Train v. Natural Resources Defense Council 421 U.S. 60, 95 S.Ct. 1470, 434 L.Ed. 2d 73 (1975)...... Union Electric Co. v. EPA 427 U.S. 246, 96 S.Ct. 2518, 49 L.Ed. 2d 474 (1976)................ United States v. Morgan 35 14 ERC 1005 (2d Cir., 1980).. 12, 13, 27 35 9, 10, 14, 27, 307 U.S. 183 (1939). 10, 11, 12, 27 35 H.R. Rep. No. 95-294, 95th Cong. 1st Sess. 1977 8, 28, 29, 30 31 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION Subject matter jurisdiction for the petition for review of the Environmental Protection Agency Administrator's suspension of the Chio implementation plan for sulfur dioxide is vested in this Court by virtue of Section 307(b) of the Federal Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. $7607(b). The Administrator's final action is published at 45 F.R. 1022 (January 4, 1980), as corrected by 45 F.R. 30069 (May 7, 1980). The Petition for Review was filed before this Court on March 3, 1980.* *This case has been consolidated for briefing and argument with No. 80-3148. STATEMENT OF ISSUES 1. Does Section 110(i) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §7410(i), prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from revising the compliance schedule and suspending the emission limitations of the Chio implementation plan, without complying with the substantive and procedural requirements for a plan revision? 2. Did the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency act arbitrarily and capriciously in revising the compliance schedule and suspending emission limitations of the Chio implementation plan on the basis of the record before him? STATEMENT OF THE CASE On August 27, 1976, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ('EPA"') promulgated regulations establishing the state implementation plan for the control of sulfur dioxide for the State of Ohio under authority of Section 110 (c) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. $7410(c), 41 F.R. 36324, 40 C.F.R. $52.1870 (Subpart KK). The state implementation plan promulgated by EPA established emission limitations of 1.43 pounds of sulfur dioxide per million BTU for the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company's ("CEI") Eastlake plant in Lake County, Ohio, 40 C.F.R. §52.1881 (b)(35)(vi), and 1.15 pounds of sulfur dioxide per million BTU for CEI's Avon Lake plant in Lorain County, Ohio, 40 C.F.R. §52.1881(b) (38) (iii). Following this Court's approval of the emission limitations in the state implementation plan in Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. v. EPA, 572 F.2d 1150 (1978), on May 31, 1977, the state implementation plan was amended to include schedules for compliance with the emission limitations by no later than October 19, 1979, 42 F.R. 27592, 40 C.F.R. §52.1882 (b) (4)(iii)(G). This compliance schedule was promulgated as part of the state implementation plan requirements pursuant to Section 110(c) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §7410(c). On June 12, 1979, at the request of the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, EPA proposed a revision to the state implementation plan to permit CEI to emit 6.58 pounds of SO2 per million BTU at the Eastlake plant and 6.09 pounds of SO2 per million BTU at the Avon Lake plant, 44 F.R. 33712. In response to substantial adverse public comment to the proposed revision of the emission limitation and in response to EPA's own failure to provide a monitoring program for public comment in a |