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

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