### RESPONSE TO THE STATE OF VERMONT’S COMMENTS The State of Vermont commented on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ’s proposal to conditionally approve Ohio’s new source review (NSR) rule changes. Vermont primaril y com mented on the requirements of the fed eral NSR rules, not Ohio’s application of the federal requirements in its own rules. The more appropriate venue for these comments would have been when EPA public noticed our rule changes. However, this response to comment document contains the entire co mment letter submitted by Vermont on the May 11, 2005 proposal to conditionally approve Ohio’s new source review rule changes. Following each point made by Vermont, EPA responds to the comment.

Vermont’s comment:

Response: Thank you for your comme nts. We have delay ed approving Ohio’s rules until the Court ruled in State of New York v. EPA. Our approval is consistent with the Court’s decision in this matter.
Vermont’s comment:2

Response: The U.S. Court of Appeals has ruled that EPA’s pro gram with respect to this issue is permitted under the Clean Air Act and was upheld. For the reasons stated in the notice of final rulemaking, Ohio’s program is being approved.

Vermont’s comment:3

Response: The U.S. Court of Appeals has ruled that EPA’s program with respect to this issue is permitted under the Clean Air Act and was upheld. For the reasons stated in the notice of final rulemaking, Ohio’s program is being approved.

Vermont’s comment:4

Response: The “Clean Unit” provisions of the federal program were set aside b y the Court. I n a November 15, 2005 letter , the OEPA withdrew its request for approval of all of its “clean unit” provisions. Furthermore, o n June 2, 2008 OEPA removed the “Clean Unit” provisions from its rules. The ac tion became effective June 30, 2008. EPA is not approving these sections into the State I mplementation Plan.

Response: EPA’s rules were upheld by the court which reviewed them, State of New York et al. v. EPA , No. 02

- 1387, 2005 WL 1489698, with the exception of the pollution control project and clean unit provisions. Therefore, EPA’s rules (with the exception noted) are lawful, and for the reasons stated in the notice of final rulemaking, Ohio’s program is being approved.

Response:5 As the commenters point out, Section 193 of the CAA provides in part that: “No control requirement in effect ... before November 15, 1990, in any area which is a non

attainment area for an y ai r pollutant may be modified after November 15, 1990, in any manner unle ss the modification insures equivalent or greater emission reductions of such air pollutant.” CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7515. Assuming that section 193 applies to NSR, section 193 does not require additional emission reductions before this SI P revision is appro ved. As of November 15, 1990, the approved SIP did not contain a major source NSR program consistent with the requirements of the CAA, which requires offsets for construction of major sources or major modifications in nonattainment areas. The SI P in effe ct on November 15, 1990 did include a preconstruction permitting program, but that program did not require offsets for any sources. Under Ohio’s new rules, major sources are subject to permitting requirements that are consistent with current CAA requireme nts (while minor sources remain subject to the 1990 permitting program). This SI P revision affects only the major source permitting program. Thus, assuming that section 193 applies in some fashion to the permitting program in the SI P as of November 15, 1990 as it applied to major sources, that program did not achieve an y " emission reductions" from major sources because it did not require offsets for an y s ources. It follows that if there were no emission reductions generated b y the 1990 permitting program, then the section 193 requirement to provide "equivalent or greater emission reductions" of an y air pollutant as part of this SIP revision would be satisfied with no additional reductions. Furthermore, For the reasons stated in the notice of final rulemaking with respect to Section 110(l), EPA has found that the net effect of these changes will be neutral or environmentall y b eneficial.