[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 184 (Friday, September 21, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48567-48577]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-23476]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 97

[FRL-7058-2]
RIN 2060-AJ47


Findings of Significant Contribution and Rulemaking on Section 
126 Petitions for Purposes of Reducing Interstate Ozone Transport--
Federal NOX Budget Trading Program, Rule Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is amending the 
Federal NOX Budget Trading Program regulations to revise the 
allowance allocations for certain NOX Budget units subject 
to the program. In January 2000, EPA took final action (the January 
2000 final rule) under section 126 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) on 
petitions filed by eight Northeastern States seeking to mitigate 
interstate transport of nitrogen oxides ( NOX), one of the 
precursors of ground-level ozone. EPA determined that a number of large 
electric generating units (EGUs) and large industrial boilers and 
turbines (non-EGUs) named in the petitions emit in violation of the CAA 
prohibitions against significantly contributing to nonattainment or 
maintenance problems in the petitioning States. EPA also established 
the Federal NOX Budget Trading Program as the control remedy 
for these sources, determined allowable emissions for the sources, and 
allocated authorizations to emit NOX (i.e., NOX 
allowances) to the sources.
    After promulgation of EPA's January 2000 final rule, some owners, 
or associations of owners, of EGUs or non-EGUs filed petitions with the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. 
Circuit) challenging, among other things, the allowance allocations for 
certain units under the rule. Subsequently, EPA entered into 
settlements with these owners or associations of owners. Today's action 
finalizes revised allocations for these units in a manner consistent 
with the settlements.
    In addition, after promulgation of the January 2000 final rule, 
owners of non-EGUs requested EPA to correct allowance allocations for 
two other units under the rule. EPA responded that it was treating the 
requests as requests for reconsideration of the two units' allocations 
under the rule and would propose to revise the allocations. Today's 
action finalizes revised allocations for these units.

DATES: The final rule is effective October 22, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Docket No. A-97-43, containing supporting information used 
in developing today's final rule, is available for public inspection 
and copying between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, at 
EPA's Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center at the above 
address. EPA may charge a reasonable fee for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dwight C. Alpern, at (202) 564-9151, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 
(6204J), Washington, DC 20460; or the Acid Rain Hotline at (202) 564-
9089.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Availability of Related Information

    The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public 
version, has been established under Docket No. A-97-43 (including 
comments and data submitted electronically as described below). A 
public version of this record, including printed, paper versions of 
electronic comments, that does not include any information claimed as 
confidential business information, is available for inspection from 
8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. 
The official rulemaking record is located at the address in the 
ADDRESSES section. In addition, the Federal Register rulemaking actions 
under section 126 and the associated documents are located at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/rto/126.
    EPA has issued a separate rule on NOX transport 
entitled, ``Finding of Significant Contribution and Rulemaking for 
Certain States in the Ozone Transport Assessment Group Region for 
Purposes of Reducing Regional Transport of Ozone'' (the NOX 
State implementation plan (NOX SIP) call). The rulemaking 
docket for that rule contains information and analyses that were relied 
on in the January 2000 final rule. In promulgating the January 2000 
proposed rule, EPA incorporated by reference the entire NOX 
SIP call record. Documents related to the NOX SIP call are 
available for inspection in Docket No. A-96-56 at the address and times 
given above. In addition, certain documents associated with the 
NOX SIP

[[Page 48568]]

call are located at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/otagsip.html.

Outline

    The information in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. Background
II. Final Rule Revisions
    A. Rationale for revising units' allocations.
    B. Final approach for obtaining allowances for units' revised 
allocations.
    C. Amount of allowances for units' revised allocations.
    D. Changes to regulatory text.
III. Administrative Requirements
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Impacts Analysis
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act: Small Entity Impacts
    C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    D. Paperwork Reduction Act
    E. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    F. Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice
    G. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    H. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 13211: Energy Effects
    K. Congressional Review Act

I. Background

    In January 2000, EPA took final action under section 126 of the CAA 
on petitions filed by eight Northeastern States seeking to mitigate 
interstate transport of NOX.\1\ 65 FR 2674 (January 18, 
2000). Section 126 of the CAA authorizes a downwind State to petition 
EPA for a finding that an existing or new (or modified) major 
stationary source or a group of such sources emits or would emit in 
violation of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) by contributing significantly to 
nonattainment of a National Ambient Air Quality Standard or interfering 
with maintenance of such a standard in a downwind State. EPA determined 
that certain EGUs and non-EGUs named in the petitions emit in violation 
of the CAA prohibitions against significantly contributing to 
nonattainment or maintenance problems in the petitioning States. The 
EGUs and non-EGUs covered by the January 2000 final rule are in the 
following States or portions of States and the District of Columbia: 
Delaware; Indiana; Kentucky; Maryland; Michigan; North Carolina; New 
Jersey; New York; Ohio; Pennsylvania; Virginia; and West Virginia. 65 
FR 2675.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This background is for the convenience of the reader to 
understand better the final revisions in sections II.B.2, II.C, and 
II.D below. EPA did not reconsider or request comment on any of the 
provisions in part 97, except to the extent discussed in preamble 
sections II.B.2, II.C, and II.D of the December 2000 proposed rule 
that initiated the instant rulemaking. See 65 FR 80398, 80402-4 
(December 21, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA established the Federal NOX Budget Trading Program 
as the control remedy for these sources. EPA determined allowable 
emissions for the sources and allocated NOX allowances to 
the sources. Under this program, an affected unit (referred to as a `` 
NOX Budget unit'') may buy or sell allowances but must hold, 
after the end of the ozone season, a number of allowances at least 
equal to the number of tons of NOX that the unit emitted 
during that ozone season.
    For purposes of allocating allowances, EPA set for each State (or 
portion of State) NOX emission budgets (in tons of 
NOX per ozone season) for EGUs and non-EGUs. The EGU budget 
\1a\ for each State is the larger of the total ozone season heat input 
for EGUs in the State for 1995 or 1996, increased by a growth rate 
through 2007, and multiplied by a control level of 0.15 lb. 
NOX per mmBtu. The non-EGU budget \2\ for each State is the 
non-EGU ozone season NOX emissions in the State for 1995, 
increased by a growth rate through 2007, at a 60 percent control level. 
EPA then allocated allowances to each existing unit, based on the 
unit's historical heat input. For EGUs, the average of the two highest 
ozone season heat inputs from 1995-1998 was used as the historical heat 
input. For non-EGU's, the 1995 ozone season heat input or, if data were 
available, the average of the two highest ozone season heat inputs from 
1995-1998 was used as the historical heat input. 40 CFR 97.42(a). EPA 
also adjusted each unit's allocations so that the total number of 
allowances allocated to EGUs and the total number of allowances 
allocated to non-EGUs in a given State equaled 95 percent of the EGU 
budget and of the non-EGU budget respectively for that State. 40 CFR 
97.42(b) and (c). Five percent of the budget was reserved for 
allocations to new units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1a\ For details on the budget calculations, see the January 18, 
2000 Federal Register Notice.
    \2\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After EPA promulgated the January 2000 final rule, owners, or 
associations of owners, of EGUs or non-EGUs filed petitions with the 
D.C. Circuit challenging, among other things, the allowance allocations 
for certain units in the Federal NOX Budget Trading Program 
regulations. Subsequently, EPA entered into settlements with some of 
these owners and associations of owners. Today's action finalizes 
revised allowance allocations for these units, in a manner consistent 
with the settlements.
    In addition, after promulgation of the January 2000 final rule, 
owners of non-EGUs submitted letters to EPA requesting correction of 
the allowance allocations for two other units under the rule. EPA 
responded that it was treating the letters as requests for 
reconsideration of the two units' allocations under the rule and would 
propose to revise the allocations. Today's action finalizes revised 
allocations for these units.

II. Final Rule Revisions

    EPA is adopting specific, limited revisions to provisions of the 
Federal NOX Budget Trading Program rule, i.e., part 97, in 
order to change the NOX allowance allocations for certain 
NOX Budget units. In today's final rule, EPA is specifying 
which units will receive revised allocations, how EPA will obtain the 
additional allowances used for the revised allocations, and what will 
be the amount of each unit's revised allocation. As discussed below, 
EPA is revising the allocations for the units discussed in section II.A 
of today's preamble. To provide the revised allocations, EPA is using 
allowances that were allocated initially to units that EPA has 
subsequently determined are not NOX Budget units and 
therefore not subject to the Federal NOX Budget Trading 
Program. This approach to obtaining allowances for the revised 
allocations is discussed in section II.B. In section II.C, EPA 
discusses the amount of each unit's revised allocation.
    The specific rule revisions necessary to implement the above-
described approach are discussed in section II.D of today's preamble. 
EPA is revising Appendices A and B to part 97 in order to include 
revised allocations for the units identified in section II.A and remove 
allocations for some other units that EPA has previously determined not 
to be NOX Budget units.
    EPA did not consider, or request comment on, any other changes to 
part 97 or the January 2000 final rule. The December 2000 proposed rule 
was limited to changes to part 97 that are necessary either: to correct 
the allocations for the units specifically identified here; or to 
provide the Administrator general authority to address similar 
allocation-quantity issues that may arise in the future.

A. Rationale for Revising Units' Allocations

    In today's final rule, EPA is revising allocations for the 
following units:
    1. A group of units referred to as ``stranded'' units: Unit 0B7, 
plant 00003,

[[Page 48569]]

Union Carbide--South Charleston Plant, Kanawha County, West Virginia; 
and the Package Boiler at Weyerhaeuser Company Plymouth, plant 0069, 
Martin County and Power Boiler No. 2 at Weyerhaeuser Company New Bern 
Mill, plant 0104, Craven County in North Carolina;
    2. SEI Birchwood, plant 12 (``Birchwood'');
    3. A group of all West Virginia non-EGUs: Unit 612, plant 00001, 
Dupont-Belle, Kanawha County; Unit 006, plant 00001, Elkem Metals 
Company L.P.--Alloy Plant, Fayette County; Units 001 and 003, plant 
00002, PPG Industries, Inc., Marshall County; Units 010, 011, and 012, 
plant 00007, Aventis Cropscience, Kanawha County; and Unit 0B6, plant 
00003, Union Carbide--South Charleston Plant, Kanawha County;
    4. Riley Bark Boiler, Plant 0159, Blue Ridge Paper Products 
Company, Haywood County, North Carolina (``Blue Ridge''); and
    5. Unit 0056, plant K3249, Michigan State University, Ingham 
County, Michigan (``Michigan State'').
    In the December 2000 proposed rule, EPA discussed in detail the 
circumstances concerning EPA's original determinations in the January 
2000 final rule of the allocations for these units. 65 FR 80398, 80399-
400 (December 21, 2000). EPA then evaluated these circumstances and 
provided the reasons for the proposed conclusion that the respective 
units' allocations in the January 2000 final rule should be revised. In 
particular, EPA proposed to find, for the stranded units and Birchwood, 
that the owners did not have a reasonable opportunity to comment on the 
allocations for their units. EPA proposed that the allocations should 
be revised based on corrected data. 65 FR 80400. With regard to all 
non-EGUs in West Virginia, EPA proposed to find that the owners of the 
units agreed that the allowances had been incorrectly distributed among 
the units due to the submission of erroneous data to EPA. EPA proposed 
that the allowances should be redistributed among those units to 
reflect the distribution agreed upon by those owners. Id. With regard 
to the Blue Ridge and Michigan State units, EPA proposed to find that 
it had misinterpreted the comments submitted by the units' owners and 
proposed that the allocations should be revised to reflect the correct 
interpretation of those comments. Id.
    No commenters objected to the above-described proposed findings 
concerning any of the units or to the proposals to revise the units' 
allocations. Based on the reasons set forth in the December 2000 
proposed rule and on the supporting record, EPA is today adopting as 
final these findings and conclusions.
    In addition, one commenter requested that EPA address the status 
under the NOX Budget Trading Program of two additional units 
not addressed in the December 2000 proposed rule. Specifically, the 
commenter requested that EPA determine that one unit for which an 
allocation is provided in the January 2000 final rule (i.e., Point 004, 
plant 0006, International Paper--Franklin (formerly Union Camp Corp/
Fine Paper Div), Isle of Wright County, Virginia) is not actually a 
NOX Budget unit and is not subject to the requirements of 
the NOX Budget Trading Program. The commenter also requested 
that EPA determine that a second unit that was not allocated allowances 
(i.e., Unit 17, plant 0006, International Paper--Franklin, Isle of 
Wright County, Virginia) is actually a NOX Budget unit and 
subject to the program and should receive an allocation.
    With regard to the requested determination that the first unit is 
not a NOX Budget unit, part 97 already provides a procedure 
for EPA to make such a determination without revising the regulations. 
Under Sec. 97.42(g)(1), the Administrator may determine that a unit 
allocated allowances is not actually a NOX Budget unit and 
that the Administrator will not record the allocation. Using this 
procedure, EPA has already issued final determinations that several 
other units are not NOX Budget units. Since this procedure 
is available for the unit referenced by the commenter and since issues 
concerning this unit are in any event outside the scope of the December 
2000 proposed rule, EPA is not determining in this rulemaking the 
status of this unit under the NOX Budget Trading Program. 
Instead, EPA recently issued a determination under Sec. 97.42(g)(1) 
concluding that the unit is not a NOX Budget unit.
    With regard to the status of the second unit referenced by this 
commenter, issues concerning this unit are outside the scope of the 
December 2000 proposed rule. EPA therefore is not addressing these 
issues, or taking any action, concerning the unit in this 
rulemaking.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Similarly, issues raised by another commenter, concerning 
the lack of allowance allocations for another unit (referred to as 
DTE River Rouge No. 1 LLC), are outside the scope of the December 
2000 proposed rule, and EPA is not addressing, or taking any action 
concerning, this unit in this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Final Approach for Obtaining Allowances for Units' Revised 
Allocations

    EPA's general approach to obtaining allowances for revised 
allocations for the identified units is to adopt methodologies that 
will result in the least disruption to the Federal NOX 
Budget Trading Program, while maintaining unchanged the emission 
reductions required under the program and the existing State EGU and 
non-EGU budgets that reflect those reductions.
1. Final approach for West Virginia non-EGUs.
    Since the issues concerning the West Virginia non-EGUs (including 
one ``stranded'' unit) involve the entire West Virginia non-EGU budget 
sector, EPA proposed in the December 2000 proposal to obtain allowances 
for the non-EGUs' revised allocations by redistributing the allocations 
for that sector. The redistribution will not affect any units other 
than those needing revised allocations. Further, the redistribution is 
the least disruptive approach for revising the units' allocations. In 
fact, since the owners of all the West Virginia non-EGUs have agreed on 
the amounts of the revised allocations for the units, the owners could 
have accomplished this redistribution on their own at any time, simply 
by using the unrestricted trading allowed under the Federal 
NOX Budget Trading Program to transfer allowances among the 
units.
    No commenters objected to this approach for revising the 
allocations for the West Virginia non-EGUs. For the above reasons, EPA 
adopts this approach.
2. Approach for Other Units
    For the other units identified above, EPA proposed in the December 
2000 proposal to use first the allowances that were allocated in the 
January 2000 final rule to units that EPA subsequently determined not 
to be NOX Budget units. To the extent an insufficient amount 
of allowances were available from such non-NOX Budget units, 
EPA proposed to use allowances from the compliance supplement pool. In 
the December 2000 proposal, EPA stated that there were sufficient 
allowances available for non-NOX Budget units to provide 
allowances for all of the identified units except the Birchwood unit. 
Thus, under the proposal, non-NOX Budget units would provide 
all additional allowances for all the identified units except the 
Birchwood unit, which would receive

[[Page 48570]]

some but not all of its additional allowances from non-NOX 
Budget units.
    The most accurate approach for providing revised allocations for 
the ``stranded'', Birchwood, Blue Ridge, and Michigan State units would 
be to recreate the allocations that would have resulted if EPA had 
originally used the correct data for them when the allocations were 
established in the January 2000 final rule. This approach would require 
reallocating allowances for each, entire budget sector (i.e., the EGU 
or non-EGU sector for a given State) that includes one or more of these 
five units.
    This is because, if the two ``stranded'' units \4\ and the 
Birchwood, Blue Ridge, and Michigan State units had been provided the 
proper number of allowances in the January 2000 final rule, the 
allocations for all units in their respective budget sectors in their 
respective States would have been affected. Under Sec. 97.42(b) and 
(c), each existing unit is allocated its proportionate share of the 
budget for its respective sector (EGU or non-EGU) for its respective 
State. For example, allocations for an EGU in a given State are 
determined by: multiplying an emission rate (0.15 lb/mmBtu) times each 
unit's historical heat input; totaling the results for all EGUs in the 
State; and adjusting each EGU's allocation proportionately until the 
total number of allowances allocated to the EGUs in the State equals 95 
percent of the State's EGU budget. Non-EGU allocations are determined 
in the same way except that the emission rate (0.17 lb/mmBtu) is 
different and the allocations must equal 95 percent of the non-EGU 
budget.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The third ``stranded'' unit is a West Virginia non-EGU, 
whose revised allocation is addressed above in preamble section 
II.B.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consequently, if EPA were to take the approach of recreating the 
original allocations based on the correct data, the allocations of all 
units in each entire budget sector would be revised. Further, because 
there would then be more units receiving allocations than in the 
original allocation process, each unit (other than the two ``stranded'' 
units and the Birchwood, Blue Ridge, and Michigan State units) would 
have a reduced allocation.
    As explained in the December 2000 proposal, EPA believes that this 
approach would result in disruption of the Federal NOX 
Budget Trading Program, and for the units in the program, far out of 
proportion to the scope of the problem. No commenters supported this 
approach to providing revised allocations for the ``stranded'', 
Birchwood, Blue Ridge, and Michigan State units. For the above reasons, 
EPA concludes that it should adopt an approach that is less disruptive 
to the Federal NOX Budget Trading Program and the units in 
the program than a full reallocation of allowances to all units in 
each, entire budget sector.
    i. Use of allocations to non-NOX Budget units.
    EPA stated in the December 2000 proposed rule that using allowances 
that were allocated mistakenly under the January 2000 final rule to 
units that were not actually NOX Budget units is the least 
disruptive method of providing allowances for the revised allocations. 
Appendices A and B of the January 2000 final rule list the allocations 
for specific units thought to be NOX Budget units. Under 
Sec. 97.42(g)(1)(i), if EPA subsequently determines that any unit in 
Appendix A or B is not actually a NOX Budget unit, the 
Administrator will not record the listed allocations in an account for 
the unit. Instead, the Administrator will record the allocations in the 
allocation set-aside for new units in the State in which the unit is 
located, in addition to the 5 percent of the EGU and non-EGU budgets 
already comprising the set-aside. 40 CFR 97.42(g)(2).\5\ EPA concluded 
in the December 2000 proposed rule, that revising NOX Budget 
units' allocations using allowances mistakenly allocated to non-
NOX Budget units is the approach that is the least 
disruptive of reasonable expectations of owners and operators and, 
thus, of compliance planning for NOX Budget units. See 65 FR 
80402.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ One commenter expressed concern that, since the rule states 
that the allocation set-aside is established as equaling 5% of the 
State EGU and non-EGU budgets, the allowances originally allocated 
to non-NOX Budget units could not be added to the 
allocation set-aside. However, Sec. 97.42(d)(1) states what the 
initial amount of the allocation set-aside will be and does not 
preclude or contradict Sec. 97.42(g)(2), which states specifically 
that other allowances may be subsequently added to the set-aside.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two commenters claimed that revising allocations using allowances 
made available through determinations under Sec. 97.42(g)(1) would 
disrupt compliance planning. These commenters note that, under the 
existing regulations, allowances originally allocated to units 
determined not to be NOX Budget units are added to the 
allocation set-aside for new units. One of the commenters claims that 
``it is reasonable that companies planning'' new units ``would have 
factored into their compliance plans assumptions concerning the 
availability * * * of allowances freed up'' under Sec. 97.42(g) 
determinations, including those determinations ``made several months 
ago.''
    However, in establishing this mechanism for correcting allocations 
to non-NOX Budget units, EPA stated that it expected that 
such allocations would occur ``rarely, if ever.'' 65 FR 2707. EPA's 
intent, of course, was not to make errors resulting in allocations to 
non-NOX Budget units, and there was no reason for owners and 
operators to assume that there would be errors or rely on such an 
assumption. On the contrary, since EPA stated that the mechanism for 
correcting such errors would rarely be needed, owners and operators of 
new units had no reasonable expectation that the mechanism would ever 
be used and that any incorrectly allocated allowances would be added to 
the allocation set-aside.
    Moreover, the commenter speculated, without providing any support, 
that owners and operators changed their compliance planning for new 
units during the few months between June-August 2000, when the bulk of 
the Sec. 97.42(g) determinations were issued, and December 2000 when 
EPA issued the proposal to revise allocations for the identified units 
using allowances from these Sec. 97.42(g) determinations. For example, 
the commenter provides no evidence that any owner or operator incurred 
expenses, or made decisions, concerning compliance of its units on the 
assumption that allowances would be available for the units under 
Sec. 97.42(g). The commenter's unsupported speculation warrants little 
or no weight. Further, the relatively short period during which the 
owners and operators could have thought that such allowances would be 
available was unlikely to result in any significant changes in 
compliance planning. On balance, EPA concludes that owners and 
operators did not reasonably rely, to any significant extent, on the 
availability of allowances under Sec. 97.42(g) for new units.
    The commenters objecting to using non-NOX Budget units' 
allowances to provide allowances to the two ``stranded'' units and the 
Birchwood, Blue Ridge, and Michigan State units also argued that EPA 
should increase the State trading budgets by the amounts of the 
additional allowances to be provided to the identified units. However, 
the commenters ignore the fact that if, in setting the State EGU and 
non-EGU budgets, EPA had originally used the correct data concerning 
the non-NOX Budget units mistakenly allocated allowances, 
the State EGU or non-EGU budgets in which the non-NOX Budget 
units were included in the

[[Page 48571]]

January 2000 final rule would have been lower and therefore the total 
number of allowances allocated under those budgets would have been 
less.
    This is because all of the non-NOX Budget units 
mistakenly allocated allowances had heat input values that were used to 
calculate the respective State EGU or non-EGU budgets. For example, the 
State EGU budget for Michigan was based on the total heat input for all 
large EGUs in 1995, and each of the non-NOX Budget units 
originally treated as large EGUs in Michigan \6\ had heat input values 
in 1995 that were included in the State EGU budget. Also, the State EGU 
budgets for North Carolina and Virginia \7\ were based on the total 
heat input for large EGUs in 1996, and each of the non-NOX 
Budget units originally treated as large EGUs in those States \8\ had 
heat input values in 1995 that were included in the respective State 
EGU budget. Similarly, the State non-EGU budgets were based on total 
heat input for large non-EGUs in the respective States in 1995, and all 
the non-NOX Budget units originally treated as large non-
EGUs in those States had heat input values in 1995 that were included 
in the respective State non-EGU budget.\9\ Although the treatment of 
the non-NOX Budget units inflated somewhat the State EGU or 
non-EGU budgets, EPA did not reduce these budgets when it issued 
determinations removing the non-NOX budget units from the 
trading program. Instead, EPA took back the allowances allocated to 
these non-NOX budget units and provided in part 97 that 
these allowances would be added to the set-aside for new units in the 
respective States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ These units are 491 E 48th Street Units -7 and -8, J B Sims 
Unit 65, and James De Young Unit 5.
    \7\ These units are Craven County Wood Energy Unit ST_RGY in 
North Carolina and Stone Container Unit ST_ner in Virginia.
    \8\ These units are 491 E 48th Street Units -7 and -8, J B Sims 
Unit 65, and James De Young Unit 5.
    \9\ These units are: Points 0201 through 0204 and 0205, plant 
A7809, National Steel Corp, Wayne County, Michigan; Points 0218 and 
0219, plant A8640, Rouge Steel Corp., Wayne County, Michigan; Point 
0084, plant A4033, Dow Chemical, Midland County, Michigan; Point 
030, plant 0078, FMC Corp--Lithium Div. Hwy 161, Gaston County, 
North Carolina; Point 007, plant 0069, Weyerhaeuser Co. Plymouth, 
Martin County, North Carolina; and Point 004, plant 0006, 
International Paper--Franklin (formerly Union Camp Corp/Fine Paper 
Div), Isle of Wright County, Virginia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In short, EPA's approach concerning the non-NOX Budget 
units already somewhat inflated the State EGU or non-EGU budgets. The 
commenters' approach would compound this result by further increasing 
State EGU or non-EGU budgets to provide additional allowances to the 
identified NOX Budget units. In addition, under the 
commenter's approach of further increasing the EGU or non-EGU budgets 
of the States involved (i.e., Michigan, North Carolina, and Virginia), 
those States' budgets would be calculated in a different manner (i.e., 
with amounts of allowances added to the amounts derived using the 
generally applied methodology for calculating budgets) than any other 
States' budgets. EPA maintains that it is reasonable to use the 
allowances that were mistakenly allocated to non-NOX Budget 
units, and that somewhat inflated certain State EGU or non-EGU budgets, 
to provide additional allowances to the identified NOX 
Budget units, rather than further increasing those State EGU or non-EGU 
budgets.
    According to one of the commenters supporting the approach of 
increasing the State trading budgets to provide revised allocations, 
the State trading budget (for Virginia) would have been higher if EPA 
had originally used the correct historical heat input data for one of 
the identified units (the Birchwood unit). However, this comment is 
based on an incorrect factual premise.
    Actually, Virginia's trading budget was based on the higher of 
total EGU heat input in 1995 or 1996, the 1996 total was the higher 
value, and the Birchwood unit did not commence operation until after 
the 1996 control period. The incorrect heat input data submitted to, 
and used by, EPA to set Virginia's EGU budget showed heat input for the 
Birchwood unit for the 1996 control period. That incorrect value was 
used to calculate the Virginia budget. Thus, if EPA originally had been 
provided and had used the correct heat input data for the Birchwood 
unit, Virginia's EGU budget would be lower than the amount in the 
January 2000 final rule. The commenter's approach would result in 
further increase of that budget and would result in Virginia's budget 
being calculated in a manner inconsistent with other States' budgets.
    In summary, EPA concludes that using non-NOX Budget 
units' allowances has little or no disruptive impact on units in the 
NOX Budget Trading Program. EPA also maintains that this is 
a reasonable approach for providing revised allocations for the 
identified units.
    As discussed above, after issuance of the December 2000 proposed 
rule and during the comment period on that proposal, a commenter 
informed EPA of a unit, not previously identified, that was allocated 
allowances in the January 2000 final rule but that is not actually a 
NOX Budget unit. The issues concerning the status of this 
unit (i.e., Point 004, plant 0006, International Paper--Franklin 
(formerly Union Camp Corp/Fine Paper Div), Isle of Wright County, 
Virginia) as a NOX Budget unit were outside the scope of 
December 2000 proposed rule and this rulemaking, and there is a 
separate procedure under Sec. 97.42(g)(1) for addressing such issues. 
EPA therefore issued a letter under Sec. 97.42(g)(1) on August 1, 2001, 
in which EPA determined that the unit was not actually a NOX 
Budget unit. Further, EPA stated in the letter that, consistent with 
Sec. 97.42(g)(1)(i), the 262 allowances allocated to the unit would not 
be recorded for the unit.
    Consequently, there are 262 additional allowances that were 
mistakenly allocated to a non-NOX Budget unit in Virginia 
and that are available under the approach proposed in the December 2000 
proposal for providing additional allowances to the Birchwood unit. As 
a result, there are sufficient allowances available from non-
NOX Budget units in Virginia to provide the full amount of 
additional allowances necessary for the Birchwood unit.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Although, at the time of the December 2000 proposal EPA was 
not aware that Point 004, plant 0006, International Paper--Franklin 
(formerly Union Camp Corp/Fine Paper Div), Isle of Wright County, 
Virginia was a non-NOX Budget unit and that allowances 
allocated to the unit might be available to use for the Birchwood 
unit, such use of these allowances is squarely within the scope of 
the December 2000 proposal. In that proposal, EPA proposed generally 
to provide additional allowances to units warranting additional 
allocations using allowances allocated to units that were non-
NOX Budget units. 65 FR 80401; see also 65 FR 80404 
(proposing to modify Sec. 97.42(g) to establish a general procedure 
for using non-NOX Budget units' allowances to provide 
additional allowances to individual NOX Budget units 
warranting increased allocations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ii. Use of compliance supplement pool or allocation set-aside 
allowances.
    In the December 2000 proposed rule, EPA stated that using 
allowances from the State compliance supplement pool was the next least 
disruptive method of providing allowances for the revised allocations, 
after the use of non-NOX Budget units' allowances.EPA 
explained that use of the compliance supplement pool allowances would 
be less disruptive than using allowances from the allocation set-aside, 
which is used for allocations to new units. See 65 FR 80403.
    However, as discussed above, EPA has determined that there are 
sufficient allowances available from non-NOX Budget units to 
provide allowances for all of the identified units, including the 
Birchwood unit. There is no need to use the compliance supplement pool 
for any

[[Page 48572]]

State in which the identified units are located to provide any 
allowances needed for the units' revised allocations. For the reasons 
discussed below, EPA concludes that non-NOX Budget units 
should provide all additional allowances for all the identified units.
    First, EPA maintains that use of non-NOX Budget units' 
allowances is less disruptive to the NOX Budget Trading 
Program and units in the program than using allowances from the 
compliance supplement pool. The purpose of the pool is to provide 
additional allowances for 2003 and 2004 above and beyond the State EGU 
and non-EGU budgets for units ``that are unable to meet the compliance 
deadline'' during those years. 63 FR 57356, 57428 (October 27, 1998) 
(explaining purpose of pool in NOX SIP call); see also 64 FR 
28250, 28310 (May 25, 1999) (adopting pool in Federal NOX 
Budget Trading Program for same reasons as in NOX SIP call). 
The compliance deadline is feasible without the compliance supplement 
pool. However, the additional allowances in this pool will ensure that 
any units unable to install NOX control equipment (e.g., 
because of concerns for reliability of electric generation during a 
shutdown for installation) in 2003 or 2004 are able to obtain 
allowances in the meantime. See 63 FR 57428.
    The compliance supplement pool allowances are initially distributed 
to units that make early NOX emission reductions. Owners and 
operators of units that reduce the units' NOX emissions 
below a specified level after 2000 and before 2003, the year when the 
control requirements of the Federal NOX Budget Trading 
Program first take effect, may apply for compliance supplement pool 
allowances. 40 CFR 97.43(a). Owners and operators of units in the Ozone 
Transport Commission NOX Budget Program may also apply for 
compliance supplement pool allowances to the extent the units have 
banked allowances for 2000 or 2001 under that program. 40 CFR 97.43(b). 
Although the compliance supplement pool is distributed to units with 
early reductions or with banked allowances under the Ozone Transport 
Commission NOX Budget Trading Program, units ``that need 
extra allowances for compliance will have access to them through the 
allowance market.'' 65 FR 2714. EPA provided credit for early 
reductions ``merely as a mechanism for managing the [compliance 
supplement pool], not as an independent program with a purpose separate 
from that of the [compliance supplement pool]''. State of Michigan v. 
EPA, 213 F.3d 663, 694 (D.C. Cir. 2000).
    However, EPA recognizes that using some of the compliance 
supplement pool allowances for revised allocations would reduce the 
amount of allowances potentially available for early reductions. Each 
State has a fixed number of allowances in the State compliance 
supplement pool. See 65 FR 2767 (Appendix D showing compliance 
supplement pool for each State). Using the pool would make fewer 
allowances potentially available for early reductions and so would be 
more disruptive to the Federal NOX Budget Trading Program 
and other units than using non-NOX Budget unit allowances.
    Second, using allowances from the allocation set-aside, would also 
be more disruptive than using non-NOX Budget unit 
allowances. The allocation set-aside is allocated to new units for 
years before they have the necessary historical data to be treated as 
existing units in future allocation updating. The allocation set-aside 
therefore plays an important role of integrating new units into the 
NOX Budget Trading Program. EPA set the allocation set-aside 
at 5% of the State EGU and non-EGU budgets so that the pool would be 
large enough to accommodate all new sources. EPA is concerned that 
using allowances from the allocation set-aside to revise the identified 
units' allocations may result in fewer allowances being available for 
individual new units. See 65 FR 80403. EPA notes that no commenter 
indicated a preference for using allowances from the allocation set-
aside (or from the compliance supplement pool), in lieu of non-
NOX Budget units' allowances.
    In summary, EPA concludes that the compliance supplement pool or 
allocation set-aside allowances should not be used to obtaining 
allowances for any of the identified units.

C. Amounts of Allowances for Units' Revised Allocations

    In the December 2000 proposed rule, EPA proposed the amounts of 
allowances to use for the units' revised allocations. For the West 
Virginia non-EGUs (including one ``stranded'' unit), EPA proposed to 
use the allocations requested by all the owners of those units. 65 FR 
80403. EPA did not receive any comments objecting to these revised 
allocations. For the reasons set forth in the proposed-rule preamble, 
today's final rule adopts these revised allocations.
    EPA also proposed in the December 2000 proposal to calculate the 
revised allocations for two ``stranded'' units and the Birchwood, Blue 
Ridge, and Michigan State units by using the average emission rate 
underlying the allocations for the respective unit's State budget 
sector (EGUs or non-EGUs) in Appendix A or B in the January 2000 final 
rule. Specifically, as discussed above, the allocations to each EGU in 
Appendix A or non-EGU in Appendix B are calculated by multiplying the 
unit's historical heat input by an initial average emission rate (0.15 
lb/mmBtu for EGUs and 0.17 lb/mmBtu for non-EGUs) and then adjusting 
the results so that the total of the allocations to all EGUs or all 
non-EGUs in the unit's State equals 95 percent of the State EGU budget 
or State non-EGU budget respectively. Thus, all EGU allocations for the 
State have a common underlying average emission rate, and all non-EGU 
allocations for the State have a common underlying average emission 
rate, which may differ from that for EGU allocations.
    In calculating allocations for the ``stranded'', Birchwood, Blue 
Ridge, and Michigan State units, EPA proposed to use the underlying 
average emission rate for units in the State budget sector in the same 
State as the respective unit. EPA proposed to multiply each unit's 
historical heat input (calculated under Sec. 97.42(a))by the 
appropriate underlying average emission rate. See 40 CFR 97.42(a) 
(establishing 1995-1998 as the historical period for 2003-2007 
allocations); and Memorandum on Calculation of Revised Allocations, 
Document No. XIV-B-01(showing how the revised allocations are 
calculated and attaching the supporting documentation of the heat input 
data).
    EPA did not receive any comments objecting to the proposed 
methodology for calculating the revised allocations. One commenter 
stated that the revised allocation listed in the proposed rule language 
for one unit (Unit 005, plant 0159, Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc., 
Haywood County, North Carolina) was incorrect. In considering the 
comment, EPA found that the amount of the allocation as reflected in 
the Memorandum on Calculation of Revised Allocations in the record was 
different than the number listed in the proposed rule language for the 
unit. EPA agrees that the amount in the memorandum is correct and that 
the number in the proposed rule is wrong. In today's final rule, EPA is 
correcting the allocation for the Blue Ridge unit to be consistent with 
the memorandum in the record and is otherwise adopting the revised 
allocations in the proposed rule, based on the reasons set forth above 
and on the supporting record.

D. Changes to regulatory Text.

    In today's final rule, EPA is adopting the following revisions to 
the language of specific sections of part 97.

[[Page 48573]]

1. Appendices A and B Revisions.
    EPA is adopting several rule revisions to implement the above-
described revised allocations and approach for obtaining allowances for 
those allocations. First, today's final rule revises Appendices A and B 
to part 97 in order to include revised allocation amounts for the 
identified units as discussed above. In addition, when Appendix A or B 
incorrectly references an identified unit or fails to list the unit at 
all, EPA is correcting these errors.
    Second, today's final rule revises Appendices A and B to remove 
allocations for units that EPA has previously determined not to be 
NOX Budget units. Included in these revisions is the removal 
of the unit, noted above, that EPA recently determined was a non- 
NOX Budget unit for which allowances should not be 
recorded.\11\ As discussed above, under Sec. 97.42(g), the 
Administrator may determine that a unit allocated allowances in 
Appendix A or B does not meet the applicability requirements in 
Sec. 97.4 and so is not actually a NOX Budget unit. In 
response to requests for such determinations, EPA has issued final 
determinations that 4 units listed in Appendix A and 28 units listed in 
Appendix B are not NOX Budget units and will not have 
allocations recorded in their accounts. No commenters on the December 
2000 proposed rule objected to reflecting final determinations under 
Sec. 97.42(g) in revisions to the appendices. Appendix A. Today's final 
rule merely reflects, in regulatory text, these final determinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Removal of this unit was not specifically referenced in the 
December 2000 proposed rule because the determination that the unit 
was a non- NOX Budget unit was not issued until August 1, 
2001. However, EPA maintains that there is good cause under section 
553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act for finalizing this 
revision without notice and comment. The August 1, 2001 
determination is final, and the revision merely ensures that 
Appendix B reflects this final determination. Even without such 
revision, the final determination would be effective and the 
allowances originally allocated to the unit would be available for 
allocation in today's final rule to the Birchwood unit. Notice and 
comment are therefore unnecessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Section 97.42(g) revisions
    In the December 2000 proposal, EPA proposed revisions to Sec. 97.42 
(allocation procedures) that would authorize the Administrator to issue 
orders correcting other units' allocations, where correction was 
warranted, using allowances allocated to units determined not to be 
NOX Budget units. Under the proposed revisions, the 
Administrator could determine that the number of allowances actually 
allocated to an existing NOX Budget unit for 2003-2007 in 
Appendix A or B is less than the number of allowances provided under 
Sec. 97.42(a) through (d) and that equitable considerations warranted 
correction of such unit's allocation. The Administrator could also 
determine that the number of allowances actually allocated to a new 
NOX Budget unit for 2003-2007 or to any NOX 
Budget unit for 2008 or thereafter, using procedures in Sec. 97.42(a) 
through (d), was less than the number of allowances provided under 
Sec. 97.42(a) through (d) and that equitable considerations warranted 
correction of such unit's allocation. Moreover, in the order, the 
Administrator could determine that allowances mistakenly allocated to 
non- NOX Budget units located in the same State as the unit 
would be used to supplement, and thereby correct, the unit's actual 
allocation. EPA stated that the use of orders--rather than rule 
revisions--to make unit-specific allocations from allocations to non- 
NOX Budget units would allow for much more expeditious 
correction of a unit's allocations where correction was warranted and 
still provide opportunity for interested parties to submit objections.
    Several commenters objected to the proposed revision of 
Sec. 97.42(g) on the ground that, among other things, State budgets 
should be increased to provide additional allowances for units whose 
original allocations were incorrect and warranted an increase. The 
commenters also claimed that the proposed revision provided fewer 
procedural protections for participants and other members of the public 
than provided through a rulemaking proceeding. As discussed above, EPA 
concludes above that there is no basis for increasing the State budgets 
to provide additional allowances for the units specifically identified 
in this final rule as warranting increased allocations. Further, 
additional procedural protections (if any were necessary) could be 
provided in a final rule. However, EPA has decided that the most 
prudent course is to retain--at this time--the flexibility to address 
case-by-case the issue of how to obtain additional allowances for any 
other units that EPA may determine in the future warrant increased 
allocations, rather than deciding that question on a generic basis now 
by adopting the proposed revisions. EPA is therefore not taking action 
in today's final rule on the proposed revisions to Sec. 97.42(g).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ One commenter that supports the proposed revisions to 
Sec. 97.42(g) and Sec. 97.43 suggests that the date for compliance 
under the January 2000 final rule with the requirement to hold 
allowances should be extended to May 1, 2004. EPA is not addressing 
this issue in this final rule since the issue is beyond the scope of 
the December 2000 proposed rule and the rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Section 97.43 Revisions
    In the December 2000 proposal, EPA proposed alternative revisions 
that would provide allowances from the State compliance supplement pool 
for the Birchwood unit. EPA proposed to revise Sec. 97.43 to add a new 
paragraph (c)(9) that would specifically allocate to the Birchwood unit 
in Virginia 725 allowances from the Virginia compliance supplement 
pool. The new provisions also would address the interaction of this 
unit-specific allocation with other provisions of the rule concerning 
compliance supplement pool allowances. As discussed above, there are 
now sufficient non- NOX Budget unit allowances to satisfy 
the revised allocation for the Birchwood unit. The proposed new 
paragraph (c)(9) is therefore unnecessary, and EPA has decided not to 
adopt that revision.
    In the December 2000 proposal, EPA also proposed to revise 
Sec. 97.43 to add a new paragraph (d) that would authorize the 
Administrator, on a generic basis, to issue orders determining that the 
number of allowances allocated in Appendix A or B (or using 
Sec. 97.42(a) through (d) procedures) for a unit was less than the 
number of allowances provided under Sec. 97.42(a) through (d) and that 
equitable considerations warrant correction of such allocation. The 
Administrator could also determine in the order that allowances in the 
compliance supplement pool of the State where the unit is located would 
be used to supplement, and thereby correct, the unit's allocation.
    Several commenters objected to the proposed new paragraph (d) of 
Sec. 97.43 on the ground that, among other things, State budgets should 
be increased to provide additional allowances for units whose original 
allocations were incorrect and warranted an increase. The commenters 
also claimed that the proposed revision provided fewer procedural 
protections for participants and other members of the public than 
provided through a rulemaking proceeding. As discussed above, EPA 
concludes above that there is no basis for increasing the State budgets 
to provide additional allowances for the units specifically identified 
in this final rule as warranting increased allocations. Further, 
additional procedural protections (if any were necessary) could be 
provided in a final rule. However, EPA has decided that the most 
prudent course is to retain--at this

[[Page 48574]]

time--the flexibility to address on a case-by-case basis the issue of 
how to obtain additional allowances for any units that EPA may 
determine in the future warrant increased allocations, rather than 
deciding that question on a generic basis now by adopting the proposed 
revisions. EPA is therefore not taking action in today's final rule on 
the proposed revisions to Sec. 97.43.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Impacts Analysis

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)), the 
Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review 
and the requirements of the Executive Order. The 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.
    It has been determined that today's final rule is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 
12866 and, therefore, is not subject to OMB review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act: Small Entity Impacts

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., as 
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, generally requires the Agency to prepare 
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and 
comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act 
or any other statute unless the Agency certifies that the rule will not 
have a significant, economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Such entities include small businesses, small organizations, 
and small governmental jurisdictions.
    In determining whether a rule has a significant, economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any 
significant, adverse, economic impact on small entities since the 
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analysis is to identify 
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant, 
economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 603 
and 604.
    Today's final rule revision is not significant enough to change the 
regulatory burden or economic impact of the existing Federal 
NOX Budget Trading Program rule. Moreover, for virtually all 
NOX Budget units addressed, the final rule either increases 
the number of allowances allocated and thus reduces the burden of the 
program or does not change the number of allowances allocated and thus 
does not change the program burden. To the extent the final rule 
removes certain units from the allocation tables, EPA has already 
issued final orders removing the allocations for these units, and the 
final rule has no effect other than to update the allocation tables to 
make them consistent with those orders. Only one unit's allocation is 
reduced by today's final rule, and the owners of that unit, agreeing 
that the unit's original allocation was erroneously overstated, 
requested EPA to make the reduction.
    For these reasons, I certify that today's final rule will not have 
a significant, economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, 2 
U.S.C. 1532, the Agency generally must prepare a written statement, 
including a cost-benefit analysis, for any proposed or final rule with 
``Federal mandates'' that may result in the expenditure by State, 
local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private 
sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Section 205 of the 
UMRA generally requires that, before promulgating a rule for which a 
written statement is needed, 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 publishes with the final rule an explanation why the 
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under 
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must 
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling 
officials of 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 regulatory requirements.
    EPA has determined that today's final rule does not include a 
Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or 
more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or 
to the private sector in any one year. For the reasons discussed above, 
today's final rule revision is not significant enough to change the 
overall regulatory burden or economic impact of the Federal 
NOX Budget Trading Program rule on any parties, including 
State, local or tribal governments. Accordingly, little or no 
additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments in aggregate, 
or to the private sector, will result from the final rule. Similarly, 
EPA has determined that today's final rule contains no regulatory 
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments. Thus, today's final rule is not subject to the 
requirements of sections 202, 203, or 205 of the UMRA.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Today's final revisions to part 97 will not impose any new 
information collection burden subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 
(44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.). Today's final rule does not change either 
the scope of the units covered by, or the information requirements for 
units under, the Federal NOX Budget Trading Program.
    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

[[Page 48575]]

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 submitted Information Collection Request 
concerning the Federal NOX Budget Trading Program 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.

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

    The Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885 (April 23, 1997)) applies to 
any rule that the Agency determines (1) is ``economically significant'' 
as defined under Executive Order 12866 and (2) concerns an 
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may 
have 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.
    Today's final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because 
it is not ``economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 
12866. Further, EPA does not have reason to believe that the 
environmental health risks or safety risks addressed by this action 
present a disproportionate risk to children.

F. Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice

    Executive Order 12898 requires that each Federal agency make 
achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and 
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human 
health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and 
activities on minorities and low-income populations.
    Today's final rule does not have a disproportionately high and 
adverse human health or environmental effects on minorities and low-
income populations.

G. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255 (August 
10, 1999), requires the Agency to develop an accountable process to 
ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in 
the development of regulatory policies that have federalism 
implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism implications'' are 
defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have 
``substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    Today's final rule does not have federalism implications. It will 
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does 
not apply to this rule.

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

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, 
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the 
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
    This final rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship 
between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. 
This final rule does not anticipate substantial compliance cost 
expenditures by tribal governments nor substantial direct effects on 
cultural practices of tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 
apply to this rule.

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 the Agency to use voluntary consensus standards in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs 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. 
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus 
standards.

J. Executive Order 13211: Energy Effects

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et.seq. (CRA), as added 
by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1966, does 
not apply because this action is not a rule, for purposes of 5 U.S.C. 
8014(3). This action qualifies as a rule of particular applicability 
because its application is limited to specifically named entities, and 
as such, it is exempt from the CRA.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 97

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Emissions trading, Intergovernmental relations, 
Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Ozone transport, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    Dated: September 14, 2001.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the 
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 97--[AMENDED]

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

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7403, 7426, and 7601.

APPENDIX A--[AMENDED]

    2. Appendix A to part 97 is amended by:
    a. Removing all entries for ``MI, 491 E. 48 TH STREET'', ``MI, JB 
SIMS'', ``NC, CRAVEN COUNTY WOOD ENERGY'', and ``VA, STONE CONTAINER''; 
and

[[Page 48576]]

    b. Removing two entries for ``VA, SEI BIRCHWOOD'' and adding in 
their place one entry for ``VA, SEI BIRCHWOOD''.
    The addition read as follows:

                    Appendix A to Part 97--Final Section 126 Rule: EGU Allocations, 2003-2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                         NOX
                  State                                Plant               Plant____id  Point____id   allocation
                                                                                                       for EGUs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
                                                        *
VA......................................  SEI BIRCHWOOD..................           12            1          305
 
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
                                                        *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

APPENDIX B--[AMENDED]

    3. Appendix B to part 97 is amended by:
    a. Removing all entries for ``IN, Allen, MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, 
INC'', ``IN, Elkhart, SUPERIOR LAMINATING, INC'', ``IN, Kosciusko, THE 
DALTON FOUNDRIES INC'', ``KY, Carroll, DOW CORNING CORP'', ``KY, 
Shelby, ICHIKOH MANUFACTURING'', ``KY, Scott, TOYOTA MOTOR MFG USA 
INC'', and ``KY, Hardin, USAARMC & FORT KNOX''; removing the first 
entry for ``MI, Midland, DOW CHEMICAL USA''; removing all entries for 
``MI, Wayne, NATIONAL STEEL CORP'', ``MI, Wayne, ROUGE STEEL CO'', 
``NC, Gaston, FMC CORP--LITHIUM DIV. HWY 161'', ``NJ, Middlesex, FORD 
MOTOR COMPANY'', ``NJ, Bergen, GARDEN STATE PAPER CO'', ``NJ, Passiac, 
HOFFMAN LAROUCHE INC. C/O ENVIR''; ``WV, Grant, NORTH BRANCH POWER 
STATION'', and ``WV, Brooke, WHEELING--PITTSBURGH STEEL''; removing the 
second entry for ``VA, Isle of Wright, INTERNATIONAL PAPER--FRANKLIN 
(FORMERLY UNION CAMP CORP/FINE PAPER DIV)'';
    b. Revising the fourth entry for ``MI, Ingham, MICHIGAN STATE 
UNIVERSITY'';
    c. Revising the second entry for ``NC, Martin, WEYERHAEUSER PAPER 
CO. PLYMOUTH'';
    d. Revising the entries for ``WV, Kanawha, DUPONT--BELLE''; and 
``WV, Fayette, ELKEM METALS COMPANY L.P.--ALLOY PLANT''; revising two 
entries for ``WV, Marshall, PPG INDUSTRIES, INC''; revising the three 
entries for ``WV, Kanawha, AVENTIS CROPSCIENCE''; and revising the 
seven entries for ``WV, Hancock, WEIRTON STEEL CORPORATION''; and
    e. Adding in alphabetical order by State by plant and numerical 
order by point entries for ``NC, Haywood, BLUE RIDGE PAPER PRODUCTS'', 
``NC, Craven, WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY NEW BERN MILL'', and ``WV, Kanawha, 
UNION CARBIDE--SOUTH CHARLESTON PLANT''.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

           Appendix B to Part 97--Final Section 126 Rule: Non-EGU Allocations, Allocations, 2003-2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  NOX allocation
       State               County                 Plant              Plant ID        Point ID      for non-EGUs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
                                                        *
MI.................  Ingham............  MICHIGAN STATE           K3249           0056                        73
                                          UNIVERSITY.
 
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
                                                        *
NC.................  Haywood...........  BLUE RIDGE PAPER         0159            005                        129
                                          PRODUCTS INC.
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
                                                        *
NC.................  Martin............  WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY     0069            009                         25
                                          PLYMOUTH.
NC.................  Craven............  WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY     0104            006                         72
                                          NEW BERN MILL.
 
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
                                                        *
WV.................  Kanawha...........  DUPONT--BELLE..........  00001           612                         54
WV.................  Fayette...........  ELKEM METALS COMPANY     00001           006                        116
                                          L.P.--ALLOY P PLANT.
WV.................  Marshall..........  PPG INDUSTRIES, INC....  00002           001                        195
WV.................  Marshall..........  PPG INDUSTRIES, INC....  00002           003                        419
WV.................  Kanawha...........  AVENTIS CROPSCIENCE....  00007           010                        113
WV.................  Kanawha...........  AVENTIS CROPSCIENCE....  00007           011                        102
WV.................  Kanawha...........  AVENTIS CROPSCIENCE....  00007           012                        105
WV.................  Kanawha...........  UNION CARBIDE--SOUTH     0003            0B6                         92
                                          CHARLESTON PLANT.
WV.................  Kanawha...........  UNION CARBIDE--SOUTH     0003            0B7                         45
                                          CHARLESTON PLANT.
WV.................  Hancock...........  WEIRTON STEEL            00001           030                         31
                                          CORPORATION.
WV.................  Hancock...........  WEIRTON STEEL            00001           088                         30
                                          CORPORATION.
WV.................  Hancock...........  WEIRTON STEEL            00001           089                          2
                                          CORPORATION.
WV.................  Hancock...........  WEIRTON STEEL            00001           090                        110
                                          CORPORATION.
WV.................  Hancock...........  WEIRTON STEEL            00001           091                        253
                                          CORPORATION.
WV.................  Hancock...........  WEIRTON STEEL            00001           092                        208
                                          CORPORATION.
WV.................  Hancock...........  WEIRTON STEEL            00001           093                        200
                                          CORPORATION.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 48577]]

[FR Doc. 01-23476 Filed 9-20-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P