6034 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

120 Priority Mail 

123 Rates and Eligibility 

1.0 Priority Mail Rates and Fees 

[Delete 1.1 in its entirety. Renumber 

current 1.2 through 1.10 as new 1.1 

through 1.9.] 

[Revise the heading of renumbered 1.1 

as follows:] 

1.1 Rate Application 

* * * * * 

1.2 Minimum Rate for Parcels to 

Zones 1–4 

* * * * * 

Exhibit 1.2 Priority Mail Rates 

* * * * * 

[Revise footnote number 2 to reflect 

new numbering:] 

2. Parcels addressed for delivery to 

zones 5–8 that exceed 1 cubic foot 

(1,728 cubic inches) are charged based 

on the actual weight (under 1.1), or the 

dimensional weight (as calculated in 

1.3.1 or 1.3.2), whichever is greater. 

* * * * * 

[Revise footnote number 5 to add new 

flat-rate box as follows:] 

5. Priority Mail flat-rate boxes 

provided by the USPS, regardless of 

weight or destination: 

• $8.95 is charged for material sent in 

Priority Mail regular flat-rate boxes 

(FRB–2) or (FRB–1) to domestic and 

APO/FPO addresses. 

• $10.95 is charged for material sent 

in a Priority Mail large flat-rate box to 

APO/FPO destination addresses. 

• $12.95 is charged for material sent 

in a Priority Mail large flat-rate box to 

domestic destinations. 

* * * * * 

[Revise the heading of renumbered 1.4 

as follows:] 

1.4 Flat-Rate Envelopes and Boxes 

* * * * * 

[Reverse the order of renumbered 

1.4.1 and 1.4.2.] 

* * * * * 

[Revise renumbered 1.4.2 as follows:] 

1.4.2 Flat-Rate Boxes—Rates and 

Eligibility 

Each USPS-produced Priority Mail 

flat-rate box, regardless of the actual 

weight of the piece or its destination, is 

charged: 

a. $8.95 for material sent in Priority 

Mail regular flat-rate boxes (FRB–2) or 

(FRB–1) to domestic and APO/FPO 

addresses. 

b. $10.95 for material sent in a 

Priority Mail large flat-rate box to APO/ 

FPO destination addresses (see 703.2). 

c. $12.95 for material sent in a Priority 

Mail large flat-rate box to domestic 

destinations. 

Items to an APO/FPO address may be 

shipped in the Priority Mail large flatrate box or in a special version of the 

box identified with the additional logo: 

‘‘Americasupportsyou.mil.’’ If the 

special version of the APO/FPO flat-rate 

box is used for non-APO/FPO addresses, 

the domestic or international large flatrate box prices will apply. Only USPSproduced flat-rate boxes are eligible for 

the flat-rate box prices. 

* * * * * 

700 Special Standards 

703 Nonprofit Standard Mail and 

Other Unique Eligibility 

* * * * * 

2.0 Overseas Military Mail 

2.1 Basic Standards 

* * * * * 

[Renumber current 2.1.2 through 2.1.6 

as new 2.1.3 through 2.1.7 and add new 

2.1.2 as follows:] 

2.1.2 APO/FPO Priority Mail Large 

Flat-Rate Box 

A USPS-produced APO/FPO Priority 

Mail large flat-rate box sent to an APO/ 

FPO destination address, regardless of 

the actual weight of the piece, is 

charged $10.95. Items to an APO/FPO 

address may be shipped in a special 

version of the box identified with the 

additional logo: 

‘‘Americasupportsyou.mil.’’ If the 

special version of the APO/FPO flat-rate 

box is used for non-APO/FPO addresses, 

the domestic or international large flatrate box prices will apply. Articles 

mailed to an APO/FPO address in one 

of the regular flat-rate boxes (FRB–1 or 

FRB–2) are charged $8.95. Only USPSproduced flat-rate boxes are eligible for 

the flat-rate box prices. 

* * * * * 

Neva R. Watson, 

Attorney, Legislative. 

[FR Doc. E8–1780 Filed 1–31–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 97 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2007–0390; FRL–8519–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Ohio; 

Clean Air Interstate Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action approves a 

revision to the Ohio State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted on 

April 17, 2007, and revised on 

September 26, 2007. This SIP revision 

incorporates provisions related to the 

implementation of EPA’s Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR), promulgated on 

May 12, 2005, and revised on April 28, 

2006, and December 13, 2006, and the 

CAIR Federal Implementation Plan 

(CAIR SIP) concerning sulphur dioxide 

(SO2), oxides of nitrogen (NOX) annual 

and NOX ozone season emissions for the 

State of Ohio, promulgated on April 28, 

2006, and revised on December 13, 

2006. EPA is not making any changes to 

the CAIR FIP but is amending, to the 

extent EPA approves Ohio’s SIP 

revision, the appropriate appendices in 

the CAIR FIP trading rules simply to 

note that approval. 

The Ohio SIP revision that was 

submitted on April 17, 2007, was a full 

CAIR SIP revision. In a letter submitted 

on September 26, 2007, Ohio requested 

that EPA consider the September 26, 

2007, submittal as two separate 

submittals, i.e., as a full CAIR SIP and 

as an abbreviated CAIR SIP. Ohio 

requested that EPA act on specific 

portions of the September 26, 2007, 

submittal as an abbreviated CAIR SIP. 

EPA approves Ohio’s abbreviated SIP 

revision that addresses the methodology 

used to allocate annual and ozone 

season NOX allowances to affected 

electric generating units (EGUs), and the 

opt-in provisions, under the CAIR 

trading programs and the CAIR SIP. 

This action also contains EPA’s 

response to a comment from the State of 

Connecticut following publication of the 

original direct final approval of the Ohio 

plan on October 16, 2007. We withdrew 

the original direct final rule on 

December 5, 2007, because of receipt of 

this comment. For reasons expressed in 

the body of this rule, EPA believes the 

comment from Connecticut is not 

relevant to this final action and, 

therefore, we are moving forward to 

approve the Ohio plan. As such, EPA 

will populate the compliance accounts 

of units affected by the State’s rule 

shortly after the effective date of this 

rule. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

February 1, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R05–OAR–2007–0390. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 6035 

i.e., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 

recommend that you contact the person 

listed below before visiting the Region 

5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Paskevicz, Engineer, Criteria Pollutant 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6084. 

E-mail at paskevicz.john@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. What Action Is EPA Taking? 

II. What Is the Regulatory History of CAIR 

and the CAIR FIPs? 

III. What Are the General Requirements of 

CAIR and the CAIR FIPs? 

IV. What Are the Types of CAIR SIP 

Submittals? 

V. Analysis of Ohio’s CAIR SIP Submittal 

A. State Budgets for Allowance Allocations 

B. CAIR Cap-and-Trade Programs 

C. Applicability Provisions for non-EGUs 

NOX SIP Call Sources 

D. NOX Allowance Allocations 

E. Allocation of NOX Allowances From the 

Compliance Supplement Pool 

F. Individual Opt-in Units 

VI. Public Comment 

VII. Final Action 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What Action Is EPA Taking? 

CAIR SIP Approval 

EPA is approving a revision to Ohio’s 

SIP, submitted on September 26, 2007, 

that modifies the application of certain 

provisions of the CAIR FIP concerning 

SO2, NOX annual, and NOX ozone 

season emissions. (As discussed below, 

this less comprehensive CAIR SIP is 

termed an abbreviated SIP.) Ohio is 

subject to the CAIR FIPs that implement 

the CAIR requirements by requiring 

certain EGUs to participate in the EPAadministered Federal CAIR SO2, NOX

annual, and NOX ozone season cap-andtrade programs. The SIP revision 

provides a methodology for allocating 

NOX allowances for the NOX annual and 

NOX ozone season trading programs. 

The CAIR FIPs provide that this 

methodology will be used to allocate 

NOX allowances to sources in Ohio, 

instead of the Federal allocation 

methodology otherwise provided in the 

FIP. The SIP revision provides a 

methodology for allocating the 

compliance supplement pool in the 

CAIR NOX annual trading program. The 

SIP also allows for individual units not 

otherwise subject to the CAIR trading 

programs to opt into such trading 

programs in accordance with opt-in 

provisions of the CAIR FIP. Consistent 

with the flexibility provided in the FIPs, 

these provisions will be used to replace 

or supplement, as appropriate, the 

corresponding provisions in the CAIR 

FIPs for Ohio. EPA is not making any 

changes to the CAIR FIP, but is 

amending to the extent EPA approves 

Ohio’s SIP revision, the appropriate 

appendices in the CAIR FIP trading 

rules simply to note that approval. 

II. What Is the Regulatory History of the 

CAIR and the CAIR FIPs? 

The CAIR was published by EPA on 

May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162). In this 

rule, EPA determined that 28 States and 

the District of Columbia contribute 

significantly to nonattainment and 

interfere with maintenance of the 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS) for fine particles (PM2.5) and/ 

or 8-hour ozone in downwind States in 

the eastern part of the country. As a 

result, EPA required those upwind 

States to revise their SIPs to include 

control measures that reduce emissions 

of SO2, which is a precursor to PM2.5

formation, and/or NOX, which is a 

precursor to both ozone and PM2.5

formation. For jurisdictions that 

contribute significantly to downwind 

PM2.5 nonattainment, CAIR sets annual 

State-wide emission reduction 

requirements (i.e., budgets) for SO2 and 

annual State-wide emission reduction 

requirements for NOX. Similarly, for 

jurisdictions that contribute 

significantly to 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment, CAIR sets State-wide 

emission reduction requirements for 

NOX for the ozone season (May 1st to 

September 30th). Under CAIR, States 

may implement these emission budgets 

by participating in the EPAadministered cap-and-trade programs or 

by adopting any other control measures. 

CAIR explains to subject States what 

must be included in SIPs to address the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) of 

the Clean Air Act (CAA) with regard to 

interstate transport with respect to the 

8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA 

made national findings, effective May 

25, 2005, that the States had failed to 

submit SIPs meeting the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D). The SIPs were due 

in July 2000, 3 years after the 

promulgation of the 8-hour ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS. These findings started a 

2-year clock for EPA to promulgate a 

Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to 

address the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D). Under CAA section 

110(c)(1), EPA may issue a FIP anytime 

after such findings are made and must 

do so within two years unless a SIP 

revision correcting the deficiency is 

approved by EPA before the FIP is 

promulgated. 

On April 28, 2006, EPA promulgated 

FIPs for all States covered by CAIR in 

order to ensure the emissions reductions 

required by CAIR are achieved on 

schedule. Each CAIR State is subject to 

the FIPs until the State fully adopts, and 

EPA approves, a SIP revision meeting 

the requirements of CAIR. The CAIR 

FIPs require certain EGUs to participate 

in the EPA-administered CAIR SO2, 

NOX annual, and NOX ozone-season 

model trading programs, as appropriate. 

The CAIR FIP SO2, NOX annual, and 

NOX ozone season trading programs 

impose essentially the same 

requirements as, and are integrated 

with, the respective CAIR SIP trading 

programs. The integration of the CAIR 

FIP and SIP trading programs means 

that these trading programs will work 

together to create effectively a single 

trading program for each regulated 

pollutant (SO2, NOX annual, and NOX

ozone season) in all States covered by 

CAIR FIP or SIP trading program for that 

pollutant. The CAIR FIPs also allow 

States to submit abbreviated SIP 

revisions that, if approved by EPA, will 

automatically replace or supplement the 

corresponding CAIR FIP provisions 

(e.g., the methodology for allocating 

NOX allowances to sources in the state), 

while the CAIR FIP remains in place for 

all other provisions. 

On April 28, 2006, EPA published 

two more CAIR-related final rules that 

added the States of Delaware and New 

Jersey to the list of States subject to 

CAIR for PM2.5 and announced EPA’s 

final decisions on reconsideration of 

five issues without making any 

substantive changes to the CAIR 

requirements. 

III. What Are the General Requirements 

of CAIR and the CAIR FIPs? 

CAIR establishes State-wide emission 

budgets for SO2 and NOX and is to be 

implemented in two phases. The first 

phase of NOX reductions starts in 2009 

and continues through 2014, while the 

first phase of SO2 reductions starts in 

2010 and continues through 2014. The 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
6036 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

second phase of reductions for both 

NOX and SO2 starts in 2015 and 

continues thereafter. CAIR requires 

States to implement the budgets by 

either requiring EGUs to participate in 

the EPA-administered cap-and-trade 

programs or adopting other control 

measures of the State’s choosing and 

demonstrating that such control 

measures will result in compliance with 

the applicable State SO2 and NOX

budgets. 

The May 12, 2005, and April 28, 2006, 

CAIR rules provide model rules that 

States must adopt (with certain limited 

changes, if desired) if they want to 

participate in the EPA-administered 

trading programs. With two exceptions, 

only States that choose to meet the 

requirements of CAIR through methods 

that exclusively regulate EGUs are 

allowed to participate in the EPAadministered trading programs. One 

exception is for States that adopt the 

opt-in provisions of the model rules to 

allow non-EGUs individually to opt into 

the EPA-administered trading programs. 

The other exception is for States that 

include all non-EGUs from their NOX

SIP Call trading programs in their CAIR 

NOX ozone season trading programs. 

IV. What Are the Types of CAIR SIP 

Submittals? 

States have the flexibility to choose 

the type of control measures they will 

use to meet the requirements of CAIR. 

EPA anticipates that most States will 

choose to meet the CAIR requirements 

by selecting an option that requires 

EGUs to participate in the EPAadministered CAIR cap-and-trade 

programs. For such States, EPA has 

provided two approaches for submitting 

and obtaining approval for CAIR SIP 

revisions. States may submit full SIP 

revisions that adopt the model CAIR 

cap-and-trade rules. If approved, these 

SIP revisions will fully replace the CAIR 

FIPs. Alternatively, States may submit 

abbreviated SIP revisions. These SIP 

revisions will not replace the CAIR FIPs; 

however, the CAIR FIPs provide that, 

when approved, the provisions in these 

abbreviated SIP revisions will be used 

instead of or in conjunction with, as 

appropriate, the corresponding 

provisions of the CAIR FIPs (e.g., the 

NOX allowance allocation 

methodology). 

A State submitting an abbreviated SIP 

revision, may submit limited SIP 

revisions to tailor the CAIR FIP cap-andtrade programs to the state submitting 

the revision. Specifically, an 

abbreviated SIP revision may establish 

certain applicability and allowance 

allocation provisions that, the CAIR 

FIPs provide, will be used instead of or 

in conjunction with the corresponding 

provisions in the CAIR FIP rules in that 

State. Specifically, the abbreviated SIP 

revisions may: 

1. Include NOX SIP Call trading 

sources that are not EGUs under CAIR 

in the CAIR FIP NOX ozone season 

trading program; 

2. Provide for allocation of NOX

annual or ozone season allowances by 

the State, rather than the Administrator, 

and using a methodology chosen by the 

State; 

3. Provide for allocation of NOX

annual allowances from the CSP by the 

State, rather than by the Administrator, 

and using the State’s choice of allowed, 

alternative methodologies; and/or 

4. Allow units that are not otherwise 

CAIR units to opt individually into the 

CAIR FIP cap-and-trade programs under 

the opt-in provisions in the CAIR FIP 

rules. 

With approval of an abbreviated SIP 

revision, the CAIR FIP remains in place, 

as tailored to sources in the State by that 

approved SIP revision. Abbreviated SIP 

revisions can be submitted in lieu of, or 

as part of, CAIR full SIP revisions. States 

may want to designate part of their full 

SIP as an abbreviated SIP for EPA to act 

on first when the timing of the State’s 

submission might not provide EPA with 

sufficient time to approve the full SIP 

prior to the deadline for recording NOX

allocations. This will help ensure that 

the elements of the trading programs 

where flexibility is allowed are 

implemented according to the State’s 

decisions. Submission of an abbreviated 

SIP revision does not preclude future 

submission of a CAIR full SIP revision. 

In this case, the September 26, 2007, 

submittal from Ohio has been submitted 

as an abbreviated SIP revision. As 

discussed below, Ohio requested three 

of the four provisions for which a State 

may request an abbreviated SIP. The 

State requested that its allocation of 

NOX annual and NOX ozone season 

allowances for EGUs under the FIP be 

used instead of the corresponding 

provisions of the CAIR FIPs in effect in 

the State. The State requested that its 

allocation by the State of NOX annual 

allowances from the CSP be used 

instead of the corresponding provisions 

of the CAIR FIPs in effect in the State. 

Finally, the State also provided that 

units that are not otherwise CAIR units 

may opt individually into the CAIR FIP 

cap-and-trade program under the opt-in 

provisions in the CAIR FIP rules. 

V. Analysis of Ohio’s CAIR SIP 

Submittal 

A. State Budgets for Allowance 

Allocations 

The CAIR NOX annual and ozone 

season budgets were developed from 

historical heat input data for EGUs. 

Using these data, EPA calculated annual 

and ozone season regional heat input 

values, which were multiplied by 0.15 

lb/mmBtu, for phase 1, and 0.125 lb/ 

mmBtu, for phase 2, to obtain regional 

NOX budgets for 2009–2014 and for 

2015 and thereafter, respectively. EPA 

derived the State NOX annual and ozone 

season budgets from the regional 

budgets using State heat input data 

adjusted by fuel factors. 

The CAIR State SO2 budgets were 

derived by discounting the tonnage of 

emissions authorized by annual 

allowance allocations under the Acid 

Rain Program under title IV of the CAA. 

Under CAIR, each allowance allocated 

under the Acid Rain Program for the 

years in phase 1 of CAIR (2010 through 

2014) authorizes 0.5 ton of SO2

emissions in the CAIR trading program, 

and each Acid Rain Program allowance 

allocated for the years in phase 2 of 

CAIR (2015 and thereafter) authorizes 

0.35 ton of SO2 emissions in the CAIR 

trading program. 

The CAIR FIPs established the 

budgets for Ohio as 108,667 tons for 

NOX annual emissions, 45,664 tons for 

NOX ozone season emissions, and 

333,520 tons for SO2 emissions. Ohio’s 

SIP revision, approved in today’s action, 

does not affect these budgets, which are 

total amounts of allowances available 

for allocation for each year under the 

EPA-administered cap-and-trade 

programs under the CAIR FIPs. In short, 

the abbreviated SIP revision only affects 

allocations of allowances under the 

established budgets. 

B. CAIR Cap-and-Trade Programs 

The CAIR NOX annual and ozoneseason FIPs both largely mirror the 

structure of the NOX SIP Call model 

trading rule in 40 CFR part 96, subparts 

A through I. While the provisions of the 

NOX annual and ozone-season FIPs are 

similar, there are some differences. For 

example, the NOX annual FIP (but not 

the NOX ozone season FIP) provides for 

a CSP, which is discussed below and 

under which allowances may be 

awarded for early reductions of NOX

annual emissions. As a further example, 

the NOX ozone season FIP reflects the 

fact that the CAIR NOX ozone season 

trading program replaces the NOX SIP 

Call trading program after the 2008 

ozone season and is coordinated with 

the NOX SIP Call program. The NOX


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 6037 

ozone season FIP provides incentives 

for early emissions reductions by 

allowing banked, pre-2009 NOX SIP Call 

allowances to be used for compliance in 

the CAIR NOX ozone-season trading 

program. In addition, States have the 

option of continuing to meet their NOX

SIP Call requirement by participating in 

the CAIR NOX ozone season trading 

program and including all of their NOX

SIP Call trading sources in that program. 

The provisions of the CAIR SO2 FIP 

are also similar to the provisions of the 

NOX annual and ozone season FIPs. 

However, the SO2 FIP is coordinated 

with the ongoing Acid Rain SO2 capand-trade program under CAA title IV. 

The SO2 FIP uses the title IV allowances 

for compliance, with each allowance 

allocated for 2010–2014 authorizing 

only 0.50 ton of emissions and each 

allowance allocated for 2015 and 

thereafter authorizing only 0.35 ton of 

emissions. Banked title IV allowances 

allocated for years before 2010 can be 

used at any time in the CAIR SO2 capand-trade program, with each such 

allowance authorizing 1 ton of 

emissions. Title IV allowances are to be 

freely transferable among sources 

covered by the Acid Rain Program and 

sources covered by the CAIR SO2 capand-trade program. 

EPA used the CAIR model trading 

rules as the basis for the trading 

programs in the CAIR FIPs. The CAIR 

FIP trading rules are virtually identical 

to the CAIR model trading rules, with 

changes made to account for Federal 

rather than state implementation. The 

CAIR model SO2, NOX annual, and NOX

ozone season trading rules and the 

respective CAIR FIP trading rules are 

designed to work together as integrated 

SO2, NOX annual, and NOX ozone 

season trading programs. 

Ohio is subject to the CAIR FIPs 

concerning SO2, NOX annual, and NOX

ozone season emissions, and the CAIR 

FIP trading programs for SO2, NOX

annual, and NOX ozone season apply to 

sources in Ohio. Consistent with the 

flexibility they give to States, the CAIR 

FIPs provide that States may submit 

abbreviated SIP revisions that will 

replace or supplement, as appropriate, 

certain provisions of the CAIR FIP 

trading programs. The Ohio EPA 

September 26, 2007, submission is such 

an abbreviated SIP revision. 

C. Applicability Provisions for nonEGUs NOX SIP Call Sources 

In general, the CAIR FIP trading 

programs apply to any stationary, fossilfuel-fired boiler or stationary, fossilfuel-fired combustion turbine serving at 

any time, since the later of November 

15, 1990, or the start-up of the unit’s 

combustion chamber, a generator with 

nameplate capacity of more than 25 

MWe producing electricity for sale. 

States have the option of bringing in, 

for the CAIR NOX ozone season program 

only, those units in the State’s NOX SIP 

Call trading program that are not EGUs 

as defined under CAIR. EPA advises 

States exercising this option to use 

provisions for applicability that are 

substantively identical to the provisions 

in 40 CFR 96.304 and add the 

applicability provisions in the State’s 

NOX SIP Call trading rule for non-EGUs 

to the applicability provisions in 40 CFR 

96.304 in order to include in the CAIR 

NOX ozone season trading program all 

units required to be in the State’s NOX

SIP Call trading program that are not 

already included under 40 CFR 96.304. 

Under this option, the CAIR NOX ozone 

season program must cover all large 

industrial boilers and combustion 

turbines, as well as any small EGUs (i.e. 

units serving a generator with a 

nameplate capacity of 25 MWe or less), 

that the State currently requires to be in 

the NOX SIP Call trading program. 

Consistent with the flexibility given to 

States in the CAIR FIP, Ohio has not 

chosen, in the abbreviated CAIR SIP 

approved here, to expand the 

applicability provisions of the CAIR 

NOX ozone season trading program to 

include all non-EGUs in the State’s NOX

SIP Call trading program. However, EPA 

notes that Ohio has indicated that the 

full SIP revision submitted on 

September 26, 2007, expands the 

applicability provisions of CAIR NOX

ozone season trading program in this 

manner. As such, EPA is not taking final 

action on the non-EGU portion of the 

State’s September 26, 2007, full CAIR 

SIP revision. The full CAIR SIP revision 

including actions to approve the nonEGU portions of the State’s CAIR rule 

will be the subject of a separate future 

action. 

D. NOX Allowance Allocations 

Under the NOX allowance allocation 

methodology in the CAIR model trading 

rules and in the CAIR FIP, NOX annual 

and ozone season allowances are 

allocated to units that have operated for 

five years, based on heat input data from 

a three-year period that are adjusted for 

fuel type by using fuel factors of 1.0 for 

coal, 0.6 for oil, and 0.4 for other fuels. 

The CAIR model trading rules and the 

CAIR FIP also provide a new unit setaside from which units without five 

years of operation are allocated 

allowances based on the units’ prior 

year emissions. 

The CAIR FIP provides States the 

flexibility to establish a different NOX

allowance allocation methodology that 

will be used to allocate allowances to 

sources in the States if certain 

requirements are met concerning the 

timing of submission of units’

allocations to the Administrator for 

recordation and the total amount of 

allowances allocated for each control 

period. In adopting alternative NOX

allowance allocation methodologies, 

States have flexibility with regard to: 

1. The cost to recipients of the 

allowances, which may be distributed 

for free or auctioned; 

2. The frequency of allocations; 

3. The basis for allocating allowances, 

which may be distributed, for example, 

based on historical heat input or electric 

and thermal output; and 

4. The use of allowance set-asides 

and, if used, the size of the set-aside. 

Consistent with the flexibility given to 

States in the CAIR FIPs, Ohio has 

chosen to replace the provisions of the 

CAIR NOX annual FIP concerning the 

allocation of NOX annual allowances 

with its own methodology. Ohio has 

chosen to distribute NOX annual 

allowances based upon heat input data 

from a three year period adjusted for 

fuel type by using fuel adjustment 

factors of 1.0 for coal, 0.6 for oil, and 0.4 

for other fuels. Based on this 

methodology, Ohio determined NOX

allocations for EGUs in the State under 

the CAIR FIP, and submitted its 

allocations to EPA on April 24, 2007. 

Ohio also has included, in the 

abbreviated SIP revision, provisions 

regarding set-aside programs for energy 

efficiency/renewable energy and 

innovative technology projects under 

the CAIR NOX Ozone Season program. 

The State’s energy-efficiency/renewable 

energy (EE/RE) and innovative 

technology set-aside program provisions 

establish two set-asides for each control 

period—one set-aside for EE/RE projects 

and one set-aside for innovative 

technology projects—and specify 

procedures for allocating the allowances 

in the set-asides. Each set-aside is 

limited to one percent of the state 

trading budget for NOX ozone season 

allowance allocations. Beginning with 

the end of 2009 and every three years 

thereafter, Ohio EPA will review the 

number of allowances allocated from 

the set-asides and will, under certain 

circumstances, increase the size of each 

set-aside in future years as necessary, up 

to a maximum of five percent of the 

state trading budget. 

EPA notes that the set-aside 

provisions do not explicitly state how 

allowances will be reserved in the setasides if the total amount of allowances 

requested from a set-aside exceeds the 

total amount of allowances in that setaside. However, set-aside provisions 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
6038 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

explicitly limit the amount of 

allowances available from each set-aside 

to one percent of the state trading 

budget unless Ohio EPA expands the 

set-asides in future years. In addition, 

Ohio informed EPA, in the September 

26, 2007, letter, that its guidance for the 

set-asides provides that set-aside 

allowances will be reserved on a prorata basis if the total requested 

allowances exceed the size of the setaside. Ohio has indicated that it will 

clarify its set-aside provisions consistent 

with this guidance. 

The set-aside provisions also do not 

explicitly state how a set-aside will be 

increased up to five percent of the state 

trading budget if the existing set-aside 

amounts plus the total amounts 

allocated to units with and without 

baseline heat input under Ohio’s other 

allocation provisions for NOX ozone 

season allowances already equal the 

state trading budget. However, Ohio’s 

CAIR NOX ozone season allocation 

provisions clearly limit the total 

allocations for each control period of 

CAIR NOX ozone season allowances to 

the amount of the state trading budget 

for that control period. Further, as 

written, the provisions for expanding 

the set-asides cannot have any effect on 

the current allocations, which Ohio has 

already submitted to the Administrator 

for phase 1 of the trading program. In 

addition, Ohio informed EPA, in the 

September 28, 2007 letter, that Ohio 

EPA will reduce the total amount of 

allowances allocated to existing units 

under the other allocation provisions to 

the extent the size of a set-aside is 

increased in the future. Ohio has 

indicated that it will clarify its 

allocation provisions consistent with 

this statement in the September 28, 

2007, letter. 

Consequently, EPA interprets Ohio’s 

abbreviated SIP to limit, consistent with 

the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.123(ee)(2)(ii)(B), the total allocations 

for each control period of CAIR NOX

ozone season allowances—whether from 

current or expanded set-asides or under 

the other allocation provisions in the 

abbreviated SIP—to the state trading 

budget. 

E. Allocation of NOX Allowances From 

the Compliance Supplement Pool 

The CSP provides an incentive for 

early reductions in NOX annual 

emissions. The CSP consists of 200,000 

CAIR NOX annual allowances of vintage 

2009 for the entire CAIR region, and a 

State’s share of the CSP is based upon 

the State’s share of the projected 

emission reductions under CAIR. States 

may distribute CSP allowances, one 

allowance for each ton of early 

reduction, to sources that make NOX

reductions during 2007 or 2008 beyond 

what is required by any applicable State 

or Federal emission limitation. States 

also may distribute CSP allowances 

based upon a demonstration of need for 

an extension of the 2009 deadline for 

implementing emission controls. 

The CAIR NOX annual FIP establishes 

specific methodologies for allocations of 

CSP allowances. States may choose an 

allowed, alternative CSP allocation 

methodology to be used to allocate CSP 

allowances to sources in those States. 

Consistent with the flexibility given to 

States in the FIP, Ohio has chosen to 

modify the provisions of the CAIR NOX

annual FIP concerning the allocation of 

allowances from the CSP. Ohio has 

chosen to distribute CSP allowances 

using an allocation methodology that 

provides more certainty to unit owners 

and operators that a known quantity of 

allowances per unit will be available for 

distribution at the beginning of the 

control period. Ohio also provides 

owners and operators with an incentive 

for the operation of expensive postcombustion control equipment yearround and provides incentives for early 

reductions in emissions before 2009. 

Ohio EPA is required to submit 

allocations from the CSP to the 

Administrator by July 1, 2009, or such 

time when unit’s 2008 emissions data 

are available so that the allocations can 

be determined. Ohio’s abbreviated SIP 

also states that the Administrator will 

record the allocations by January 1, 

2010. While Ohio’s abbreviated SIP does 

not explicitly state that allocations will 

be submitted to the Administrator by 

November 30, 2009, EPA notes that 

units’ 2008 emissions data should 

certainly be available before that date 

and that the allocations need to be 

submitted by that date in order to 

ensure that the Administrator will 

complete recordation of allowances by 

January 1, 2010. Further, Ohio has 

indicated, in the September 26, 2007, 

letter, that it will clarify its CSP 

provisions to provide for a November 

30, 2009, deadline for submission of 

CSP allocations to the Administrator. 

Consequently, EPA considers the Ohio 

abbreviated SIP to meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.123(p)(2). 

F. Individual Opt-in Units 

The opt-in provisions allow for 

certain non-EGUs (i.e., boilers, 

combustion turbines, and other 

stationary fossil-fuel-fired devices) that 

do not meet the applicability criteria for 

a CAIR trading program to participate 

voluntarily in (i.e., opt into) the CAIR 

trading program. A non-EGU may opt 

into one or more of the CAIR trading 

programs. In order to qualify to opt into 

a CAIR trading program, a unit must 

vent all emissions through a stack and 

be able to meet monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and recording 

requirements of 40 CFR part 75. The 

owners and operators seeking to opt a 

unit into a CAIR trading program must 

apply for a CAIR opt-in permit. If the 

unit is issued a CAIR opt-in permit, the 

unit becomes a CAIR unit, is allocated 

allowances, and must meet the same 

allowance-holding and emissions 

monitoring and reporting requirements 

as other units subject to the CAIR 

trading program. The opt-in provisions 

provide for two methodologies for 

allocating allowances for opt-in units, 

one methodology that applies to opt-in 

units in general and a second 

methodology that allocates allowances 

only to opt-in units that the owners and 

operators intend to re-power before 

January 1, 2015. 

States have several options 

concerning the opt-in provisions. The 

rules for each of the CAIR FIP trading 

programs include opt-in provisions that 

are essentially the same as those in the 

respective CAIR SIP model rules, except 

that the CAIR FIP opt-in provisions 

become effective in a State only if the 

State’s abbreviated SIP revision adopts 

the opt-in provisions. The State may 

adopt the opt-in provisions entirely or 

may adopt them but exclude one of the 

allowance allocation methodologies. 

The State also has the option of not 

adopting any opt-in provisions in the 

abbreviated SIP revision and thereby 

providing for the CAIR FIP trading 

program to be implemented in the State 

without the ability for units to opt into 

the program. 

Consistent with the flexibility given to 

States in the FIPs, Ohio has chosen to 

allow non-EGUs meeting certain 

requirements to participate in the CAIR 

NOX annual trading program, the CAIR 

NOX ozone season trading program and 

the CAIR SO2 trading program. Ohio 

EPA submitted the CAIR SIP program 

rules, OAC 3745–109–08 and OAC 

3745–109–14 and OAC 3745–109–21, 

which incorporate the opt-in provisions 

as provided in the final EPA CAIR rule 

of April 28, 2006. These rules address 

opt-ins for NOX ozone season, NOX

annual, and SO2 annual programs. 

VI. Public Comments 

Comment: On November 9, 2007, the 

Connecticut Department of 

Environmental Protection (CTDEP) 

submitted comments on EPA’s direct 

final rule (DFR) notice approving Ohio’s 

abbreviated CAIR SIP. CTDEP 

encourages EPA to approve the state’s 

CAIR program adopted to meet the 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 6039 

emission reduction requirements of 

CAIR. However, it argues that before 

approving state plans, EPA should 

evaluate individually and in the 

aggregate each state’s clean air 

programs. CTDEP argues that such 

evaluation is necessary to ensure that 

each state’s emissions do not 

significantly contribute to ozone 

nonattainment in Connecticut. CTDEP 

asserts its belief that the CAIR program 

does not ensure that the CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirements to prohibit 

transported emissions that significantly 

contribute to nonattainment in 

Connecticut and other states will be 

met. CTDEP expresses concern that EPA 

is determining through this and other 

similar rulemakings that CAIR programs 

are sufficient to meet States’ section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) obligations. CTDEP 

asserts, based on EPA and State 

modeling for CAIR, that the levels of 

transported pollution remaining after 

CAIR implementation are large enough 

that, even with local controls, it may be 

difficult for Connecticut to attain the 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS by 2010. Finally, 

CTDEP questions EPA’s determination 

that highly cost effective controls are 

adequate to address States’ section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) obligations as compared 

to ‘‘reasonable cost’’ controls that could 

be achieved to effect more stringent 

NOX reductions. 

Response: EPA does not agree that it 

is appropriate or necessary for EPA to 

conduct additional analysis before 

approving the Ohio abbreviated CAIR 

SIP for NOX allowances and NOX

allowance methodology. Ohio has 

chosen an abbreviated SIP for NOX

allowances and NOX allocation 

methodology, one of four SIP elements 

for which states may request an 

abbreviated SIP. With an abbreviated 

SIP, the CAIR FIP remains in place for 

Ohio. EPA’s proposed approval of 

Ohio’s abbreviated SIP would therefore 

only have the effect of replacing, as 

provided for in the CAIR FIP, the 

corresponding FIP provisions with the 

State’s preferred allocations and 

methodology. EPA has evaluated this 

abbreviated SIP revision and 

determined that it complies with the 

requirements of the CAIR FIP provisions 

regarding abbreviated SIPs. CTDEP does 

not challenge this determination. Thus, 

CTDEP’s comments do not specifically 

pertain to any aspect of EPA’s proposed 

specific action to approve the Ohio 

CAIR SIP revision. Rather, the 

comments appear to be directed broadly 

at EPA’s decisions with regard to States’

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) obligations. These 

decisions were made by EPA in the 

context of the CAIR rulemaking, which 

was promulgated on May 12, 2005 (70 

FR 25162), not in the EPA action to 

approve Ohio’s abbreviated CAIR SIP 

revision. Therefore, CTDEP’s comments 

are not relevant to this final action. 

CTDEP had ample opportunity to 

submit comments both during the 

comment period for the proposed CAIR 

rulemaking of January 30, 2004 (69 FR 

4566), and during the comment period 

for the proposed CAIR FIP of August 24, 

2005 (70 FR 49708). EPA’s action to 

approve Ohio’s abbreviated CAIR SIP 

did not reopen either the CAIR or CAIR 

FIP rulemakings. Consequently, 

CTDEP’s comments are not relevant to 

this rulemaking, or timely with respect 

to the CAIR and CAIR FIP rulemakings. 

Thus, EPA does not believe it is 

necessary to conduct additional analysis 

on whether Ohio or any other state 

satisfies the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D) 

before approving the Ohio abbreviated 

CAIR SIP submission. 

VII. Final Action 

EPA is promulgating the rules 

contained in Ohio’s abbreviated CAIR 

SIP revision submitted on September 

26, 2007. Ohio is covered by the CAIR 

FIPs, which require participation in the 

EPA-administered CAIR FIP cap-andtrade programs for SO2, NOX annual, 

and NOX ozone season emissions. 

Under this abbreviated SIP revision, and 

consistent with the flexibility given to 

States in the FIPs, Ohio adopts 

provisions for allocating allowances 

under the CAIR FIP NOX annual and 

ozone season trading programs. In 

addition, Ohio adopts in the abbreviated 

SIP revision provisions that establish a 

methodology for allocating allowances 

in the CSP and allow for individual 

non-EGUs to opt into the CAIR FIP SO2, 

NOX annual, NOX ozone season capand-trade programs. As provided for in 

the CAIR FIPs, these provisions in the 

abbreviated SIP revision will replace or 

supplement the corresponding 

provisions of the CAIR FIPs in Ohio. 

The abbreviated SIP revision meets the 

applicable requirements in 40 CFR 

51.123(p) and (ee), with regard to NOX

annual and NOX ozone season 

emissions, and 40 CFR 51.124(r), with 

regard to SO2 emissions. EPA is not 

making any changes to the CAIR FIP, 

but is amending the appropriate 

appendices in the CAIR FIP trading 

rules simply to note that approval. 

In accordance with 5 U.S.C 553(d), 

EPA finds that there is good cause for 

these actions to become effective 

immediately upon publication. 

Ordinarily, a delay in the effective date 

is provided to give affected sources 

more time to plan for meeting 

applicable requirements. In this case, 

the various requirements under Ohio’s 

rule take effect at fixed times, and an 

immediate effective date (and nearly 

immediate issuance of allowances under 

Ohio’s allocation rules) will provide 

sources more time to plan for meeting 

the rules’ requirements. Thus, an 

immediate effective date better serves 

the purposes of 5 U.S.C. 553 than would 

a delayed effective date. An immediate 

effective date will provide positive 

impact from the final rule on sources 

which can utilize the allowances 

methodology under the State’s rule. EPA 

concluded that the Connecticut 

comment did not oppose approval of 

Ohio’s rule and was not intended to 

delay implementation of the Ohio CAIR 

program. The immediate effective date 

for this action is authorized under both 

5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which provides that 

rulemaking actions may become 

effective less than 30 days after 

publication if the rule ‘‘* * * grants or 

recognizes an exemption or relieves a 

restriction,’’ and section 553(d)(3)e 

which allows an effective date less than 

30 days after publication ‘‘* * * as 

otherwise provided by the agency for 

good cause found and published with 

the rule.’’ The purpose of the 30-day 

waiting period prescribed in 553(d) is to 

give the affected parties a reasonable 

time to adjust their planning actions as 

the final rule takes effect. Today’s rule, 

however, does not create any new 

regulatory requirements such that 

affected parties would need time to 

prepare before the rule takes effect. 

Rather, today’s ‘‘immediate effective’’

action provides sufficient time for 

affected sources to plan the use of 

allowances under the State rule through 

the implementation of the Ohio 

abbreviated CAIR implementation plan. 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

and, therefore, is not subject to review 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget. For this reason, this action is 

also not subject to Executive Order 

13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This action merely approves 

state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and would impose no 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this rule 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this 

action approves pre-existing 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
6040 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

requirements under state law and would 

not impose any additional enforceable 

duty beyond that required by state law, 

it does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4). 

This rule also does not have tribal 

implications because it would not have 

a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, 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 by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

action also does not have Federalism 

implications because it would 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 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

approves a state rule implementing a 

federal standard and to amend the 

appropriate appendices in the CAIR FIP 

trading rules to note that approval. It 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the CAA. 

This rule also is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of Children 

from Environmental Health Risks and 

Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 

1997), because it would approve a state 

rule implementing a federal standard. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. In this context, in the absence 

of a prior existing requirement for the 

state to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

the CAA. Thus, the requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not 

apply. This rule would not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.). 

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 action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by April 1, 2008. Filing a petition 

for reconsideration by the Administrator 

of this final rule does not affect the 

finality of this rule for the purposes of 

judicial review nor does it extend the 

time within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. This action may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Electric utilities, 

Incorporate by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxide. 

40 CFR Part 97 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Electric utilities, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxide. 

Dated: January 11, 2008. 

Gary Gulezian, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, parts 52 and 97 of chapter 1 

of title 40 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations are amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. 

Subpart KK—Ohio 

■ 2. Section 52.1870 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(140) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.1870 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(140) Ohio Environmental Protection 

Agency submitted amendments on 

September 26, 2007, to the State 

Implementation Plan to control 

emissions from electric generating units 

(EGU). Rules affecting these units 

include: Ohio Administrative Code 

(OAC) 3745–109–01 (B)(59) and (72), 

3745–109–04, 3745–109–08, 3745–109–

14, 3745–109–17 (except the following: 

the language in paragraph (A) 

referencing the state trading budget for 

non-EGUs in 3745–109–17–01(C)(4), 

paragraphs (C)(1)(a)(i)(d), (C)(2)(b), 

(C)(2)(d), (C)(2)(e), and (C)(2)(f), and the 

language in paragraph (C)(3)(a) 

referencing non-EGUs), and 3745–109–

21. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. The 

following sections of the Ohio 

Administrative Code (OAC) are 

incorporated by reference. 

(A) OAC 3745–109–01(B)(59) ‘‘Energy 

efficiency/renewable energy project’’; 

OAC 3745–109–01(B)(72) ‘‘Innovative 

technology project’’; OAC 3745–109–04 

‘‘CAIR NOX allowance allocations’’; 

OAC 3745–109–08 ‘‘CAIR NOX opt-in 

units’’; OAC 3745–109–14 ‘‘CAIR SO2

opt-in units’’; and OAC 3745–109–21 

‘‘CAIR NOX ozone season opt-in units’’; 

effective on September 27, 2007. 

(B) OAC 3745–109–17 ‘‘CAIR NOX

ozone season allowance allocations’’; 

effective on September 27, 2007, except 

the following: the language in paragraph 

(A) referencing the state trading budget 

for non-EGUs in 3745–109–17–01(C)(4), 

paragraphs (C)(1)(a)(i)(d), (C)(2)(b), 

(C)(2)(d), (C)(2)(e), and (C)(2)(f), and the 

language in paragraph (C)(3)(a) 

referencing non-EGUs. 

PART 97—[AMENDED] 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 97 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7403, 7410, 

7426, 7601, and 7651, et seq. 

■ 4. Appendix A to subpart EE is 

amended by adding in alphabetical 

order the entry ‘‘Ohio’’ under 

paragraphs 1. and 2. to read as follows: 

Appendix A to Subpart EE of Part 97—

States With Approved State 

Implementation Plan Revisions 

Concerning Allocations 

1. * * * 

Ohio 

* * * * * 

2. * * * 

Ohio 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Appendix A to subpart II is 

amended by adding in alphabetical 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 6041 

order the entry ‘‘Ohio’’ under 

paragraphs 1. and 2. to read as follows: 

Appendix A to Subpart II of Part 97—

States With Approved State 

Implementation Plan Revisions 

Concerning CAIR NOX Opt-In Units 

1. * * * 

Ohio 

* * * * * 

2. * * * 

Ohio 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Appendix A to subpart III of part 97 

is amended by adding in alphabetical 

order the entry ‘‘Ohio’’ under 

paragraphs 1. and 2. to read as follows: 

Appendix A to Subpart III of Part 97—

States With Approved State 

Implementation Plan Revisions 

Concerning CAIR SO2 Opt-In Units 

1. * * * 

Ohio 

* * * * * 

2. * * * 

Ohio 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Appendix A to subpart EEEE of part 

97 is amended by adding in alphabetical 

order the entry ‘‘Ohio’’ to read as 

follows: 

Appendix A to Subpart EEEE of Part 

97—States With Approved State 

Implementation Plan Revisions 

Concerning Allocations 

* * * * * 

Ohio 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Appendix A to subpart IV of part 

97 is amended by adding in alphabetical 

order the entry ‘‘Ohio’’ under 

paragraphs 1. and 2. to read as follows: 

Appendix A to Subpart IV of Part 97—

States With Approved State 

Implementation Plan Revisions 

Concerning CAIR NOX Ozone Season 

Opt-In Units 

1. * * * 

Ohio 

2. * * * 

Ohio 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E8–1804 Filed 1–31–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 64 

[CG Docket No. 02–278; FCC 07–232] 

Rules and Regulations Implementing 

the Telephone Consumer Protection 

Act of 1991 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Clarification. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission addresses a Petition for 

Expedited Clarification and Declaratory 

Ruling filed by ACA International 

(ACA). Specifically, the Commission 

clarifies that autodialed and 

prerecorded message calls to wireless 

numbers that are provided by the called 

party to a creditor in connection with an 

existing debt are permissible as calls 

made with the ‘‘prior express consent’’

of the called party. 

DATES: Effective February 1, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Erica McMahon, Consumer & 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0346 (voice), or e-mail 

Erica.McMahon@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

October 4, 2005, ACA filed a petition for 

expedited clarification and declaratory 

ruling against the Commission’s Rules 

and Regulations Implementing the 

Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 

1991, Report and Order, FCC 03–153, 

published at 68 FR 44144 (July 25, 

2003). This is a summary of the 

Commission’s document, FCC 07–232, 

adopted December 28, 2007, released 

January 4, 2008, addressing a Petition 

for Expedited Clarification and 

Declaratory Ruling filed by ACA 

International (ACA). 

Copies of document FCC 07–232 and 

any subsequently filed documents in 

this matter will be available for public 

inspection and copying during regular 

business hours at the FCC Reference 

Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th 

Street, SW., Room CY–A257, 

Washington, DC 20554. Document FCC 

07–232 and any subsequently filed 

documents in this matter may also be 

purchased from the Commission’s 

duplicating contractor at Portals II, 445 

12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554. Customers may 

contact the Commission’s duplicating 

contractor at their Web site: 

www.bcpiweb.com or call 1–800–378–

3160. To request materials in accessible 

formats for people with disabilities 

(Braille, large print, electronic files, 

audio format), send an e-mail to 

fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0530 (voice) or (202) 418–0432 

(TTY). Document FCC 07–232 can also 

be downloaded in Word and Portable 

Document Format (PDF) at: http:// 

www.fcc.gov/cgb/policy. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

Analysis 

Document FCC 07–232 does not 

contain new information collection 

requirements subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public 

Law 104–13. In addition, it does not 

contain any new or modified 

‘‘information collection burden for 

small business concerns with fewer than 

25 employees,’’ pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198. See 47 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4). 

Synopsis 

On October 4, 2005, ACA filed a 

petition seeking clarification that the 

prohibition against autodialed or 

prerecorded calls to wireless telephone 

numbers in 47 CFR 64.1200(a)(1)(iii) of 

the Commission’s rules does not apply 

to creditors and collectors when calling 

wireless telephone numbers to recover 

payments for goods and services 

received by consumers. 

Although the TCPA generally 

prohibits autodialed calls to wireless 

phones, it also provides an exception for 

autodialed and prerecorded message 

calls for emergency purposes or made 

with the prior express consent of the 

called party. Because the Commission 

finds that autodialed and prerecorded 

message calls to wireless numbers 

provided by the called party in 

connection with an existing debt are 

made with the ‘‘prior express consent’’

of the called party, the Commission 

clarifies that such calls are permissible. 

The Commission concludes that the 

provision of a cell phone number to a 

creditor, e.g., as part of a credit 

application, reasonably evidences prior 

express consent by the cell phone 

subscriber to be contacted at that 

number regarding the debt. In the 1992 

TCPA Order (FCC 92–443) published at 

57 FR 48333 (October 23, 1992), the 

Commission determined that ‘‘persons 

who knowingly release their phone 

numbers have in effect given their 

invitation or permission to be called at 

the number which they have given, 

absent instructions to the contrary.’’ The 

legislative history in the TCPA provides 

support for this interpretation. 

Specifically, the House report on what 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS