chapter is required. monitoring system shall be determined
SO2 unit shall be exempt from the initial (2) Requirements for recertification. in accordance with § 75.20(a)(3) of this
certification requirements of this section Whenever the owner or operator makes chapter. A provisionally certified
for a monitoring system under a replacement, modification, or change monitoring system may be used under
§ 96.270(a)(1) if the following conditions in any certified continuous emission the CAIR SO2 Trading Program for a
are met: monitoring system under § 96.270(a)(1) period not to exceed 120 days after
(1) The monitoring system has been that may significantly affect the ability receipt by the permitting authority of
previously certified in accordance with of the system to accurately measure or the complete certification application
part 75 of this chapter; and record SO2 mass emissions or heat input for the monitoring system under
(2) The applicable quality-assurance rate or to meet the quality-assurance and paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of this section. Data
and quality-control requirements of quality-control requirements of § 75.21 measured and recorded by the
§ 75.21 of this chapter and appendix B of this chapter or appendix B to part 75 provisionally certified monitoring
and appendix D to part 75 of this of this chapter, the owner or operator system, in accordance with the
chapter are fully met for the certified shall recertify the monitoring system in requirements of part 75 of this chapter,
monitoring system described in accordance with § 75.20(b) of this will be considered valid quality-assured
paragraph (a)(1) of this section. chapter. Furthermore, whenever the data (retroactive to the date and time of
(b) The recertification provisions of provisional certification), provided that
owner or operator makes a replacement,
this section shall apply to a monitoring the permitting authority does not
modification, or change to the flue gas
system under § 96.270(a)(1) exempt invalidate the provisional certification
handling system or the unit’s operation
from initial certification requirements by issuing a notice of disapproval
that may significantly change the stack
under paragraph (a) of this section. within 120 days of the date of receipt of
(c) If the Administrator has previously flow or concentration profile, the owner
or operator shall recertify each the complete certification application by
approved a petition under the permitting authority.
§ § 75.16(b)(2)(ii) of this chapter for continuous emission monitoring system
whose accuracy is potentially affected (iv) Certification application approval
apportioning the SO2 mass emissions process. The permitting authority will
measured in a common stack or a by the change, in accordance with
§ 75.20(b) of this chapter. Examples of issue a written notice of approval or
petition under § 75.66 of this chapter for disapproval of the certification
an alternative to a requirement in changes to a continuous emission
monitoring system that require application to the owner or operator
§ 75.11 or § 75.16 of this chapter, the within 120 days of receipt of the
CAIR designated representative shall recertification include: Replacement of
the analyzer, complete replacement of complete certification application under
resubmit the petition to the paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of this section. In the
Administrator under § 96.275(a) to an existing continuous emission
monitoring system, or change in event the permitting authority does not
determine whether the approval applies issue such a notice within such 120-day
under the CAIR SO2 Trading Program. location or orientation of the sampling
period, each monitoring system that
(d) Except as provided in paragraph probe or site. Any fuel flowmeter system
meets the applicable performance
(a) of this section, the owner or operator under § 96.270(a)(1) is subject to the
requirements of part 75 of this chapter
of a CAIR SO2 unit shall comply with recertification requirements in
and is included in the certification
the following initial certification and § 75.20(g)(6) of this chapter.
application will be deemed certified for
recertification procedures, for a (3) Approval process for initial use under the CAIR SO2 Trading
continuous monitoring system (i.e., a certification and recertification. Program.
continuous emission monitoring system Paragraphs (d)(3)(i) through (iv) of this (A) Approval notice. If the
and an excepted monitoring system section apply to both initial certification certification application is complete and
under appendix D to part 75 of this and recertification of a continuous shows that each monitoring system
chapter) under § 96.270(a)(1). The monitoring system under § 96.270(a)(1). meets the applicable performance
owner or operator of a unit that qualifies For recertifications, replace the words requirements of part 75 of this chapter,
to use the low mass emissions excepted ‘‘certification’’ and ‘‘initial certification’’ then the permitting authority will issue
monitoring methodology under § 75.19 with the word ‘‘recertification’’, replace a written notice of approval of the
of this chapter or that qualifies to use an the word ‘‘certified’’ with the word certification application within 120
alternative monitoring system under ‘‘recertified,’’ and follow the procedures days of receipt.
subpart E of part 75 of this chapter shall in §§ 75.20(b)(5) and (g)(7) of this (B) Incomplete application notice. If
comply with the procedures in chapter in lieu of the procedures in the certification application is not
paragraph (e) or (f) of this section paragraph (d)(3)(v) of this section. complete, then the permitting authority
respectively. (i) Notification of certification. The will issue a written notice of
(1) Requirements for initial CAIR designated representative shall incompleteness that sets a reasonable
certification. The owner or operator submit to the permitting authority, the date by which the CAIR designated
shall ensure that each continuous appropriate EPA Regional Office, and representative must submit the
monitoring system under § 96.270(a)(1) the Administrator written notice of the additional information required to
(including the automated data dates of certification testing, in complete the certification application. If
acquisition and handling system) accordance with § 96.273. the CAIR designated representative does
successfully completes all of the initial (ii) Certification application. The not comply with the notice of
certification testing required under CAIR designated representative shall incompleteness by the specified date,
§ 75.20 of this chapter by the applicable submit to the permitting authority a then the permitting authority may issue
deadline in § 96.270(b). In addition, certification application for each a notice of disapproval under paragraph
whenever the owner or operator installs monitoring system. A complete (d)(3)(iv)(C) of this section. The 120-day
a monitoring system to meet the certification application shall include review period shall not begin before
requirements of this subpart in a the information specified in § 75.63 of receipt of a complete certification
location where no such monitoring this chapter. application.
(C) Disapproval notice. If the maximum potential CO2 concentration been certified or recertified because it
certification application shows that any or the minimum potential O2 did not meet a particular performance
monitoring system does not meet the concentration (as applicable), as defined specification or other requirement under
performance requirements of part 75 of in sections 2.1.5, 2.1.3.1, and 2.1.3.2 of § 96.271 or the applicable provisions of
this chapter or if the certification appendix A to part 75 of this chapter. part 75 of this chapter, both at the time
application is incomplete and the (3) For a disapproved fuel flowmeter of the initial certification or
requirement for disapproval under system, the maximum potential fuel recertification application submission
paragraph (d)(3)(iv)(B) of this section is flow rate, as defined in section 2.4.2.1 and at the time of the audit, the
met, then the permitting authority will of appendix D to part 75 of this chapter. permitting authority or, for a CAIR SO2
issue a written notice of disapproval of (B) The CAIR designated opt-in unit or a unit for which a CAIR
the certification application. Upon representative shall submit a opt-in permit application is submitted
issuance of such notice of disapproval, notification of certification retest dates and not withdrawn and a CAIR opt-in
the provisional certification is and a new certification application in permit is not yet issued or denied under
invalidated by the permitting authority accordance with paragraphs (d)(3)(i) and subpart III of this part, the
and the data measured and recorded by (ii) of this section. Administrator will issue a notice of
each uncertified monitoring system (C) The owner or operator shall repeat disapproval of the certification status of
shall not be considered valid quality- all certification tests or other such monitoring system. For the
assured data beginning with the date requirements that were failed by the purposes of this paragraph, an audit
and hour of provisional certification (as monitoring system, as indicated in the shall be either a field audit or an audit
defined under § 75.20(a)(3) of this permitting authority’s or the of any information submitted to the
chapter). The owner or operator shall Administrator’s notice of disapproval, permitting authority or the
follow the procedures for loss of no later than 30 unit operating days Administrator. By issuing the notice of
certification in paragraph (d)(3)(v) of after the date of issuance of the notice disapproval, the permitting authority or
this section for each monitoring system of disapproval. the Administrator revokes prospectively
that is disapproved for initial (e) Initial certification and the certification status of the monitoring
certification. recertification procedures for units system. The data measured and
(D) Audit decertification. The using the low mass emission excepted recorded by the monitoring system shall
permitting authority or, for a CAIR SO2 methodology under § 75.19 of this not be considered valid quality-assured
opt-in unit or a unit for which a CAIR chapter. The owner or operator of a unit data from the date of issuance of the
opt-in permit application is submitted qualified to use the low mass emissions notification of the revoked certification
and not withdrawn and a CAIR opt-in (LME) excepted methodology under status until the date and time that the
permit is not yet issued or denied under § 75.19 of this chapter shall meet the owner or operator completes
subpart III of this part, the applicable certification and subsequently approved initial
Administrator may issue a notice of recertification requirements in certification or recertification tests for
disapproval of the certification status of §§ 75.19(a)(2) and 75.20(h) of this the monitoring system. The owner or
a monitor in accordance with chapter. If the owner or operator of such operator shall follow the applicable
§ 96.272(b). a unit elects to certify a fuel flowmeter initial certification or recertification
(v) Procedures for loss of certification. system for heat input determination, the procedures in § 96.271 for each
If the permitting authority or the owner or operator shall also meet the disapproved monitoring system.
Administrator issues a notice of certification and recertification
disapproval of a certification requirements in § 75.20(g) of this § 96.273 Notifications.
application under paragraph chapter. The CAIR designated representative
(d)(3)(iv)(C) of this section or a notice of (f) Certification/recertification for a CAIR SO2 unit shall submit written
disapproval of certification status under procedures for alternative monitoring notice to the permitting authority and
paragraph (d)(3)(iv)(D) of this section, systems. The CAIR designated the Administrator in accordance with
then: representative of each unit for which the § 75.61 of this chapter, except that if the
(A) The owner or operator shall owner or operator intends to use an unit is not subject to an Acid Rain
substitute the following values, for each alternative monitoring system approved emissions limitation, the notification is
disapproved monitoring system, for by the Administrator and, if applicable, only required to be sent to the
each hour of unit operation during the the permitting authority under subpart E permitting authority.
period of invalid data specified under of part 75 of this chapter shall comply
§ 75.20(a)(4)(iii), § 75.20(g)(7), or § 96.274 Recordkeeping and reporting.
with the applicable notification and
§ 75.21(e) of this chapter and continuing application procedures of § 75.20(f) of (a) General provisions. The CAIR
until the applicable date and hour this chapter. designated representative shall comply
specified under § 75.20(a)(5)(i) or (g)(7) with all recordkeeping and reporting
of this chapter: § 96.272 Out of control periods. requirements in this section, the
(1) For a disapproved SO2 pollutant (a) Whenever any monitoring system applicable recordkeeping and reporting
concentration monitor and disapproved fails to meet the quality-assurance and requirements in subparts F and G of part
flow monitor, respectively, the quality-control requirements or data 75 of this chapter, and the requirements
maximum potential concentration of validation requirements of part 75 of of § 96.210(e)(1).
SO2 and the maximum potential flow this chapter, data shall be substituted (b) Monitoring plans. The owner or
rate, as defined in sections 2.1.1.1 and using the applicable missing data operator of a CAIR SO2 unit shall
2.1.4.1 of appendix A to part 75 of this procedures in subpart D of or appendix comply with requirements of § 75.62 of
chapter. D to part 75 of this chapter. this chapter and, for a unit for which a
(2) For a disapproved moisture (b) Audit decertification. Whenever CAIR opt-in permit application is
monitoring system and disapproved both an audit of a monitoring system submitted and not withdrawn and a
diluent gas monitoring system, and a review of the initial certification CAIR opt-in permit is not yet issued or
respectively, the minimum potential or recertification application reveal that denied under subpart III of this part,
moisture percentage and either the any monitoring system should not have §§ 96.283 and 96.284(a).
(c) Certification applications. The the quality assurance procedures and (d) Has or is required or qualified to
CAIR designated representative shall specifications; and have a title V operating permit or other
submit an application to the permitting (2) For a unit with add-on SO2 federally enforceable permit; and
authority within 45 days after emission controls and for all hours (e) Vents all of its emissions to a stack
completing all initial certification or where SO2 data are substituted in and can meet the monitoring,
recertification tests required under accordance with § 75.34(a)(1) of this recordkeeping, and reporting
§ 96.271, including the information chapter, the add-on emission controls requirements of subpart HHH of this
required under § 75.63 of this chapter. were operating within the range of part.
(d) Quarterly reports. The CAIR parameters listed in the quality
designated representative shall submit § 96.281 General.
assurance/quality control program
quarterly reports, as follows: (a) Except as otherwise provided in
under appendix B to part 75 of this
(1) The CAIR designated §§ 96.201 through 96.204, §§ 96.206
chapter and the substitute data values
representative shall report the SO2 mass through 96.208, and subparts BBB and
do not systematically underestimate SO2
emissions data and heat input data for CCC and subparts FFF through HHH of
emissions.
the CAIR SO2 unit, in an electronic this part, a CAIR SO2 opt-in unit shall
quarterly report in a format prescribed § 96.275 Petitions. be treated as a CAIR SO2 unit for
by the Administrator, for each calendar (a) The CAIR designated purposes of applying such sections and
quarter beginning with: representative of a CAIR SO2 unit that subparts of this part.
(i) For a unit that commences is subject to an Acid Rain emissions (b) Solely for purposes of applying, as
commercial operation before July 1, limitation may submit a petition under provided in this subpart, the
2008, the calendar quarter covering § 75.66 of this chapter to the requirements of subpart HHH of this
January 1, 2009 through March 31, 2009; part to a unit for which a CAIR opt-in
Administrator requesting approval to
or permit application is submitted and not
apply an alternative to any requirement
(ii) For a unit that commences withdrawn and a CAIR opt-in permit is
of this subpart. Application of an
commercial operation on or after July 1, not yet issued or denied under this
alternative to any requirement of this
2008, the calendar quarter subpart, such unit shall be treated as a
subpart is in accordance with this
corresponding to the earlier of the date CAIR SO2 unit before issuance of a CAIR
subpart only to the extent that the
of provisional certification or the opt-in permit for such unit.
petition is approved in writing by the
applicable deadline for initial Administrator, in consultation with the § 96.282 CAIR designated representative.
certification under § 96.270(b), unless permitting authority. Any CAIR SO2 opt-in unit, and any
that quarter is the third or fourth quarter (b) The CAIR designated unit for which a CAIR opt-in permit
of 2008, in which case reporting shall representative of a CAIR SO2 unit that application is submitted and not
commence in the quarter covering is not subject to an Acid Rain emissions withdrawn and a CAIR opt-in permit is
January 1, 2009 through March 31, 2009. limitation may submit a petition under not yet issued or denied under this
(2) The CAIR designated § 75.66 of this chapter to the permitting subpart, located at the same source as
representative shall submit each authority and the Administrator one or more CAIR SO2 units shall have
quarterly report to the Administrator requesting approval to apply an the same CAIR designated
within 30 days following the end of the alternative to any requirement of this representative and alternate CAIR
calendar quarter covered by the report. subpart. Application of an alternative to designated representative as such CAIR
Quarterly reports shall be submitted in any requirement of this subpart is in SO2 units.
the manner specified in § 75.64 of this accordance with this subpart only to the
chapter. extent that the petition is approved in § 96.283 Applying for CAIR opt-in permit.
(3) For CAIR SO2 units that are also (a) Applying for initial CAIR opt-in
writing by both the permitting authority
subject to an Acid Rain emissions permit. The CAIR designated
and the Administrator.
limitation or the CAIR NOX Annual representative of a unit meeting the
Trading Program or CAIR NOX Ozone § 96.276 Additional requirements to requirements for a CAIR SO2 opt-in unit
Season Trading Program, quarterly provide heat input data. in § 96.280 may apply for an initial
reports shall include the applicable data The owner or operator of a CAIR SO2 CAIR opt-in permit at any time, except
and information required by subparts F unit that monitors and reports SO2 mass as provided under § 96.286(f) and (g),
through H of part 75 of this chapter as emissions using a SO2 concentration and, in order to apply, must submit the
applicable, in addition to the SO2 mass system and a flow system shall also following:
emission data, heat input data, and monitor and report heat input rate at the (1) A complete CAIR permit
other information required by this unit level using the procedures set forth application under § 96.222;
subpart. in part 75 of this chapter. (2) A certification, in a format
(e) Compliance certification. The specified by the permitting authority,
CAIR designated representative shall Subpart III—CAIR SO2 Opt-in Units that the unit:
submit to the Administrator a (i) Is not a CAIR SO2 unit under
compliance certification (in a format § 96.280 Applicability.
§ 96.204 and is not covered by a retired
prescribed by the Administrator) in A CAIR SO2 opt-in unit must be a unit unit exemption under § 96.205 that is in
support of each quarterly report based that: effect;
on reasonable inquiry of those persons (a) Is located in the State; (ii) Is not covered by a retired unit
with primary responsibility for ensuring (b) Is not a CAIR SO2 unit under exemption under § 72.8 of this chapter
that all of the unit’s emissions are § 96.204 and is not covered by a retired that is in effect;
correctly and fully monitored. The unit exemption under § 96.205 that is in (iii) Is not and, so long as the unit is
certification shall state that: effect; a CAIR opt-in unit, will not become, an
(1) The monitoring data submitted (c) Is not covered by a retired unit opt-in source under part 74 of this
were recorded in accordance with the exemption under § 72.8 of this chapter chapter;
applicable requirements of this subpart that is in effect and is not an opt-in (iv) Vents all of its emissions to a
and part 75 of this chapter, including source under part 74 of this chapter; stack; and
(v) Has documented heat input for (b) Monitoring and reporting. (1)(i) If (d) Baseline SO2 emission rate. The
more than 876 hours during the 6 the permitting authority and the unit’s baseline SO2 emission rate shall
months immediately preceding Administrator determine that the equal:
submission of the CAIR permit monitoring plan is sufficient under (1) If the unit’s SO2 emissions rate and
application under § 96.222; paragraph (a) of this section, the owner heat input are monitored and reported
(3) A monitoring plan in accordance or operator shall monitor and report the for only one control period, in
with subpart HHH of this part; SO2 emissions rate and the heat input of accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of this
(4) A complete certificate of the unit and all other applicable section, the unit’s SO2 emissions rate (in
representation under § 96.213 consistent parameters, in accordance with subpart lb/mmBtu) for the control period;
with § 96.282, if no CAIR designated HHH of this part, starting on the date of (2) If the unit’s SO2 emissions rate and
representative has been previously certification of the appropriate heat input are monitored and reported
designated for the source that includes monitoring systems under subpart HHH for more than one control period, in
the unit; and of this part and continuing until a CAIR accordance with paragraphs (b)(1) and
(5) A statement, in a format specified opt-in permit is denied under § 96.284(f) (2) of this section, and the unit does not
by the permitting authority, whether the or, if a CAIR opt-in permit is issued, the have add-on SO2 emission controls
CAIR designated representative requests date and time when the unit is during any such control periods, the
that the unit be allocated CAIR SO2 withdrawn from the CAIR SO2 Trading average of the amounts of the unit’s SO2
allowances under § 96.288(c) (subject to Program in accordance with § 96.286. emissions rate (in lb/mmBtu) for the
the conditions in §§ 96.284(h) and (ii) The monitoring and reporting control period under paragraph (b)(1)(ii)
96.286(g)). under paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section of this section and the control periods
(b) Duty to reapply. (1) The CAIR shall include the entire control period under paragraph (b)(2) of this section; or
designated representative of a CAIR SO2 (3) If the unit’s SO2 emissions rate and
immediately before the date on which
opt-in unit shall submit a complete heat input are monitored and reported
the unit enters the CAIR SO2 Trading
CAIR permit application under § 96.222 for more than one control period, in
Program under § 96.284(g), during
to renew the CAIR opt-in unit permit in accordance with paragraphs (b)(1) and
which period monitoring system
accordance with the permitting (2) of this section, and the unit has add-
availability must not be less than 90
authority’s regulations for title V on SO2 emission controls during any
percent under subpart HHH of this part
operating permits, or permitting such control periods, the average of the
and the unit must be in full compliance
authority’s regulations for other amounts of the unit’s SO2 emissions rate
with any applicable State or Federal
federally enforceable permits if (in lb/mmBtu) for such control period
emissions or emissions-related
applicable, addressing permit renewal. during which the unit has add-on SO2
requirements. emission controls.
(2) Unless the permitting authority
(2) To the extent the SO2 emissions (e) Issuance of CAIR opt-in permit.
issues a notification of acceptance of
rate and the heat input of the unit are After calculating the baseline heat input
withdrawal of the CAIR opt-in unit from
monitored and reported in accordance and the baseline SO2 emissions rate for
the CAIR SO2 Trading Program in
with subpart HHH of this part for one the unit under paragraphs (c) and (d) of
accordance with § 96.286 or the unit
or more control periods, in addition to this section and if the permitting
becomes a CAIR SO2 unit under
the control period under paragraph authority determines that the CAIR
§ 96.204, the CAIR SO2 opt-in unit shall
(b)(1)(ii) of this section, during which designated representative shows that the
remain subject to the requirements for a
control periods monitoring system unit meets the requirements for a CAIR
CAIR SO2 opt-in unit, even if the CAIR
availability is not less than 90 percent SO2 opt-in unit in § 96.280 and meets
designated representative for the CAIR
under subpart HHH of this part and the the elements certified in § 96.283(a)(2),
SO2 opt-in unit fails to submit a CAIR
unit is in full compliance with any the permitting authority will issue a
permit application that is required for
applicable State or Federal emissions or CAIR opt-in permit. The permitting
renewal of the CAIR opt-in permit under
emissions-related requirements and authority will provide a copy of the
paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
which control periods begin not more CAIR opt-in permit to the
§ 96.284 Opt-in process. than 3 years before the unit enters the Administrator, who will then establish
The permitting authority will issue or CAIR SO2 Trading Program under a compliance account for the source that
deny a CAIR opt-in permit for a unit for § 96.284(g), such information shall be includes the CAIR SO2 opt-in unit
which an initial application for a CAIR used as provided in paragraphs (c) and unless the source already has a
opt-in permit under § 96.283 is (d) of this section. compliance account.
submitted in accordance with the (c) Baseline heat input. The unit’s (f) Issuance of denial of CAIR opt-in
following: baseline heat rate shall equal: permit. Notwithstanding paragraphs (a)
(a) Interim review of monitoring plan. (1) If the unit’s SO2 emissions rate and through (e) of this section, if at any time
The permitting authority and the heat input are monitored and reported before issuance of a CAIR opt-in permit
Administrator will determine, on an for only one control period, in for the unit, the permitting authority
interim basis, the sufficiency of the accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of this determines that the CAIR designated
monitoring plan accompanying the section, the unit’s total heat input (in representative fails to show that the unit
initial application for a CAIR opt-in mmBtu) for the control period; or meets the requirements for a CAIR SO2
permit under § 96.283. A monitoring (2) If the unit’s SO2 emissions rate and opt-in unit in § 96.280 or meets the
plan is sufficient, for purposes of heat input are monitored and reported elements certified in § 96.283(a)(2), the
interim review, if the plan appears to for more than one control period, in permitting authority will issue a denial
contain information demonstrating that accordance with paragraphs (b)(1) and of a CAIR SO2 opt-in permit for the unit.
the SO2 emissions rate and heat input of (2) of this section, the average of the (g) Date of entry into CAIR SO2
the unit are monitored and reported in amounts of the unit’s total heat input (in Trading Program. A unit for which an
accordance with subpart HHH of this mmBtu) for the control period under initial CAIR opt-in permit is issued by
part. A determination of sufficiency paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section and the permitting authority shall become a
shall not be construed as acceptance or the control periods under paragraph CAIR SO2 opt-in unit, and a CAIR SO2
approval of the monitoring plan. (b)(2) of this section. unit, as of the later of January 1, 2010
or January 1 of the first control period unit may withdraw from the CAIR SO2 SO2 opt-in unit of the acceptance of the
during which such CAIR opt-in permit Trading Program, but only if the withdrawal of the CAIR SO2 opt-in unit
is issued. permitting authority issues a as of midnight on December 31 of the
(h) Repowered CAIR SO2 opt-in unit. notification to the CAIR designated calendar year for which the withdrawal
(1) If CAIR designated representative representative of the CAIR SO2 opt-in was requested.
requests, and the permitting authority unit of the acceptance of the withdrawal (2) If the requirements for withdrawal
issues a CAIR opt-in permit providing of the CAIR SO2 opt-in unit in under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this
for, allocation to a CAIR SO2 opt-in unit accordance with paragraph (d) of this section are not met, the permitting
of CAIR SO2 allowances under section. authority will issue a notification to the
§ 96.288(c) and such unit is repowered (a) Requesting withdrawal. In order to CAIR designated representative of the
after its date of entry into the CAIR SO2 withdraw a CAIR opt-in unit from the CAIR SO2 opt-in unit that the CAIR SO2
Trading Program under paragraph (g) of CAIR SO2 Trading Program, the CAIR opt-in unit’s request to withdraw is
this section, the repowered unit shall be designated representative of the CAIR denied. Such CAIR SO2 opt-in unit shall
treated as a CAIR SO2 opt-in unit SO2 opt-in unit shall submit to the continue to be a CAIR SO2 opt-in unit.
replacing the original CAIR SO2 opt-in permitting authority a request to (d) Permit amendment. After the
unit, as of the date of start-up of the withdraw effective as of midnight of permitting authority issues a
repowered unit’s combustion chamber. December 31 of a specified calendar notification under paragraph (c)(1) of
(2) Notwithstanding paragraphs (c) year, which date must be at least 4 years this section that the requirements for
and (d) of this section, as of the date of after December 31 of the year of entry withdrawal have been met, the
start-up under paragraph (h)(1) of this into the CAIR SO2 Trading Program permitting authority will revise the
section, the repowered unit shall be under § 96.284(g). The request must be CAIR permit covering the CAIR SO2 opt-
deemed to have the same date of submitted no later than 90 days before in unit to terminate the CAIR opt-in
commencement of operation, date of the requested effective date of permit for such unit as of the effective
commencement of commercial withdrawal. date specified under paragraph (c)(1) of
operation, baseline heat input, and (b) Conditions for withdrawal. Before
this section. The unit shall continue to
baseline SO2 emission rate as the a CAIR SO2 opt-in unit covered by a
be a CAIR SO2 opt-in unit until the
original CAIR SO2 opt-in unit, and the request under paragraph (a) of this
effective date of the termination and
original CAIR SO2 opt-in unit shall no section may withdraw from the CAIR
shall comply with all requirements
longer be treated as a CAIR opt-in unit SO2 Trading Program and the CAIR opt-
under the CAIR SO2 Trading Program
or a CAIR SO2 unit. in permit may be terminated under
concerning any control periods for
paragraph (e) of this section, the
§ 96.285 CAIR opt-in permit contents. which the unit is a CAIR SO2 opt-in
following conditions must be met:
(a) Each CAIR opt-in permit will (1) For the control period ending on unit, even if such requirements arise or
contain: the date on which the withdrawal is to must be complied with after the
(1) All elements required for a be effective, the source that includes the withdrawal takes effect.
complete CAIR permit application CAIR SO2 opt-in unit must meet the (e) Reapplication upon failure to meet
under § 96.222; requirement to hold CAIR SO2 conditions of withdrawal. If the
(2) The certification in § 96.283(a)(2); allowances under § 96.206(c) and permitting authority denies the CAIR
(3) The unit’s baseline heat input cannot have any excess emissions. SO2 opt-in unit’s request to withdraw,
under § 96.284(c); (2) After the requirement for the CAIR designated representative may
(4) The unit’s baseline SO2 emission withdrawal under paragraph (b)(1) of submit another request to withdraw in
rate under § 96.284(d); this section is met, the Administrator accordance with paragraphs (a) and (b)
(5) A statement whether the unit is to of this section.
will deduct from the compliance
be allocated CAIR SO2 allowances under (f) Ability to reapply to the CAIR
account of the source that includes the
§ 96.288(c) (subject to the conditions in CAIR SO2 opt-in unit CAIR SO2 SO2 Trading Program. Once a CAIR SO2
§§ 96.284(h) and 96.286(g)); allowances equal in number to and opt-in unit withdraws from the CAIR
(6) A statement that the unit may SO2 Trading Program and its CAIR opt-
allocated for the same or a prior control
withdraw from the CAIR SO2 Trading in permit is terminated under this
period as any CAIR SO2 allowances
Program only in accordance with section, the CAIR designated
allocated to the CAIR SO2 opt-in unit
§ 96.286; and representative may not submit another
(7) A statement that the unit is subject under § 96.188 for any control period for
which the withdrawal is to be effective. application for a CAIR opt-in permit
to, and the owners and operators of the
If there are no remaining CAIR SO2 under § 96.283 for such CAIR SO2 opt-
unit must comply with, the
units at the source, the Administrator in unit before the date that is 4 years
requirements of § 96.287.
(b) Each CAIR opt-in permit is will close the compliance account, and after the date on which the withdrawal
deemed to incorporate automatically the the owners and operators of the CAIR became effective. Such new application
definitions of terms under § 96.202 and, SO2 opt-in unit may submit a CAIR SO2 for a CAIR opt-in permit will be treated
upon recordation by the Administrator allowance transfer for any remaining as an initial application for a CAIR opt-
under subpart FFF or GGG of this part CAIR SO2 allowances to another CAIR in permit under § 96.284.
or this subpart, every allocation, SO2 Allowance Tracking System in (g) Inability to withdraw.
transfer, or deduction of CAIR SO2 accordance with subpart GGG of this Notwithstanding paragraphs (a) through
allowances to or from the compliance part. (f) of this section, a CAIR SO2 opt-in
account of the source that includes a (c) Notification. (1) After the unit shall not be eligible to withdraw
CAIR SO2 opt-in unit covered by the requirements for withdrawal under from the CAIR SO2 Trading Program if
CAIR opt-in permit. paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section are the CAIR designated representative of
met (including deduction of the full the CAIR SO2 opt-in unit requests, and
§ 96.286 Withdrawal from CAIR SO2 amount of CAIR SO2 allowances the permitting authority issues a CAIR
Trading Program. required), the permitting authority will opt-in permit providing for, allocation
Except as provided under paragraph issue a notification to the CAIR to the CAIR SO2 opt-in unit of CAIR SO2
(g) of this section, a CAIR SO2 opt-in designated representative of the CAIR allowances under § 96.288(c).
§ 96.287 Change in regulatory status. (ii) Notwithstanding paragraph calculated for the control period in
(a) Notification. If a CAIR SO2 opt-in (b)(3)(i) of this section, if the date on which the CAIR SO2 opt-in unit enters
unit becomes a CAIR SO2 unit under which the CAIR SO2 opt-in unit the CAIR SO2 Trading Program under
§ 96.204, then the CAIR designated becomes a CAIR SO2 unit under § 96.284(g).
representative shall notify in writing the § 96.204 is not January 1, the following (2) The SO2 emission rate (in lb/
permitting authority and the number of CAIR SO2 allowances will be mmBtu) used for calculating CAIR SO2
Administrator of such change in the allocated to the CAIR SO2 opt-in unit (as allowance allocations will be the lesser
CAIR SO2 opt-in unit’s regulatory status, a CAIR SO2 unit) under § 96.242 for the of:
within 30 days of such change. control period that includes the date on (i) The CAIR SO2 opt-in unit’s
(b) Permitting authority’s and which the CAIR SO2 opt-in unit baseline SO2 emissions rate (in lb/
Administrator’s actions. (1) If a CAIR becomes a CAIR SO2 unit under mmBtu) determined under § 96.284(d)
SO2 opt-in unit becomes a CAIR SO2 § 96.204: and multiplied by 70 percent; or
unit under § 96.204, the permitting (A) The number of CAIR SO2 (ii) The most stringent State or
authority will revise the CAIR SO2 opt- allowances otherwise allocated to the Federal SO2 emissions limitation
in unit’s CAIR opt-in permit to meet the CAIR SO2 opt-in unit (as a CAIR SO2 applicable to the CAIR SO2 opt-in unit
requirements of a CAIR permit under unit) under § 96.242 for the control at any time during the control period for
§ 96.223 as of the date on which the period multiplied by; which CAIR SO2 allowances are to be
CAIR SO2 opt-in unit becomes a CAIR (B) The ratio of the number of days, allocated.
SO2 unit under § 96.204. in the control period, starting with the (3) The permitting authority will
(2)(i) The Administrator will deduct date on which the CAIR SO2 opt-in unit allocate CAIR SO2 allowances to the
from the compliance account of the becomes a CAIR SO2 unit under CAIR SO2 opt-in unit with a tonnage
source that includes a CAIR SO2 opt-in § 96.204, divided by the total number of equivalent equal to, or less than by the
unit that becomes a CAIR SO2 unit days in the control period; and smallest possible amount, the heat input
under § 96.204, CAIR SO2 allowances (C) Rounded to the nearest whole under paragraph (b)(1) of this section,
equal in number to and allocated for the allowance as appropriate. multiplied by the SO2 emission rate
same or a prior control period as: under paragraph (b)(2) of this section,
(A) Any CAIR SO2 allowances § 96.288 SO2 allowance allocations to and divided by 2,000 lb/ton.
allocated to the CAIR SO2 opt-in unit CAIR SO2 opt-in units. (c) Notwithstanding paragraph (b) of
under § 96.288 for any control period (a) Timing requirements. (1) When the this section and if the CAIR designated
after the date on which the CAIR SO2 CAIR opt-in permit is issued under representative requests, and the
opt-in unit becomes a CAIR SO2 unit § 96.284(e), the permitting authority will permitting authority issues a CAIR opt-
under § 96.204; and allocate CAIR SO2 allowances to the in permit providing for, allocation to a
(B) If the date on which the CAIR SO2 CAIR SO2 opt-in unit, and submit to the CAIR SO2 opt-in unit of CAIR SO2
opt-in unit becomes a CAIR SO2 unit Administrator the allocation for the allowances under this paragraph
under § 96.204 is not December 31, the control period in which a CAIR SO2 opt- (subject to the conditions in
CAIR SO2 allowances allocated to the in unit enters the CAIR SO2 Trading §§ 96.284(h) and 96.286(g)), the
CAIR SO2 opt-in unit under § 96.288 for Program under § 96.284(g), in permitting authority will allocate to the
the control period that includes the date accordance with paragraph (b) or (c) of CAIR SO2 opt-in unit as follows:
on which the CAIR SO2 opt-in unit this section. (1) For each control period in 2010
becomes a CAIR SO2 unit under (2) By no later than October 31 of the through 2014 for which the CAIR SO2
§ 96.204, multiplied by the ratio of the control period in which a CAIR opt-in opt-in unit is to be allocated CAIR SO2
number of days, in the control period, unit enters the CAIR SO2 Trading allowances,
starting with the date on which the Program under § 96.284(g) and October (i) The heat input (in mmBtu) used for
CAIR SO2 opt-in unit becomes a CAIR 31 of each year thereafter, the permitting calculating CAIR SO2 allowance
SO2 unit under § 96.204 divided by the authority will allocate CAIR SO2 allocations will be determined as
total number of days in the control allowances to the CAIR SO2 opt-in unit, described in paragraph (b)(1) of this
period and rounded to the nearest and submit to the Administrator the section.
whole allowance as appropriate. allocation for the control period that (ii) The SO2 emission rate (in lb/
(ii) The CAIR designated includes such submission deadline and mmBtu) used for calculating CAIR SO2
representative shall ensure that the in which the unit is a CAIR SO2 opt-in allowance allocations will be the lesser
compliance account of the source that unit, in accordance with paragraph (b) of:
includes the CAIR SO2 unit that or (c) of this section. (A) The CAIR SO2 opt-in unit’s
becomes a CAIR SO2 unit under (b) Calculation of allocation. For each baseline SO2 emissions rate (in lb/
§ 96.204 contains the CAIR SO2 control period for which a CAIR SO2 mmBtu) determined under § 96.284(d);
allowances necessary for completion of opt-in unit is to be allocated CAIR SO2 or
the deduction under paragraph (b)(2)(i) allowances, the permitting authority (B) The most stringent State or
of this section. will allocate in accordance with the Federal SO2 emissions limitation
(3)(i) For every control period after following procedures: applicable to the CAIR SO2 opt-in unit
the date on which a CAIR SO2 opt-in (1) The heat input (in mmBtu) used at any time during the control period in
unit becomes a CAIR SO2 unit under for calculating the CAIR SO2 allowance which the CAIR SO2 opt-in unit enters
§ 96.204, the CAIR SO2 opt-in unit will allocation will be the lesser of: the CAIR SO2 Trading Program under
be treated, solely for purposes of CAIR (i) The CAIR SO2 opt-in unit’s § 96.284(g).
SO2 allowance allocations under baseline heat input determined under (iii) The permitting authority will
§ 96.242, as a unit that commences § 96.284(c); or allocate CAIR SO2 allowances to the
operation on the date on which the (ii) The CAIR SO2 opt-in unit’s heat CAIR SO2 opt-in unit with a tonnage
CAIR SO2 opt-in unit becomes a CAIR input, as determined in accordance with equivalent equal to, or less than by the
SO2 unit under § 96.204 and will be subpart HHH of this part, for the smallest possible amount, the heat input
allocated CAIR SO2 allowances under immediately prior control period, under paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section,
§ 96.242. except when the allocation is being multiplied by the SO2 emission rate
under paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section, 96.306 Standard requirements. Subpart IIII—CAIR NOX Ozone Season
and divided by 2,000 lb/ton. 96.307 Computation of time. Opt-in Units
(2) For each control period in 2015 96.308 Appeal procedures.
and thereafter for which the CAIR SO2 96.380 Applicability.
Subpart BBBB—CAIR Designated 96.381 General.
opt-in unit is to be allocated CAIR SO2
Representative for CAIR NOX Ozone 96.382 CAIR designated representative.
allowances,
(i) The heat input (in mmBtu) used for Season Sources 96.383 Applying for CAIR opt-in permit.
96.384 Opt-in process.
calculating the CAIR SO2 allowance 96.310 Authorization and responsibilities of 96.385 CAIR opt-in permit contents.
allocations will be determined as CAIR designated representative. 96.386 Withdrawal from CAIR NOX Ozone
described in paragraph (b)(1) of this 96.311 Alternate CAIR designated Season Trading Program.
section. representative. 96.387 Change in regulatory status.
(ii) The SO2 emission rate (in lb/ 96.312 Changing CAIR designated 96.388 NOX allowance allocations to CAIR
mmBtu) used for calculating the CAIR representative and alternate CAIR NOX Ozone Season opt-in units.
designated representative; changes in
SO2 allowance allocation will be the owners and operators.
lesser of: Subpart AAAA—CAIR NOX Ozone
96.313 Certificate of representation.
(A) The CAIR SO2 opt-in unit’s 96.314 Objections concerning CAIR
Season Trading Program General
baseline SO2 emissions rate (in lb/ designated representative. Provisions
mmBtu) determined under § 96.284(d) § 96.301 Purpose.
multiplied by 10 percent; or Subpart CCCC—Permits
(B) The most stringent State or This subpart and subparts BBBB
Federal SO2 emissions limitation 96.320 General CAIR NOX Ozone Season through IIII establish the model rule
Trading Program permit requirements. comprising general provisions and the
applicable to the CAIR SO2 opt-in unit 96.321 Submission of CAIR permit
at any time during the control period for designated representative, permitting,
applications.
which CAIR SO2 allowances are to be 96.322 Information requirements for CAIR
allowance, monitoring, and opt-in
allocated. permit applications. provisions for the State Clean Air
(iii) The permitting authority will 96.323 CAIR permit contents and term. Interstate Rule (CAIR) NOX Ozone
allocate CAIR SO2 allowances to the 96.324 CAIR permit revisions. Season Trading Program, under section
CAIR SO2 opt-in unit with a tonnage 110 of the Clean Air Act and § 51.123
equivalent equal to, or less than by the Subpart DDDD—[Reserved] of this chapter, as a means of mitigating
smallest possible amount, the heat input interstate transport of ozone and
under paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section, Subpart EEEE—CAIR NOX Ozone nitrogen oxides. The owner or operator
multiplied by the SO2 emission rate Season Allowance Allocations of a unit or a source shall comply with
under paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section, the requirements of this subpart and
96.340 State trading budgets.
and divided by 2,000 lb/ton. 96.341 Timing requirements for CAIR NOX subparts BBBB through IIII as a matter
(d) Recordation. (1) The Ozone Season allowance allocations. of federal law only if the State with
Administrator will record, in the 96.342 CAIR NOX Ozone Season allowance jurisdiction over the unit and the source
compliance account of the source that allocations. incorporates by reference such subparts
includes the CAIR SO2 opt-in unit, the or otherwise adopts the requirements of
CAIR SO2 allowances allocated by the Subpart FFFF—CAIR NOX Ozone such subparts in accordance with
permitting authority to the CAIR SO2 Season Allowance Tracking System § 51.123(aa)(1) or (2), of this chapter, the
opt-in unit under paragraph (a)(1) of this 96.350 [Reserved]
State submits to the Administrator one
section. 96.351 Establishment of accounts. or more revisions of the State
(2) By December 1 of the control 96.352 Responsibilities of CAIR authorized implementation plan that include such
period in which a CAIR opt-in unit account representative. adoption, and the Administrator
enters the CAIR SO2 Trading Program 96.353 Recordation of CAIR NOX Ozone approves such revisions. If the State
under § 96.284(g), and December 1 of Season allowance allocations. adopts the requirements of such
each year thereafter, the Administrator 96.354 Compliance with CAIR NOX subparts in accordance with
will record, in the compliance account emissions limitation. § 51.123(aa)(1) or (2), (bb), or (dd) of this
96.355 Banking.
of the source that includes the CAIR SO2 96.356 Account error.
chapter, then the State authorizes the
opt-in unit, the CAIR SO2 allowances 96.357 Closing of general accounts. Administrator to assist the State in
allocated by the permitting authority to implementing the CAIR NOX Ozone
the CAIR SO2 opt-in unit under Subpart GGGG—CAIR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program by carrying out
paragraph (a)(2) of this section. Season Allowance Transfers the functions set forth for the
■ 4. Part 96 is amended by adding Administrator in such subparts.
96.360 Submission of CAIR NOX Ozone
subparts AAAA through CCCC, adding Season allowance transfers. § 96.302 Definitions.
and reserving subpart DDDD and adding 96.361 EPA recordation.
subparts EEEE through IIII to read as The terms used in this subpart and
96.362 Notification.
follows: subparts BBBB through IIII shall have
Subpart HHHH—Monitoring and the meanings set forth in this section as
Subpart AAAA—CAIR NOX Ozone Reporting follows:
Season Trading Program General Account number means the
Provisions 96.370 General requirements. identification number given by the
96.371 Initial certification and Administrator to each CAIR NOX Ozone
Sec. recertification procedures. Season Allowance Tracking System
96.301 Purpose. 96.372 Out of control periods.
account.
96.302 Definitions. 96.373 Notifications.
96.303 Measurements, abbreviations, and 96.374 Recordkeeping and reporting. Acid Rain emissions limitation means
acronyms. 96.375 Petitions. a limitation on emissions of sulfur
96.304 Applicability. 96.376 Additional requirements to provide dioxide or nitrogen oxides under the
96.305 Retired unit exemption. heat input data. Acid Rain Program.
Acid Rain Program means a multi- person shall be the same person as the CAIR NOX Annual Trading Program
state sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides alternate designated representative means a multi-state nitrogen oxides air
air pollution control and emission under the Acid Rain Program. pollution control and emission
reduction program established by the Automated data acquisition and reduction program approved and
Administrator under title IV of the CAA handling system or DAHS means that administered by the Administrator in
and parts 72 through 78 of this chapter. component of the continuous emission accordance with subparts AA through II
Administrator means the monitoring system, or other emissions of this part and § 51.123 of this chapter,
Administrator of the United States monitoring system approved for use as a means of mitigating interstate
Environmental Protection Agency or the under subpart HHHH of this part, transport of fine particulates and
Administrator’s duly authorized designed to interpret and convert nitrogen oxides.
representative. individual output signals from pollutant CAIR NOX Ozone Season allowance
Allocate or allocation means, with concentration monitors, flow monitors, means a limited authorization issued by
regard to CAIR NOX Ozone Season diluent gas monitors, and other the permitting authority under subpart
allowances issued under subpart EEEE, component parts of the monitoring EEEE of this part, § 96.388, or
the determination by the permitting system to produce a continuous record § 51.123(aa)(2)(iii)(A), (bb)(2)(iii) or (iv),
authority or the Administrator of the of the measured parameters in the or (dd)(3) or (4) of this chapter to emit
amount of such CAIR NOX Ozone measurement units required by subpart one ton of nitrogen oxides during a
Season allowances to be initially HHHH of this part. control period of the specified calendar
credited to a CAIR NOX Ozone Season Boiler means an enclosed fossil- or year for which the authorization is
unit or a new unit set-aside and, with other-fuel-fired combustion device used allocated or of any calendar year
regard to CAIR NOX Ozone Season to produce heat and to transfer heat to thereafter under the CAIR NOX Ozone
allowances issued under § 96.388 or recirculating water, steam, or other Season Trading Program or a limited
§ 51.123(aa)(2)(iii)(A) of this chapter, the medium. authorization issued by the permitting
determination by the permitting Bottoming-cycle cogeneration unit
authority for a control period during
authority of the amount of such CAIR means a cogeneration unit in which the
2003 through 2008 under the NOX
NOX Ozone Season allowances to be energy input to the unit is first used to
Budget Trading Program to emit one ton
initially credited to a CAIR NOX Ozone produce useful thermal energy and at
of nitrogen oxides during a control
Season unit. least some of the reject heat from the
period, provided that the provision in
Allowance transfer deadline means, useful thermal energy application or
§ 51.121(b)(2)(i)(E) of this chapter shall
for a control period, midnight of process is then used for electricity
November 30, if it is a business day, or, production. not be used in applying this definition.
if November 30 is not a business day, CAIR authorized account An authorization to emit nitrogen
midnight of the first business day representative means, with regard to a oxides that is not issued under
thereafter immediately following the general account, a responsible natural provisions of a State implementation
control period and is the deadline by person who is authorized, in accordance plan that meet the requirements of
which a CAIR NOX Ozone Season with subparts BBBB and IIII of this part, § 51.121(p) of this chapter or
allowance transfer must be submitted to transfer and otherwise dispose of § 51.123(aa)(1) or (2), (and (bb)(1)),
for recordation in a CAIR NOX Ozone CAIR NOX Ozone Season allowances (bb)(2), or (dd) of this chapter shall not
Season source’s compliance account in held in the general account and, with be a CAIR NOX Ozone Season
order to be used to meet the source’s regard to a compliance account, the allowance.
CAIR NOX Ozone Season emissions CAIR designated representative of the CAIR NOX Ozone Season allowance
limitation for such control period in source. deduction or deduct CAIR NOX Ozone
accordance with § 96.354. CAIR designated representative Season allowances means the
Alternate CAIR designated means, for a CAIR NOX Ozone Season permanent withdrawal of CAIR NOX
representative means, for a CAIR NOX source and each CAIR NOX Ozone Ozone Season allowances by the
Ozone Season source and each CAIR Season unit at the source, the natural Administrator from a compliance
NOX Ozone Season unit at the source, person who is authorized by the owners account in order to account for a
the natural person who is authorized by and operators of the source and all such specified number of tons of total
the owners and operators of the source units at the source, in accordance with nitrogen oxides emissions from all CAIR
and all such units at the source in subparts BBBB and IIII of this part, to NOX Ozone Season units at a CAIR NOX
accordance with subparts BBBB and IIII represent and legally bind each owner Ozone Season source for a control
of this part, to act on behalf of the CAIR and operator in matters pertaining to the period, determined in accordance with
designated representative in matters CAIR NOX Ozone Season Trading subpart HHHH of this part, or to account
pertaining to the CAIR NOX Ozone Program. If the CAIR NOX Ozone Season for excess emissions.
Season Trading Program. If the CAIR source is also a CAIR NOX source, then CAIR NOX Ozone Season Allowance
NOX Ozone Season source is also a this natural person shall be the same Tracking System means the system by
CAIR NOX source, then this natural person as the CAIR designated which the Administrator records
person shall be the same person as the representative under the CAIR NOX allocations, deductions, and transfers of
alternate CAIR designated Annual Trading Program. If the CAIR CAIR NOX Ozone Season allowances
representative under the CAIR NOX NOX Ozone Season source is also a under the CAIR NOX Ozone Season
Annual Trading Program. If the CAIR CAIR SO2 source, then this natural Trading Program. Such allowances will
NOX Ozone Season source is also a person shall be the same person as the be allocated, held, deducted, or
CAIR SO2 source, then this natural CAIR designated representative under transferred only as whole allowances.
person shall be the same person as the the CAIR SO2 Trading Program. If the CAIR NOX Ozone Season Allowance
alternate CAIR designated CAIR NOX Ozone Season source is also Tracking System account means an
representative under the CAIR SO2 subject to the Acid Rain Program, then account in the CAIR NOX Ozone Season
Trading Program. If the CAIR NOX this natural person shall be the same Allowance Tracking System established
Ozone Season source is also subject to person as the designated representative by the Administrator for purposes of
the Acid Rain Program, then this natural under the Acid Rain Program. recording the allocation, holding,
transferring, or deducting of CAIR NOX of mitigating interstate transport of fine Commence commercial operation
Ozone Season allowances. particulates and sulfur dioxide. means, with regard to a unit serving a
CAIR NOX Ozone Season allowances CAIR SO2 unit means a unit that is generator:
held or hold CAIR NOX Ozone Season subject to the CAIR SO2 Trading (1) To have begun to produce steam,
allowances means the CAIR NOX Ozone Program under § 96.204 and a CAIR SO2 gas, or other heated medium used to
Season allowances recorded by the opt-in unit under subpart III of this part. generate electricity for sale or use,
Administrator, or submitted to the Clean Air Act or CAA means the including test generation, except as
Administrator for recordation, in Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. provided in § 96.305.
accordance with subparts FFFF, GGGG, Coal means any solid fuel classified as (i) For a unit that is a CAIR NOX
and IIII of this part, in a CAIR NOX anthracite, bituminous, subbituminous, Ozone Season unit under § 96.304 on
Ozone Season Allowance Tracking or lignite. the date the unit commences
System account. Coal-derived fuel means any fuel commercial operation as defined in
CAIR NOX Ozone Season emissions (whether in a solid, liquid, or gaseous paragraph (1) of this definition and that
limitation means, for a CAIR NOX state) produced by the mechanical, subsequently undergoes a physical
Ozone Season source, the tonnage thermal, or chemical processing of coal. change (other than replacement of the
equivalent of the CAIR NOX Ozone Coal-fired means: unit by a unit at the same source), such
Season allowances available for (1) Except for purposes of subpart date shall remain the unit’s date of
deduction for the source under EEEE of this part, combusting any commencement of commercial
§ 96.354(a) and (b) for a control period. amount of coal or coal-derived fuel, operation.
CAIR NOX Ozone Season Trading alone or in combination with any (ii) For a unit that is a CAIR NOX
Program means a multi-state nitrogen amount of any other fuel, during any Ozone Season unit under § 96.304 on
oxides air pollution control and year; or the date the unit commences
emission reduction program approved (2) For purposes of subpart EEEE of commercial operation as defined in
and administered by the Administrator this part, combusting any amount of paragraph (1) of this definition and that
in accordance with subparts AAAA coal or coal-derived fuel, alone or in is subsequently replaced by a unit at the
through IIII of this part and § 51.123 of combination with any amount of any same source (e.g., repowered), the
this chapter, as a means of mitigating other fuel, during a specified year. replacement unit shall be treated as a
interstate transport of ozone and Cogeneration unit means a stationary, separate unit with a separate date for
nitrogen oxides. fossil-fuel-fired boiler or stationary, commencement of commercial
CAIR NOX Ozone Season source fossil-fuel-fired combustion turbine: operation as defined in paragraph (1),
means a source that includes one or (1) Having equipment used to produce (2), or (3) of this definition as
more CAIR NOX Ozone Season units. electricity and useful thermal energy for appropriate.
CAIR NOX Ozone Season unit means industrial, commercial, heating, or (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) of
a unit that is subject to the CAIR NOX cooling purposes through the sequential this definition and except as provided
Ozone Season Trading Program under use of energy; and in § 96.305, for a unit that is not a CAIR
§ 96.304 and, except for purposes of (2) Producing during the 12-month NOX Ozone Season unit under § 96.304
§ 96.305 and subpart EEEE of this part, period starting on the date the unit first on the date the unit commences
a CAIR NOX Ozone Season opt-in unit produces electricity and during any commercial operation as defined in
under subpart IIII of this part. calendar year after which the unit first paragraph (1) of this definition and is
CAIR NOX source means a source that produces electricity— not a unit under paragraph (3) of this
includes one or more CAIR NOX units. (i) For a topping-cycle cogeneration definition, the unit’s date for
CAIR NOX unit means a unit that is unit, commencement of commercial
subject to the CAIR NOX Annual (A) Useful thermal energy not less operation shall be the date on which the
Trading Program under § 96.104 and a than 5 percent of total energy output; unit becomes a CAIR NOX Ozone
CAIR NOX opt-in unit under subpart II and Season unit under § 96.304.
of this part. (B) Useful power that, when added to (i) For a unit with a date for
CAIR permit means the legally one-half of useful thermal energy commencement of commercial
binding and federally enforceable produced, is not less then 42.5 percent operation as defined in paragraph (2) of
written document, or portion of such of total energy input, if useful thermal this definition and that subsequently
document, issued by the permitting energy produced is 15 percent or more undergoes a physical change (other than
authority under subpart CCCC of this of total energy output, or not less than replacement of the unit by a unit at the
part, including any permit revisions, 45 percent of total energy input, if same source), such date shall remain the
specifying the CAIR NOX Ozone Season useful thermal energy produced is less unit’s date of commencement of
Trading Program requirements than 15 percent of total energy output. commercial operation.
applicable to a CAIR NOX Ozone Season (ii) For a bottoming-cycle (ii) For a unit with a date for
source, to each CAIR NOX Ozone Season cogeneration unit, useful power not less commencement of commercial
unit at the source, and to the owners than 45 percent of total energy input. operation as defined in paragraph (2) of
and operators and the CAIR designated Combustion turbine means: this definition and that is subsequently
representative of the source and each (1) An enclosed device comprising a replaced by a unit at the same source
such unit. compressor, a combustor, and a turbine (e.g., repowered), the replacement unit
CAIR SO2 source means a source that and in which the flue gas resulting from shall be treated as a separate unit with
includes one or more CAIR SO2 units. the combustion of fuel in the combustor a separate date for commencement of
CAIR SO2 Trading Program means a passes through the turbine, rotating the commercial operation as defined in
multi-state sulfur dioxide air pollution turbine; and paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this
control and emission reduction program (2) If the enclosed device under definition as appropriate.
approved and administered by the paragraph (1) of this definition is (3) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) of
Administrator in accordance with combined cycle, any associated heat this definition and except as provided
subparts AAA through III of this part recovery steam generator and steam in § 96.384(h) or § 96.387(b)(3), for a
and § 51.124 of this chapter, as a means turbine. CAIR NOX Ozone Season opt-in unit or
a unit for which a CAIR opt-in permit NOX Ozone Season unit under § 96.304 Ozone Season allowance allocations for
application is submitted and not on the date the unit commences the CAIR NOX Ozone Season units at
withdrawn and a CAIR opt-in permit is operation as defined in paragraph (1) of the source are initially recorded and in
not yet issued or denied under subpart this definition and is not a unit under which are held any CAIR NOX Ozone
IIII of this part, the unit’s date for paragraph (3) of this definition, the Season allowances available for use for
commencement of commercial unit’s date for commencement of a control period in order to meet the
operation shall be the date on which the operation shall be the date on which the source’s CAIR NOX Ozone Season
owner or operator is required to start unit becomes a CAIR NOX Ozone emissions limitation in accordance with
monitoring and reporting the NOX Season unit under § 96.304. § 96.354.
emissions rate and the heat input of the (i) For a unit with a date for Continuous emission monitoring
unit under § 96.384(b)(1)(i). commencement of operation as defined system or CEMS means the equipment
(i) For a unit with a date for in paragraph (2) of this definition and required under subpart HHHH of this
commencement of commercial that subsequently undergoes a physical part to sample, analyze, measure, and
operation as defined in paragraph (3) of change (other than replacement of the provide, by means of readings recorded
this definition and that subsequently unit by a unit at the same source), such at least once every 15 minutes (using an
undergoes a physical change (other than date shall remain the unit’s date of automated data acquisition and
replacement of the unit by a unit at the commencement of operation. handling system (DAHS)), a permanent
same source), such date shall remain the (ii) For a unit with a date for record of nitrogen oxides emissions,
unit’s date of commencement of commencement of operation as defined stack gas volumetric flow rate, stack gas
commercial operation. in paragraph (2) of this definition and moisture content, and oxygen or carbon
(ii) For a unit with a date for that is subsequently replaced by a unit dioxide concentration (as applicable), in
commencement of commercial at the same source (e.g., repowered), the a manner consistent with part 75 of this
operation as defined in paragraph (3) of replacement unit shall be treated as a chapter. The following systems are the
this definition and that is subsequently separate unit with a separate date for principal types of continuous emission
replaced by a unit at the same source commencement of operation as defined monitoring systems required under
(e.g., repowered), the replacement unit in paragraph (1),(2), or (3) of this subpart HHHH of this part:
shall be treated as a separate unit with definition as appropriate.
(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) of (1) A flow monitoring system,
a separate date for commencement of consisting of a stack flow rate monitor
commercial operation as defined in this definition and except as provided
in § 96.384(h) or § 96.387(b)(3), for a and an automated data acquisition and
paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this handling system and providing a
definition as appropriate. CAIR NOX Ozone Season opt-in unit or
a unit for which a CAIR opt-in permit permanent, continuous record of stack
(4) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1)
application is submitted and not gas volumetric flow rate, in standard
through (3) of this definition, for a unit
withdrawn and a CAIR opt-in permit is cubic feet per hour (scfh);
not serving a generator producing
not yet issued or denied under subpart (2) A nitrogen oxides concentration
electricity for sale, the unit’s date of
IIII of this part, the unit’s date for monitoring system, consisting of a NOX
commencement of operation shall also
commencement of operation shall be the pollutant concentration monitor and an
be the unit’s date of commencement of
date on which the owner or operator is automated data acquisition and
commercial operation.
Commence operation means: required to start monitoring and handling system and providing a
(1) To have begun any mechanical, reporting the NOX emissions rate and permanent, continuous record of NOX
chemical, or electronic process, the heat input of the unit under emissions, in parts per million (ppm);
including, with regard to a unit, start-up § 96.384(b)(1)(i). (3) A nitrogen oxides emission rate (or
of a unit’s combustion chamber, except (i) For a unit with a date for NOX-diluent) monitoring system,
as provided in § 96.305. commencement of operation as defined consisting of a NOX pollutant
(i) For a unit that is a CAIR NOX in paragraph (3) of this definition and concentration monitor, a diluent gas
Ozone Season unit under § 96.304 on that subsequently undergoes a physical (CO2 or O2) monitor, and an automated
the date the unit commences operation change (other than replacement of the data acquisition and handling system
as defined in paragraph (1) of this unit by a unit at the same source), such and providing a permanent, continuous
definition and that subsequently date shall remain the unit’s date of record of NOX concentration, in parts
undergoes a physical change (other than commencement of operation. per million (ppm), diluent gas
replacement of the unit by a unit at the (ii) For a unit with a date for concentration, in percent CO2 or O2, and
same source), such date shall remain the commencement of operation as defined NOX emission rate, in pounds per
unit’s date of commencement of in paragraph (3) of this definition and million British thermal units (lb/
operation. that is subsequently replaced by a unit mmBtu);
(ii) For a unit that is a CAIR NOX at the source (e.g., repowered), the (4) A moisture monitoring system, as
Ozone Season unit under § 96.304 on replacement unit shall be treated as a defined in § 75.11(b)(2) of this chapter
the date the unit commences operation separate unit with a separate date for and providing a permanent, continuous
as defined in paragraph (1) of this commencement of operation as defined record of the stack gas moisture content,
definition and that is subsequently in paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this in percent H2O;
replaced by a unit at the same source definition as appropriate. (5) A carbon dioxide monitoring
(e.g., repowered), the replacement unit Common stack means a single flue system, consisting of a CO2 pollutant
shall be treated as a separate unit with through which emissions from 2 or concentration monitor (or an oxygen
a separate date for commencement of more units are exhausted. monitor plus suitable mathematical
operation as defined in paragraph (1), Compliance account means a CAIR equations from which the CO2
(2), or (3) of this definition as NOX Ozone Season Allowance Tracking concentration is derived) and an
appropriate. System account, established by the automated data acquisition and
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) of Administrator for a CAIR NOX Ozone handling system and providing a
this definition and except as provided Season source under subpart FFFF or permanent, continuous record of CO2
in § 96.305, for a unit that is not a CAIR IIII of this part, in which any CAIR NOX emissions, in percent CO2; and
(6) An oxygen monitoring system, flue gases, or exhaust from other generator is capable of producing on a
consisting of an O2 concentration sources. steady state basis and during continuous
monitor and an automated data Heat input rate means the amount of operation (when not restricted by
acquisition and handling system and heat input (in mmBtu) divided by unit seasonal or other deratings) as specified
providing a permanent, continuous operating time (in hr) or, with regard to by the manufacturer of the generator or,
record of O2 in percent O2. a specific fuel, the amount of heat input starting from the completion of any
Control period or ozone season means attributed to the fuel (in mmBtu) subsequent physical change in the
the period beginning May 1 of a divided by the unit operating time (in generator resulting in an increase in the
calendar year and ending on September hr) during which the unit combusts the maximum electrical generating output
30 of the same year, inclusive. fuel. (in MWe) that the generator is capable
Emissions means air pollutants Life-of-the-unit, firm power of producing on a steady state basis and
exhausted from a unit or source into the contractual arrangement means a unit during continuous operation (when not
atmosphere, as measured, recorded, and participation power sales agreement restricted by seasonal or other
reported to the Administrator by the under which a utility or industrial deratings), such increased maximum
CAIR designated representative and as customer reserves, or is entitled to amount as specified by the person
determined by the Administrator in receive, a specified amount or conducting the physical change.
accordance with subpart HHHH of this percentage of nameplate capacity and Oil-fired means, for purposes of
part. associated energy generated by any subpart EEEE of this part, combusting
Excess emissions means any ton of specified unit and pays its proportional fuel oil for more than 15.0 percent of the
nitrogen oxides emitted by the CAIR amount of such unit’s total costs, annual heat input in a specified year.
NOX Ozone Season units at a CAIR NOX pursuant to a contract: Operator means any person who
Ozone Season source during a control (1) For the life of the unit; operates, controls, or supervises a CAIR
period that exceeds the CAIR NOX (2) For a cumulative term of no less NOX Ozone Season unit or a CAIR NOX
Ozone Season emissions limitation for than 30 years, including contracts that Ozone Season source and shall include,
the source. permit an election for early termination; but not be limited to, any holding
Fossil fuel means natural gas, or company, utility system, or plant
petroleum, coal, or any form of solid, (3) For a period no less than 25 years manager of such a unit or source.
liquid, or gaseous fuel derived from or 70 percent of the economic useful life Owner means any of the following
such material. of the unit determined as of the time the persons:
Fossil-fuel-fired means, with regard to unit is built, with option rights to (1) With regard to a CAIR NOX Ozone
a unit, combusting any amount of fossil purchase or release some portion of the Season source or a CAIR NOX Ozone
fuel in any calendar year. nameplate capacity and associated Season unit at a source, respectively:
Fuel oil means any petroleum-based energy generated by the unit at the end (i) Any holder of any portion of the
fuel (including diesel fuel or petroleum of the period. legal or equitable title in a CAIR NOX
derivatives such as oil tar) and any Maximum design heat input means, Ozone Season unit at the source or the
recycled or blended petroleum products starting from the initial installation of a CAIR NOX Ozone Season unit;
or petroleum by-products used as a fuel unit, the maximum amount of fuel per (ii) Any holder of a leasehold interest
whether in a liquid, solid, or gaseous hour (in Btu/hr) that a unit is capable of in a CAIR NOX Ozone Season unit at the
state. combusting on a steady state basis as source or the CAIR NOX Ozone Season
General account means a CAIR NOX specified by the manufacturer of the unit; or
Ozone Season Allowance Tracking unit, or, starting from the completion of (iii) Any purchaser of power from a
System account, established under any subsequent physical change in the CAIR NOX Ozone Season unit at the
subpart FFFF of this part, that is not a unit resulting in a decrease in the source or the CAIR NOX Ozone Season
compliance account. maximum amount of fuel per hour (in unit under a life-of-the-unit, firm power
Generator means a device that Btu/hr) that a unit is capable of contractual arrangement; provided that,
produces electricity. combusting on a steady state basis, such unless expressly provided for in a
Gross electrical output means, with decreased maximum amount as leasehold agreement, owner shall not
regard to a cogeneration unit, electricity specified by the person conducting the include a passive lessor, or a person
made available for use, including any physical change. who has an equitable interest through
such electricity used in the power Monitoring system means any such lessor, whose rental payments are
production process (which process monitoring system that meets the not based (either directly or indirectly)
includes, but is not limited to, any on- requirements of subpart HHHH of this on the revenues or income from such
site processing or treatment of fuel part, including a continuous emissions CAIR NOX Ozone Season unit; or
combusted at the unit and any on-site monitoring system, an alternative (2) With regard to any general
emission controls). monitoring system, or an excepted account, any person who has an
Heat input means, with regard to a monitoring system under part 75 of this ownership interest with respect to the
specified period of time, the product (in chapter. CAIR NOX Ozone Season allowances
mmBtu/time) of the gross calorific value Most stringent State or Federal NOX held in the general account and who is
of the fuel (in Btu/lb) divided by emissions limitation means, with regard subject to the binding agreement for the
1,000,000 Btu/mmBtu and multiplied by to a unit, the lowest NOX emissions CAIR authorized account representative
the fuel feed rate into a combustion limitation (in terms of lb/mmBtu) that is to represent the person’s ownership
device (in lb of fuel/time), as measured, applicable to the unit under State or interest with respect to CAIR NOX
recorded, and reported to the Federal law, regardless of the averaging Ozone Season allowances.
Administrator by the CAIR designated period to which the emissions Permitting authority means the State
representative and determined by the limitation applies. air pollution control agency, local
Administrator in accordance with Nameplate capacity means, starting agency, other State agency, or other
subpart HHHH of this part and from the initial installation of a agency authorized by the Administrator
excluding the heat derived from generator, the maximum electrical to issue or revise permits to meet the
preheated combustion air, recirculated generating output (in MWe) that the requirements of the CAIR NOX Ozone
Season Trading Program in accordance thermal energy application or process; excluding energy produced by the
with subpart CCCC of this part or, if no or cogeneration unit itself.
such agency has been so authorized, the (2) For a bottoming-cycle cogeneration Total energy output means, with
Administrator. unit, the use of reject heat from useful regard to a cogeneration unit, the sum
Potential electrical output capacity thermal energy application or process in of useful power and useful thermal
means 33 percent of a unit’s maximum electricity production. energy produced by the cogeneration
design heat input, divided by 3,413 Btu/ Source means all buildings, unit.
kWh, divided by 1,000 kWh/MWh, and structures, or installations located in Unit means a stationary, fossil-fuel-
multiplied by 8,760 hr/yr. one or more contiguous or adjacent fired boiler or combustion turbine or
Receive or receipt of means, when properties under common control of the other stationary, fossil-fuel-fired
referring to the permitting authority or same person or persons. For purposes of combustion device.
the Administrator, to come into section 502(c) of the Clean Air Act, a Unit operating day means a calendar
possession of a document, information, ‘‘source,’’ including a ‘‘source’’ with day in which a unit combusts any fuel.
or correspondence (whether sent in hard multiple units, shall be considered a Unit operating hour or hour of unit
copy or by authorized electronic single ‘‘facility.’’ operation means an hour in which a
transmission), as indicated in an official State means one of the States or the unit combusts any fuel.
correspondence log, or by a notation District of Columbia that adopts the Useful power means, with regard to a
made on the document, information, or CAIR NOX Ozone Season Trading cogeneration unit, electricity or
correspondence, by the permitting Program pursuant to § 51.123(aa)(1) or mechanical energy made available for
authority or the Administrator in the (2), (bb), or (dd) of this chapter. use, excluding any such energy used in
regular course of business. Submit or serve means to send or the power production process (which
Recordation, record, or recorded transmit a document, information, or process includes, but is not limited to,
means, with regard to CAIR NOX Ozone correspondence to the person specified any on-site processing or treatment of
Season allowances, the movement of in accordance with the applicable fuel combusted at the unit and any on-
CAIR NOX Ozone Season allowances by regulation: site emission controls).
the Administrator into or between CAIR (1) In person; Useful thermal energy means, with
NOX Ozone Season Allowance Tracking (2) By United States Postal Service; or regard to a cogeneration unit, thermal
System accounts, for purposes of (3) By other means of dispatch or energy that is:
allocation, transfer, or deduction. transmission and delivery. Compliance (1) Made available to an industrial or
Reference method means any direct with any ‘‘submission’’ or ‘‘service’’ commercial process (not a power
test method of sampling and analyzing deadline shall be determined by the production process), excluding any heat
for an air pollutant as specified in date of dispatch, transmission, or contained in condensate return or
§ 75.22 of this chapter. mailing and not the date of receipt. makeup water;
Repowered means, with regard to a Title V operating permit means a (2) Used in a heat application (e.g.,
unit, replacement of a coal-fired boiler permit issued under title V of the Clean space heating or domestic hot water
with one of the following coal-fired Air Act and part 70 or part 71 of this heating); or
technologies at the same source as the chapter. (3) Used in a space cooling
coal-fired boiler: Title V operating permit regulations application (i.e., thermal energy used by
(1) Atmospheric or pressurized means the regulations that the an absorption chiller).
fluidized bed combustion; Administrator has approved or issued as Utility power distribution system
(2) Integrated gasification combined meeting the requirements of title V of means the portion of an electricity grid
cycle; the Clean Air Act and part 70 or 71 of owned or operated by a utility and
(3) Magnetohydrodynamics; this chapter. dedicated to delivering electricity to
(4) Direct and indirect coal-fired Ton means 2,000 pounds. For the customers.
turbines; purpose of determining compliance
(5) Integrated gasification fuel cells; or with the CAIR NOX Ozone Season § 96.303 Measurements, abbreviations,
and acronyms.
(6) As determined by the emissions limitation, total tons of
Administrator in consultation with the nitrogen oxides emissions for a control Measurements, abbreviations, and
Secretary of Energy, a derivative of one period shall be calculated as the sum of acronyms used in this part are defined
or more of the technologies under all recorded hourly emissions (or the as follows:
paragraphs (1) through (5) of this mass equivalent of the recorded hourly Btu—British thermal unit.
definition and any other coal-fired emission rates) in accordance with CO2—carbon dioxide.
technology capable of controlling subpart HHHH of this part, but with any 1NOX—nitrogen oxides.
multiple combustion emissions remaining fraction of a ton equal to or hr—hour.
simultaneously with improved boiler or greater than 0.50 tons deemed to equal kW—kilowatt electrical.
generation efficiency and with one ton and any remaining fraction of a kWh—kilowatt hour.
significantly greater waste reduction ton less than 0.50 tons deemed to equal mmBtu—million Btu.
MWe—megawatt electrical.
relative to the performance of zero tons.
MWh—megawatt hour.
technology in widespread commercial Topping-cycle cogeneration unit
O2—oxygen.
use as of January 1, 2005. means a cogeneration unit in which the ppm—parts per million.
Serial number means, for a CAIR NOX energy input to the unit is first used to lb—pound.
Ozone Season allowance, the unique produce useful power, including scfh—standard cubic feet per hour.
identification number assigned to each electricity, and at least some of the SO2—sulfur dioxide.
CAIR NOX Ozone Season allowance by reject heat from the electricity H2O—water.
the Administrator. production is then used to provide yr-year.
Sequential use of energy means: useful thermal energy.
(1) For a topping-cycle cogeneration Total energy input means, with regard § 96.304 Applicability.
unit, the use of reject heat from to a cogeneration unit, total energy of all The following units in a State shall be
electricity production in a useful forms supplied to the cogeneration unit, CAIR NOX Ozone Season units, and any
source that includes one or more such located to add the provisions and (7) For the purpose of applying
units shall be a CAIR NOX Ozone requirements of the exemption under monitoring, reporting, and
Season source, subject to the paragraphs (a)(1) and (b) of this section. recordkeeping requirements under
requirements of this subpart and (b) Special provisions. (1) A unit subpart HHHH of this part, a unit that
subparts BBBB through HHHH of this exempt under paragraph (a) of this loses its exemption under paragraph (a)
part: section shall not emit any nitrogen of this section shall be treated as a unit
(a) Except as provided in paragraph oxides, starting on the date that the that commences operation and
(b) of this section, a stationary, fossil- exemption takes effect. commercial operation on the first date
fuel-fired boiler or stationary, fossil- (2) The permitting authority will on which the unit resumes operation.
fuel-fired combustion turbine serving at allocate CAIR NOX Ozone Season
any time, since the start-up of a unit’s § 96.306 Standard requirements.
allowances under subpart EEEE of this
combustion chamber, a generator with part to a unit exempt under paragraph (a) Permit requirements. (1) The CAIR
nameplate capacity of more than 25 (a) of this section. designated representative of each CAIR
MWe producing electricity for sale. (3) For a period of 5 years from the NOX Ozone Season source required to
(b) For a unit that qualifies as a date the records are created, the owners have a title V operating permit and each
cogeneration unit during the 12-month and operators of a unit exempt under CAIR NOX Ozone Season unit required
period starting on the date the unit first paragraph (a) of this section shall retain to have a title V operating permit at the
produces electricity and continues to at the source that includes the unit, source shall:
qualify as a cogeneration unit, a (i) Submit to the permitting authority
records demonstrating that the unit is
cogeneration unit serving at any time a a complete CAIR permit application
permanently retired. The 5-year period
generator with nameplate capacity of under § 96.322 in accordance with the
for keeping records may be extended for
more than 25 MWe and supplying in deadlines specified in § 96.321(a) and
cause, at any time before the end of the
any calendar year more than one-third (b); and
period, in writing by the permitting (ii) Submit in a timely manner any
of the unit’s potential electric output authority or the Administrator. The
capacity or 219,000 MWh, whichever is supplemental information that the
owners and operators bear the burden of permitting authority determines is
greater, to any utility power distribution proof that the unit is permanently
system for sale. If a unit qualifies as a necessary in order to review a CAIR
retired. permit application and issue or deny a
cogeneration unit during the 12-month (4) The owners and operators and, to
period starting on the date the unit first CAIR permit.
the extent applicable, the CAIR (2) The owners and operators of each
produces electricity but subsequently no designated representative of a unit
longer qualifies as a cogeneration unit, CAIR NOX Ozone Season source
exempt under paragraph (a) of this required to have a title V operating
the unit shall be subject to paragraph (a) section shall comply with the
of this section starting on the day on permit and each CAIR NOX Ozone
requirements of the CAIR NOX Ozone Season unit required to have a title V
which the unit first no longer qualifies Season Trading Program concerning all
as a cogeneration unit. operating permit at the source shall
periods for which the exemption is not have a CAIR permit issued by the
§ 96.305 Retired unit exemption. in effect, even if such requirements permitting authority under subpart
(a)(1) Any CAIR NOX Ozone Season arise, or must be complied with, after CCCC of this part for the source and
unit that is permanently retired and is the exemption takes effect. operate the source and the unit in
not a CAIR NOX Ozone Season opt-in (5) A unit exempt under paragraph (a) compliance with such CAIR permit.
unit shall be exempt from the CAIR NOX of this section and located at a source (3) Except as provided in subpart IIII
Ozone Season Trading Program, except that is required, or but for this of this part, the owners and operators of
for the provisions of this section, exemption would be required, to have a a CAIR NOX Ozone Season source that
§ 96.302, § 96.303, § 96.304, title V operating permit shall not resume is not otherwise required to have a title
§ 96.306(c)(4) through (8), § 96.307, and operation unless the CAIR designated V operating permit and each CAIR NOX
subparts EEEE through GGGG of this representative of the source submits a Ozone Season unit that is not otherwise
part. complete CAIR permit application required to have a title V operating
(2) The exemption under paragraph under § 96.322 for the unit not less than permit are not required to submit a
(a)(1) of this section shall become 18 months (or such lesser time provided CAIR permit application, and to have a
effective the day on which the CAIR by the permitting authority) before the CAIR permit, under subpart CCCC of
NOX Ozone Season unit is permanently later of January 1, 2009 or the date on this part for such CAIR NOX Ozone
retired. Within 30 days of the unit’s which the unit resumes operation. Season source and such CAIR NOX
permanent retirement, the CAIR (6) On the earlier of the following Ozone Season unit.
designated representative shall submit a dates, a unit exempt under paragraph (a) (b) Monitoring, reporting, and
statement to the permitting authority of this section shall lose its exemption: recordkeeping requirements. (1) The
otherwise responsible for administering (i) The date on which the CAIR owners and operators, and the CAIR
any CAIR permit for the unit and shall designated representative submits a designated representative, of each CAIR
submit a copy of the statement to the CAIR permit application for the unit NOX Ozone Season source and each
Administrator. The statement shall under paragraph (b)(5) of this section; CAIR NOX Ozone Season unit at the
state, in a format prescribed by the (ii) The date on which the CAIR source shall comply with the
permitting authority, that the unit was designated representative is required monitoring, reporting, and
permanently retired on a specific date under paragraph (b)(5) of this section to recordkeeping requirements of subpart
and will comply with the requirements submit a CAIR permit application for HHHH of this part.
of paragraph (b) of this section. the unit; or (2) The emissions measurements
(3) After receipt of the statement (iii) The date on which the unit recorded and reported in accordance
under paragraph (a)(2) of this section, resumes operation, if the CAIR with subpart HHHH of this part shall be
the permitting authority will amend any designated representative is not used to determine compliance by each
permit under subpart CCCC of this part required to submit a CAIR permit CAIR NOX Ozone Season source with
covering the source at which the unit is application for the unit. the CAIR NOX Ozone Season emissions
limitation under paragraph (c) of this NOX Ozone Season emissions submit the reports required under the
section. limitation, then: CAIR NOX Ozone Season Trading
(c) Nitrogen oxides ozone season (i) The owners and operators of the Program, including those under subpart
emission requirements. (1) As of the source and each CAIR NOX Ozone HHHH of this part.
allowance transfer deadline for a control Season unit at the source shall (f) Liability. (1) Each CAIR NOX Ozone
period, the owners and operators of surrender the CAIR NOX Ozone Season Season source and each CAIR NOX
each CAIR NOX Ozone Season source allowances required for deduction Ozone Season unit shall meet the
and each CAIR NOX Ozone Season unit under § 96.354(d)(1) and pay any fine,
requirements of the CAIR NOX Ozone
at the source shall hold, in the source’s penalty, or assessment or comply with
Season Trading Program.
compliance account, CAIR NOX Ozone any other remedy imposed, for the same
Season allowances available for violations, under the Clean Air Act or (2) Any provision of the CAIR NOX
compliance deductions for the control applicable State law; and Ozone Season Trading Program that
period under § 96.354(a) in an amount (ii) Each ton of such excess emissions applies to a CAIR NOX Ozone Season
not less than the tons of total nitrogen and each day of such control period source or the CAIR designated
oxides emissions for the control period shall constitute a separate violation of representative of a CAIR NOX Ozone
from all CAIR NOX Ozone Season units this subpart, the Clean Air Act, and Season source shall also apply to the
at the source, as determined in applicable State law. owners and operators of such source
accordance with subpart HHHH of this (2) [Reserved] and of the CAIR NOX Ozone Season
part. (e) Recordkeeping and reporting units at the source.
requirements. (1) Unless otherwise (3) Any provision of the CAIR NOX
(2) A CAIR NOX Ozone Season unit
provided, the owners and operators of Ozone Season Trading Program that
shall be subject to the requirements
the CAIR NOX Ozone Season source and applies to a CAIR NOX Ozone Season
under paragraph (c)(1) of this section
each CAIR NOX Ozone Season unit at unit or the CAIR designated
starting on the later of May 1, 2009 or
the source shall keep on site at the representative of a CAIR NOX Ozone
the deadline for meeting the unit’s
source each of the following documents Season unit shall also apply to the
monitor certification requirements
for a period of 5 years from the date the owners and operators of such unit.
under § 96.370(b)(1), (2), (3), or (7).
document is created. This period may
(3) A CAIR NOX Ozone Season (g) Effect on other authorities. No
be extended for cause, at any time
allowance shall not be deducted, for provision of the CAIR NOX Ozone
before the end of 5 years, in writing by
compliance with the requirements Season Trading Program, a CAIR permit
the permitting authority or the
under paragraph (c)(1) of this section, application, a CAIR permit, or an
Administrator.
for a control period in a calendar year (i) The certificate of representation exemption under § 96.305 shall be
before the year for which the CAIR NOX under § 96.313 for the CAIR designated construed as exempting or excluding the
Ozone Season allowance was allocated. representative for the source and each owners and operators, and the CAIR
(4) CAIR NOX Ozone Season CAIR NOX Ozone Season unit at the designated representative, of a CAIR
allowances shall be held in, deducted source and all documents that NOX Ozone Season source or CAIR NOX
from, or transferred into or among CAIR demonstrate the truth of the statements Ozone Season unit from compliance
NOX Ozone Season Allowance Tracking in the certificate of representation; with any other provision of the
System accounts in accordance with provided that the certificate and applicable, approved State
subpart EEEE of this part. documents shall be retained on site at implementation plan, a federally
(5) A CAIR NOX Ozone Season the source beyond such 5-year period enforceable permit, or the Clean Air Act.
allowance is a limited authorization to until such documents are superseded
emit one ton of nitrogen oxides in § 96.307 Computation of time.
because of the submission of a new
accordance with the CAIR NOX Ozone certificate of representation under (a) Unless otherwise stated, any time
Season Trading Program. No provision § 96.313 changing the CAIR designated period scheduled, under the CAIR NOX
of the CAIR NOX Ozone Season Trading representative. Ozone Season Trading Program, to begin
Program, the CAIR permit application, (ii) All emissions monitoring on the occurrence of an act or event
the CAIR permit, or an exemption under information, in accordance with subpart shall begin on the day the act or event
§ 96.305 and no provision of law shall HHHH of this part, provided that to the occurs.
be construed to limit the authority of the extent that subpart HHHH of this part
State or the United States to terminate (b) Unless otherwise stated, any time
provides for a 3-year period for period scheduled, under the CAIR NOX
or limit such authorization. recordkeeping, the 3-year period shall
(6) A CAIR NOX Ozone Season Ozone Season Trading Program, to begin
apply. before the occurrence of an act or event
allowance does not constitute a property (iii) Copies of all reports, compliance
right. shall be computed so that the period
certifications, and other submissions ends the day before the act or event
(7) Upon recordation by the and all records made or required under
Administrator under subpart FFFF, occurs.
the CAIR NOX Ozone Season Trading
GGGG, or IIII of this part, every Program. (c) Unless otherwise stated, if the final
allocation, transfer, or deduction of a (iv) Copies of all documents used to day of any time period, under the CAIR
CAIR NOX Ozone Season allowance to complete a CAIR permit application and NOX Ozone Season Trading Program,
or from a CAIR NOX Ozone Season any other submission under the CAIR falls on a weekend or a State or Federal
unit’s compliance account is NOX Ozone Season Trading Program or holiday, the time period shall be
incorporated automatically in any CAIR to demonstrate compliance with the extended to the next business day.
permit of the source that includes the requirements of the CAIR NOX Ozone § 96.308 Appeal procedures.
CAIR NOX Ozone Season unit. Season Trading Program.
(d) Excess emissions requirements. (1) (2) The CAIR designated The appeal procedures for decisions
If a CAIR NOX Ozone Season source representative of a CAIR NOX Ozone of the Administrator under the CAIR
emits nitrogen oxides during any Season source and each CAIR NOX NOX Ozone Season Trading Program are
control period in excess of the CAIR Ozone Season unit at the source shall set forth in part 78 of this chapter.
Subpart BBBB—CAIR Designated behalf of the owners and operators of time upon receipt by the Administrator
Representative for CAIR NOX Ozone the source or units for which the of a superseding complete certificate of
Season Sources submission is made. I certify under representation under § 96.313.
penalty of law that I have personally Notwithstanding any such change, all
§ 96.310 Authorization and responsibilities examined, and am familiar with, the representations, actions, inactions, and
of CAIR designated representative.
statements and information submitted submissions by the previous CAIR
(a) Except as provided under § 96.311, in this document and all its designated representative before the
each CAIR NOX Ozone Season source, attachments. Based on my inquiry of time and date when the Administrator
including all CAIR NOX Ozone Season those individuals with primary receives the superseding certificate of
units at the source, shall have one and responsibility for obtaining the representation shall be binding on the
only one CAIR designated information, I certify that the statements new CAIR designated representative and
representative, with regard to all matters and information are to the best of my the owners and operators of the CAIR
under the CAIR NOX Ozone Season knowledge and belief true, accurate, and NOX Ozone Season source and the CAIR
Trading Program concerning the source complete. I am aware that there are NOX Ozone Season units at the source.
or any CAIR NOX Ozone Season unit at significant penalties for submitting false (b) Changing alternate CAIR
the source. statements and information or omitting
(b) The CAIR designated designated representative. The alternate
required statements and information, CAIR designated representative may be
representative of the CAIR NOX Ozone
including the possibility of fine or changed at any time upon receipt by the
Season source shall be selected by an
imprisonment.’’ Administrator of a superseding
agreement binding on the owners and
(2) The permitting authority and the complete certificate of representation
operators of the source and all CAIR
Administrator will accept or act on a under § 96.313. Notwithstanding any
NOX Ozone Season units at the source
and shall act in accordance with the submission made on behalf of owner or such change, all representations,
certification statement in operators of a CAIR NOX Ozone Season actions, inactions, and submissions by
§ 96.313(a)(4)(iv). source or a CAIR NOX Ozone Season the previous alternate CAIR designated
(c) Upon receipt by the Administrator unit only if the submission has been representative before the time and date
of a complete certificate of made, signed, and certified in when the Administrator receives the
representation under § 96.313, the CAIR accordance with paragraph (e)(1) of this superseding certificate of representation
designated representative of the source section. shall be binding on the new alternate
shall represent and, by his or her CAIR designated representative and the
§ 96.311 Alternate CAIR designated
representations, actions, inactions, or representative.
owners and operators of the CAIR NOX
submissions, legally bind each owner Ozone Season source and the CAIR NOX
(a) A certificate of representation Ozone Season units at the source.
and operator of the CAIR NOX Ozone under § 96.313 may designate one and
Season source represented and each (c) Changes in owners and operators.
only one alternate CAIR designated
CAIR NOX Ozone Season unit at the (1) In the event a new owner or operator
representative, who may act on behalf of
source in all matters pertaining to the of a CAIR NOX Ozone Season source or
the CAIR designated representative. The
CAIR NOX Ozone Season Trading a CAIR NOX Ozone Season unit is not
agreement by which the alternate CAIR
Program, notwithstanding any included in the list of owners and
designated representative is selected
agreement between the CAIR designated operators in the certificate of
shall include a procedure for
representative and such owners and representation under § 96.313, such new
authorizing the alternate CAIR
operators. The owners and operators owner or operator shall be deemed to be
designated representative to act in lieu
shall be bound by any decision or order subject to and bound by the certificate
of the CAIR designated representative.
issued to the CAIR designated of representation, the representations,
(b) Upon receipt by the Administrator
representative by the permitting actions, inactions, and submissions of
of a complete certificate of
authority, the Administrator, or a court the CAIR designated representative and
representation under § 96.313, any
regarding the source or unit. any alternate CAIR designated
representation, action, inaction, or
(d) No CAIR permit will be issued, no representative of the source or unit, and
submission by the alternate CAIR
emissions data reports will be accepted, the decisions and orders of the
designated representative shall be
and no CAIR NOX Ozone Season permitting authority, the Administrator,
deemed to be a representation, action,
Allowance Tracking System account or a court, as if the new owner or
inaction, or submission by the CAIR
will be established for a CAIR NOX operator were included in such list.
designated representative.
Ozone Season unit at a source, until the (c) Except in this section and (2) Within 30 days following any
Administrator has received a complete §§ 96.302, 96.310(a) and (d), 96.312, change in the owners and operators of
certificate of representation under 96.313, 96.351, and 96.382 whenever a CAIR NOX Ozone Season source or a
§ 96.313 for a CAIR designated the term ‘‘CAIR designated CAIR NOX Ozone Season unit,
representative of the source and the representative’’ is used in subparts including the addition of a new owner
CAIR NOX Ozone Season units at the AAAA through IIII of this part, the term or operator, the CAIR designated
source. shall be construed to include the CAIR representative or any alternate CAIR
(e)(1) Each submission under the designated representative shall submit a
designated representative or any
CAIR NOX Ozone Season Trading revision to the certificate of
alternate CAIR designated
Program shall be submitted, signed, and representation under § 96.313 amending
representative.
certified by the CAIR designated the list of owners and operators to
representative for each CAIR NOX § 96.312 Changing CAIR designated include the change.
Ozone Season source on behalf of which representative and alternate CAIR
the submission is made. Each such designated representative; changes in § 96.313 Certificate of representation.
submission shall include the following owners and operators. (a) A complete certificate of
certification statement by the CAIR (a) Changing CAIR designated representation for a CAIR designated
designated representative: ‘‘I am representative. The CAIR designated representative or an alternate CAIR
authorized to make this submission on representative may be changed at any designated representative shall include
the following elements in a format have expressly provided for a different enforceable permit, such permit shall
prescribed by the Administrator: distribution of CAIR NOX Ozone Season include a CAIR permit administered by
(1) Identification of the CAIR NOX allowances by contract, CAIR NOX the permitting authority for the title V
Ozone Season source, and each CAIR Ozone Season allowances and proceeds operating permit or the federally
NOX Ozone Season unit at the source, of transactions involving CAIR NOX enforceable permit as applicable. The
for which the certificate of Ozone Season allowances will be CAIR portion of the title V permit or
representation is submitted. deemed to be held or distributed in other federally enforceable permit as
(2) The name, address, e-mail address accordance with the contract.’’ applicable shall be administered in
(if any), telephone number, and (5) The signature of the CAIR accordance with the permitting
facsimile transmission number (if any) designated representative and any authority’s title V operating permits
of the CAIR designated representative alternate CAIR designated regulations promulgated under part 70
and any alternate CAIR designated representative and the dates signed. or 71 of this chapter or the permitting
representative. (b) Unless otherwise required by the authority’s regulations for other
(3) A list of the owners and operators permitting authority or the federally enforceable permits as
of the CAIR NOX Ozone Season source Administrator, documents of agreement applicable, except as provided
and of each CAIR NOX Ozone Season referred to in the certificate of otherwise by this subpart and subpart
unit at the source. representation shall not be submitted to IIII of this part.
(4) The following certification the permitting authority or the (b) Each CAIR permit shall contain,
statements by the CAIR designated with regard to the CAIR NOX Ozone
Administrator. Neither the permitting
representative and any alternate CAIR Season source and the CAIR NOX Ozone
authority nor the Administrator shall be
designated representative— Season units at the source covered by
(i) ‘‘I certify that I was selected as the under any obligation to review or
evaluate the sufficiency of such the CAIR permit, all applicable CAIR
CAIR designated representative or
documents, if submitted. NOX Ozone Season Trading Program,
alternate CAIR designated
CAIR NOX Annual Trading Program,
representative, as applicable, by an § 96.314 Objections concerning CAIR and CAIR SO2 Trading Program
agreement binding on the owners and designated representative.
requirements and shall be a complete
operators of the source and each CAIR (a) Once a complete certificate of and separable portion of the title V
NOX Ozone Season unit at the source.’’ representation under § 96.313 has been
(ii) ‘‘I certify that I have all the operating permit or other federally
submitted and received, the permitting enforceable permit under paragraph (a)
necessary authority to carry out my authority and the Administrator will
duties and responsibilities under the of this section.
rely on the certificate of representation
CAIR NOX Ozone Season Trading unless and until a superseding complete § 96.321 Submission of CAIR permit
Program on behalf of the owners and certificate of representation under applications.
operators of the source and of each § 96.313 is received by the (a) Duty to apply. The CAIR
CAIR NOX Ozone Season unit at the Administrator. designated representative of any CAIR
source and that each such owner and (b) Except as provided in § 96.312(a) NOX Ozone Season source required to
operator shall be fully bound by my or (b), no objection or other have a title V operating permit shall
representations, actions, inactions, or communication submitted to the submit to the permitting authority a
submissions.’’ permitting authority or the complete CAIR permit application
(iii) ‘‘I certify that the owners and Administrator concerning the under § 96.322 for the source covering
operators of the source and of each authorization, or any representation, each CAIR NOX Ozone Season unit at
CAIR NOX Ozone Season unit at the action, inaction, or submission, of the the source at least 18 months (or such
source shall be bound by any order CAIR designated representative shall lesser time provided by the permitting
issued to me by the Administrator, the affect any representation, action, authority) before the later of January 1,
permitting authority, or a court inaction, or submission of the CAIR 2009 or the date on which the CAIR
regarding the source or unit.’’ designated representative or the finality NOX Ozone Season unit commences
(iv) ‘‘Where there are multiple holders operation.
of any decision or order by the
of a legal or equitable title to, or a (b) Duty to Reapply. For a CAIR NOX
permitting authority or the
leasehold interest in, a CAIR NOX Ozone Season source required to have a
Administrator under the CAIR NOX
Ozone Season unit, or where a customer title V operating permit, the CAIR
Ozone Season Trading Program.
purchases power from a CAIR NOX designated representative shall submit a
(c) Neither the permitting authority
Ozone Season unit under a life-of-the- complete CAIR permit application
nor the Administrator will adjudicate
unit, firm power contractual under § 96.322 for the source covering
any private legal dispute concerning the
arrangement, I certify that: I have given each CAIR NOX Ozone Season unit at
authorization or any representation,
a written notice of my selection as the the source to renew the CAIR permit in
action, inaction, or submission of any
‘CAIR designated representative’ or accordance with the permitting
CAIR designated representative,
‘alternate CAIR designated authority’s title V operating permits
including private legal disputes
representative’, as applicable, and of the regulations addressing permit renewal.
concerning the proceeds of CAIR NOX
agreement by which I was selected to
Ozone Season allowance transfers.
each owner and operator of the source § 96.322 Information requirements for
and of each CAIR NOX Ozone Season CAIR permit applications.
Subpart CCCC—Permits
unit at the source; and CAIR NOX Ozone A complete CAIR permit application
Season allowances and proceeds of § 96.320 General CAIR NOX Ozone Season shall include the following elements
transactions involving CAIR NOX Ozone Trading Program permit requirements. concerning the CAIR NOX Ozone Season
Season allowances will be deemed to be (a) For each CAIR NOX Ozone Season source for which the application is
held or distributed in proportion to each source required to have a title V submitted, in a format prescribed by the
holder’s legal, equitable, leasehold, or operating permit or required, under permitting authority:
contractual reservation or entitlement, subpart IIII of this part, to have a title (a) Identification of the CAIR NOX
except that, if such multiple holders V operating permit or other federally Ozone Season source;
(b) Identification of each CAIR NOX allowance to or from the compliance regulations or the permitting authority’s
Ozone Season unit at the CAIR NOX account of the CAIR NOX Ozone Season regulations for other federally
Ozone Season source; and source covered by the permit. enforceable permits as applicable
(c) The standard requirements under (c) The term of the CAIR permit will addressing permit revisions.
§ 96.306. be set by the permitting authority, as
necessary to facilitate coordination of Subpart DDDD—[Reserved]
§ 96.323 CAIR permit contents and term.
(a) Each CAIR permit will contain, in the renewal of the CAIR permit with
issuance, revision, or renewal of the Subpart EEEE—CAIR NOX Ozone
a format prescribed by the permitting
CAIR NOX Ozone Season source’s title Season Allowance Allocations
authority, all elements required for a
complete CAIR permit application V operating permit or other federally § 96.340 State trading budgets.
under § 96.322. enforceable permit as applicable.
(b) Each CAIR permit is deemed to (a) Except as provided in paragraph
§ 96.324 CAIR permit revisions. (b) of this section, the State trading
incorporate automatically the
definitions of terms under § 96.302 and, Except as provided in § 96.323(b), the budgets for annual allocations of CAIR
upon recordation by the Administrator permitting authority will revise the NOX Ozone Season allowances for the
under subpart FFFF, GGGG, or IIII of CAIR permit, as necessary, in control periods in 2009 through 2014
this part, every allocation, transfer, or accordance with the permitting and in 2015 and thereafter are
deduction of a CAIR NOX Ozone Season authority’s title V operating permits respectively as follows:

Alabama ........................................................................................................................................... 32,182 26,818

Arkansas .......................................................................................................................................... 11,515 9,596
Connecticut ...................................................................................................................................... 2,559 2,559
Delaware .......................................................................................................................................... 2,226 1,855
Florida .............................................................................................................................................. 47,912 39,926
Illinois ............................................................................................................................................... 30,701 28,981
Indiana ............................................................................................................................................. 45,952 39,273
Iowa ................................................................................................................................................. 14,263 11,886
Kentucky .......................................................................................................................................... 36,045 30,587
Louisiana .......................................................................................................................................... 17,085 14,238
Maryland .......................................................................................................................................... 12,834 10,695
Massachusetts ................................................................................................................................. 7,551 6,293
Michigan ........................................................................................................................................... 28,971 24,142
Mississippi ........................................................................................................................................ 8,714 7,262
Missouri ............................................................................................................................................ 26,678 22,231
New Jersey ...................................................................................................................................... 6,654 5,545
New York ......................................................................................................................................... 20,632 17,193
North Carolina .................................................................................................................................. 28,392 23,660
Ohio ................................................................................................................................................. 45,664 39,945
Pennsylvania .................................................................................................................................... 42,171 35,143
South Carolina ................................................................................................................................. 15,249 12,707
Tennessee ....................................................................................................................................... 22,842 19,035
Virginia ............................................................................................................................................. 15,994 13,328
West Virginia .................................................................................................................................... 26,859 26,525
Wisconsin ......................................................................................................................................... 17,987 14,989
(b) If a permitting authority issues format prescribed by the Administrator assume that the allocations of CAIR
additional CAIR NOX Ozone Season and in accordance with § 96.342(a) and NOX Ozone Season allowances for the
allowance allocations under (b), for the control periods in 2009, applicable control period are the same
§ 51.123(aa)(2)(iii)(A) of this chapter, the 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014. as for the control period that
amount in the State trading budget for (b)(1) By October 31, 2009 and immediately precedes the applicable
a control period in a calendar year will October 31 of each year thereafter, the control period, except that, if the
be the sum of the amount set forth for permitting authority will submit to the applicable control period is in 2015, the
the State and for the year in paragraph Administrator the CAIR NOX Ozone Administrator will assume that the
(a) of this section and the amount of Season allowance allocations, in a allocations equal 83 percent of the
additional CAIR NOX Ozone Season format prescribed by the Administrator allocations for the control period that
allowance allocations issued under and in accordance with § 96.342(a) and immediately precedes the applicable
§ 51.123(aa)(2)(iii)(A) of this chapter for (b), for the control period in the sixth control period.
the year. year after the year of the applicable (c)(1) By July 31, 2009 and July 31 of
deadline for submission under this each year thereafter, the permitting
§ 96.341 Timing requirements for CAIR paragraph. authority will submit to the
NOX Ozone Season allowance allocations. (2) If the permitting authority fails to Administrator the CAIR NOX Ozone
(a) By October 31, 2006, the submit to the Administrator the CAIR Season allowance allocations, in a
permitting authority will submit to the NOX Ozone Season allowance format prescribed by the Administrator
Administrator the CAIR NOX Ozone allocations in accordance with and in accordance with § 96.342(c), (a),
Season allowance allocations, in a paragraph (b)(1), the Administrator will and (d), for the control period in the
year of the applicable deadline for unit’s total tons of NOX emissions provided in paragraph (d) of this
submission under this paragraph. during a calendar year under paragraph section).
(2) If the permitting authority fails to (c)(3) of this section, will be determined (2) The permitting authority will
submit to the Administrator the CAIR in accordance with part 75 of this allocate CAIR NOX Ozone Season
NOX Ozone Season allowance chapter, to the extent the unit was allowances to each CAIR NOX Ozone
allocations in accordance with otherwise subject to the requirements of Season unit under paragraph (b)(1) of
paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the part 75 of this chapter for the year, or this section in an amount determined by
Administrator will assume that the will be based on the best available data multiplying the total amount of CAIR
allocations of CAIR NOX Ozone Season reported to the permitting authority for NOX Ozone Season allowances allocated
allowances for the applicable control the unit, to the extent the unit was not under paragraph (b)(1) of this section by
period are the same as for the control otherwise subject to the requirements of the ratio of the baseline heat input of
period that immediately precedes the part 75 of this chapter for the year. such CAIR NOX Ozone Season unit to
applicable control period, except that, if (ii) A unit’s converted control period the total amount of baseline heat input
the applicable control period is in 2015, heat input for a calendar year specified of all such CAIR NOX Ozone Season
the Administrator will assume that the under paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section units in the State and rounding to the
allocations equal 83 percent of the equals: nearest whole allowance as appropriate.
allocations for the control period that (A) Except as provided in paragraph (c) For each control period in 2009
immediately precedes the applicable (a)(2)(ii)(B) or (C) of this section, the and thereafter, the permitting authority
control period and except that any CAIR control period gross electrical output of will allocate CAIR NOX Ozone Season
NOX Ozone Season unit that would the generator or generators served by the allowances to CAIR NOX Ozone Season
otherwise be allocated CAIR NOX Ozone unit multiplied by 7,900 Btu/kWh, if the units in the State that commenced
Season allowances under § 96.342(a) unit is coal-fired for the year, or 6,675 operation on or after January 1, 2001
and (b), as well as under § 96.342(a), (c), Btu/kWh, if the unit is not coal-fired for and do not yet have a baseline heat
and (d), for the applicable control the year, and divided by 1,000,000 Btu/ input (as determined under paragraph
period will be assumed to be allocated mmBtu, provided that if a generator is (a) of this section), in accordance with
no CAIR NOX Ozone Season allowances served by 2 or more units, then the gross the following procedures:
under § 96.342(a), (c), and (d) for the electrical output of the generator will be (1) The permitting authority will
applicable control period. attributed to each unit in proportion to establish a separate new unit set-aside
the unit’s share of the total control for each control period. Each new unit
§ 96.342 CAIR NOX Ozone Season period heat input of such units for the set-aside will be allocated CAIR NOX
allowance allocations. year; Ozone Season allowances equal to 5
(a)(1) The baseline heat input (in (B) For a unit that is a boiler and has percent for a control period in 2009
mmBtu) used with respect to CAIR NOX equipment used to produce electricity through 2013, and 3 percent for a
Ozone Season allowance allocations and useful thermal energy for industrial, control period in 2014 and thereafter, of
under paragraph (b) of this section for commercial, heating, or cooling the amount of tons of NOX emissions in
each CAIR NOX Ozone Season unit will purposes through the sequential use of the State trading budget under § 96.340.
be: energy, the total heat energy (in Btu) of (2) The CAIR designated
(i) For units commencing operation the steam produced by the boiler during representative of such a CAIR NOX
before January 1, 2001 the average of the the control period, divided by 0.8 and Ozone Season unit may submit to the
3 highest amounts of the unit’s adjusted by 1,000,000 Btu/mmBtu; or permitting authority a request, in a
control period heat input for 2000 (C) For a unit that is a combustion format specified by the permitting
through 2004, with the adjusted control turbine and has equipment used to authority, to be allocated CAIR NOX
period heat input for each year produce electricity and useful thermal Ozone Season allowances, starting with
calculated as follows: energy for industrial, commercial, the later of the control period in 2009
(A) If the unit is coal-fired during the heating, or cooling purposes through the or the first control period after the
year, the unit’s control period heat input sequential use of energy, the control control period in which the CAIR NOX
for such year is multiplied by 100 period gross electrical output of the Ozone Season unit commences
percent; enclosed device comprising the commercial operation and until the first
(B) If the unit is oil-fired during the compressor, combustor, and turbine control period for which the unit is
year, the unit’s control period heat input multiplied by 3,414 Btu/kWh, plus the allocated CAIR NOX Ozone Season
for such year is multiplied by 60 total heat energy (in Btu) of the steam allowances under paragraph (b) of this
percent; and produced by any associated heat section. The CAIR NOX Ozone Season
(C) If the unit is not subject to recovery steam generator during the allowance allocation request must be
paragraph (a)(1)(i)(A) or (B) of this control period divided by 0.8, and with submitted on or before April 1 before
section, the unit’s control period heat the sum divided by 1,000,000 Btu/ the first control period for which the
input for such year is multiplied by 40 mmBtu. CAIR NOX Ozone Season allowances are
percent. (b)(1) For each control period in 2009 requested and after the date on which
(ii) For units commencing operation and thereafter, the permitting authority the CAIR NOX Ozone Season unit
on or after January 1, 2001 and will allocate to all CAIR NOX Ozone commences commercial operation.
operating each calendar year during a Season units in the State that have a (3) In a CAIR NOX Ozone Season
period of 5 or more consecutive baseline heat input (as determined allowance allocation request under
calendar years, the average of the 3 under paragraph (a) of this section) a paragraph (c)(2) of this section, the
highest amounts of the unit’s total total amount of CAIR NOX Ozone CAIR designated representative may
converted control period heat input over Season allowances equal to 95 percent request for a control period CAIR NOX
the first such 5 years. for a control period during 2009 through Ozone Season allowances in an amount
(2)(i) A unit’s control period heat 2014, and 97 percent for a control not exceeding the CAIR NOX Ozone
input, and a unit’s status as coal-fired or period during 2015 and thereafter, of the Season unit’s total tons of NOX
oil-fired, for a calendar year under tons of NOX emissions in the State emissions during the control period
paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, and a trading budget under § 96.340 (except as immediately before such control period.
(4) The permitting authority will each CAIR NOX Ozone Season unit that any alternate CAIR authorized account
review each CAIR NOX Ozone Season was allocated CAIR NOX Ozone Season representative to represent their
allowance allocation request under allowances under paragraph (b) of this ownership interest with respect to the
paragraph (c)(2) of this section and will section an amount of CAIR NOX Ozone CAIR NOX Ozone Season allowances
allocate CAIR NOX Ozone Season Season allowances equal to the total held in the general account;
allowances for each control period amount of such remaining unallocated (D) The following certification
pursuant to such request as follows: CAIR NOX Ozone Season allowances, statement by the CAIR authorized
(i) The permitting authority will multiplied by the unit’s allocation account representative and any alternate
accept an allowance allocation request under paragraph (b) of this section, CAIR authorized account representative:
only if the request meets, or is adjusted divided by 95 percent for a control ‘‘I certify that I was selected as the CAIR
by the permitting authority as necessary period during 2009 through 2014, and authorized account representative or the
to meet, the requirements of paragraphs 97 percent for a control period during alternate CAIR authorized account
(c)(2) and (3) of this section. 2015 and thereafter, of the amount of representative, as applicable, by an
(ii) On or after April 1 before the tons of NOX emissions in the State agreement that is binding on all persons
control period, the permitting authority trading budget under § 96.340, and who have an ownership interest with
will determine the sum of the CAIR rounded to the nearest whole allowance respect to CAIR NOX Ozone Season
NOX Ozone Season allowances as appropriate. allowances held in the general account.
requested (as adjusted under paragraph I certify that I have all the necessary
(c)(4)(i) of this section) in all allowance Subpart FFFF—CAIR NOX Ozone authority to carry out my duties and
allocation requests accepted under Season Allowance Tracking System responsibilities under the CAIR NOX
paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this section for the Ozone Season Trading Program on
control period. § 96.350 [Reserved] behalf of such persons and that each
(iii) If the amount of CAIR NOX Ozone § 96.351 Establishment of accounts. such person shall be fully bound by my
Season allowances in the new unit set- representations, actions, inactions, or
aside for the control period is greater (a) Compliance accounts. Except as
submissions and by any order or
than or equal to the sum under provided in § 96.384(e), upon receipt of
decision issued to me by the
paragraph (c)(4)(ii) of this section, then a complete certificate of representation
Administrator or a court regarding the
the permitting authority will allocate under § 96.313, the Administrator will
general account.’’
the amount of CAIR NOX Ozone Season establish a compliance account for the (E) The signature of the CAIR
allowances requested (as adjusted under CAIR NOX Ozone Season source for authorized account representative and
paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this section) to which the certificate of representation any alternate CAIR authorized account
each CAIR NOX Ozone Season unit was submitted, unless the source representative and the dates signed.
covered by an allowance allocation already has a compliance account. (iii) Unless otherwise required by the
request accepted under paragraph (b) General accounts—(1) Application permitting authority or the
(c)(4)(i) of this section. for general account. Administrator, documents of agreement
(iv) If the amount of CAIR NOX Ozone (i) Any person may apply to open a referred to in the application for a
Season allowances in the new unit set- general account for the purpose of general account shall not be submitted
aside for the control period is less than holding and transferring CAIR NOX to the permitting authority or the
the sum under paragraph (c)(4)(ii) of Ozone Season allowances. An Administrator. Neither the permitting
this section, then the permitting application for a general account may authority nor the Administrator shall be
authority will allocate to each CAIR designate one and only one CAIR under any obligation to review or
NOX Ozone Season unit covered by an authorized account representative and evaluate the sufficiency of such
allowance allocation request accepted one and only one alternate CAIR documents, if submitted.
under paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this section authorized account representative who (2) Authorization of CAIR authorized
the amount of the CAIR NOX Ozone may act on behalf of the CAIR account representative.
Season allowances requested (as authorized account representative. The (i) Upon receipt by the Administrator
adjusted under paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this agreement by which the alternate CAIR of a complete application for a general
section), multiplied by the amount of authorized account representative is account under paragraph (b)(1) of this
CAIR NOX Ozone Season allowances in selected shall include a procedure for section:
the new unit set-aside for the control authorizing the alternate CAIR (A) The Administrator will establish a
period, divided by the sum determined authorized account representative to act general account for the person or
under paragraph (c)(4)(ii) of this section, in lieu of the CAIR authorized account persons for whom the application is
and rounded to the nearest whole representative. submitted.
allowance as appropriate. (ii) A complete application for a (B) The CAIR authorized account
(v) The permitting authority will general account shall be submitted to representative and any alternate CAIR
notify each CAIR designated the Administrator and shall include the authorized account representative for
representative that submitted an following elements in a format the general account shall represent and,
allowance allocation request of the prescribed by the Administrator: by his or her representations, actions,
amount of CAIR NOX Ozone Season (A) Name, mailing address, e-mail inactions, or submissions, legally bind
allowances (if any) allocated for the address (if any), telephone number, and each person who has an ownership
control period to the CAIR NOX Ozone facsimile transmission number (if any) interest with respect to CAIR NOX
Season unit covered by the request. of the CAIR authorized account Ozone Season allowances held in the
(d) If, after completion of the representative and any alternate CAIR general account in all matters pertaining
procedures under paragraph (c)(4) of authorized account representative; to the CAIR NOX Ozone Season Trading
this section for a control period, any (B) Organization name and type of Program, notwithstanding any
unallocated CAIR NOX Ozone Season organization, if applicable; agreement between the CAIR authorized
allowances remain in the new unit set- (C) A list of all persons subject to a account representative or any alternate
aside for the control period, the binding agreement for the CAIR CAIR authorized account representative
permitting authority will allocate to authorized account representative and and such person. Any such person shall
be bound by any order or decision superseding application for a general (ii) Except as provided in paragraph
issued to the CAIR authorized account account shall be binding on the new (b)(3)(i) or (ii) of this section, no
representative or any alternate CAIR CAIR authorized account representative objection or other communication
authorized account representative by and the persons with an ownership submitted to the Administrator
the Administrator or a court regarding interest with respect to the CAIR NOX concerning the authorization, or any
the general account. Ozone Season allowances in the general representation, action, inaction, or
(C) Any representation, action, account. submission of the CAIR authorized
inaction, or submission by any alternate (ii) The alternate CAIR authorized account representative or any
CAIR authorized account representative account representative for a general alternative CAIR authorized account
shall be deemed to be a representation, account may be changed at any time representative for a general account
action, inaction, or submission by the upon receipt by the Administrator of a shall affect any representation, action,
CAIR authorized account representative. superseding complete application for a inaction, or submission of the CAIR
(ii) Each submission concerning the general account under paragraph (b)(1) authorized account representative or
general account shall be submitted, of this section. Notwithstanding any any alternative CAIR authorized account
signed, and certified by the CAIR such change, all representations, representative or the finality of any
authorized account representative or actions, inactions, and submissions by decision or order by the Administrator
any alternate CAIR authorized account the previous alternate CAIR authorized under the CAIR NOX Ozone Season
representative for the persons having an account representative before the time Trading Program.
ownership interest with respect to CAIR and date when the Administrator (iii) The Administrator will not
NOX Ozone Season allowances held in receives the superseding application for adjudicate any private legal dispute
the general account. Each such a general account shall be binding on concerning the authorization or any
submission shall include the following the new alternate CAIR authorized representation, action, inaction, or
certification statement by the CAIR account representative and the persons submission of the CAIR authorized
authorized account representative or with an ownership interest with respect account representative or any
any alternate CAIR authorized account to the CAIR NOX Ozone Season alternative CAIR authorized account
representative: ‘‘I am authorized to allowances in the general account. representative for a general account,
make this submission on behalf of the including private legal disputes
(iii)(A) In the event a new person
persons having an ownership interest concerning the proceeds of CAIR NOX
having an ownership interest with
with respect to the CAIR NOX Ozone Ozone Season allowance transfers.
respect to CAIR NOX Ozone Season
Season allowances held in the general (c) Account identification. The
allowances in the general account is not
account. I certify under penalty of law Administrator will assign a unique
included in the list of such persons in
that I have personally examined, and am identifying number to each account
the application for a general account,
familiar with, the statements and established under paragraph (a) or (b) of
such new person shall be deemed to be
information submitted in this document this section.
and all its attachments. Based on my subject to and bound by the application
inquiry of those individuals with for a general account, the § 96.352 Responsibilities of CAIR
primary responsibility for obtaining the representation, actions, inactions, and authorized account representative.
information, I certify that the statements submissions of the CAIR authorized
Following the establishment of a
and information are to the best of my account representative and any alternate
CAIR NOX Ozone Season Allowance
knowledge and belief true, accurate, and CAIR authorized account representative
Tracking System account, all
complete. I am aware that there are of the account, and the decisions and
submissions to the Administrator
significant penalties for submitting false orders of the Administrator or a court,
pertaining to the account, including, but
statements and information or omitting as if the new person were included in
not limited to, submissions concerning
required statements and information, such list.
the deduction or transfer of CAIR NOX
including the possibility of fine or (B) Within 30 days following any
Ozone Season allowances in the
imprisonment.’’ change in the persons having an
account, shall be made only by the CAIR
(iii) The Administrator will accept or ownership interest with respect to CAIR
authorized account representative for
act on a submission concerning the NOX Ozone Season allowances in the
the account.
general account only if the submission general account, including the addition
has been made, signed, and certified in of persons, the CAIR authorized account § 96.353 Recordation of CAIR NOX Ozone
accordance with paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of representative or any alternate CAIR Season allowance allocations.
this section. authorized account representative shall (a) By December 1, 2006, the
(3) Changing CAIR authorized submit a revision to the application for Administrator will record in the CAIR
account representative and alternate a general account amending the list of NOX Ozone Season source’s compliance
CAIR authorized account persons having an ownership interest account the CAIR NOX Ozone Season
representative; changes in persons with with respect to the CAIR NOX Ozone allowances allocated for the CAIR NOX
ownership interest. Season allowances in the general Ozone Season units at a source, as
(i) The CAIR authorized account account to include the change. submitted by the permitting authority in
representative for a general account may (4) Objections concerning CAIR accordance with § 96.341(a), for the
be changed at any time upon receipt by authorized account representative. control periods in 2009, 2010, 2011,
the Administrator of a superseding (i) Once a complete application for a 2012, 2013, and 2014.
complete application for a general general account under paragraph (b)(1) (b) By December 1, 2009, the
account under paragraph (b)(1) of this of this section has been submitted and Administrator will record in the CAIR
section. Notwithstanding any such received, the Administrator will rely on NOX Ozone Season source’s compliance
change, all representations, actions, the application unless and until a account the CAIR NOX Ozone Season
inactions, and submissions by the superseding complete application for a allowances allocated for the CAIR NOX
previous CAIR authorized account general account under paragraph (b)(1) Ozone Season units at the source, as
representative before the time and date of this section is received by the submitted by the permitting authority or
when the Administrator receives the Administrator. as determined by the Administrator in
accordance with § 96.341(b), for the period under paragraph (d) of this GGGG of this part, in the order of
control period in 2015. section. recordation.
(c) In 2011 and each year thereafter, (b) Deductions for compliance. (d) Deductions for excess emissions.
after the Administrator has made all Following the recordation, in (1) After making the deductions for
deductions (if any) from a CAIR NOX accordance with § 96.361, of CAIR NOX compliance under paragraph (b) of this
Ozone Season source’s compliance Ozone Season allowance transfers section for a control period in a calendar
account under § 96.354, the submitted for recordation in a source’s year in which the CAIR NOX Ozone
Administrator will record in the CAIR compliance account by the allowance Season source has excess emissions, the
NOX Ozone Season source’s compliance transfer deadline for a control period, Administrator will deduct from the
account the CAIR NOX Ozone Season the Administrator will deduct from the source’s compliance account an amount
allowances allocated for the CAIR NOX compliance account CAIR NOX Ozone of CAIR NOX Ozone Season allowances,
Ozone Season units at the source, as Season allowances available under allocated for the control period in the
submitted by the permitting authority or paragraph (a) of this section in order to immediately following calendar year,
determined by the Administrator in determine whether the source meets the equal to 3 times the number of tons of
accordance with § 96.341(b), for the CAIR NOX Ozone Season emissions the source’s excess emissions.
control period in the sixth year after the limitation for the control period, as (2) Any allowance deduction required
year of the control period for which follows: under paragraph (d)(1) of this section
such deductions were or could have (1) Until the amount of CAIR NOX shall not affect the liability of the
been made. Ozone Season allowances deducted owners and operators of the CAIR NOX
equals the number of tons of total Ozone Season source or the CAIR NOX
(d) By September 1, 2009 and
nitrogen oxides emissions, determined Ozone Season units at the source for any
September 1 of each year thereafter, the
in accordance with subpart HHHH of fine, penalty, or assessment, or their
Administrator will record in the CAIR
this part, from all CAIR NOX Ozone obligation to comply with any other
NOX Ozone Season source’s compliance
Season units at the source for the remedy, for the same violations, as
account the CAIR NOX Ozone Season
control period; or ordered under the Clean Air Act or
allowances allocated for the CAIR NOX (2) If there are insufficient CAIR NOX
Ozone Season units at the source, as applicable State law.
Ozone Season allowances to complete (e) Recordation of deductions. The
submitted by the permitting authority or the deductions in paragraph (b)(1) of
determined by the Administrator in Administrator will record in the
this section, until no more CAIR NOX appropriate compliance account all
accordance with § 96.341(c), for the Ozone Season allowances available
control period in the year of the deductions from such an account under
under paragraph (a) of this section paragraph (b) or (d) of this section.
applicable deadline for recordation remain in the compliance account.
under this paragraph. (f) Administrator’s action on
(c)(1) Identification of CAIR NO X submissions. (1) The Administrator may
(e) Serial numbers for allocated CAIR Ozone Season allowances by serial
NOX Ozone Season allowances. When review and conduct independent audits
number. The CAIR authorized account concerning any submission under the
recording the allocation of CAIR NOX representative for a source’s compliance
Ozone Season allowances for a CAIR CAIR NOX Ozone Season Trading
account may request that specific CAIR Program and make appropriate
NOX Ozone Season unit in a compliance NOX Ozone Season allowances,
account, the Administrator will assign adjustments of the information in the
identified by serial number, in the submissions.
each CAIR NOX Ozone Season compliance account be deducted for (2) The Administrator may deduct
allowance a unique identification emissions or excess emissions for a CAIR NOX Ozone Season allowances
number that will include digits control period in accordance with from or transfer CAIR NOX Ozone
identifying the year of the control paragraph (b) or (d) of this section. Such Season allowances to a source’s
period for which the CAIR NOX Ozone request shall be submitted to the compliance account based on the
Season allowance is allocated. Administrator by the allowance transfer information in the submissions, as
§ 96.354 Compliance with CAIR NOX deadline for the control period and adjusted under paragraph (f)(1) of this
emissions limitation. include, in a format prescribed by the section.
Administrator, the identification of the
(a) Allowance transfer deadline. The CAIR NOX Ozone Season source and the § 96.355 Banking.
CAIR NOX Ozone Season allowances are
appropriate serial numbers. (a) CAIR NOX Ozone Season
available to be deducted for compliance (2) First-in, first-out. The allowances may be banked for future
with a source’s CAIR NOX Ozone Administrator will deduct CAIR NOX use or transfer in a compliance account
Season emissions limitation for a Ozone Season allowances under or a general account in accordance with
control period in a given calendar year paragraph (b) or (d) of this section from paragraph (b) of this section.
only if the CAIR NOX Ozone Season the source’s compliance account, in the (b) Any CAIR NOX Ozone Season
allowances: absence of an identification or in the allowance that is held in a compliance
(1) Were allocated for the control case of a partial identification of CAIR account or a general account will
period in the year or a prior year; NOX Ozone Season allowances by serial remain in such account unless and until
(2) Are held in the compliance number under paragraph (c)(1) of this the CAIR NOX Ozone Season allowance
account as of the allowance transfer section, on a first-in, first-out (FIFO) is deducted or transferred under
deadline for the control period or are accounting basis in the following order: § 96.354, § 96.356, or subpart GG of this
transferred into the compliance account (i) Any CAIR NOX Ozone Season part.
by a CAIR NOX Ozone Season allowance allowances that were allocated to the
transfer correctly submitted for units at the source, in the order of § 96.356 Account error.
recordation under § 96.360 by the recordation; and then The Administrator may, at his or her
allowance transfer deadline for the (ii) Any CAIR NOX Ozone Season sole discretion and on his or her own
control period; and allowances that were allocated to any motion, correct any error in any CAIR
(3) Are not necessary for deductions unit and transferred and recorded in the NOX Ozone Season Allowance Tracking
for excess emissions for a prior control compliance account pursuant to subpart System account. Within 10 business
days of making such correction, the allowance from the transferor account to ‘‘affected unit,’’ ‘‘designated
Administrator will notify the CAIR the transferee account as specified by representative,’’ and ‘‘continuous
authorized account representative for the request, provided that: emission monitoring system’’ (or
the account. (1) The transfer is correctly submitted ‘‘CEMS’’) in part 75 of this chapter shall
under § 96.360; and be deemed to refer to the terms ‘‘CAIR
§ 96.357 Closing of general accounts.
(2) The transferor account includes NOX Ozone Season unit,’’ ‘‘CAIR
(a) The CAIR authorized account each CAIR NOX Ozone Season designated representative,’’ and
representative of a general account may allowance identified by serial number in ‘‘continuous emission monitoring
submit to the Administrator a request to the transfer. system’’ (or ‘‘CEMS’’) respectively, as
close the account, which shall include (b) A CAIR NOX Ozone Season defined in § 96.302. The owner or
a correctly submitted allowance transfer allowance transfer that is submitted for operator of a unit that is not a CAIR
under § 96.360 for any CAIR NOX Ozone recordation after the allowance transfer NOX Ozone Season unit but that is
Season allowances in the account to one deadline for a control period and that monitored under § 75.72(b)(2)(ii) of this
or more other CAIR NOX Ozone Season includes any CAIR NOX Ozone Season chapter shall comply with the same
Allowance Tracking System accounts. allowances allocated for any control monitoring, recordkeeping, and
(b) If a general account has no period before such allowance transfer reporting requirements as a CAIR NOX
allowance transfers in or out of the deadline will not be recorded until after Ozone Season unit.
account for a 12-month period or longer the Administrator completes the (a) Requirements for installation,
and does not contain any CAIR NOX
deductions under § 96.354 for the certification, and data accounting. The
Ozone Season allowances, the
control period immediately before such owner or operator of each CAIR NOX
Administrator may notify the CAIR
allowance transfer deadline. Ozone Season unit shall:
authorized account representative for
(c) Where a CAIR NOX Ozone Season (1) Install all monitoring systems
the account that the account will be
allowance transfer submitted for required under this subpart for
closed following 20 business days after
recordation fails to meet the monitoring NOX mass emissions and
the notice is sent. The account will be
requirements of paragraph (a) of this individual unit heat input (including all
closed after the 20-day period unless,
section, the Administrator will not systems required to monitor NOX
before the end of the 20-day period, the
record such transfer. emission rate, NOX concentration, stack
Administrator receives a correctly
submitted transfer of CAIR NOX Ozone gas moisture content, stack gas flow
§ 96.362 Notification.
Season allowances into the account rate, CO2 or O2 concentration, and fuel
(a) Notification of recordation. Within flow rate, as applicable, in accordance
under § 96.360 or a statement submitted 5 business days of recordation of a CAIR
by the CAIR authorized account with §§ 75.71 and 75.72 of this chapter);
NOX Ozone Season allowance transfer (2) Successfully complete all
representative demonstrating to the under § 96.361, the Administrator will
satisfaction of the Administrator good certification tests required under
notify the CAIR authorized account § 96.371 and meet all other
cause as to why the account should not representatives of both the transferor
be closed. requirements of this subpart and part 75
and transferee accounts. of this chapter applicable to the
(b) Notification of non-recordation. monitoring systems under paragraph
Subpart GGGG—CAIR NOX Ozone
Within 10 business days of receipt of a (a)(1) of this section; and
Season Allowance Transfers
CAIR NOX Ozone Season allowance (3) Record, report, and quality-assure
§ 96.360 Submission of CAIR NOX Ozone transfer that fails to meet the the data from the monitoring systems
Season allowance transfers. requirements of § 96.361(a), the under paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
A CAIR authorized account Administrator will notify the CAIR (b) Compliance deadlines. The owner
representative seeking recordation of a authorized account representatives of or operator shall meet the monitoring
CAIR NOX Ozone Season allowance both accounts subject to the transfer of: system certification and other
transfer shall submit the transfer to the (1) A decision not to record the
requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) and
Administrator. To be considered transfer, and
(2) of this section on or before the
correctly submitted, the CAIR NOX (2) The reasons for such non-
following dates. The owner or operator
Ozone Season allowance transfer shall recordation.
shall record, report, and quality-assure
include the following elements, in a (c) Nothing in this section shall
the data from the monitoring systems
format specified by the Administrator: preclude the submission of a CAIR NOX
under paragraph (a)(1) of this section on
(a) The account numbers for both the Ozone Season allowance transfer for
and after the following dates.
transferor and transferee accounts; recordation following notification of
(b) The serial number of each CAIR (1) For the owner or operator of a
non-recordation.
NOX Ozone Season allowance that is in CAIR NOX Ozone Season unit that
the transferor account and is to be Subpart HHHH—Monitoring and commences commercial operation
transferred; and Reporting before July 1, 2007, by May 1, 2008.
(c) The name and signature of the (2) For the owner or operator of a
§ 96.370 General requirements. CAIR NOX Ozone Season unit that
CAIR authorized account representative
of the transferor account and the date The owners and operators, and to the commences commercial operation on or
signed. extent applicable, the CAIR designated after July 1, 2007 and that reports on an
representative, of a CAIR NOX Ozone annual basis under § 96.374(d), by the
§ 96.361 EPA recordation. Season unit, shall comply with the later of the following dates:
(a) Within 5 business days (except as monitoring, recordkeeping, and (i) 90 unit operating days or 180
provided in paragraph (b) of this reporting requirements as provided in calendar days, whichever occurs first,
section) of receiving a CAIR NOX Ozone this subpart and in subpart H of part 75 after the date on which the unit
Season allowance transfer, the of this chapter. For purposes of commences commercial operation; or
Administrator will record a CAIR NOX complying with such requirements, the (ii) May 1, 2008, if the compliance
Ozone Season allowance transfer by definitions in § 96.302 and in § 72.2 of date under paragraph (b)(2)(i) is before
moving each CAIR NOX Ozone Season this chapter shall apply, and the terms May 1, 2008.
(3) For the owner or operator of a the CAIR NOX Ozone Season Trading testing, or maintenance is performed in
CAIR NOX Ozone Season unit that Program as provided in § 96.384(g). accordance with the applicable
commences operation on or after July 1, (c) Reporting data. (1) Except as provisions of this subpart and part 75 of
2007 and that reports on a control provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this this chapter.
period basis under § 96.374(d)(2)(ii), by section, the owner or operator of a CAIR (4) No owner or operator of a CAIR
the later of the following dates: NOX Ozone Season unit that does not NOX Ozone Season unit shall retire or
(i) 90 unit operating days or 180 meet the applicable compliance date set permanently discontinue use of the
calendar days, whichever occurs first, forth in paragraph (b) of this section for continuous emission monitoring system,
after the date on which the unit any monitoring system under paragraph any component thereof, or any other
commences commercial operation; or (a)(1) of this section shall, for each such approved monitoring system under this
(ii) If the compliance date under monitoring system, determine, record, subpart, except under any one of the
paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section is not and report maximum potential (or, as following circumstances:
during a control period, May 1 appropriate, minimum potential) values (i) During the period that the unit is
immediately following the compliance for NOX concentration, NOX emission covered by an exemption under § 96.305
date under paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this rate, stack gas flow rate, stack gas that is in effect;
section. moisture content, fuel flow rate, and any (ii) The owner or operator is
(4) For the owner or operator of a other parameters required to determine monitoring emissions from the unit with
CAIR NOX Ozone Season unit for which NOX mass emissions and heat input in another certified monitoring system
construction of a new stack or flue or accordance with § 75.31(b)(2) or (c)(3) of approved, in accordance with the
installation of add-on NOX emission this chapter, section 2.4 of appendix D applicable provisions of this subpart
controls is completed after the to part 75 of this chapter, or section 2.5 and part 75 of this chapter, by the
applicable deadline under paragraph of appendix E to part 75 of this chapter,
permitting authority for use at that unit
(b)(1), (2), (6), or (7) of this section and as applicable.
that provides emission data for the same
(2) The owner or operator of a CAIR
that reports on an annual basis under pollutant or parameter as the retired or
NOX unit that does not meet the
§ 96.374(d), by 90 unit operating days or discontinued monitoring system; or
applicable compliance date set forth in
180 calendar days, whichever occurs (iii) The CAIR designated
paragraph (b)(4) of this section for any
first, after the date on which emissions representative submits notification of
monitoring system under paragraph
first exit to the atmosphere through the the date of certification testing of a
(a)(1) of this section shall, for each such
new stack or flue or add-on NOX replacement monitoring system for the
monitoring system, determine, record,
emissions controls. retired or discontinued monitoring
and report substitute data using the
(5) For the owner or operator of a applicable missing data procedures in system in accordance with
CAIR NOX Ozone Season unit for which § 75.74(c)(7) of this chapter or subpart D § 96.371(d)(3)(i).
construction of a new stack or flue or or subpart H of, or appendix D or
installation of add-on NOX emission § 96.371 Initial certification and
appendix E to, part 75 of this chapter, recertification procedures.
controls is completed after the in lieu of the maximum potential (or, as
applicable deadline under paragraph (a) The owner or operator of a CAIR
appropriate, minimum potential) values,
(b)(1), (3), (6), or (7) of this section and NOX Ozone Season unit shall be exempt
for a parameter if the owner or operator
that reports on a control period basis from the initial certification
demonstrates that there is continuity
under § 96.374(d)(2)(ii), by the later of requirements of this section for a
between the data streams for that
the following dates: monitoring system under § 96.370(a)(1)
parameter before and after the
(i) 90 unit operating days or 180 if the following conditions are met:
construction or installation under
calendar days, whichever occurs first, paragraph (b)(4) of this section. (1) The monitoring system has been
after the date on which emissions first (d) Prohibitions. (1) No owner or previously certified in accordance with
exit to the atmosphere through the new operator of a CAIR NOX Ozone Season part 75 of this chapter; and
stack or flue or add-on NOX emissions unit shall use any alternative (2) The applicable quality-assurance
controls; or monitoring system, alternative reference and quality-control requirements of
(ii) If the compliance date under method, or any other alternative to any § 75.21 of this chapter and appendix B,
paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this section is not requirement of this subpart without appendix D, and appendix E to part 75
during a control period, May 1 having obtained prior written approval of this chapter are fully met for the
immediately following the compliance in accordance with § 96.375. certified monitoring system described in
date under paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this (2) No owner or operator of a CAIR paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
section. NOX Ozone Season unit shall operate (b) The recertification provisions of
(6) Notwithstanding the dates in the unit so as to discharge, or allow to this section shall apply to a monitoring
paragraphs (b)(1), (2), and (3) of this be discharged, NOX emissions to the system under § 96.370(a)(1) exempt
section, for the owner or operator of a atmosphere without accounting for all from initial certification requirements
unit for which a CAIR NOX Ozone such emissions in accordance with the under paragraph (a) of this section.
Season opt-in permit application is applicable provisions of this subpart (c) If the Administrator has previously
submitted and not withdrawn and a and part 75 of this chapter. approved a petition under § 75.17(a) or
CAIR opt-in permit is not yet issued or (3) No owner or operator of a CAIR (b) of this chapter for apportioning the
denied under subpart IIII of this part, by NOX Ozone Season unit shall disrupt NOX emission rate measured in a
the date specified in § 96.384(b). the continuous emission monitoring common stack or a petition under
(7) Notwithstanding the dates in system, any portion thereof, or any other § 75.66 of this chapter for an alternative
paragraphs (b)(1), (2), and (3) of this approved emission monitoring method, to a requirement in § 75.12, § 75.17, or
section and solely for purposes of and thereby avoid monitoring and subpart H of part 75 of this chapter, the
§ 96.306(c)(2), for the owner or operator recording NOX mass emissions CAIR designated representative shall
of a CAIR NOX Ozone Season opt-in discharged into the atmosphere, except resubmit the petition to the
unit, by the date on which the CAIR for periods of recertification or periods Administrator under § 96.375(a) to
NOX Ozone Season opt-in unit enters when calibration, quality assurance determine whether the approval applies
under the CAIR NOX Ozone Season emission monitoring system, or change complete certification application under
Trading Program. in location or orientation of the paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of this section. In the
(d) Except as provided in paragraph sampling probe or site. Any fuel event the permitting authority does not
(a) of this section, the owner or operator flowmeter systems, and any excepted issue such a notice within such 120-day
of a CAIR NOX Ozone Season unit shall NOX monitoring system under appendix period, each monitoring system that
comply with the following initial E to part 75 of this chapter, under meets the applicable performance
certification and recertification § 96.370(a)(1) are subject to the requirements of part 75 of this chapter
procedures for a continuous monitoring recertification requirements in and is included in the certification
system (i.e., a continuous emission § 75.20(g)(6) of this chapter. application will be deemed certified for
monitoring system and an excepted (3) Approval process for initial use under the CAIR NOX Ozone Season
monitoring system under appendices D certification and recertification. Trading Program.
and E to part 75 of this chapter) under Paragraphs (d)(3)(i) through (iv) of this (A) Approval notice. If the
§ 96.370(a)(1). The owner or operator of section apply to both initial certification certification application is complete and
a unit that qualifies to use the low mass and recertification of a continuous shows that each monitoring system
emissions excepted monitoring monitoring system under § 96.370(a)(1). meets the applicable performance
methodology under § 75.19 of this For recertifications, replace the words requirements of part 75 of this chapter,
chapter or that qualifies to use an ‘‘certification’’ and ‘‘initial certification’’ then the permitting authority will issue
alternative monitoring system under with the word ‘‘recertification’’, replace a written notice of approval of the
subpart E of part 75 of this chapter shall the word ‘‘certified’’ with the word certification application within 120
comply with the procedures in ‘‘recertified,’’ and follow the procedures days of receipt.
paragraph (e) or (f) of this section in §§ 75.20(b)(5) and (g)(7) of this (B) Incomplete application notice. If
respectively. chapter in lieu of the procedures in the certification application is not
(1) Requirements for initial paragraph (d)(3)(v) of this section. complete, then the permitting authority
certification. The owner or operator (i) Notification of certification. The will issue a written notice of
shall ensure that each continuous CAIR designated representative shall incompleteness that sets a reasonable
monitoring system under submit to the permitting authority, the date by which the CAIR designated
§ 96.370(a)(1)(including the automated appropriate EPA Regional Office, and representative must submit the
data acquisition and handling system) the Administrator written notice of the additional information required to
successfully completes all of the initial dates of certification testing, in complete the certification application. If
certification testing required under accordance with § 96.373. the CAIR designated representative does
§ 75.20 of this chapter by the applicable (ii) Certification application. The not comply with the notice of
deadline in § 96.370(b). In addition, CAIR designated representative shall incompleteness by the specified date,
whenever the owner or operator installs submit to the permitting authority a then the permitting authority may issue
a monitoring system to meet the certification application for each a notice of disapproval under paragraph
requirements of this subpart in a monitoring system. A complete (d)(3)(iv)(C) of this section. The 120-day
location where no such monitoring certification application shall include review period shall not begin before
system was previously installed, initial the information specified in § 75.63 of receipt of a complete certification
certification in accordance with § 75.20 this chapter. application.
of this chapter is required. (iii) Provisional certification date. The (C) Disapproval notice. If the
(2) Requirements for recertification. provisional certification date for a certification application shows that any
Whenever the owner or operator makes monitoring system shall be determined monitoring system does not meet the
a replacement, modification, or change in accordance with § 75.20(a)(3) of this performance requirements of part 75 of
in any certified continuous emission chapter. A provisionally certified this chapter or if the certification
monitoring system under § 96.370(a)(1) monitoring system may be used under application is incomplete and the
that may significantly affect the ability the CAIR NOX Ozone Season Trading requirement for disapproval under
of the system to accurately measure or Program for a period not to exceed 120 paragraph (d)(3)(iv)(B) of this section is
record NOX mass emissions or heat days after receipt by the permitting met, then the permitting authority will
input rate or to meet the quality- authority of the complete certification issue a written notice of disapproval of
assurance and quality-control application for the monitoring system the certification application. Upon
requirements of § 75.21 of this chapter under paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of this issuance of such notice of disapproval,
or appendix B to part 75 of this chapter, section. Data measured and recorded by the provisional certification is
the owner or operator shall recertify the the provisionally certified monitoring invalidated by the permitting authority
monitoring system in accordance with system, in accordance with the and the data measured and recorded by
§ 75.20(b) of this chapter. Furthermore, requirements of part 75 of this chapter, each uncertified monitoring system
whenever the owner or operator makes will be considered valid quality-assured shall not be considered valid quality-
a replacement, modification, or change data (retroactive to the date and time of assured data beginning with the date
to the flue gas handling system or the provisional certification), provided that and hour of provisional certification (as
unit’s operation that may significantly the permitting authority does not defined under § 75.20(a)(3) of this
change the stack flow or concentration invalidate the provisional certification chapter). The owner or operator shall
profile, the owner or operator shall by issuing a notice of disapproval follow the procedures for loss of
recertify each continuous emission within 120 days of the date of receipt of certification in paragraph (d)(3)(v) of
monitoring system whose accuracy is the complete certification application by this section for each monitoring system
potentially affected by the change, in the permitting authority. that is disapproved for initial
accordance with § 75.20(b) of this (iv) Certification application approval certification.
chapter. Examples of changes to a process. The permitting authority will (D) Audit decertification. The
continuous emission monitoring system issue a written notice of approval or permitting authority or, for a CAIR NOX
that require recertification include: disapproval of the certification Ozone Season opt-in unit or a unit for
Replacement of the analyzer, complete application to the owner or operator which a CAIR opt-in permit application
replacement of an existing continuous within 120 days of receipt of the is submitted and not withdrawn and a
CAIR opt-in permit is not yet issued or after the date of issuance of the notice Administrator. By issuing the notice of
denied under subpart IIII of this part, of disapproval. disapproval, the permitting authority or
the Administrator may issue a notice of (e) Initial certification and the Administrator revokes prospectively
disapproval of the certification status of recertification procedures for units the certification status of the monitoring
a monitor in accordance with using the low mass emission excepted system. The data measured and
§ 96.372(b). methodology under § 75.19 of this recorded by the monitoring system shall
(v) Procedures for loss of certification. chapter. The owner or operator of a unit not be considered valid quality-assured
If the permitting authority or the qualified to use the low mass emissions data from the date of issuance of the
Administrator issues a notice of (LME) excepted methodology under notification of the revoked certification
disapproval of a certification § 75.19 of this chapter shall meet the status until the date and time that the
application under paragraph applicable certification and owner or operator completes
(d)(3)(iv)(C) of this section or a notice of recertification requirements in subsequently approved initial
disapproval of certification status under §§ 75.19(a)(2) and 75.20(h) of this certification or recertification tests for
paragraph (d)(3)(iv)(D) of this section, chapter. If the owner or operator of such the monitoring system. The owner or
then: a unit elects to certify a fuel flowmeter operator shall follow the applicable
(A) The owner or operator shall system for heat input determination, the initial certification or recertification
substitute the following values, for each owner or operator shall also meet the procedures in § 96.371 for each
disapproved monitoring system, for certification and recertification disapproved monitoring system.
each hour of unit operation during the requirements in § 75.20(g) of this
period of invalid data specified under chapter. § 96.373 Notifications.
§ 75.20(a)(4)(iii), § 75.20(g)(7), or (f) Certification/recertification The CAIR designated representative
§ 75.21(e) of this chapter and continuing procedures for alternative monitoring for a CAIR NOX Ozone Season unit shall
until the applicable date and hour systems. The CAIR designated submit written notice to the permitting
specified under § 75.20(a)(5)(i) or (g)(7) representative of each unit for which the authority and the Administrator in
of this chapter: owner or operator intends to use an accordance with § 75.61 of this chapter,
(1) For a disapproved NOX emission alternative monitoring system approved except that if the unit is not subject to
rate (i.e., NOX-diluent) system, the by the Administrator and, if applicable, an Acid Rain emissions limitation, the
maximum potential NOX emission rate, the permitting authority under subpart E notification is only required to be sent
as defined in § 72.2 of this chapter. of part 75 of this chapter shall comply to the permitting authority.
(2) For a disapproved NOX pollutant with the applicable notification and
concentration monitor and disapproved application procedures of § 75.20(f) of § 96.374 Recordkeeping and reporting.
flow monitor, respectively, the this chapter. (a) General provisions. The CAIR
maximum potential concentration of designated representative shall comply
§ 96.372 Out of control periods. with all recordkeeping and reporting
NOX and the maximum potential flow
rate, as defined in sections 2.1.2.1 and (a) Whenever any monitoring system requirements in this section, the
2.1.4.1 of appendix A to part 75 of this fails to meet the quality-assurance and applicable recordkeeping and reporting
chapter. quality-control requirements or data requirements under § 75.73 of this
(3) For a disapproved moisture validation requirements of part 75 of chapter, and the requirements of
monitoring system and disapproved this chapter, data shall be substituted § 96.310(e)(1).
diluent gas monitoring system, using the applicable missing data (b) Monitoring plans. The owner or
respectively, the minimum potential procedures in subpart D or subpart H of, operator of a CAIR NOX Ozone Season
moisture percentage and either the or appendix D or appendix E to, part 75 unit shall comply with requirements of
maximum potential CO2 concentration of this chapter. § 75.73(c) and (e) of this chapter and, for
or the minimum potential O2 (b) Audit decertification. Whenever a unit for which a CAIR opt-in permit
concentration (as applicable), as defined both an audit of a monitoring system application is submitted and not
in sections 2.1.5, 2.1.3.1, and 2.1.3.2 of and a review of the initial certification withdrawn and a CAIR opt-in permit is
appendix A to part 75 of this chapter. or recertification application reveal that not yet issued or denied under subpart
(4) For a disapproved fuel flowmeter any monitoring system should not have IIII of this part, §§ 96.383 and 96.384(a).
system, the maximum potential fuel been certified or recertified because it (c) Certification applications. The
flow rate, as defined in section 2.4.2.1 did not meet a particular performance CAIR designated representative shall
of appendix D to part 75 of this chapter. specification or other requirement under submit an application to the permitting
(5) For a disapproved excepted NOX § 96.371 or the applicable provisions of authority within 45 days after
monitoring system under appendix E to part 75 of this chapter, both at the time completing all initial certification or
part 75 of this chapter, the fuel-specific of the initial certification or recertification tests required under
maximum potential NOX emission rate, recertification application submission § 96.371, including the information
as defined in § 72.2 of this chapter. and at the time of the audit, the required under § 75.63 of this chapter.
(B) The CAIR designated permitting authority or, for a CAIR NOX (d) Quarterly reports. The CAIR
representative shall submit a Ozone Season opt-in unit or a unit for designated representative shall submit
notification of certification retest dates which a CAIR opt-in permit application quarterly reports, as follows:
and a new certification application in is submitted and not withdrawn and a (1) If the CAIR NOX Ozone Season
accordance with paragraphs (d)(3)(i) and CAIR opt-in permit is not yet issued or unit is subject to an Acid Rain
(ii) of this section. denied under subpart IIII of this part, emissions limitation or a CAIR NOX
(C) The owner or operator shall repeat the Administrator will issue a notice of emissions limitation or if the owner or
all certification tests or other disapproval of the certification status of operator of such unit chooses to report
requirements that were failed by the such monitoring system. For the on an annual basis under this subpart,
monitoring system, as indicated in the purposes of this paragraph, an audit the CAIR designated representative shall
permitting authority’s or the shall be either a field audit or an audit meet the requirements of subpart H of
Administrator’s notice of disapproval, of any information submitted to the part 75 of this chapter (concerning
no later than 30 unit operating days permitting authority or the monitoring of NOX mass emissions) for
such unit for the entire year and shall (3) For CAIR NOX Ozone Season units (b)(1) The CAIR designated
report the NOX mass emissions data and that are also subject to an Acid Rain representative of a CAIR NOX Ozone
heat input data for such unit, in an emissions limitation or the CAIR NOX Season unit that is not subject to an
electronic quarterly report in a format Annual Trading Program or CAIR SO2 Acid Rain emissions limitation may
prescribed by the Administrator, for Trading Program, quarterly reports shall submit a petition under § 75.66 of this
each calendar quarter beginning with: include the applicable data and chapter to the permitting authority and
(i) For a unit that commences information required by subparts F the Administrator requesting approval
commercial operation before July 1, through H of part 75 of this chapter as to apply an alternative to any
2007, the calendar quarter covering May applicable, in addition to the NOX mass requirement of this subpart. Application
1, 2008 through June 30, 2008; or emission data, heat input data, and of an alternative to any requirement of
(ii) For a unit that commences other information required by this this subpart is in accordance with this
commercial operation on or after July 1, subpart. subpart only to the extent that the
2007, the calendar quarter (e) Compliance certification. The petition is approved in writing by both
corresponding to the earlier of the date CAIR designated representative shall the permitting authority and the
of provisional certification or the submit to the Administrator a Administrator.
applicable deadline for initial compliance certification (in a format (2) The CAIR designated
certification under § 96.370(b), unless prescribed by the Administrator) in representative of a CAIR NOX Ozone
that quarter is the third or fourth quarter support of each quarterly report based Season unit that is subject to an Acid
of 2007, in which case reporting shall on reasonable inquiry of those persons Rain emissions limitation may submit a
commence in the quarter covering May with primary responsibility for ensuring petition under § 75.66 of this chapter to
1, 2008 through June 30, 2008. that all of the unit’s emissions are the permitting authority and the
(2) If the CAIR NOX Ozone Season correctly and fully monitored. The Administrator requesting approval to
unit is not subject to an Acid Rain certification shall state that: apply an alternative to a requirement
emissions limitation or a CAIR NOX (1) The monitoring data submitted concerning any additional continuous
emissions limitation, then the CAIR were recorded in accordance with the emission monitoring system required
designated representative shall either: applicable requirements of this subpart under § 75.72 of this chapter.
(i) Meet the requirements of subpart H and part 75 of this chapter, including Application of an alternative to any
of part 75 (concerning monitoring of the quality assurance procedures and such requirement is in accordance with
NOX mass emissions) for such unit for specifications; this subpart only to the extent that the
the entire year and report the NOX mass (2) For a unit with add-on NOX petition is approved in writing by both
emissions data and heat input data for emission controls and for all hours the permitting authority and the
such unit in accordance with paragraph where NOX data are substituted in Administrator.
(d)(1) of this section; or accordance with § 75.34(a)(1) of this
(ii) Meet the requirements of subpart chapter, the add-on emission controls § 96.376 Additional requirements to
H of part 75 for the control period were operating within the range of provide heat input data.
(including the requirements in parameters listed in the quality The owner or operator of a CAIR NOX
§ 75.74(c) of this chapter) and report assurance/quality control program Ozone Season unit that monitors and
NOX mass emissions data and heat under appendix B to part 75 of this reports NOX mass emissions using a
input data (including the data described chapter and the substitute data values NOX concentration system and a flow
in § 75.74(c)(6) of this chapter) for such do not systematically underestimate system shall also monitor and report
unit only for the control period of each NOX emissions; and heat input rate at the unit level using the
year and report, in an electronic (3) For a unit that is reporting on a procedures set forth in part 75 of this
quarterly report in a format prescribed control period basis under paragraph chapter.
by the Administrator, for each calendar (d)(2)(ii) of this section, the NOX
quarter beginning with: emission rate and NOX concentration Subpart IIII—CAIR NOX Ozone Season
(A) For a unit that commences values substituted for missing data Opt-in Units
commercial operation before July 1, under subpart D of part 75 of this § 96.380 Applicability.
2007, the calendar quarter covering May chapter are calculated using only values A CAIR NOX Ozone Season opt-in
1, 2008 through June 30, 2008; from a control period and do not
(B) For a unit that commences unit must be a unit that:
systematically underestimate NOX (a) Is located in the State;
commercial operation on or after July 1, emissions. (b) Is not a CAIR NOX Ozone Season
2007, the calendar quarter
§ 96.375 Petitions. unit under § 96.304 and is not covered
corresponding to the earlier of the date
by a retired unit exemption under
of provisional certification or the (a) Except as provided in paragraph
§ 96.305 that is in effect;
applicable deadline for initial (b)(2) of this section, the CAIR
(c) Is not covered by a retired unit
certification under § 96.370(b), unless designated representative of a CAIR
exemption under § 72.8 of this chapter
that date is not during a control period, NOX Ozone Season unit that is subject
that is in effect;
in which case reporting shall commence to an Acid Rain emissions limitation (d) Has or is required or qualified to
in the quarter that includes May 1 may submit a petition under § 75.66 of have a title V operating permit or other
through June 30 of the first control this chapter to the Administrator federally enforceable permit; and
period after such date. requesting approval to apply an (e) Vents all of its emissions to a stack
(2) The CAIR designated alternative to any requirement of this and can meet the monitoring,
representative shall submit each subpart. Application of an alternative to recordkeeping, and reporting
quarterly report to the Administrator any requirement of this subpart is in requirements of subpart HHHH of this
within 30 days following the end of the accordance with this subpart only to the part.
calendar quarter covered by the report. extent that the petition is approved in
Quarterly reports shall be submitted in writing by the Administrator, in § 96.381 General.
the manner specified in § 75.73(f) of this consultation with the permitting (a) Except as otherwise provided in
chapter. authority. §§ 96.301 through 96.304, §§ 96.306
through 96.308, and subparts BBBB and (5) A statement, in a format specified appropriate monitoring systems under
CCCC and subparts FFFF through by the permitting authority, whether the subpart HHHH of this part and
HHHH of this part, a CAIR NOX Ozone CAIR designated representative requests continuing until a CAIR opt-in permit is
Season opt-in unit shall be treated as a that the unit be allocated CAIR NOX denied under § 96.384(f) or, if a CAIR
CAIR NOX Ozone Season unit for Ozone Season allowances under opt-in permit is issued, the date and
purposes of applying such sections and § 96.388(c) (subject to the conditions in time when the unit is withdrawn from
subparts of this part. §§ 96.384(h) and 96.386(g)). the CAIR NOX Ozone Season Trading
(b) Solely for purposes of applying, as (b) Duty to reapply. (1) The CAIR Program in accordance with § 96.386.
provided in this subpart, the designated representative of a CAIR (ii) The monitoring and reporting
requirements of subpart HHHH of this NOX Ozone Season opt-in unit shall under paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section
part to a unit for which a CAIR opt-in submit a complete CAIR permit shall include the entire control period
permit application is submitted and not application under § 96.322 to renew the immediately before the date on which
withdrawn and a CAIR opt-in permit is CAIR opt-in unit permit in accordance the unit enters the CAIR NOX Ozone
not yet issued or denied under this with the permitting authority’s Season Trading Program under
subpart, such unit shall be treated as a regulations for title V operating permits, § 96.384(g), during which period
CAIR NOX Ozone Season unit before or the permitting authority’s regulations monitoring system availability must not
issuance of a CAIR opt-in permit for for other federally enforceable permits if be less than 90 percent under subpart
such unit. applicable, addressing permit renewal. HHHH of this part and the unit must be
(2) Unless the permitting authority in full compliance with any applicable
§ 96.382 CAIR designated representative. issues a notification of acceptance of State or Federal emissions or emissions-
Any CAIR NOX Ozone Season opt-in withdrawal of the CAIR opt-in unit from related requirements.
unit, and any unit for which a CAIR opt- the CAIR NOX Annual Trading Program (2) To the extent the NOX emissions
in permit application is submitted and in accordance with § 96.186 or the unit rate and the heat input of the unit are
not withdrawn and a CAIR opt-in becomes a CAIR NOX unit under monitored and reported in accordance
permit is not yet issued or denied under § 96.304, the CAIR NOX opt-in unit shall with subpart HHHH of this part for one
this subpart, located at the same source remain subject to the requirements for a or more control periods, in addition to
as one or more CAIR NOX Ozone Season CAIR NOX opt-in unit, even if the CAIR the control period under paragraph
units shall have the same CAIR designated representative for the CAIR (b)(1)(ii) of this section, during which
designated representative and alternate NOX opt-in unit fails to submit a CAIR control periods monitoring system
CAIR designated representative as such permit application that is required for availability is not less than 90 percent
CAIR NOX Ozone Season units. renewal of the CAIR opt-in permit under under subpart HHHH of this part and
paragraph (b)(1) of this section. the unit is in full compliance with any
§ 96.383 Applying for CAIR opt-in permit. applicable State or Federal emissions or
(a) Applying for initial CAIR opt-in § 96.384 Opt-in process.
emissions-related requirements and
permit. The CAIR designated The permitting authority will issue or which control periods begin not more
representative of a unit meeting the deny a CAIR opt-in permit for a unit for than 3 years before the unit enters the
requirements for a CAIR NOX Ozone which an initial application for a CAIR CAIR NOX Ozone Season Trading
Season opt-in unit in § 96.380 may opt-in permit under § 96.383 is Program under § 96.384(g), such
apply for an initial CAIR opt-in permit submitted in accordance with the information shall be used as provided in
at any time, except as provided under following: paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section.
§ 96.386 (f) and (g), and, in order to (a) Interim review of monitoring plan. (c) Baseline heat input. The unit’s
apply, must submit the following: The permitting authority and the baseline heat rate shall equal:
(1) A complete CAIR permit Administrator will determine, on an (1) If the unit’s NOX emissions rate
application under § 96.322; interim basis, the sufficiency of the and heat input are monitored and
(2) A certification, in a format monitoring plan accompanying the reported for only one control period, in
specified by the permitting authority, initial application for a CAIR opt-in accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of this
that the unit: permit under § 96.383. A monitoring section, the unit’s total heat input (in
(i) Is not a CAIR NOX Ozone Season plan is sufficient, for purposes of mmBtu) for the control period; or
unit under § 96.304 and is not covered interim review, if the plan appears to (2) If the unit’s NOX emissions rate
by a retired unit exemption under contain information demonstrating that and heat input are monitored and
§ 96.305 that is in effect; the NOX emissions rate and heat input reported for more than one control
(ii) Is not covered by a retired unit of the unit and all other applicable period, in accordance with paragraphs
exemption under § 72.8 of this chapter parameters are monitored and reported (b)(1) and (2) of this section, the average
that is in effect; in accordance with subpart HHHH of of the amounts of the unit’s total heat
(iii) Vents all of its emissions to a this part. A determination of sufficiency input (in mmBtu) for the control period
stack; and shall not be construed as acceptance or under paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section
(iv) Has documented heat input for approval of the monitoring plan. and the control periods under paragraph
more than 876 hours during the 6 (b) Monitoring and reporting. (1)(i) If (b)(2) of this section.
months immediately preceding the permitting authority and the (d) Baseline NOX emission rate. The
submission of the CAIR permit Administrator determine that the unit’s baseline NOX emission rate shall
application under § 96.322; monitoring plan is sufficient under equal:
(3) A monitoring plan in accordance paragraph (a) of this section, the owner (1) If the unit’s NOX emissions rate
with subpart HHHH of this part; or operator shall monitor and report the and heat input are monitored and
(4) A complete certificate of NOX emissions rate and the heat input reported for only one control period, in
representation under § 96.313 consistent of the unit emissions rate and the heat accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of this
with § 96.382, if no CAIR designated input of the unit and all other section, the unit’s NOX emissions rate
representative has been previously applicable parameters, in accordance (in lb/mmBtu) for the control period;
designated for the source that includes with subpart HHHH of this part, starting (2) If the unit’s NOX emissions rate
the unit; and on the date of certification of the and heat input are monitored and
reported for more than one control opt-in permit providing for, allocation Season opt-in unit may withdraw from
period, in accordance with paragraphs to a CAIR NOX Ozone Season opt-in the CAIR NOX Ozone Season Trading
(b)(1) and (2) of this section, and the unit of CAIR NOX Ozone Season Program, but only if the permitting
unit does not have add-on NOX allowances under § 96.388(c) and such authority issues a notification to the
emission controls during any such unit is repowered after its date of entry CAIR designated representative of the
control periods, the average of the into the CAIR NOX Ozone Season CAIR NOX Ozone Season opt-in unit of
amounts of the unit’s NOX emissions Trading Program under paragraph (g) of the acceptance of the withdrawal of the
rate (in lb/mmBtu) for the control period this section, the repowered unit shall be CAIR NOX Ozone Season opt-in unit in
under paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section treated as a CAIR NOX Ozone Season accordance with paragraph (d) of this
and the control periods under paragraph opt-in unit replacing the original CAIR section.
(b)(2) of this section; or NOX Ozone Season opt-in unit, as of the (a) Requesting withdrawal. In order to
(3) If the unit’s NOX emissions rate date of start-up of the repowered unit’s withdraw a CAIR opt-in unit from the
and heat input are monitored and combustion chamber. CAIR NOX Ozone Season Trading
reported for more than one control (2) Notwithstanding paragraphs (c) Program, the CAIR designated
period, in accordance with paragraphs and (d) of this section, as of the date of representative of the CAIR NOX Ozone
(b)(1) and (2) of this section, and the start-up under paragraph (h)(1) of this Season opt-in unit shall submit to the
unit has add-on NOX emission controls section, the repowered unit shall be permitting authority a request to
during any such control periods, the deemed to have the same date of withdraw effective as of midnight of
average of the amounts of the unit’s commencement of operation, date of September 30 of a specified calendar
NOX emissions rate (in lb/mmBtu) for commencement of commercial year, which date must be at least 4 years
such control period during which the operation, baseline heat input, and after September 30 of the year of entry
unit has add-on NOX emission controls. baseline NOX emission rate as the into the CAIR NOX Ozone Season
(e) Issuance of CAIR opt-in permit. original CAIR NOX Ozone Season opt-in Trading Program under § 96.384(g). The
After calculating the baseline heat input unit, and the original CAIR NOX Ozone request must be submitted no later than
and the baseline NOX emissions rate for Season opt-in unit shall no longer be 90 days before the requested effective
the unit under paragraphs (c) and (d) of treated as a CAIR opt-in unit or a CAIR date of withdrawal.
this section and if the permitting NOX Ozone Season unit. (b) Conditions for withdrawal. Before
authority determines that the CAIR a CAIR NOX Ozone Season opt-in unit
designated representative shows that the § 96.385 CAIR opt-in permit contents. covered by a request under paragraph
unit meets the requirements for a CAIR (a) Each CAIR opt-in permit will (a) of this section may withdraw from
NOX Ozone Season opt-in unit in contain: the CAIR NOX Ozone Season Trading
§ 96.380 and meets the elements (1) All elements required for a Program and the CAIR opt-in permit
certified in § 96.383(a)(2), the permitting complete CAIR permit application may be terminated under paragraph (e)
authority will issue a CAIR opt-in under § 96.322; of this section, the following conditions
permit. The permitting authority will (2) The certification in § 96.383(a)(2); must be met:
provide a copy of the CAIR opt-in (3) The unit’s baseline heat input (1) For the control period ending on
permit to the Administrator, who will under § 96.384(c); the date on which the withdrawal is to
then establish a compliance account for (4) The unit’s baseline NOX emission be effective, the source that includes the
the source that includes the CAIR NOX rate under § 96.384(d); CAIR NOX Ozone Season opt-in unit
Ozone Season opt-in unit unless the (5) A statement whether the unit is to must meet the requirement to hold CAIR
source already has a compliance be allocated CAIR NOX Ozone Season NOX Ozone Season allowances under
account. allowances under § 96.388(c) (subject to § 96.306(c) and cannot have any excess
(f) Issuance of denial of CAIR opt-in the conditions in §§ 96.384(h) and emissions.
permit. Notwithstanding paragraphs (a) 96.386(g)); (2) After the requirement for
through (e) of this section, if at any time (6) A statement that the unit may withdrawal under paragraph (b)(1) of
before issuance of a CAIR opt-in permit withdraw from the CAIR NOX Ozone this section is met, the Administrator
for the unit, the permitting authority Season Trading Program only in will deduct from the compliance
determines that the CAIR designated accordance with § 96.386; and account of the source that includes the
representative fails to show that the unit (7) A statement that the unit is subject CAIR NOX Ozone Season opt-in unit
meets the requirements for a CAIR NOX to, and the owners and operators of the CAIR NOX Ozone Season allowances
Ozone Season opt-in unit in § 96.380 or unit must comply with, the equal in number to and allocated for the
meets the elements certified in requirements of § 96.387. same or a prior control period as any
§ 96.383(a)(2), the permitting authority (b) Each CAIR opt-in permit is CAIR NOX Ozone Season allowances
will issue a denial of a CAIR opt-in deemed to incorporate automatically the allocated to the CAIR NOX Ozone
permit for the unit. definitions of terms under § 96.302 and, Season opt-in unit under § 96.388 for
(g) Date of entry into CAIR NOX upon recordation by the Administrator any control period for which the
Ozone Season Trading Program. A unit under subpart FFFF or GGGG of this withdrawal is to be effective. If there are
for which an initial CAIR opt-in permit part or this subpart, every allocation, no remaining CAIR NOX Ozone Season
is issued by the permitting authority transfer, or deduction of CAIR NOX units at the source, the Administrator
shall become a CAIR NOX Ozone Season Ozone Season allowances to or from the will close the compliance account, and
opt-in unit, and a CAIR NOX Ozone compliance account of the source that the owners and operators of the CAIR
Season unit, as of the later of May 1, includes a CAIR NOX Ozone Season opt- NOX Ozone Season opt-in unit may
2009 or May 1 of the first control period in unit covered by the CAIR opt-in submit a CAIR NOX Ozone Season
during which such CAIR opt-in permit permit. allowance transfer for any remaining
is issued. CAIR NOX Ozone Season allowances to
(h) Repowered CAIR NOX Ozone § 96.386 Withdrawal from CAIR NOX Ozone another CAIR NOX Ozone Season
Season opt-in unit. (1) If CAIR Season Trading Program. Allowance Tracking System in
designated representative requests, and Except as provided under paragraph accordance with subpart GGGG of this
the permitting authority issues a CAIR (g) of this section, a CAIR NOX Ozone part.
(c) Notification. (1) After the application for a CAIR opt-in permit Season unit under § 96.304 divided by
requirements for withdrawal under under § 96.384. the total number of days in the control
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section are (g) Inability to withdraw. period and rounded to the nearest
met (including deduction of the full Notwithstanding paragraphs (a) through whole allowance as appropriate.
amount of CAIR NOX Ozone Season (f) of this section, a CAIR NOX Ozone (ii) The CAIR designated
allowances required), the permitting Season opt-in unit shall not be eligible representative shall ensure that the
authority will issue a notification to the to withdraw from the CAIR NOX Ozone compliance account of the source that
CAIR designated representative of the Season Trading Program if the CAIR includes the CAIR NOX Ozone Season
CAIR NOX Ozone Season opt-in unit of designated representative of the CAIR unit that becomes a CAIR NOX Ozone
the acceptance of the withdrawal of the NOX opt-in unit requests, and the Season unit under § 96.304 contains the
CAIR NOX Ozone Season opt-in unit as permitting authority issues a CAIR opt- CAIR NOX Ozone Season allowances
of midnight on September 30 of the in permit providing for, allocation to the necessary for completion of the
calendar year for which the withdrawal CAIR NOX Ozone Season opt-in unit of deduction under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of
was requested. CAIR NOX Ozone Season allowances this section.
(2) If the requirements for withdrawal under § 96.388(c). (3)(i) For every control period after
under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this the date on which the CAIR NOX Ozone
section are not met, the permitting § 96.387 Change in regulatory status.
Season opt-in unit becomes a CAIR NOX
authority will issue a notification to the (a) Notification. If a CAIR NOX Ozone Ozone Season unit under § 96.304, the
CAIR designated representative of the Season opt-in unit becomes a CAIR NOX CAIR NOX Ozone Season opt-in unit
CAIR NOX Ozone Season opt-in unit Ozone Season unit under § 96.304, then will be treated, solely for purposes of
that the CAIR NOX Ozone Season opt- the CAIR designated representative shall CAIR NOX Ozone Season allowance
in unit’s request to withdraw is denied. notify in writing the permitting allocations under § 96.342, as a unit that
Such CAIR NOX opt-in unit shall authority and the Administrator of such commences operation on the date on
continue to be a CAIR NOX Ozone change in the CAIR NOX Ozone Season which the CAIR NOX Ozone Season opt-
Season opt-in unit. opt-in unit’s regulatory status, within 30 in unit becomes a CAIR NOX Ozone
(d) Permit amendment. After the days of such change. Season unit under § 96.304 and will be
permitting authority issues a (b) Permitting authority’s and allocated CAIR NOX Ozone Season
notification under paragraph (c)(1) of Administrator’s actions. (1) If a CAIR allowances under § 96.342.
this section that the requirements for NOX Ozone Season opt-in unit becomes (ii) Notwithstanding paragraph
withdrawal have been met, the a CAIR NOX Ozone Season unit under (b)(3)(i) of this section, if the date on
permitting authority will revise the § 96.304, the permitting authority will which the CAIR NOX Ozone Season opt-
CAIR permit covering the CAIR NOX revise the CAIR NOX Ozone Season opt- in unit becomes a CAIR NOX Ozone
Ozone Season opt-in unit to terminate in unit’s CAIR opt-in permit to meet the Season unit under § 96.304 is not May
the CAIR opt-in permit for such unit as requirements of a CAIR permit under 1, the following number of CAIR NOX
of the effective date specified under § 96.323 as of the date on which the Ozone Season allowances will be
paragraph (c)(1) of this section. The unit CAIR NOX Ozone Season opt-in unit allocated to the CAIR NOX Ozone
shall continue to be a CAIR NOX Ozone becomes a CAIR NOX Ozone Season Season opt-in unit (as a CAIR NOX
Season opt-in unit until the effective unit under § 96.304. Ozone Season unit) under § 96.342 for
date of the termination and shall (2)(i) The Administrator will deduct the control period that includes the date
comply with all requirements under the from the compliance account of the on which the CAIR NOX Ozone Season
CAIR NOX Ozone Season Trading source that includes the CAIR NOX opt-in unit becomes a CAIR NOX Ozone
Program concerning any control periods Ozone Season opt-in unit that becomes Season unit under § 96.304:
for which the unit is a CAIR NOX Ozone a CAIR NOX Ozone Season unit under (A) The number of CAIR NOX Ozone
Season opt-in unit, even if such § 96.304, CAIR NOX Ozone Season Season allowances otherwise allocated
requirements arise or must be complied allowances equal in number to and to the CAIR NOX Ozone Season opt-in
with after the withdrawal takes effect. allocated for the same or a prior control unit (as a CAIR NOX Ozone Season unit)
(e) Reapplication upon failure to meet period as: under § 96.342 for the control period
conditions of withdrawal. If the (A) Any CAIR NOX Ozone Season multiplied by;
permitting authority denies the CAIR allowances allocated to the CAIR NOX (B) The ratio of the number of days,
NOX Ozone Season opt-in unit’s request Ozone Season opt-in unit under in the control period, starting with the
to withdraw, the CAIR designated § 96.388 for any control period after the date on which the CAIR NOX Ozone
representative may submit another date on which the CAIR NOX Ozone Season opt-in unit becomes a CAIR NOX
request to withdraw in accordance with Season opt-in unit becomes a CAIR NOX Ozone Season unit under § 96.304,
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. Ozone Season unit under § 96.304; and divided by the total number of days in
(f) Ability to reapply to the CAIR NOX (B) If the date on which the CAIR NOX the control period; and
Ozone Season Trading Program. Once a Ozone Season opt-in unit becomes a (C) Rounded to the nearest whole
CAIR NOX Ozone Season opt-in unit CAIR NOX Ozone Season unit under allowance as appropriate.
withdraws from the CAIR NOX Ozone § 96.304 is not September 30, the CAIR
Season Trading Program and its CAIR NOX Ozone Season allowances allocated § 96.388 NOX allowance allocations to
opt-in permit is terminated under this to the CAIR NOX Ozone Season opt-in CAIR NOX Ozone Season opt-in units.
section, the CAIR designated unit under § 96.388 for the control (a) Timing requirements. (1) When the
representative may not submit another period that includes the date on which CAIR opt-in permit is issued under
application for a CAIR opt-in permit the CAIR NOX Ozone Season opt-in unit § 96.384(e), the permitting authority will
under § 96.383 for such CAIR NOX becomes a CAIR NOX Ozone Season allocate CAIR NOX Ozone Season
Ozone Season opt-in unit before the unit under § 96.304, multiplied by the allowances to the CAIR NOX Ozone
date that is 4 years after the date on ratio of the number of days, in the Season opt-in unit, and submit to the
which the withdrawal became effective. control period, starting with the date on Administrator the allocation for the
Such new application for a CAIR opt-in which the CAIR NOX Ozone Season opt- control period in which a CAIR NOX
permit will be treated as an initial in unit becomes a CAIR NOX Ozone Ozone Season opt-in unit enters the
CAIR NOX Ozone Season Trading allowances to the CAIR NOX Ozone allocated CAIR NOX Ozone Season
Program under § 96.384(g), in Season opt-in unit in an amount allowances,
accordance with paragraph (b) or (c) of equaling the heat input under paragraph (i) The heat input (in mmBtu) used for
this section. (b)(1) of this section, multiplied by the calculating the CAIR NOX Ozone Season
(2) By no later than July 31 of the NOX emission rate under paragraph allowance allocations will be
control period in which a CAIR opt-in (b)(2) of this section, divided by 2,000 determined as described in paragraph
unit enters the CAIR NOX Ozone Season lb/ton, and rounded to the nearest (b)(1) of this section.
Trading Program under § 96.384(g) and whole allowance as appropriate.
July 31 of each year thereafter, the (ii) The NOX emission rate (in lb/
(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (b) of mmBtu) used for calculating the CAIR
permitting authority will allocate CAIR this section and if the CAIR designated
NOX Ozone Season allowances to the NOX Ozone Season allowance allocation
representative requests, and the
CAIR NOX Ozone Season opt-in unit, will be the lesser of:
permitting authority issues a CAIR opt-
and submit to the Administrator the in permit providing for, allocation to a (A) 0.15 lb/mmBtu;
allocation for the control period that CAIR NOX Ozone Season opt-in unit of (B) The CAIR NOX Ozone Season opt-
includes such submission deadline and CAIR NOX Ozone Season allowances in unit’s baseline NOX emissions rate (in
in which the unit is a CAIR NOX opt- under this paragraph (subject to the lb/mmBtu) determined under
in unit, in accordance with paragraph conditions in §§ 96.384(h) and § 96.384(d); or
(b)or (c) of this section. 96.386(g)), the permitting authority will (C) The most stringent State or
(b) Calculation of allocation. For each allocate to the CAIR NOX Ozone Season Federal NOX emissions limitation
control period for which a CAIR NOX opt-in unit as follows: applicable to the CAIR NOX Ozone
Ozone Season opt-in unit is to be (1) For each control period in 2009 Season opt-in unit at any time during
allocated CAIR NOX Ozone Season through 2014 for which the CAIR NOX the control period for which CAIR NOX
allowances, the permitting authority Ozone Season opt-in unit is to be Ozone Season allowances are to be
will allocate in accordance with the allocated CAIR NOX Ozone Season allocated.
following procedures: allowances,
(1) The heat input (in mmBtu) used (iii) The permitting authority will
(i) The heat input (in mmBtu) used for allocate CAIR NOX Ozone Season
for calculating the CAIR NOX Ozone calculating CAIR NOX Ozone Season
Season allowance allocation will be the allowances to the CAIR NOX Ozone
allowance allocations will be Season opt-in unit in an amount
lesser of: determined as described in paragraph
(i) The CAIR NOX Ozone Season opt- equaling the heat input under paragraph
(b)(1) of this section. (c)(2)(i) of this section, multiplied by the
in unit’s baseline heat input determined
(ii) The NOX emission rate (in lb/ NOX emission rate under paragraph
under § 96.384(c); or
(ii) The CAIR NOX Ozone Season opt- mmBtu) used for calculating CAIR NOX (c)(2)(ii) of this section, divided by
in unit’s heat input, as determined in Ozone Season allowance allocations 2,000 lb/ton, and rounded to the nearest
accordance with subpart HHHH of this will be the lesser of: whole allowance as appropriate.
part, for the immediately prior control (A) The CAIR NOX Ozone Season opt-
(d) Recordation. (1) The
period, except when the allocation is in unit’s baseline NOX emissions rate (in
Administrator will record, in the
being calculated for the control period lb/mmBtu) determined under
compliance account of the source that
in which the CAIR NOX Ozone Season § 96.384(d); or
(B) The most stringent State or includes the CAIR NOX Ozone Season
opt-in unit enters the CAIR NOX Ozone opt-in unit, the CAIR NOX Ozone
Season Trading Program under Federal NOX emissions limitation
applicable to the CAIR NOX Ozone Season allowances allocated by the
§ 96.384(g). permitting authority to the CAIR NOX
(2) The NOX emission rate (in lb/ Season opt-in unit at any time during
the control period in which the CAIR Ozone Season opt-in unit under
mmBtu) used for calculating CAIR NOX paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
Ozone Season allowance allocations NOX Ozone Season opt-in unit enters
the CAIR NOX Ozone Season Trading (2) By September 1, of the control
will be the lesser of:
(i) The CAIR NOX Ozone Season opt- Program under § 96.384(g). period in which a CAIR opt-in unit
in unit’s baseline NOX emissions rate (in (iii) The permitting authority will enters the CAIR NOX Ozone Season
lb/mmBtu) determined under allocate CAIR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program under § 96.384(g), and
§ 96.384(d) and multiplied by 70 allowances to the CAIR NOX Ozone September 1 of each year thereafter, the
percent; or Season opt-in unit in an amount Administrator will record, in the
(ii) The most stringent State or equaling the heat input under paragraph compliance account of the source that
Federal NOX emissions limitation (c)(1)(i) of this section, multiplied by the includes the CAIR NOX Ozone Season
applicable to the CAIR NOX Ozone NOX emission rate under paragraph opt-in unit, the CAIR NOX Ozone
Season opt-in unit at any time during (c)(1)(ii) of this section, divided by Season allowances allocated by the
the control period for which CAIR NOX 2,000 lb/ton, and rounded to the nearest permitting authority to the CAIR NOX
Ozone Season allowances are to be whole allowance as appropriate. Ozone Season opt-in unit under
allocated. (2) For each control period in 2015 paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(3) The permitting authority will and thereafter for which the CAIR NOX [FR Doc. 05–5723 Filed 5–11–05; 8:45 am]
allocate CAIR NOX Ozone Season Ozone Season opt-in unit is to be BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

Rule: Air Programs: Ambient Air Quality Standards, National&#8212 Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone Interstate Transport Control Measures

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rule: Air Programs: Ambient Air Quality Standards, National&#8212 Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone Interstate Transport Control Measures

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thursday,

May 12, 2005

Category 1 NAICS code Examples of potentially regulated entities

rule. contributions of different sources to Heterogeneous Atmospheric Aerosol Production by

TABLE III–1.—OZONE CONTRIBUTION FACTORS AND METRICS

effective date of the Phase I SO2 cap because this

TABLE IV–3.—AVERAGE COSTS PER TON OF ANNUAL SO2 CONTROLS

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Determinations ......................................................................................................... 1 $400–$2,100

Nonroad Diesel Engines and Fuel ................................................................................................................................................ 2 $800

Table IV–4 provides the marginal cost

TABLE IV–4.—MARGINAL COSTS PER TON OF ANNUAL SO2 CONTROLS

New Hampshire Rule ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1 $600

WRAP Regional SO2 Trading Program ......................................................................................................................................... 2 $1,100–$2,200

TABLE IV–6.—AVERAGE COSTS PER TON OF ANNUAL NOX CONTROLS

Marine Compression Ignition Engines .............................................................................................................................................. Up to $200 2

64 The updated reference list includes estimated

Table IV–7 presents modeled

Texas Rules ................................................................................................................................................................................... $2,000–$19,600 1

Average cost per

MWCOG Analysis: Mobile Source, Bicycle racks in DC ............................................................................................................... $9,000

66 EPA is using the knee in the curve analysis

solely to show that the required emissions

should be noted that similar analysis for other

determines the amount of regionwide

CAIR FGD, GW ...................................................................................................................... 37 45.4 47.9

As shown in Table IV–12 above, the as well as those suggested by this

Base case CAIR emis- Emissions Emissions

First phase (2010 for SO2 and 2009 for NOX)

SO2 .................................................................................................................................. 8.7 3.6 5.1 3.5

83 For a discussion of the emission reduction

Base case CAIR emis- Emissions Emissions

Sum .................................................................................................................................. 11.4 NA 6.6 4.8

Second Phase (2015 for SO2 and NOX)

SO2 .................................................................................................................................. 7.9 2.5 4.0 3.8

Ozone Season NOX

Base case CAIR emis- Emissions Emissions

2009 ................................................................................................................................. 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.1

SO2 .................................................................................................................................. 8.8 3.7 5.2 3.6

Base case CAIR Emissions Emissions

SO2 .................................................................................................................................. 7.9 2.6 4.1 3.9

TABLE V–3.—STATE NOX COMPLIANCE SUPPLEMENT POOLS

Base case 2009 State Reduction Compliance

Alabama ........................................................................................................................... 132,019 69,020 62,999 10,166

CAIR region subtotal ................................................................................................ .................... .................... .................... 198,494

Delaware .......................................................................................................................... 9,389 4,166 5,223 843

Total .......................................................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 199,997

Improve ..................................................................................................................... 21 92 67 103

Alabama ............................................................. DeKalb Co ......................................................... 15.23 No.

Ohio .................................................................... Cuyahoga Co ..................................................... 18.84 Yes.

Alabama ...................................................................................... DeKalb Co .................................................................................. 15.24

Indiana ........................................................................................ Vanderburgh Co ......................................................................... 15.56

Connecticut ................................................................................. Fairfield Co ................................................................................. 92.6

Wisconsin .................................................................................... Sheboygan Co ........................................................................... 88.3

Connecticut ................................................................................. Fairfield Co ................................................................................. 91.4

TABLE VI–8.—UPWIND STATE-TO-DOWNWIND NONATTAINMENT COUNTY SIGNIFICANT ‘‘LINKAGES’’ FOR PM2.5.

Upwind Total Downwind counties

AL ......... 21 Bibb GA ............................... Cabell WV ........................... Catawba NC ........................ Clark IN.

TABLE VI–8.—UPWIND STATE-TO-DOWNWIND NONATTAINMENT COUNTY SIGNIFICANT ‘‘LINKAGES’’ FOR PM2.5.—Continued

Lancaster PA ....................... Lawrence OH ...................... Madison IL ........................... Mahoning OH.

TABLE VI–8.—UPWIND STATE-TO-DOWNWIND NONATTAINMENT COUNTY SIGNIFICANT ‘‘LINKAGES’’ FOR PM2.5.—Continued

Upwind Total Downwind counties

AL ......... 3 Fulton GA ............................ Harris TX ............................. Jefferson TX.

Alabama ................................................................ DeKalb Co ............................................................ 15.23 13.97 ¥1.26