99-12007. Revisions to the Permits and Sulfur Dioxide Allowance System Regulations Under Title IV of the Clean Air Act: Compliance Determination  

  • [Federal Register Volume 64, Number 92 (Thursday, May 13, 1999)]
    [Rules and Regulations]
    [Pages 25834-25842]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 99-12007]
    
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    
    40 CFR Parts 72 and 73
    
    [FRL-6341-2]
    RIN 2060-A127
    
    
    Revisions to the Permits and Sulfur Dioxide Allowance System 
    Regulations Under Title IV of the Clean Air Act: Compliance 
    Determination
    
    AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
    
    ACTION: Final rule.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: Title IV of the Clean Air Act (the Act), as amended by the 
    Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, authorized the Environmental 
    Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) to establish the Acid Rain Program. 
    The program sets emissions limitations to reduce acidic particles and 
    deposition and their serious, adverse effects on natural resources, 
    ecosystems, materials, visibility, and public health.
        The allowance trading component of the Acid Rain Program allows 
    utilities to achieve sulfur dioxide emissions reductions in the most 
    cost-effective way. Utilities trade allowances and EPA records 
    ownership and trades of allowances in the Allowance Tracking System for 
    use in determining compliance at the end of each year. On January 11, 
    1993, EPA initially promulgated the regulations governing Acid Rain 
    Program permitting and allowance trading. Today's action revises 
    certain provisions in the regulations concerning the deduction of 
    allowances for determining compliance. The revisions will improve the 
    operation of the Allowance Tracking System and the allowance market 
    generally, while still preserving the Act's environmental goals.
    
    EFFECTIVE DATE: June 14, 1999.
    
    ADDRESSES: Docket. Docket No. A-98-15, containing supporting 
    information used in developing the proposed rule, is available for 
    public inspection and copying between 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday 
    through Friday, at EPA's Air Docket Section, Waterside Mall, room 1500, 
    1st Floor, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20460. EPA may charge a 
    reasonable fee for copying.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna Deneen, Permits and Allowance 
    Market Branch, Acid Rain Division (6204J), U.S. Environmental 
    Protection Agency, 401 M Street S.W., Washington, DC 20460 (202-564-
    9089).
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This preamble contains all of the responses 
    to public comments received on the revisions finalized in today's 
    action.
        The information in this preamble is organized as follows:
    
    I. Affected Entities
    
    II. Background
    
    III. Public Participation
    
    IV. Summary of Comments and Responses
    
        A. Allowance Deductions From Other Units at the Same Source
        B. Role of Authorized Account Representative
        C. Effective Date of Rule Revisions
        D. Impacts of Rule Revisions on Acid Rain Permits
    
    V. Administrative Requirements
    
        A. Docket
        B. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
        C. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing Intergovernmental 
    Partnerships
        D. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with 
    Indian Tribal Governments
        E. Unfunded Mandates Act
        F. Paperwork Reduction Act
        G. Regulatory Flexibility
        H. Applicability of Executive Order 13045: Children's Health 
    Protection
        I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
        J. Congressional Review Act
    
    I. Affected Entities
    
        Entities potentially affected by this action are fossil-fuel fired 
    boilers or turbines that serve generators producing electricity, 
    generating steam, or cogenerating electricity and steam. Regulated 
    categories and entities include:
    
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Category                  Examples of regulated entities
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Industry: SIC 49--Electric, Gas and       Electric service providers,
     Sanitary Services.                        boilers from a wide range of
                                               industries.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        EPA does not intend this table to be exhaustive, but rather to 
    provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated 
    by this action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now 
    aware could potentially be affected by this action. This action could 
    also affect other types of entities not listed in the table. To 
    determine whether this action affects your facility, you should 
    carefully examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 72.6 and Sec. 74.2 
    and the exemptions in Secs. 72.7, 72.8, and 72.14 of title 40 of the 
    Code of Federal Regulations. If you have questions regarding the 
    applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the 
    persons listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
    section.
    
    II. Background
    
        On January 11, 1993, EPA promulgated the regulations that 
    implemented the major provisions of title IV of the Clean Air Act (CAA 
    or the Act), including the Permits rule (40 CFR part 72) and the Sulfur 
    Dioxide Allowance System rule (40 CFR part 73). Since promulgation, 
    these rules have applied to three compliance years, 1995, 1996, and 
    1997, for which the rules required affected units to meet annual 
    allowance holding requirements. During this time, the Agency has gained 
    experience in implementing the requirements and also discovered ways it 
    could improve the operation of the Allowance Tracking System and 
    allowance market. On August 3, 1998, EPA proposed changes to certain 
    provisions in 40 CFR parts 72 and 73 to make these improvements. 63 FR 
    41358 (1998). These proposed changes related to the allowance transfer 
    deadline, compliance determinations, and the signature requirements for 
    allowance transfer requests. EPA finalized the proposed changes to the 
    allowance transfer deadline and signature requirements for allowance 
    transfer requests on December 11, 1998. 63 FR 68401 (1998). Today's 
    action finalizes changes related to the deduction of allowances for 
    compliance determinations.
    
    III. Public Participation
    
        EPA proposed revisions to 40 CFR parts 72 and 73 in the Federal 
    Register on August 3, 1998. 63 FR 41358. The notice invited public 
    comments. EPA
    
    [[Page 25835]]
    
    received and granted a request to extend the comment period by 15 days 
    from September 2, 1998 to September 17, 1998.
        EPA offered to hold a public hearing upon request, but no one made 
    such a request and EPA did not hold a hearing. However, after the close 
    of the comment period, EPA held several meetings with all parties that 
    submitted comments, in order to clarify the parties' comments and 
    positions on the issues raised on the notice of proposed rule-making. 
    The parties subsequently submitted late comments further explaining 
    their positions. Copies of memoranda describing the new information 
    received by EPA at the post-comment period meetings are in the 
    rulemaking docket.
    
    IV. Summary of Comments and Responses
    
        During the comment period, EPA received seven letters (or ``initial 
    comments'') regarding the proposed revisions to the compliance 
    determination provisions in the regulations.1 Several months 
    after the comment period, EPA received three additional letters (or 
    ``late comments'') from the same commenters concerning the provisions. 
    All of the commenters were representatives of utility companies or 
    groups of utility companies. A copy of each comment received is in the 
    rulemaking docket.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \1\ Although EPA received five of the seven comment letters one 
    to five days after the close of the comment period, EPA is 
    responding to all seven comment letters.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        EPA carefully considered all of the comments and, where 
    appropriate, made changes reflected in the final regulations. The 
    following sections contain a summary of the comments received and the 
    Agency's responses.
    
    A. Allowance Deductions From Other Units at the Same Source
    
        After the allowance transfer deadline, EPA determines whether each 
    affected unit is in compliance with the requirement to hold allowances 
    at least equal to the unit's sulfur dioxide emissions for the previous 
    year. See 40 CFR 72.9(c)(1)(i). Units that do not meet the requirement 
    are subject to the excess emissions and offset plan requirements in 40 
    CFR part 77.
        On August 3, 1998, EPA proposed revisions that would change how it 
    deducts allowances and determines the amount of excess emissions at a 
    unit at the end of a compliance year. Under the proposed revisions, EPA 
    would allow reduction (but not complete avoidance) of excess emissions 
    that a unit would otherwise have after deductions for compliance under 
    Sec. 73.35(b)(2). EPA would allow excess emissions to be reduced at a 
    unit by allowing deductions of up to a certain number of allowances for 
    that unit from the allowance accounts of other units at the same source 
    that had unused allowances. The proposed revisions included a formula 
    for calculating the allowance deductions allowed from other units' 
    accounts. The formula would result in the unit making an excess 
    emissions penalty payment equal to about three times the allowance 
    price of the allowances needed to offset the unit's excess emissions in 
    the absence of allowance deductions from other units' accounts. The 
    Agency proposed these changes because EPA was concerned that a utility 
    could become subject to an enormous penalty payment for making 
    inadvertent, minor errors when accounting for allowances at the end of 
    the year even if the utility had enough allowances among the units at 
    the source.
        All the commenters expressed general support of EPA's decision to 
    propose rule changes that would allow utilities to reduce the effects 
    of inadvertent, minor errors in accounting for allowances. The specific 
    approach proposed by EPA for doing this, however, generated a variety 
    of comments. The following discussion addresses these comments.
        Comment: Several commenters stated in their initial comments that 
    the proposed provision limiting the use of unused allowances to those 
    held by other units at the same source was inconsistent with section 
    403(d)(2) of the Act.2 The commenters argued that section 
    403(d)(2) authorizes ``aggregation of allowances among units with the 
    same designated representative'' for purposes of determining compliance 
    with the requirement to hold allowances covering a unit's annual 
    SO2 emissions. Comments of UARG at 7 (September 16, 1998). 
    While section 403(d)(1) requires the Administrator to promulgate 
    regulations establishing a system for issuing, recording, and tracking 
    allowances, section 403(d)(2) provides:
    
        \2\ These commenters subsequently stated, in late comments, that 
    the Agency would satisfy all their concerns if, among other things, 
    EPA increased the amount of allowances potentially deducted from 
    other units at the same source beyond the amount provided in the 
    proposed revisions. Because regulations implementing the Acid Rain 
    Program must be consistent with title IV, EPA is addressing here the 
    issue of statutory consistency.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        In order to insure electric reliability, such regulations shall 
    not prohibit or affect temporary increases and decreases in 
    emissions within utility systems, power pools, or utilities entering 
    into allowance pool agreements, that result from their operations, 
    including emergencies and central dispatch, and such temporary 
    emissions increases and decreases shall not require transfer of 
    allowances among units nor shall it require recordation. The owners 
    or operators of such units shall act through a designated 
    representative. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, the total 
    tonnage of emissions in any calendar year (calculated at the end 
    thereof) from all units in such a utility system, power pool, or 
    allowance pool agreements shall not exceed the total allowances for 
    such units for the calendar year concerned. 42 U.S.C. 7651b(d)(2).
    
    Commenters claimed that the last sentence of this section requires EPA 
    to allow units with a common designated representative and included in 
    the same utility system, power pool, or allowance pool to aggregate 
    their allowances for use in determining whether these units hold 
    allowances at least equal to their annual SO2 emissions. The 
    commenters noted that EPA acknowledges that title IV requires 
    allowances to be held for a unit but does not specify the account in 
    which the allowances must be held. According to these commenters, EPA 
    should revise Sec. 73.34 to allow a designated representative to cover 
    a unit's emissions with allowances from any accounts for which he or 
    she is the designated representative. The commenters argued that EPA 
    should allow this regardless of whether the accounts are for units at 
    the same source.
        One of the commenters added that EPA's position that plant owners 
    must fill thousands of unit compliance subaccounts with an exact or an 
    excess number of allowances in order to avoid a penalty is unproductive 
    both for EPA and plant owners. The commenter stated that EPA should 
    give the designated representative the option of naming the unit's 
    compliance subaccount as the primary allowance source and general 
    accounts as secondary and tertiary accounts from which EPA could deduct 
    allowances at year end.
        Response: EPA disagrees with the commenters who asserted that the 
    provision limiting the use of unused allowances to those held by other 
    units at the same source is inconsistent with section 403(d)(2) of the 
    Act. As discussed below, EPA maintains that the same-source 
    limitation--coupled with the limit on the number of allowances a unit 
    can use from another unit--are consistent with the pervasive unit-by-
    unit orientation of title IV (including section 403(d)(2)).3 
    See also
    
    [[Page 25836]]
    
    63 FR 41362 (consistency with section 403(g), 411, and 414). Further, 
    to the extent allowing a unit to use any allowances from another unit 
    is a departure from a strict unit-by-unit approach, the same-source 
    limitation closely restricts any such departure by allowing a unit to 
    use only allowances held for units that are at the same geographic 
    location, i.e., the same plant.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \3\ To the extent some commenters asserted section 403(d)(2) 
    authorizes, rather than requires, the Agency to allow the use of 
    allowances from units at other sources, EPA interprets the provision 
    to mean that the Agency is neither required nor authorized to allow 
    the use of such allowances.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        As explained in the preamble of the proposed rule, title IV 
    incorporates a pervasive unit-by-unit orientation, particularly with 
    regard to SO2 emissions. Title IV requires: determination of 
    applicability of the Acid Rain Program unit-by-unit; allocation of 
    allowances and setting of SO2 emissions limitations 
    generally unit-by-unit; determination of excess emissions and penalties 
    unit-by-unit; and monitoring of emissions generally unit-by-unit. See 
    63 FR 41360.
        Maintaining that section 403(d)(2) similarly reflects this unit-by-
    unit orientation, EPA rejects the commenters' interpretation that 
    section 403(d)(2) requires the Agency to allow designated 
    representatives to use allowances from units at other sources. The last 
    sentence of section 403(d)(2) is ambiguous, but EPA maintains that a 
    reasonable interpretation is that this section requires a unit-by-unit 
    orientation in compliance. The first sentence of the section states 
    that the allowance system regulations shall not prohibit temporary 
    changes in emissions by units included in utility systems, power pools, 
    or allowance pools and that such changes will not require allowance 
    transfers. The second sentence requires that all owners or operators of 
    such units act through a designated representative. The third sentence 
    states that total annual emissions from ``all'' such units cannot 
    ``exceed the total allowances for such units'' for the year involved. 
    Id.
        This reference in the third sentence to ``all'' units either could 
    mean each and every unit in a particular utility system, power pool, or 
    allowance pool or could mean all units in the aggregate in such a 
    system or pool. Thus, the statutory language could arguably support 
    either of two possible interpretations: (1) Total annual emissions for 
    each unit in a particular utility system, power pool, or allowance pool 
    must not exceed the unit's total allowances; or (2) the aggregate 
    annual emissions of all the units in the utility system, power pool, or 
    allowance pool must not exceed the aggregate allowances for all these 
    units. While the commenters support the second interpretation, EPA has 
    consistently followed the first interpretation. See 56 FR 63002, 63049-
    50 (1991) (explaining that section 403(d)(2) does not ``require or 
    authorize'' pool-wide compliance). For the following reasons, EPA 
    continues to adopt the first interpretation.
        First, as discussed above, title IV incorporates a unit-by-unit 
    orientation. While these other provisions of title IV may not be 
    determinative of the proper interpretation of section 403(d)(2), EPA 
    maintains it is reasonable to interpret section 403(d)(2) to reflect 
    the same unit-by-unit orientation that Congress adopted in the major 
    statutory provisions governing the Acid Rain Program. The commenters' 
    interpretation would represent a significant departure from the other 
    provisions of title IV.
        Second, contrary to the commenters' claim, the legislative history 
    of title IV supports EPA's interpretation, rather than the commenters' 
    interpretation, of section 403(d)(2). The most authoritative document 
    in the legislative history, the Conference Report that accompanied the 
    Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, states that section 403(d):
    
    Makes it clear that allowances are annual; temporary increases and 
    decreases in emissions within utility systems or power pools do not 
    require allowance transfers or recordation so long as the total 
    tonnage emitted in any year matches allowances held for that year. 
    Thus, utilities must ``true up'' at year end to ensure that 
    allowances match emissions for each unit. Conference Report, House 
    Rep. No. 101-952, 101st Cong. 2d Sess. at 343 (October 26, 1990) 
    (emphasis added).
    
    In short, the Conference Report indicates that, at the end of each 
    year, allowances must cover emissions for each unit in a utility system 
    or pool, not for all units in the system or pool on an aggregate basis.
        Ignoring the Conference Report, the commenters instead focused on 
    comparing the enacted provisions of title IV with provisions of an 
    earlier House version (H.R. 3030) of title IV. The House bill (in 
    section 503(d)(4) of H.R. 3030) required promulgation of regulations 
    for a system of issuing, recording, and tracking allowances and stated 
    that:
    
    In order to insure electric reliability, such regulations shall not 
    prohibit or affect temporary increases and decreases in emissions 
    within utility systems or power pools that result from their 
    operations, including emergencies and central dispatch, and such 
    temporary emissions increases and decreases shall not require 
    transfer of allowances among units nor shall it require recordation. 
    Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, the total tonnage of 
    emissions in any calendar year (calculated at the end thereof) from 
    each unit involved shall not exceed the allowances allocated to the 
    unit for the calendar year concerned and issued to the owner or 
    operator of the unit for that year, plus or minus allowances 
    transferred to or from the unit for such calendar year or carried 
    forward to that year from prior years. House Rep. No. 101-490, 101st 
    Cong. 2d Sess. at 629-30 (May 17, 1990).
    
        In the House Committee Report accompanying the House bill, the 
    House Committee on Commerce and Energy explained this House bill 
    provision using language subsequently adopted word-for-word in the 
    Conference Report (quoted above) to explain section 403(d)(2) of the 
    final version of title IV. See House Rep. No. 101-490 at 373-74. In 
    particular, the House Report explained that utilities must ensure at 
    the end of each year that ``allowances match emissions for each unit.'' 
    Id. at 374. The fact that the Conference Committee explained section 
    403(d)(2) using, word-for-word, the House Committee's explanation of 
    unit-by-unit compliance provided under the House bill indicates that 
    Congress intended to continue to require unit-by-unit compliance in 
    section 403(d)(2). This also shows that Congress did not intend the 
    language differences between section 403(d)(2) and the comparable House 
    bill provision to alter the requirement for unit-by-unit compliance. 
    Thus, the Conference Report and House Committee Report belie the 
    importance the commenters place on the difference between the reference 
    in section 403(d)(2) to total emissions and total allowances for ``all 
    units'' in a utility system, power pool, or allowance pool agreements 
    and the reference in the House bill to emissions and allowances of 
    ``each unit.''
        Rather than addressing the Conference Report or the House Committee 
    Report, the commenters based their argument on a floor statement of one 
    member of the House of Representatives. The Courts do not generally 
    consider Congressmen's floor statements alone as providing 
    authoritative explanations of Congressional intent. See, e.g., Garcia 
    v. U.S, 469 U.S. 70, 76 and 78 (1984); Brock v. Pierce, 476 U.S. 253, 
    263 (1986); and U.S. v. McGoff, 831 F.2d 1071, 1090-91 (D.C. Cir. 
    1987).
        Moreover, the floor statement on which the commenters rely does not 
    support their interpretation of section 403(d)(2). In the statement 
    cited by the commenters, Congressman Oxley stated:
    
    
    [[Page 25837]]
    
    
        Barriers to allowance transactions may take any number of forms, 
    and the Administrator must use great care to avoid doing anything to 
    help erect those barriers. That is why the conference committee has 
    streamlined the process whereby a utility or utilities can pool 
    allowances so as to operate within the confines of the law. Under 
    provisions of the allowance tracking system, we have provided for 
    the creating of allowance pools. Owners or operators need only 
    record with the Administrator that they intend to enter into such 
    agreements. Once in place, these voluntary pooling agreements can 
    operate to reduce the number of actual transfers of allowances and, 
    thus, the overall compliance burden. For example, utilities or 
    operating companies can keep and share one set of allowance books to 
    accommodate their emission allowance requirements. Here, as 
    elsewhere, it is necessary to keep the volume of information that 
    buyers and sellers are required to provide to a minimum, lest the 
    system breakdown in the face of heavy trading. A Legislative History 
    of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Vol. 1 at 1418 (1990) 
    (quoting from House debate on the Conference Report and bill on 
    October 26, 1990).
    
        The Congressman's statement addresses the use of allowance pools to 
    reduce ``[b]arriers to allowance transactions,'' not the use of 
    allowance pools to show compliance with the requirement to hold 
    allowances at least equal to each unit's annual SO2 
    emissions. Id. The ability to hold allowances in a single account for 
    all units in a utility system, power pool, or allowance pool reduces 
    the number of allowance transfers submitted to the Administrator for 
    recordation in the Allowance Tracking System. Once such an allowance 
    account is established, a utility system, power pool, or allowance pool 
    can, for internal bookkeeping purposes, move allowances among any of 
    the units in the utility system, power pool, or allowance pool 
    throughout the year and, for purposes of the Allowance Tracking System, 
    hold the allowances in the same account (i.e., a general account for 
    the utility system, power pool, or allowance pool). See 40 CFR 73.31(c) 
    (providing for the establishing of ``general accounts'' by ``any 
    person''). However, this does not negate the requirement that, for 
    compliance purposes, the designated representative must ultimately 
    transfer the allowances to each unit's individual allowance account by 
    the allowance transfer deadline. In fact, this is just the sort of 
    annual ``true up'' for each unit that Congress described in the 
    Conference Report.
        In short, EPA concludes that its long-standing interpretation of 
    the ambiguous language in section 403(d)(2) is a reasonable reading of 
    the statutory language and is consistent with other provisions of title 
    IV and with the legislative history.
        Today's final rule is consistent with the requirement, reflected in 
    section 403(d)(2), that each unit have allowances covering its 
    emissions. The rule restricts the number of allowances that can be held 
    for a unit by other units and requires that these other units must be 
    at the same source. As a result, EPA believes that there is still 
    strong incentive for owners and operators to hold sufficient allowances 
    in an affected unit's account and that owners and operators will 
    routinely comply on a unit-by-unit basis and only use allowances from 
    other units at the source in unusual circumstances, e.g., to correct an 
    inadvertent error. Of course, the allowances that a unit uses from 
    other units must be from the same geographic location, i.e., the same 
    plant. See 63 FR 41362-41363 (explaining that, in effect, common stack 
    units can already use allowances from other units, but only at the same 
    plant, under Sec. 73.35(e)). EPA therefore maintains that today's final 
    rule is consistent with section 403(d)(2) and strikes a reasonable 
    balance between the unit-by-unit orientation of title IV and compliance 
    flexibility to reduce excess emission penalty payments where units fail 
    to hold enough allowances because of inadvertent, minor errors.
        The same-source restriction in the final rule is not only 
    consistent with title IV, but also is practical to implement. The 
    restriction ensures that only one designated representative is involved 
    in the deduction of allowances from other units' compliance 
    subaccounts. The limitation thereby minimizes the changes necessary to 
    existing contracts involving allowance agreements among different 
    owners of units.
        Finally, in response to the commenter that supported allowing a 
    designated representative the option of naming a unit's primary, 
    secondary, and tertiary accounts from which EPA would deduct 
    allowances, EPA notes that the allowance account tracking necessary to 
    implement the approach would be far too complicated and unwieldy. Such 
    a time and resource intensive approach would likely cause significant 
    and unacceptable delays in EPA's ability to perform timely end of year 
    accounting and unfreeze allowance accounts. After the allowance 
    transfer deadline, allowances that are useable for the compliance year 
    must be frozen until EPA completes the process of deducting allowances 
    to cover each unit's emissions.
        Comment: Several commenters stated in initial comments that units 
    should be able to use available allowances from other unit accounts 
    after the allowance transfer deadline to avoid all excess emissions. 
    They argued that the language in section 403(d)(2), quoted and 
    discussed above, reflects Congress' intent that EPA allow full 
    offsetting. One of these commenters argued that allowing the use of 
    allowances from other unit accounts to avoid excess emissions 
    completely would not compromise the Acid Rain Program's unit-by-unit 
    orientation because EPA would deduct allowances from the affected 
    unit's compliance subaccount first, before allowing deductions from 
    other units at the same source. The commenter also pointed out that 
    under the proposed rule, the consequences of making an inadvertent 
    error (such as transposing figures in allowance serial numbers in an 
    allowance transfer form so the transaction transfers an insufficient 
    number of allowances to a unit) could widely vary, depending on the 
    exact error made. Suggesting that the penalties should not differ for 
    the same type of error, the commenter argued that allowing units to 
    avoid excess emissions with all available allowances at other unit 
    accounts would address this concern.
        Response: EPA rejects the commenters' views that EPA must allow the 
    full use, instead of the limited use, of allowances in other units' 
    compliance subaccounts. As discussed above, the Act has a pervasive 
    unit-by-unit orientation and, therefore, the final rule allows the 
    designated representative to use, for a unit that would otherwise have 
    excess emissions, a large portion (but not all) of the needed 
    allowances from the compliance subaccounts of other units at the same 
    source. Further, for the reasons detailed above, EPA rejects the 
    commenters' interpretation of section 403(d)(2).
        In response to the commenter who claimed that allowing the complete 
    avoidance of excess emissions would not compromise the unit-by-unit 
    orientation of title IV, EPA does not agree. Allowing units to use 
    allowances from other unit compliance subaccounts to avoid completely 
    excess emissions and the resulting excess emissions penalty payment 
    provides owners and operators with little or no incentive to ensure 
    that the individual account for each of their units holds sufficient 
    allowances at the end of each year. While the flexibility to deduct 
    allowances from other units is aimed at minor, inadvertent errors, 
    owners and operators can use this flexibility when any errors occur. 63 
    FR 41363. Providing this flexibility without any significant, excess 
    emissions penalty
    
    [[Page 25838]]
    
    payment would likely discourage efforts to ensure unit-by-unit 
    compliance and encourage routine use of allowances from other units at 
    the same source.
        In response to the same commenter's concerns that under EPA's 
    proposal the amount of a unit's allowance deficiency and the resulting 
    penalty payment resulting from an inadvertent error could vary widely 
    depending on the specific error, EPA notes that this potential variance 
    already exists under the current rule. The proposed rule--and to a 
    greater extent, today's final rule--actually reduces the potential 
    variance by reducing the penalty payment for minor, inadvertent errors. 
    By reducing the potential penalties, the final rule helps to alleviate 
    the problem of widely divergent penalties. As discussed above, EPA 
    believes that the final rule thus balances the unit-by-unit orientation 
    of title IV with increased compliance flexibility.
        Comment: EPA received several initial and late comments on the 
    formula, in proposed Sec. 73.35(b)(3)(i), for calculation of the 
    maximum allowances available for a unit for deduction from other unit 
    accounts. The proposed formula would use a ratio of three times the 
    average allowance price for the year to the excess emissions penalty 
    per ton in order to limit deductions from other unit accounts. 
    Notwithstanding the ratio, the proposed formula also would not allow 
    deductions from other unit accounts that would bring excess emissions 
    below 10 tons. This would establish a minimum penalty where the formula 
    is used.
        In their initial comments, several commenters raised objections to 
    the formula. After objecting to any limitation being placed on the 
    number of allowances that could be deducted, one commenter stated that 
    if EPA adopted such a limitation, the Agency should revise the formula 
    to allow use of more allowances from other unit accounts. Specifically, 
    this commenter recommended revising the formula to change the ratio of 
    three times the allowance price to the excess emissions penalty to a 
    ratio of one times the allowance price to the excess emissions penalty. 
    The commenter also recommended, notwithstanding the formula, imposing a 
    10 percent cap as the maximum amount of allowances that a unit could 
    not use from other units' accounts to offset a unit's emissions. The 
    commenter claimed that this approach would result in utilities planning 
    to comply under the existing unit-by-unit approach to avoid the 
    financial penalty represented by even a limited discount factor.
        A second commenter argued in initial comments that, because minor 
    accounting mistakes would typically result in less than 10 tons of 
    excess emissions, EPA's proposed formula and 10-ton minimum penalty was 
    arbitrary and capricious. This commenter further claimed that if EPA 
    did not revise the proposal to allow the use of unlimited allowances 
    from other unit accounts, EPA should at least revise the formula to 
    penalize the first excess emission ton much less than the eleventh 
    excess emission ton. In a third set of initial comments, another 
    commenter stated that EPA should revise the formula to allow deduction 
    of any needed allowances from other unit accounts without penalty if 
    less than 10 tons of excess emissions occurred. A fourth commenter 
    characterized the formula as too complicated.
        As noted above, EPA held several post-comment period meetings with 
    all parties that submitted initial comments. During these meetings, the 
    parties and EPA discussed the initial comments and their views 
    concerning issues, raised in the preamble of the proposed rule, about 
    the proposed formula. In particular, the participants addressed 
    reducing or removing the allowance-price-to-excess-emissions-penalty 
    ratio, retaining the 10-ton minimum, and adding a percentage cap on the 
    amount of allowances that a unit could not use from other units' 
    accounts to offset a unit's emissions. The participants discussed these 
    issues in the context of alternative scenarios for the formula, all of 
    which were logical outgrowths of the proposed rule. As a result of 
    these discussions, the commenters submitted late comments to the Agency 
    on these issues to supplement their views. EPA has taken these late 
    comments into consideration in developing the final rule.
        Response: The proposed formula generally would make it four times 
    as expensive to not hold enough allowances in a unit account than to 
    hold enough allowances in the unit's account, as of the allowance 
    transfer deadline.4 EPA agrees that, in light of the kinds 
    of errors the revisions are meant to address (i.e., inadvertent, minor 
    ones), the penalty payment, after application of the proposed formula, 
    could still be excessive. Therefore, EPA believes that it should modify 
    the proposed formula to allow the deduction of more allowances from 
    other units at the same source.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \4\ Under the proposed revisions, a unit that simply complied 
    with the allowance holding requirement would use one allowance for 
    each ton of emissions (e.g., 100 allowances for 100 tons of 
    SO2). However, if the unit failed to comply with the 
    allowance holding requirement using its own allowances, the unit 
    would use one allowance (i.e., from either another unit account or a 
    future year account under the offset provisions in Sec. 77.3) for 
    each ton of emissions (e.g., 100 allowances for 100 tons of 
    SO2), plus its owners and operators would be subject to 
    an excess emissions penalty payment approximately equal to the cost 
    of three allowances for each ton of emissions (e.g., the cost of 300 
    allowances).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        EPA considered the suggestion, in initial comments, of increasing 
    the allowances allowed to be deducted from other unit accounts by 
    changing the proposed formula so that it contains a ratio of one times 
    the average allowance price to the excess emissions penalty, instead of 
    three times the average allowance price to the excess emissions 
    penalty. EPA agrees that such a change would result in a total penalty 
    payment that is more in line with the gravity of making an inadvertent, 
    minor error. Nevertheless, EPA is concerned that making only this 
    change would fail to address comments that the deduction formula is 
    overly complicated. EPA maintains that the penalty formula will be more 
    effective if it is simpler and easier to apply.
        EPA and the commenters discussed a simplified formula for 
    calculation of penalties in the post-comment meeting on December 3, 
    1998. In late comments, commenters stated that if EPA adopted this 
    simplified formula, the Agency would satisfy their concerns about the 
    proposed formula. Under the simplified formula, the owner or operator 
    of a unit may use from the compliance subaccounts of other units at the 
    same source up to 95 percent of the allowances needed after using all 
    the allowances in the unit's own compliance subaccount. However, the 
    simplified formula retains the 10-ton minimum on the amount of excess 
    emissions remaining after using allowances from other units' accounts.
        The simplified formula has a result comparable to that of the 
    formula suggested in initial comments that would reduce the ratio in 
    the proposal from three to one times the average allowance price to the 
    excess emissions penalty. Under 1998 market conditions, both the 
    commenter's suggested formula and the simplified formula would result 
    in allowing deduction of 95 percent of the allowances needed by a unit 
    from other unit accounts (i.e., using the 1998 average allowance price 
    of $117 and an excess emissions penalty of $2581 per ton of excess 
    emissions). While the average allowance price and excess emissions 
    penalty may change each year, resulting in a disparity in the 
    allowances calculated under the commenter's suggested formula and the
    
    [[Page 25839]]
    
    formula in the final rule,5 EPA believes this is not a 
    significant concern. EPA sees no overwhelming reason to ensure the 
    penalty payment increases as average allowance price increases, as long 
    as the penalty payment for excess emissions remains significant and 
    provides owners and operators with a strong incentive to comply with 
    the allowance holding requirements on a unit-by-unit basis.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \5\ As of December 1998, the market price of an allowance was 
    about $190, an amount which, if it had been the average allowance 
    price for 1998, would have resulted in 93 percent of a unit's needed 
    allowances to be deducted from other unit accounts.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Under both the proposed formula and the simplified formula, the 
    excess emissions remaining after deductions from other unit accounts 
    are subject to the excess emissions penalty of $2000 per ton, as 
    adjusted by the Consumer Price Index.
        In light of the late comments unanimously supporting the simplified 
    formula discussed in the December 3, 1998 post-comment period meeting, 
    EPA has decided to modify the proposal and adopt the simplified 
    formula. Use of the simplified formula will increase, by an amount 
    comparable to the amount suggested in initial comments, the number of 
    allowances that can be deducted from other unit accounts. EPA believes 
    that the simplified formula will achieve the objectives intended by the 
    proposed formula, but will be far easier for both the utilities and EPA 
    to use to calculate the amount of excess emissions.
        As noted above, the simplified formula retains the 10-ton minimum 
    on the amount of excess emissions that remains after deducting 
    allowances from other units' accounts. EPA believes the restriction is 
    necessary to ensure that, for units with 10 or more tons of emissions 
    exceeding the allowances in their unit accounts (before deducting from 
    other unit accounts), the penalty remains significant. This will 
    provide owners and operators with a strong incentive to meet their 
    allowance holding requirements on a unit-by-unit basis. EPA also notes 
    that, under the final rule, a unit having the minimum 10 tons of excess 
    emissions (after the formula is applied) for 1998 will be subject to a 
    penalty payment of $25,810, about the same maximum penalty that can be 
    assessed per day of violation under sections 113(b) and (d) in the 
    Clean Air Act.
    
    B. Role of Authorized Account Representative
    
        Comment: EPA received several comments on two options, presented in 
    the proposal, concerning the role of the authorized account 
    representative (who also is, for any affected unit, the designated 
    representative) in deducting allowances from other unit accounts. 
    Option 1 would prescribe the unit accounts for, and order of, such 
    deductions but allow the authorized account representative, before the 
    allowance transfer deadline, to tell EPA not to make any deductions 
    from other unit accounts. Option 2 would allow the authorized account 
    representative to specify, within 15 days of receiving notice from the 
    Agency of a unit's failure to hold sufficient allowances, the serial 
    numbers of the allowances to deduct and the compliance subaccounts from 
    which to deduct those allowances. All of the commenters supported 
    Option 2. One commenter argued that Option 2 is consistent with section 
    403(d)(2) in the Act which states that owners and operators must ``act 
    through a designated representative'' and language in Parts 72 and 73 
    of the current regulations that authorize designated representatives to 
    specify by serial number the allowances deducted from compliance. 
    Several commenters also noted Option 2 was preferable because it would 
    avoid potential allowance surrender issues that could arise where units 
    at a source are jointly owned.
        Response: In light of the comments received, the Agency has chosen 
    Option 2 over Option 1 for the final rule. As pointed out in the 
    comments, Option 2 will provide owners and operators with more 
    flexibility because the authorized account representative can specify 
    any unused allowance for deduction, as long as a unit at the same 
    source holds the allowance. This flexibility makes it unnecessary for 
    owners and operators to renegotiate their allowance agreements in order 
    to take into account the Agency-mandated pattern in Option 1 for 
    allowance deduction from other unit accounts. EPA recognizes that 
    Option 2 may delay its end-of-year compliance determinations and the 
    unfreezing of allowance accounts. 63 FR 41362. However, EPA believes 
    the benefits of Option 2, highlighted by the commenters, outweigh the 
    drawbacks of such a delay. In adopting Option 2, EPA made a few, minor 
    word changes to the proposed revisions of Secs. 72.2 and 73.35 in order 
    to make the rule easier to understand.
    
    C. Effective Date of Rule Revisions
    
        Comment: One commenter, in a late comment, urged the Agency to 
    finalize the rule in a manner that would allow the compliance 
    determination revisions to apply to the 1998 compliance year.
        Response: Today's rule will apply to all compliance years for which 
    the excess emissions penalty payment deadline under Sec. 77.6(a)(3) 
    (i.e., July 1) is on or after the effective date of today's rule. 
    Section 77.6(a)(3) requires submission of the payment within 30 days of 
    notice by the Administrator of completion of its process for 
    determining end-of-year compliance, but not later than July 1. EPA 
    anticipates that July 1 will be the applicable deadline for the 1998 
    compliance year. EPA believes that the penalty payment deadline should 
    be the cut-off date because that deadline is the date on which the 
    designated representative must determine, and notify EPA of, the 
    specific number of tons of excess emissions at a unit. Today's rule can 
    change the amount of a unit's excess emissions and so should apply only 
    if it is effective before the July 1 deadline for determining excess 
    emissions for the compliance year.
        EPA considered applying today's rule revisions only to those 
    compliance years for which the annual compliance certification and 
    excess emissions offset plan deadline (60 days after the end of the 
    year) is on or after the effective date of the revisions. This 
    approach, however, would prevent use of the new provisions for the 1998 
    compliance year and would serve no useful purpose. Neither the annual 
    compliance certification nor the excess emissions offset plan requires 
    the designated representative to state the specific number of tons of 
    excess emissions at a unit. Instead, the designated representative must 
    indicate whether a unit held enough allowances in its compliance 
    subaccount and, if not, whether EPA should deduct immediately (i.e., as 
    soon as EPA completes its determination of end-of-year compliance) 
    allowances to offset the unit's excess emissions. EPA must deduct 
    offsetting allowances immediately unless the designated representative 
    makes the unusual showing that the deduction would jeopardize electric 
    reliability. See 40 CFR 72.90(c)(1) and 77.3(d). Since any unit having 
    excess emissions under the current rule will still have excess 
    emissions under today's rule, the required information in the annual 
    compliance certification and offset plan is the same under either rule. 
    Therefore, it is unnecessary to limit the application of the revisions 
    to only compliance years for which the annual compliance certification 
    and excess emissions offset plan deadline (60 days after the end of the 
    year) is on or after the effective date of the revisions. Today's rule 
    will
    
    [[Page 25840]]
    
    instead apply to all compliance years for which the July 1 excess 
    emissions penalty payment deadline is on or after the effective date of 
    the revisions. The 1998 compliance year will therefore be the first 
    year to which the rule will apply.
    
    D. Impacts of Rule Revisions on Acid Rain Permits
    
        EPA designed today's revisions to become effective without changing 
    the contents of existing acid rain permits and the State regulations 
    for issuing acid rain permits. With the exception of changes in the 
    definitions of ``compliance subaccount'' and ``current year 
    subaccount,'' all of today's revisions are in 40 CFR part 73. As 
    explained in the preamble to the proposed rule (63 FR 41364), it is 
    unnecessary for State permitting authorities to revise the acid rain 
    permits they have issued or regulations they have adopted to reflect 
    today's final revisions to 40 CFR part 73.
        Similarly, the revisions can go into effect without State 
    permitting authorities revising acid rain permits or regulations to 
    reflect the revised definitions of ``compliance subaccount'' and 
    ``current year subaccount'' in 40 CFR part 72. Even if a State issued 
    an acid rain permit before today's revision of the definitions become 
    effective, the Agency will apply the final revised definitions, along 
    with the revisions in 40 CFR part 73, to the units covered by the 
    permit. The Agency will use the revised definitions in determining end-
    of-year compliance for all calendar years for which the July 1 excess 
    emissions penalty payment deadline is on or after the effective date of 
    the revised definitions.
        Moreover, the revised definitions will not affect the permitting 
    activities of State permitting authorities under 40 CFR part 72. 
    Instead, the revised definitions affect EPA's operation of the 
    Allowance Tracking System under 40 CFR part 73.
        While EPA will apply the revised definitions in Sec. 72.2, State 
    permitting authorities should revise their own regulations to reflect 
    the new definitions. This will avoid any potential confusion on the 
    part of regulated entities and the public as to how EPA determines end-
    of-year compliance.
    
    V. Administrative Requirements
    
    A. Docket
    
        A docket is an organized and complete file of all the information 
    considered by EPA in the development of this rulemaking. The docket is 
    a dynamic file since EPA and participants add material throughout the 
    rulemaking development. The docketing system allows members of the 
    public and industries involved to identify and locate documents readily 
    so that they can effectively participate in the rulemaking process. 
    Along with the preambles of the proposed and final rule (which include 
    EPA responses to significant comments), the contents of the docket will 
    serve as the record in case of judicial review to the extent provided 
    in section 307(d)(7)(A) of the Act.
    
    B. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    
        Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)), the 
    Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' 
    and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review 
    and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order 
    defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to 
    result in a rule that may:
    
        (1) have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more 
    or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
    economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
    health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
    communities;
        (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with 
    an action taken or planned by another agency;
        (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, 
    grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of 
    recipients thereof; or
        (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
    mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
    the Executive Order.
    
        Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, OMB has determined 
    that today's rule is not a ``significant regulatory action.''
    
    C. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing Intergovernmental Partnerships
    
        Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
    not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local 
    or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds 
    necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those 
    governments or unless EPA consults with those governments. If EPA 
    complies by consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA provide to 
    the Office of Management and Budget a description of the extent of 
    EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected State, local 
    and tribal governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of any 
    written communications from the governments, and a statement supporting 
    the need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 
    requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected 
    officials and other representatives of State, local and tribal 
    governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development 
    of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.''
        Today's rule does not create a new mandate on State, local or 
    tribal governments. It modifies an existing mandate in a way that 
    imposes no additional duties and no additional costs on these entities. 
    Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of Executive Order 12875 
    do not apply to this rule.
    
    D. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
    Tribal Governments
    
        Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
    not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the 
    communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
    direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
    government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
    costs incurred by the tribal governments or unless EPA consults with 
    those governments. If EPA complies by consulting, EPA must provide to 
    the Office of Management and Budget, in a separately identified section 
    of the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior 
    consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a 
    summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the 
    need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 
    requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected and 
    other representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide 
    meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory policies 
    on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
        Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect, or impose 
    any substantial direct compliance costs on, the communities of Indian 
    tribal governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on 
    these entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of 
    Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.
    
    E. Unfunded Mandates Act
    
        Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
    Law 104-4, establishes requirements for
    
    [[Page 25841]]
    
    federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on 
    State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under 
    section 202 of UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, 
    including a cost-benefit analysis, before promulgating a proposed or 
    final rule that includes a federal mandate that may result in 
    expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, or 
    by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Section 
    205 generally requires that, before promulgating a rule for which a 
    written statement must be prepared, EPA must identify and consider a 
    reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least 
    costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that 
    achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do 
    not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
    section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
    costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the 
    Administrator explains why that alternative was not adopted. Finally, 
    section 203 requires that, before establishing any regulatory 
    requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
    governments, EPA must have developed a small government agency plan. 
    The plan must provide for notifying any potentially affected small 
    governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of 
    EPA regulatory proposals with significant federal intergovernmental 
    mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on 
    compliance with the regulatory requirements.
        Because today's rule is estimated to result in the expenditure by 
    State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector of less than 
    $100 million in any one year, the Agency has not prepared a budgetary 
    impact statement or specifically addressed the selection of the least 
    costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative. Because 
    small governments will not be significantly or uniquely affected by 
    this rule, the Agency is not required to develop a plan with regard to 
    small governments.
        Today's final revisions to parts 72 and 73 will potentially reduce 
    the burden on regulated entities by providing more flexible allowance 
    holding requirements. The revisions will not otherwise have any 
    significant impact on State, local, and tribal governments.
    
    F. Paperwork Reduction Act
    
        Today's final revisions to parts 72 and 73 will not impose any new 
    information collection burden subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 
    (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.). OMB has previously approved the relevant 
    information collection requirements contained in parts 72 and 73 under 
    the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act and has assigned OMB 
    control number 2060-0258. 58 FR 3590, 3650 (1993).
        Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
    expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
    provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
    needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
    technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
    verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
    disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
    comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
    train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
    search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
    and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
        Copies of the previously approved ICR may be obtained from the 
    Director, Regulatory Information Division; EPA; 401 M St. SW (mail code 
    2137); Washington, DC 20460 or by calling (202) 564-2740. Include the 
    ICR and/or OMB number in any correspondence.
    
    G. Regulatory Flexibility
    
        The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., 
    generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility 
    analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking 
    requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 
    significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
    Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit 
    enterprises, and small government jurisdictions.
        As discussed above, today's final revisions will reduce the burden 
    on regulated entities by adding flexibility to the regulations. For 
    this reason, EPA has determined that this rule will not have a 
    significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    
    H. Applicability of Executive Order 13045: Children's Health Protection
    
        Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 29, 1997) applies to any 
    rule if EPA determines (1) that the rule is economically significant as 
    defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) that the environmental 
    health or safety risk addressed by the rule has a disproportionate 
    effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, EPA 
    must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned 
    rule on children and explain why the planned regulation is preferable 
    to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives 
    considered by EPA.
        This final action is not subject to Executive Order 13045, because 
    the action is not economically significant as defined by Executive 
    Order 12866 and does not address an environmental health or safety risk 
    having a disproportionate effect on children.
    
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    
        Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
    Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d)(15 U.S.C. 272 
    note), directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its 
    regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
    applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
    are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
    sampling procedures, or business practices) that are developed or 
    adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA requires EPA 
    to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides 
    not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
        Today's final rule does not involve any technical standards that 
    would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards 
    pursuant to section 12(d) of the NTTAA.
    
    J. Congressional Review Act
    
        The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
    Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
    provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
    the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
    to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
    United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
    required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
    Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
    to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
    take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
    Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
    804(2). This rule will be effective 30 days after publication in the 
    Federal Register.
    
    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 72 and 73
    
        Environmental protection, Acid rain, Administrative practice and 
    procedure,
    
    [[Page 25842]]
    
    Air pollution control, Compliance plans, Electric utilities, Penalties, 
    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide.
    
        Dated: May 5, 1999.
    Carol M. Browner,
    Administrator.
    
        For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the 
    Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
    
    PART 72--[AMENDED]
    
        1. The authority citation for part 72 continues to read as follows:
    
        Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7601 and 7651, et seq.
    
        2. Section 72.2 is amended by:
        a. Removing from the definition of ``Compliance subaccount'' the 
    words ``by the unit'' whenever they appear and the word ``unit's'' 
    after the words ``meeting the''; and
        b. Removing from the definition of ``Current year subaccount'' the 
    words ``by the unit'' and replacing the word ``its'' with the word 
    ``the''.
        3. Section 72.40 is amended by adding to paragraph (a)(1) the words 
    ``, or in the compliance subaccount of another affected unit at the 
    same source to the extent provided in Sec. 73.35(b)(3),'' after the 
    words ``under Sec. 73.34(c) of this chapter)''.
    
    PART 73--[AMENDED]
    
        4. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:
    
        Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7601 and 7651, et seq.
    
        5. Section 73.35 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) and adding 
    paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 73.35  Compliance.
    
        (a) * * *
        (2) Such allowance is:
        (i) Recorded in the unit's compliance subaccount; or
        (ii) Transferred to the unit's compliance subaccount, with the 
    transfer submitted correctly pursuant to subpart D of this part for 
    recordation in the compliance subaccount for the unit by not later than 
    the allowance transfer deadline in the calendar year following the year 
    for which compliance is being established; or
        (iii) Held in the compliance subaccount of another affected unit at 
    the same source in accordance with paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
        (b) * * *
        (3)(i) If, after the Administrator completes the deductions under 
    paragraph (b)(2) of this section for all affected units at the same 
    source, a unit would otherwise have excess emissions and one or more 
    other affected units at the source would otherwise have unused 
    allowances in their compliance subaccounts and available for such other 
    units under paragraph (a)(1) and (a)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section for 
    the year for which compliance is being established, the Administrator 
    will notify in writing the authorized account representative. The 
    Administrator will state that the authorized account representative may 
    specify in writing which of such allowances to deduct up to the amount 
    calculated as follows, in order to reduce the tons of excess emissions 
    otherwise at the unit:
    
        Maximum deduction from other units = 0.95  x  Excess emissions 
    if no deduction from other units
        Where:
        ``Maximum deduction from other units'' is the maximum number of 
    allowances that may be deducted for the year for which compliance is 
    being established, for the unit otherwise having excess emissions, 
    from the compliance subaccounts of other units at the same source, 
    rounded to the nearest allowance.
        ``Excess emissions if no deduction from other units'' is the 
    tons of excess emissions that the unit would otherwise have if no 
    allowances were deducted for the unit from other units under this 
    paragraph (b)(3)(i) or paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section.
    
        (ii) Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section, if the 
    amount calculated results in less than 10 tons of excess emissions, the 
    maximum deduction from other units shall be adjusted so that 10 tons of 
    excess emissions, or the tons of excess emissions that would result if 
    no allowances could be deducted from other units, whichever is less, 
    remain for the unit.
        (iii) If the authorized account representative submits within 15 
    days of receipt of a notification under paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this 
    section a written request specifying allowances to deduct in accordance 
    with paragraphs (b)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section, the Administrator 
    will deduct such allowances, and reduce the tons of excess emissions 
    otherwise at the unit by an equal amount, up to the amount calculated 
    under paragraphs (b)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section.
    * * * * *
    [FR Doc. 99-12007 Filed 5-12-99; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    
    
    

Document Information

Effective Date:
6/14/1999
Published:
05/13/1999
Department:
Environmental Protection Agency
Entry Type:
Rule
Action:
Final rule.
Document Number:
99-12007
Dates:
June 14, 1999.
Pages:
25834-25842 (9 pages)
Docket Numbers:
FRL-6341-2
RINs:
2060-A127
PDF File:
99-12007.pdf
Supporting Documents:
» Legacy Index for Docket A-98-15
» Revisions to the Permits and Sulfur Dioxide Allowance System Regulations Under Title IV of the Clean Air Act
» Revisions to the Permits and Sulfur Dioxide Allowance System Regulations Under Title IV of the Clean Air Act; Extension of Comment Period
» Revisions to the Permits and Sulfur Dioxide Allowance System Regulations Under Title IV of the Clean Air Act
CFR: (1)
40 CFR 73.35