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 38517-38521]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-12920]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R05-OAR-2025-0237; FRL-13273-02-R5]
Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Source-Specific Non-CTG RACT
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 (Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, Lorain, Medina, Portage,
and Summit counties) for the 2015 ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS or standard). The affected facilities include Lubrizol,
Henkel, and Cleveland-Cliffs Cleveland Works. With this approval, Ohio
has fully satisfied the Moderate area RACT requirements of the Clean
Air Act (CAA) with respect to the 2015 ozone standard for the Cleveland
area.
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-2025-0237. 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#99faf8eaf2fce0b7f2f8edf1f5fcfcf7d9fce9f8b7fef6ef"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3251534159574b1c5953465a5e57575c725742531c555d44">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.
I. Background Information
On April 10, 2026, 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.\1\ An explanation of the CAA requirements, a detailed analysis of
the revisions, and the EPA's reasons for proposing approval were
provided in the notice of proposed rulemaking and will not be restated
in this action. The public comment period for this proposed rule closed
on May 11, 2026. The EPA received one adverse comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 91 FR 18349 (April 10, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: The 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
NAAQS.
[[Page 38518]]
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.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 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 RACT
determinations are consistent with CAA requirements.
Comment: The commenter asserted that the EPA failed to provide a
reasoned explanation for its economic feasibility determinations,
failed to justify cost-effectiveness values or establish a benchmark,
failed to explain why certain technologically feasible controls are not
economically feasible, failed to consider emission reduction potential
in evaluating cost, and relied on conclusions that are inconsistent
with prior EPA analyses and cost-effectiveness ranges.
Response: The EPA disagrees that the explanation of economic
feasibility determinations in the proposed approval is inconsistent
with the CAA. Under the CAA, RACT requires implementation of control
technologies that are technologically feasible and economically
reasonable. The EPA evaluates economic feasibility on a case-by-case,
source-specific basis, considering a variety of factors, including, but
not limited to, source configuration, emission unit type, control
technology, baseline emissions, geographic location, and economic
conditions.
The EPA does not establish or apply a cost-effectiveness metric for
RACT. The commenter asserts that the EPA chose to apply such a metric.
The States may establish and apply their own cost-effectiveness
metrics, but the EPA does not adopt these metrics. Instead, the EPA
uses cost-effectiveness as one tool to determine whether a control
technology is economically reasonable for a specific source. What
constitutes reasonable cost-effectiveness varies depending on the
characteristics of the source and the control technology.
The EPA reviewed Ohio's source-specific analyses for each non-CTG
major source. In each analysis, Ohio evaluated available control
technologies, including emission reduction efficiency and associated
costs, and determined whether those technologies were economically
reasonable for each source. Where Ohio determined that certain
technologically feasible controls were not economically reasonable, the
EPA reviewed those determinations and found that the record supports
those conclusions.
The commenter compares cost-effectiveness values in this action to
values from other EPA analyses, including the EPA's ``Regulatory Impact
Analysis of the Final revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Ground-Level Ozone'' (September 2015), the Federal
Implementation Plan Addressing Regional Ozone Transport for the 2015
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (88 FR 36654, June 5,
2023), and the EPA's study ``The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air
Act from 1990 to 2020: Final Report--Rev. A'' (April 2011). Those
analyses were developed for different statutory purposes and broader
regulatory contexts and do not establish applicable cost benchmarks for
source-specific RACT determinations.
The commenter identified each facility specifically and asserted
that more stringent controls should have been required. The EPA
reviewed the source-specific analyses for these facilities and finds
that Ohio evaluated technically feasible control options and associated
costs and determined which controls are economically reasonable for
each source.
Therefore, the EPA finds that the economic analyses in Ohio's RACT
demonstrations satisfy RACT requirements under the CAA.
Comment: The commenter also asserted that the EPA failed to ensure
that non-CTG sources subject to RACT are subject to sufficient
reporting and recordkeeping requirements, that existing requirements
are unclear or insufficient to demonstrate compliance, that reliance on
deviation reporting is inadequate, that the proposal does not
adequately explain how compliance with RACT limits will be enf
Disclosed Labs