Full Document Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 122 (Friday, June 26, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 122 (Friday, June 26, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38521-38526]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-12921]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R05-OAR-2025-0032; FRL-13008-02-R5]
Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Source-Specific Non-CTG RACT and SIP
Strengthening for Ohio
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving source-
specific State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by Ohio.
These revisions address major source volatile organic compound (VOC)
and nitrogen oxide (NO<INF>X</INF>) reasonably available control
technology (RACT) requirements for the Cleveland, OH Moderate
nonattainment area for the 2015 ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS or standard). The affected facilities include PPG
Industries Ohio, Inc. (PPG), Owens Corning, Akron Paint and Varnish,
Charter Steel, U. S. Steel Tubular Lorain, Carmeuse Lime, and Ross
Incineration. The EPA is also approving source-specific SIP revisions
for General Electric Aviation Evendale and Tyson Foods for the
Cincinnati maintenance area for the 2015 ozone standard. Finally, the
EPA is rescinding the source-specific VOC RACT rule for Formica
Corporation since it is subject to an equivalent CTG-based rule in the
Ohio Administrative Code (OAC). The EPA proposed to approve this action
on February 27, 2026, and received five comments.
DATES: This final rule is effective on June 26, 2026.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2025-0032. All documents in the docket are
listed on the <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information (CBI), Proprietary Business
Information (PBI), 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
through <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> or please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for
additional information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katie Caskey, Air and Radiation
Division (AR18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, telephone number: (312)
353-3490, email address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#563537253d332f783d37223e3a3333381633263778313920"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6c0f0d1f07091542070d1804000909022c091c0d420b031a">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.
I. Background Information
On February 27, 2026 (91 FR 9771), the EPA proposed to approve
source-specific SIP revisions that address major source VOC and
NO<INF>X</INF> RACT requirements for the Cleveland, OH 2015 ozone
Moderate nonattainment area. The EPA also proposed to approve source-
specific SIP revisions for major sources in the Cincinnati, OH 2015
ozone maintenance area as SIP strengthening measures. The EPA proposed
to rescind the source-specific VOC RACT rule for Formica Corporation
since it is subject to an equivalent CTG-based rule in the OAC. The EPA
is incorporating by reference Ohio rules 3745-21-09(MM), 3745-110-
03(Q), and OAC 3745-110-03(P) in this action. An explanation of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements, a detailed analysis of the revisions,
and the EPA's rationale for proposing approval were provided in the
notice of proposed rulemaking and will not be restated here. The public
comment period for this proposed rule ended on March 30, 2026. The EPA
received three supportive comments, one of which included
recommendations, and two adverse comments.
Comment: One commenter recommended disapproving the rule based on
concerns about the ability of the EPA to fulfill its mission. The
commenter further suggested that regulated sources should be shut down
until air quality meets the strictest clean air standards.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter's recommendation.
This action is limited to evaluating whether the SIP revisions
submitted by Ohio satisfy applicable requirements of the CAA, including
the requirement to implement RACT for VOC and NO<INF>X</INF> sources
under CAA sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f). The commenter does not provide
information relevant to the EPA's evaluation of whether the submitted
RACT determinations meet statutory and regulatory requirements. The
EPA's role in this action is not to require shutdown of sources, but to
evaluate the State's RACT determination in accordance with CAA
requirements. The EPA finds that the submitted RACT determinations meet
applicable CAA requirements and will contribute to continued
improvement in air quality.
Comment: Another commenter generally supported the EPA's approval
but recommended greater transparency regarding cost-effectiveness
thresholds. The commenter also recommended periodic reevaluation of
RACT of every five years or during title V permit renewals to reflect
advances in control technology.
Response: The EPA appreciates the commenter's support of the
proposed rulemaking. RACT determinations are case-specific and must
consider technological and economic feasibility for each source. The
EPA has not established a uniform cost-effectiveness threshold
applicable across all sources and geographic areas. Cost-effectiveness
[[Page 38522]]
depends on a variety of factors, including source type, type of control
technology, emissions profile, and economic conditions. As a result,
the EPA evaluates cost-effectiveness on a case-by-case basis. The EPA
finds that Ohio's RACT analyses appropriately evaluated cost-
effectiveness consistent with this approach. Please refer to the docket
for additional details on how the EPA evaluated the cost effectiveness
of the various RACT determinations in this action.
The commenter also recommends periodic reevaluation of RACT to
reflect advances in control technology. The EPA acknowledges the
commenter's interest in ensuring that emission control requirements
reflect evolving technologies. However, the CAA establishes that RACT
requirements are triggered by a nonattainment area's classification and
apply when an area is classified as Moderate or higher under CAA
section 182. RACT is assessed when areas are initially classified as
Moderate and reassessed if an area is reclassified to a higher
classification level and is thus subject to a more stringent RACT
requirement. The CAA does not require periodic reevaluation of RACT on
a fixed schedule. While states may adopt additional provisions, such as
reevaluation requirements, these are not required under the CAA.
Therefore, the EPA cannot require periodic RACT reevaluation outside
the statutory framework of the CAA.
Comment: Another commenter asserted that the EPA failed to assess
the emission impacts of potential RACT measures and did not explain the
significance of the emission reduction potential for those measures for
all the non-CTG sources in the proposal.
Response: The CAA does not require, and thus the proposal does not
include a separate, standalone evaluation of emission impacts for
potential RACT measures.
CAA section 172(c)(1) requires the implementation of RACT measures
as expeditiously as practicable and shall provide for attainment of the
national primary ambient air quality standards. Reductions in emissions
from existing sources is part of that stated purpose, but the language
does not specify or require an evaluation of the emissions impacts.
CAA section 182(b)(2) requires implementation of RACT for Moderate
ozone nonattainment areas, and references CAA section 172(c)(1). The
EPA has long defined RACT as the lowest emission limitation a source
can meet through application of control technology that is reasonably
available, considering technological and economic feasibility.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 44 FR 53762 (September 17, 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with this definition, major source RACT is evaluated at
the source level by determining whether additional control technologies
are technologically feasible and economically reasonable for that
source. Ohio evaluated various available control options for each
source, including feasibility, emission reduction efficiency, and cost,
and determined whether more stringent controls met this standard. Each
of these analyses were considered by the EPA and were part of the
docket for this rulemaking.
Emission reduction potential is inherently reflected in the
evaluation of control technologies, including consideration of control
efficiency; however, the CAA does not require a separate or independent
analysis of the significance of emission reductions in determining
RACT. Instead, RACT determinations focus on whether controls are
technologically feasible and economically reasonable for that source.
The EPA reviewed Ohio's analysis and confirmed that Ohio evaluated
available control options and did not rely solely on existing controls
without analysis. Therefore, the EPA finds that Ohio's
Disclosed Labs