81 FR 38645 - Removal of Title V Emergency Affirmative Defense Provisions From State Operating Permit Programs and Federal Operating Permit Program
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 114 (June 14, 2016)
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 114 (June 14, 2016)
| Page Range | 38645-38655 | |
| FR Document | 2016-14104 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 114 (Tuesday, June 14, 2016)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 38645-38655] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-14104] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 70 and 71 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0186; FRL-9947-56-OAR] RIN 2060-AS96 Removal of Title V Emergency Affirmative Defense Provisions From State Operating Permit Programs and Federal Operating Permit Program AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to remove the affirmative defense provisions for emergencies found in the regulations for state and federal operating permit programs. These provisions establish an affirmative defense that sources can assert in civil enforcement cases when noncompliance with certain emission limitations in operating permits occurs because of qualifying ``emergency'' circumstances. These provisions, which have never been required elements of state operating permit programs, are being removed because they are inconsistent with the enforcement structure of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and recent court decisions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The removal of these provisions is consistent with other recent EPA actions involving affirmative defenses and would harmonize the enforcement and implementation of emission limitations across different CAA programs. The EPA is also taking comment on various implementation consequences relating to the proposed removal of the emergency affirmative defense provisions. DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before August 15, 2016. Public Hearing: If anyone contacts the EPA requesting a public hearing on or before June 29, 2016, the EPA will hold a hearing. Additional information about the hearing, if requested, will be published in a subsequent Federal Register document. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ- OAR-2016-0186, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential [[Page 38646]] Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, Cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, please contact Mr. Matthew Spangler, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Planning Division (C504-05), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-0327; email address: [email protected]. To request a public hearing or information pertaining to a public hearing on this document, contact Ms. Pamela Long, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Planning Division (C504-01), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number (919) 541-0641; fax number (919) 541-5509; email address: [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. How is this Federal Register notice organized? The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows: I. General Information A. How is this Federal Register notice organized? B. Does this action apply to me? C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA? D. How can I find information about a possible public hearing? E. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information? II. Overview of Action III. Background A. Regulatory History of 40 CFR 70.6(g) and 71.6(g) B. Subsequent Legal and Regulatory History Supporting This Action IV. Proposed Changes to Part 70 and Part 71 Regulations A. Purpose of This Proposed Rulemaking B. Proposed Action: Removal of 40 CFR 70.6(g) and 71.6(g) C. Legal Justification for Proposed Action V. Implementation A. Implementing These Changes in Part 70 State Operating Permit Programs B. Implementing These Changes in the Part 71 Federal Operating Permit Program C. Effect on Sources Potentially Subject to Enforcement Proceedings VI. Environmental Justice Considerations VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (URMA) E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations VIII. Statutory Authority B. Does this action apply to me? Entities potentially affected by this proposed rulemaking include federal, state, local and tribal air pollution control agencies that administer title V operating permit programs \1\ and owners and operators of emissions sources in all industry groups who hold or apply for title V operating permits. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ This preamble makes frequent use of the term ``state,'' usually meaning the state air pollution control agency that serves as the permitting authority. The use of the term ``state'' also applies to local and tribal air pollution control agencies, where applicable. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA? 1. Submitting CBI Do not submit CBI to the EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments When submitting comments, remember to:Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number). Follow directions. The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. D. How can I find information about a possible public hearing? If anyone contacts the EPA requesting a public hearing on or before June 29, 2016, the EPA will hold a hearing. If requested, further details concerning a public hearing for this proposed rule will be published in a subsequent Federal Register document. For updates and additional information on a public hearing, please check the EPA's Web page at https://www.epa.gov/title-v-operating-permits/current-regulations-and-regulatory-actions. E. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information? In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this Federal Register document will be posted at https://www.epa.gov/title-v-operating-permits/current-regulations-and-regulatory-actions. II. Overview of Action The EPA has promulgated permitting regulations for the operation of major and certain other sources of air pollutants under title V of the CAA. These regulations are codified in 40 CFR parts 70 and 71, which contain the requirements for state operating permit programs and the federal operating [[Page 38647]] permit program, respectively. These regulations currently contain identical provisions setting forth an affirmative defense to enforcement actions brought for noncompliance with technology-based emission limitations under specific ``emergency'' circumstances. See 40 CFR 70.6(g) and 71.6(g). In this action, the EPA is proposing to remove the emergency affirmative defense provisions in 40 CFR 70.6(g) and 71.6(g) because they are inconsistent with the EPA's current interpretation of the CAA's enforcement structure and recent court decisions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. These provisions have never been required elements of state operating permit programs. The removal of these provisions is consistent with other recent EPA actions involving affirmative defenses and would help harmonize the enforcement and implementation of emission limitations across different CAA programs. If the EPA takes final action to remove these provisions from 40 CFR 70.6(g), it may be necessary for any states that have adopted similar affirmative defense provisions into their part 70 operating permit programs to revise their program regulations to remove these provisions. In addition, the EPA expects that these states would coordinate revisions of individual operating permits that contain similar provisions. III. Background A. Regulatory History of 40 CFR 70.6(g) and 71.6(g) In 1990, Congress amended the CAA and established, among other things, title V of the CAA, which contains a national operating permit program for certain stationary sources of air pollution. See CAA sections 501-503, Public Law 101-549 (1990) (codified at 42 U.S.C. 7661-7661b). Shortly thereafter, and pursuant to CAA section 502(b), the EPA promulgated regulations implementing title V of the CAA. The first set of regulations, finalized in 1992 and codified at 40 CFR part 70 (the part 70 regulations), governs state operating permit programs and provides for states to develop and submit to the EPA programs for issuing operating permits for major and certain other stationary sources of air pollution.\2\ Pursuant to CAA section 502(d)(3), the EPA promulgated a second set of regulations in 1996, found at 40 CFR part 71 (the part 71 regulations), which outlines the federal operating permit program.\3\ Both sets of regulations contain identical affirmative defense provisions, which are addressed by this action. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ Operating Permit Program, Final Rule, 57 FR 32250 (July 21, 1992). \3\ Federal Operating Permits Program, Final Rule, 61 FR 34202 (July 1, 1996). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Title V of the CAA does not contain any provisions concerning an affirmative defense mechanism for emergencies. When the EPA first proposed its part 70 regulations in 1991, the agency did not include any such provisions.\4\ However, the EPA received comments specifically requesting that the part 70 regulations make some provision for ``emergencies'' or ``upsets'' caused by the failure of emission control equipment. In promulgating the final part 70 regulations for state operating permit programs, the EPA included Sec. 70.6(g), which contains an affirmative defense for ``emergencies.'' \5\ When the EPA promulgated its part 71 regulations in 1996, it adopted an identical provision in Sec. 71.6(g), in order to maintain consistency between the state and federal operating permit programs.\6\ The text of sections 70.6(g) and 71.6(g) has not changed since initially promulgated. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ Operating Permit Program, Proposed Rule, 56 FR 21712 (May 10, 1991). \5\ Operating Permit Program, Final Rule, 57 FR 32279. The EPA explained that the provision was intended to provide operational flexibility, and was modeled on a similar National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit provision in 40 CFR 122.41. Id. \6\ Federal Operating Permits Program, Final Rule, 61 FR 34219 (July 1, 1996). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The title V emergency provisions establish an affirmative defense. A stationary source of air pollution can assert this affirmative defense in an enforcement case to avoid liability for noncompliance with technology-based emission limits contained in the source's title V permit. In order to use this affirmative defense and avoid liability, the source must demonstrate that any excess emissions occurred as the result of an ``emergency,'' as defined in the regulations, and make a number of other demonstrations specified in the regulations. See 40 CFR 70.6(g) and 71.6(g). These title V affirmative defense provisions apply in addition to, and independently from, any emergency or upset provisions contained in other applicable CAA requirements. Sections 70.6(g) and 70.4(b)(16) form the basis for similar affirmative defense provisions contained in state operating permit programs and for similar provisions contained in individual state- issued operating permits. Section 71.6(g) provides the authority to include this emergency provision in operating permits issued by the EPA or by states with delegated authority under part 71. Such emergency affirmative defense provisions are not required program elements. States have never been obligated to include the Sec. 70.6(g) affirmative defense provision in their part 70 operating permit programs; instead, the provision has always been discretionary.\7\ Similarly, although the emergency affirmative defense provision is located within the ``Permit Content'' section of the part 70 and part 71 regulations, the EPA does not consider the provision to be a required permit term.\8\ Thus, the EPA considers the emergency provision to be a discretionary element of both state permitting programs as well as individual operating permits. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \7\ Operating Permits Program and Federal Operating Permits Program, Proposed Rule [Title V Supplemental Proposal], 60 FR 45530, 45558 (August 31, 1995) (``At the outset, EPA wants to make clear that the part 70 rule does not require that States adopt the emergency defense. A State may include such a defense in its part 70 program to the extent it finds appropriate, although it may not adopt an emergency defense less stringent than that set forth at section 70.6(g). . . . [T]he Act in sections 116 and 506(a) authorizes States to establish additional or more stringent air pollution control or permitting requirements. Consistent with that, States may decide to provide an emergency defense that is narrower in scope or more stringent in application than Sec. 70.6(g) or no defense at all.''). \8\ See State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking; Restatement and Update of EPA's SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls To Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction, Final Action [SSM SIP Call], 80 FR 33839, 33924 (June 12, 2015) (``[A]s part of normal permitting process, the EPA encourages permitting authorities to consider the discretionary nature of the emergency provisions when determining whether to continue to include permit terms modeled on those provisions in operating permits that the permitting authorities are issuing in the first instance or renewing''). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- B. Subsequent Legal and Regulatory History Supporting This Action The EPA has considered the most appropriate ways to account for excess emissions during different modes of source operation, such as startup and shutdown, and emissions during emergencies, upsets, and malfunctions for more than 40 years. The EPA's policies regarding the emergency affirmative defense provisions in its part 70 and 71 regulations have been shaped by a number of factors, including the structure of the CAA, federal court decisions, experience with similar provisions in other EPA programs, and recommendations from stakeholders. This section summarizes some of the more relevant and recent legal, regulatory, and policy considerations informing the EPA's current policy on affirmative defense provisions, including the D.C. Circuit's opinion in NRDC v. EPA and the EPA's recent [[Page 38648]] experience with affirmative defenses for startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) events in State Implementation Plans (SIPs). 1. D.C. Circuit Opinion in NRDC v. EPA In the 2014 NRDC v. EPA \9\ case, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated an affirmative defense provision applicable to malfunction events. In 2010, the EPA included an affirmative defense within its National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Portland cement facilities, promulgated under CAA section 112.\10\ This provision created an affirmative defense that sources could assert in civil enforcement proceedings when violations of emission limitations occurred because of qualifying unavoidable malfunctions. The D.C. Circuit held that this affirmative defense provision exceeded the EPA's statutory authority and that only the courts have the authority to decide whether to assess penalties for violations in civil suits. As the court explained: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\ 749 F.3d 1055 (D.C. Cir. 2014). \10\ National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry and Standards of Performance for Portland Cement Plants, 75 FR 54993 (September 9, 2010). By its terms, Section 304(a) clearly vests authority over private suits in the courts, not EPA. As the language of the statute makes clear, the courts determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether civil penalties are ``appropriate.'' By contrast, EPA's ability to determine whether penalties should be assessed for Clean Air Act violations extends only to administrative penalties, not to civil penalties imposed by a court. . . . [U]nder this statute, deciding whether penalties are ``appropriate'' in a given private civil suit is a job for the courts, not for EPA.'' \11\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \11\ NRDC v. EPA, 749 F.3d 1055, 1063 (D.C. Cir. 2014). The D.C. Circuit therefore concluded that the EPA lacked the authority to create an affirmative defense in private civil suits that would purport to alter the jurisdiction of the court to assess civil penalties for violations. Although this case was based on EPA regulations promulgated under CAA section 112, the court's holding was not based on section 112, but rather on sections 304(a) and 113(e)(1). Therefore, and as discussed further in Section IV of this document, the EPA interprets the decision to be relevant to all similar affirmative defense provisions, such as those found in part 70 and part 71, that may interfere with the authority of courts to assess penalties or to impose other remedies authorized in CAA section 113(b) in civil enforcement suits. This proposed rulemaking seeks to ensure that the EPA's part 70 and part 71 regulations are consistent with the enforcement structure of the CAA in accordance with the reasoning of the NRDC v. EPA decision.\12\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \12\ In 2008, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision in Sierra Club v. Johnson, 551 F.3d 1019, vacating the EPA's regulations that exempted sources under certain circumstances from emissions standards during periods of SSM. The EPA maintains that the part 70 and part 71 emergency affirmative defense provisions are just that-- affirmative defenses to enforcement actions--not exemptions from otherwise applicable emissions limitations. Such affirmative defense provisions are called into question by NRDC v. EPA. However, to the extent that the title V emergency affirmative defense could be considered in some respects to function like an exemption from otherwise applicable emissions limitations, such an exemption would be incompatible with the CAA and Sierra Club v. Johnson. This is an alternative basis for proposing to remove the part 70 and part 71 emergency affirmative defense provisions, as discussed further in Section IV.C of this document. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. SSM SIP Call The EPA has also reconsidered affirmative defense provisions similar to those involved in the NRDC v. EPA case in other recent regulatory actions. On June 15, 2015, the EPA issued a ``SIP Call'' (the SSM SIP Call) finding that certain SIP provisions in 36 states are substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements.\13\ Many of the deficient SIP provisions at issue in the SSM SIP call are affirmative defense type provisions, and some of them are analogous to the emergency affirmative defense in part 70 and part 71. Although the agency's SSM policy for SIP provisions is not directly at issue in this proposal, certain aspects of the SSM SIP Call are especially relevant and are discussed in this subsection. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \13\ SSM SIP Call, 80 FR 33839 (June 12, 2015). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- After the EPA initially proposed the SSM SIP Call,\14\ the D.C. Circuit issued its opinion in NRDC v. EPA. That decision, which concerned the legal basis for an affirmative defense provision in the EPA's own regulations, caused the EPA to reconsider the legal basis for any affirmative defense provisions contained in SIPs.\15\ The EPA concluded that the logic of the court in NRDC v. EPA extends beyond CAA section 112 to affirmative defense provisions contained in SIPs. Therefore, the EPA clarified and revised its interpretation of CAA requirements with respect to affirmative defense provisions for SSM events. The agency explained that ``the enforcement structure of the CAA, embodied in section 113 and section 304, precludes any affirmative defense provisions that would operate to limit a court's jurisdiction or discretion to determine the appropriate remedy in an enforcement action. These provisions are not appropriate under the CAA, no matter what type of event they apply to, what criteria they contain or what forms of remedy they purport to limit or eliminate.'' \16\ The EPA explained that ``[a]ffirmative defense provisions by their nature purport to limit or eliminate the authority of federal courts to determine liability or to impose remedies through factual considerations that differ from, or are contrary to, the explicit grants of authority in section 113(b) and section 113(e).'' \17\ The EPA's interpretation of the CAA's enforcement structure and the NRDC v. EPA decision, as set forth in the final SSM SIP Call, is relevant to the current rulemaking. Section IV of this document further discusses this interpretation in the context of the part 70 and part 71 emergency provisions. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \14\ State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls To Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction, Proposed Rule, 78 FR 12459 (February 22, 2013). \15\ See State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls To Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction; Supplemental Proposal To Address Affirmative Defense Provisions in States Included in the Petition for Rulemaking and in Additional States, Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking [SSM SIP Call Supplemental Proposal], 79 FR 55919, 55929 (September 17, 2014). \16\ SSM SIP Call, 80 FR 33851 (June 12, 2015). \17\ Id. at 33852. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Following this interpretation, the EPA directed states to remove specifically identified provisions containing affirmative defenses from their SIPs. Some of these SSM provisions were similar to the emergency provisions in the EPA's part 70 and part 71 regulations. In the final SSM SIP Call, the EPA indicated that provisions modeled after the Sec. Sec. 70.6(g) and 71.6(g) emergency affirmative defense provisions--including provisions that were more narrowly defined--were no longer consistent with the EPA's interpretation of the CAA and could not be included in SIPs.\18\ For example, the EPA found that an Arkansas SIP provision establishing an affirmative defense for emergencies, which may have been modeled after the EPA's title V regulations, was substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements.\19\ The EPA also discussed the potential conflict between the SSM policy applicable to SIP provisions and the part 70 and part 71 emergency provisions, but noted that it was not taking action to revise the title V [[Page 38649]] regulations in the SSM SIP Call rulemaking.\20\ In the final SSM SIP Call, however, the EPA indicated that it was considering whether such changes may be necessary and how best to make such changes. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \18\ Id. at 33924. \19\ Id. at 33967; see also SSM SIP Call Supplemental Proposal, 79 FR 55942 and 55943. \20\ SSM SIP Call, 80 FR 33924 (June 12, 2015). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Related Actions in Other CAA Program Areas Since 2014, the EPA has removed or omitted affirmative defense provisions in numerous regulations throughout other CAA program areas following the NRDC v. EPA case. Specifically, in newly issued and revised New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), emission guidelines for existing sources, and NESHAP regulations, the EPA has either omitted new affirmative defense provisions or removed existing affirmative defense provisions.\21\ This proposed rulemaking for the part 70 and part 71 regulations is thus consistent with these related efforts in other CAA program areas and ensures that title V operating permits do not contain additional affirmative defenses that could interfere with the EPA's efforts to remove these impermissible provisions from specific underlying applicable requirements. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \21\ See, e.g., National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry and Standards of Performance for Portland Cement Plants; Final Rule, 80 FR 44771 (July 27, 2015); National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters; Final Rule, 80 FR 72789 (November 20, 2015); Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units; Proposed Rule, 80 FR 3018, 3025 (January 21, 2015). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IV. Proposed Changes to Part 70 and Part 71 Regulations A. Purpose of This Proposed Rulemaking This proposed rulemaking is responsive to a number of concerns and related actions, including those discussed in Section III of this document. The EPA considers this proposed rulemaking important to ensure that the EPA's title V regulations are consistent with the enforcement structure envisioned by Congress in the 1990 CAA amendments. This action is intended to respond to the reasoning of the D.C. Circuit's recent opinion in NRDC v. EPA, which the EPA interprets to extend to the affirmative defense provisions in the part 70 and part 71 regulations. This proposed rule also follows from similar regulatory actions in other CAA program areas, including the recent SSM SIP Call and various NSPS and NESHAP regulations. The EPA considers the proposed removal of the emergency affirmative defense provisions from the title V regulations necessary to maintain a consistent interpretation of the CAA throughout different CAA programs, including section 110 SIPs, section 111 NSPS and existing source guidelines, and section 112 NESHAPs. Finally, this proposed action follows from the EPA's stated intentions to revisit the emergency affirmative defense provisions promulgated in 1992 and seeks to provide clarity in response to stakeholder concerns.\22\ The EPA initially sought to clarify the scope of the emergency provisions over the course of multiple actions in 1995 and 1996. However, the EPA ultimately indicated that it would reevaluate the part 70 and part 71 emergency affirmative defense provisions--including whether these provisions may need to be eliminated--in a subsequent rulemaking.\23\ The EPA again discussed the title V emergency provisions in the SSM SIP Call, where the agency acknowledged the potential conflict between the SSM policy applicable to SIP provisions and the part 70 and part 71 emergency provisions, but indicated that it would potentially make changes to the title V affirmative defense provisions in a subsequent rulemaking.\24\ As contemplated in the prior title V rulemakings and in the more recent SSM SIP Call, the EPA is now considering the appropriate changes to parts 70 and 71 and proposing to remove the title V emergency affirmative defenses provisions. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \22\ In addition to comments received on prior regulatory actions, the EPA has received input from stakeholders as recent as 2006. The Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC), chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, was established to advise the EPA on issues related to the 1990 CAA Amendments. In 2006, a Task Force formed by the CAAAC issued its Final Report: Title V Implementation Experience. See Title V Task Force, Final Report to the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee: Title V Implementation Experience (April 2006), available at http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-10/documents/title5_taskforce_finalreport20060405.pdf. Although the Task Force did not agree on how broadly the title V emergency affirmative defense should be applied, all eighteen members of the Task Force unanimously recommended the following: ``Title V permits should be clear as to which limits are subject to the part 70 emergency defense (e.g., under the current rule, technology based limits).'' Id. at 144. By way of response, the proposed action to remove these provisions would essentially moot these concerns about clarity on the applicability of these provisions. \23\ See Federal Operating Permits Program, Proposed Rule, 60 FR 20804, 20816 (April 27, 1995) (``The EPA is reevaluating the provisions in parts 70 and 71 relating to the emergency defense in light of concerns identified in legal challenges to the part 70 rule. The EPA may propose revisions to the part 70 and part 71 sections providing for the emergency defense before EPA would include such defense in any part 71 permits.''); Title V Supplemental Proposal, 60 FR 45560 (``The EPA is reluctant to retain a generally applicable emergency defense without completing further review of the appropriateness of such a defense for the different Federal technology based standards in light of the concerns with such a defense raised in the CWA cases.''); Federal Operating Permits Program, Final Rule, 61 FR 34219 (``As a result of concerns identified in legal challenges to part 70, the Agency, in the August 1995 supplemental proposal, solicited comment on the need for, scope and terms of an emergency affirmative defense provision. The Agency is reviewing those comments, but has not yet made a decision on whether or not to modify or remove this additional affirmative defense provision from part 70.'' (emphasis added)). \24\ See SSM SIP Call, 80 FR 33924 (``Those regulations [40 CFR 70.6(g) and 71.6(g)], which are applicable to title V operating permits, may only be changed through appropriate rulemaking to revise parts 70 and 71. Further, any existing permits that contain such emergency provisions may only be changed through established permitting procedures. The EPA is considering whether to make changes to 40 CFR part 70 and 40 CFR part 71, and if so, how best to make those changes. In any such action, EPA would also intend to address the timing of any changes to existing title V operating permits. Until that time, as part of normal permitting process, the EPA encourages permitting authorities to consider the discretionary nature of the emergency provisions when determining whether to continue to include permit terms modeled on those provisions in operating permits that the permitting authorities are issuing in the first instance or renewing.''). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- B. Proposed Action: Removal of 40 CFR 70.6(g) and 71.6(g) The EPA is proposing to remove the emergency provisions located at 40 CFR 70.6(g) and 71.6(g). The agency has not identified any other viable option for reconciling these affirmative defense provisions with the enforcement structure of the CAA, in accordance with the reasoning of the NRDC v. EPA decision. The implications of this proposed removal on the federal operating permit program, state operating permit programs, and on individual sources subject to title V operating permits are discussed in Section V of this document. C. Legal Justification for Proposed Action This action is proposed pursuant to CAA sections 502(b) and 502(d)(3), 42 U.S.C. 7661a(b) & (d)(3), which direct the Administrator of the EPA to promulgate regulations establishing state operating permit programs and give the Administrator authority to establish a federal operating permit program. The EPA proposes to remove the affirmative defense provisions from the part 70 and 71 regulations in order to ensure that the federal and state title V operating permit programs operate within the bounds established by [[Page 38650]] Congress in the 1990 CAA Amendments. Regarding these boundaries, the D.C. Circuit's opinion in NRDC v. EPA is instructive as to the enforcement structure envisioned by Congress, as well as the role of affirmative defense provisions within the EPA's regulations implementing the CAA. As discussed in Section III.B.1 of this document, the court in NRDC v. EPA determined that an affirmative defense provision promulgated by the EPA for the Portland cement industry under CAA section 112 exceeded the agency's statutory authority. In doing so, the D.C. Circuit based its holding on CAA sections 304(a) and 113(e)(1). CAA section 304(a) grants ``any person'' the right to ``commence a civil action . . . against any person . . . who is alleged to have violated (if there is evidence that the alleged violation has been repeated) or to be in violation of . . . an emission standard or limitation'' under the CAA. 42 U.S.C. 7604(a). Section 304(a) also provides that ``[t]he [federal] district courts shall have jurisdiction, without regard to the amount in controversy or the citizenship of the parties, to enforce such an emission standard or limitation . . . and to apply any appropriate civil penalties.'' Id. CAA section 113(e)(1) establishes a number of factors that courts must consider when determining the amount of any penalties assessed in civil actions under section 304(a). See 42 U.S.C. 7413(e)(1). The D.C. Circuit indicated that these statutory provisions precluded the EPA from promulgating affirmative defense provisions that a source could use in civil enforcement suits. The court did not remand the regulation to the EPA for better explanation of the legal basis for an affirmative defense; the court instead vacated the affirmative defense and indicated that there could be no valid legal basis for such a provision because it contradicted fundamental requirements of the CAA concerning the authority of courts in judicial enforcement of CAA requirements. As the court explained: By its terms, Section 304(a) clearly vests authority over private suits in the courts, not EPA. As the language of the statute makes clear, the courts determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether civil penalties are ``appropriate.'' By contrast, EPA's ability to determine whether penalties should be assessed for Clean Air Act violations extends only to administrative penalties, not to civil penalties imposed by a court. . . . [U]nder this statute, deciding whether penalties are ``appropriate'' in a given private civil suit is a job for the courts, not for EPA.'' \25\ \25\ NRDC v. EPA, 749 F.3d 1055, 1063 (D.C. Cir. 2014). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The court also noted that ``EPA cannot rely on its gap-filling authority to supplement the Clean Air Act's provisions when Congress has not left the agency a gap to fill.'' \26\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \26\ Id. at 1064. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The D.C. Circuit's holding in NRDC v. EPA is especially pertinent here.\27\ Like the Portland cement NESHAP at issue in the NRDC v. EPA case, the provisions at issue in this proposal are also regulations promulgated by the EPA to implement programs under the CAA. The affirmative defense for malfunctions in the Portland cement NESHAP and the affirmative defense for emergencies in the EPA's part 70 and part 71 regulations are functionally similar provisions that operate in essentially identical ways to establish affirmative defenses in civil enforcement actions. Moreover, the EPA believes that the reasoning of the court's decision in NRDC v. EPA applies more broadly than to the specific facts of the case for several reasons. The EPA notes that the court's decision did not turn upon the specific provisions of CAA section 112. Although the court only evaluated the legal validity of an affirmative defense provision created by the EPA in conjunction with specific standards applicable to manufacturers of Portland cement, the court based its decision upon the provisions of sections 113 and 304 that pertain to enforcement of CAA requirements more broadly, including to emission limits in title V permits. Sections 113 and 304 pertain to administrative and judicial enforcement generally and are in no way limited to enforcement of emission limitations promulgated by the EPA under section 112. Thus, the EPA does not think that the mere fact that the court only addressed the legality of an affirmative defense provision in this particular context means that the court's interpretation of sections 113 and 304 does not also apply more broadly. To the contrary, the EPA sees no reason why the logic of the court concerning sections 113 and 304 would not apply to the title V emergency affirmative defense provisions, as well. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \27\ The EPA's interpretation of the NRDC v. EPA case as it affects the affirmative defense provisions in parts 70 and 71 is similar to the interpretation of the case as articulated in the SSM SIP Call. More information on the EPA's interpretation of the NRDC v. EPA ruling can be found in the Final SSM SIP Call and the August 2014 Supplemental Proposal. See SSM SIP Call, 80 FR 33851; SSM SIP Call Supplemental Proposal, 79 FR 55929. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In light of the court's decision, the EPA now interprets the enforcement structure of the CAA, embodied in section 113 and section 304, to preclude affirmative defense provisions that would operate to limit a court's authority or discretion to determine the appropriate remedy in an enforcement action. CAA section 304(a) grants the federal district courts the jurisdiction to determine liability and to impose penalties in enforcement suits brought by citizens. Similarly, section 113(b) provides courts with explicit jurisdiction to determine liability and to impose remedies of various kinds, including injunctive relief, compliance orders, and monetary penalties, in judicial enforcement proceedings. These grants of jurisdiction come directly from Congress, and the EPA is not authorized to alter or eliminate this authority under the CAA or any other law. With respect to monetary penalties, CAA section 113(e) explicitly includes the factors that courts and the EPA are required to consider in the event of judicial or administrative enforcement for violations of CAA requirements, including title V permit provisions. Because Congress has already given federal courts the authority to determine what monetary penalties are appropriate in the event of judicial enforcement for a violation of a title V permit provision, neither the EPA nor states can alter or eliminate that authority by superimposing restrictions on the authority and discretion granted by Congress to the courts. Affirmative defense provisions by their nature purport to limit or eliminate the authority of federal courts to determine liability or to impose remedies through factual considerations that differ from, or are contrary to, the explicit grants of authority in section 113(b) and section 113(e). Therefore, these provisions are not appropriate under the CAA, no matter what type of event they apply to, what criteria they contain, or what forms of remedy they purport to limit or eliminate. This is true for regulations promulgated under CAA sections 111 and 112, SIP provisions approved by the EPA, and regulations promulgated under title V of the CAA. Thus, just as the EPA revisited affirmative defenses in SIP provisions in light of the NRDC v. EPA opinion, the EPA is reevaluating its interpretation of the CAA relative to the emergency affirmative defense provisions contained in its part 70 and part 71 regulations, and is proposing to remove those provisions because they are not consistent with the CAA's enforcement structure. Since the 2014 NRDC v. EPA decision, and in order to ensure consistency with the CAA's enforcement structure, the EPA has been omitting new affirmative defense provisions and removing existing [[Page 38651]] affirmative defense provisions throughout many CAA program areas that establish emission limitations contained in title V permits. However, the title V emergency affirmative defense provisions apply regardless of whether there is an affirmative defense also found in the underlying applicable requirements. See 40 CFR 70.6(g)(5) and 71.6(g)(5). As a result, sources could seek to assert this affirmative defense in title V enforcement cases for noncompliance with emission limitations derived from applicable requirements that do not otherwise contain such an affirmative defense for emergencies. The continued existence of the title V emergency affirmative defense provisions thus contradicts and compromises the EPA's on-going efforts to ensure that underlying regulations are applied consistently with the CAA. The EPA maintains that the part 70 and part 71 emergency affirmative defense provisions are affirmative defenses to enforcement actions and are not ``exemptions'' from otherwise applicable emissions limitations. However, as an alternative but additional justification, to the extent that the emergency affirmative defense provisions in part 70 and part 71 could be interpreted to establish an exemption or exclusion from emission limits (rather than merely an affirmative defense to penalties in the event of a violation), these provisions would still run contrary to the CAA's requirements and require removal. As previously noted,\28\ under Sierra Club v. Johnson,\29\ the CAA requires that emission limitations must apply continuously and cannot contain exemptions, conditional or otherwise. Therefore, even if characterized as an exemption or exclusion from otherwise applicable limits, the emergency affirmative defense provisions would, nonetheless, run afoul of the CAA and Sierra Club v. Johnson, and should, on that alternative basis, be removed. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \28\ See footnote 12. \29\ 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- V. Implementation A. Implementing These Changes in Part 70 State Operating Permit Programs This section discusses the actions that the EPA anticipates state, local, and tribal permitting authorities \30\ would need to take (if this proposed rule is finalized in substantially the same form) in order to ensure that their operating permit programs are consistent with the proposed revisions to the EPA's part 70 regulations and the CAA's enforcement structure. The EPA welcomes comments on how best to address the implementation consequences of the proposed removal of 40 CFR 70.6(g). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \30\ As noted in footnote 1, the term ``state'' as used throughout this preamble refers to all state, local and tribal permitting authorities that administer approved part 70 programs. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Programs That Do Not Contain Emergency Affirmative Defense Provisions As discussed in Section III.A of this document, the section 70.6(g) emergency provision has never been a required element of part 70 operating permit programs. For states that have not adopted the section 70.6(g) emergency provision, or any similar affirmative defense provision, into their part 70 operating permit programs, no further action would be required to comply with this rule as proposed. However, we expect that as a result of this rulemaking, it may be necessary for states that have adopted an affirmative defense in their part 70 programs to take the actions described in the following subsections. 2. Programs That Contain Emergency Affirmative Defense Provisions The EPA's existing part 70 regulations provide for state program revisions if part 70 is revised and the EPA determines that such conforming changes are necessary. See 40 CFR 70.4(a) and 70.4(i). Therefore, as a result of this proposed regulatory action to remove 40 CFR 70.6(g) and 71.6(g), state operating permit programs that contain an emergency affirmative defense may have to take appropriate actions to remain consistent with the CAA and the EPA's part 70 regulations. As discussed in more detail in the following subsections, the EPA is requesting comment on whether revisions to certain approved state programs may be necessary if the EPA removes 40 CFR 70.6(g) and 71.6(g). a. Scope of Program Revisions That May Be Necessary if the Rule Is Finalized as Proposed Affirmative defense provisions included within a state's part 70 (title V) program regulations--including provisions that are narrower in scope or more stringent than 40 CFR 70.6(g)--will generally implicate the same concerns that prompted the EPA to propose removing 70.6(g) and 71.6(g) from the agency's regulations. The EPA expects that state programs containing provisions that mirror the exact language of 70.6(g) would need to be revised if this proposed rule is finalized, as would state programs that have provisions that do not exactly mirror the language of 40 CFR 70.6(g), but nonetheless provide for title V affirmative defenses.\31\ In any case, the EPA invites comment on whether it may be necessary for states to revise programs containing any provisions that (1) purport to establish an affirmative defense to enforcement actions \32\ and (2) are included within the state's part 70 (title V) program regulations. Anytime the phrases ``affirmative defense'' or ``emergency affirmative defense'' are used within this section, these phrases are intended to refer to all such provisions meeting these criteria. These criteria are intended to encompass provisions that initially would have been approved by the EPA as consistent with 40 CFR 70.6(g) and 70.4(b)(16). This action would not directly affect any affirmative defense provisions arising under other CAA applicable requirements, or state-only provisions outside of each state's approved part 70 operating permit programs. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \31\ For example, affirmative defense provisions that refer to ``upsets'' or ``malfunctions'' rather than ``emergencies'' would still implicate the same concerns. \32\ Additionally, any state program provisions based off of 70.6(g) that purport to establish an ``exemption'' or ``exclusion'' to emission limitations (rather than, or in addition to, an affirmative defense for noncompliance) during emergencies, upsets, or malfunctions would also likely need to be removed. To the extent that an emergency defense is characterized as an exemption, this would run afoul of the CAA requirement that emission limitations must apply continuously and cannot contain exemptions. See Sierra Club v. Johnson, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008); SSM SIP Call, 80 FR 33852. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The EPA has begun to compile a tentative list of affirmative defense provisions within state programs that may eventually need to be removed. The EPA is including this list in the docket for this proposed rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0186) for informational purposes only; this list is not an official determination as to the adequacy or inadequacy of any program provisions. The EPA seeks comment on whether there are additional title V affirmative defense provisions in state regulations or statutes that we have not yet identified, and whether any such provisions would or would not remain appropriate as part of a state's approved title V program if this proposed rule is finalized. b. Form of Program Revisions Because the EPA believes that a large number of part 70 programs contain provisions resembling those that the agency proposes to eliminate, the EPA anticipates that it will be necessary for states to initiate conforming revisions to remove any affirmative defense provisions from their approved title V [[Page 38652]] operating permit programs if the EPA removes 40 CFR 70.6(g). The EPA seeks comment on this approach and on other possible approaches to ensure that state programs are consistent with the CAA and the EPA's part 70 regulations. However, the EPA does not anticipate that it would be appropriate for states to retain affirmative defense provisions within their approved part 70 programs. For example, if a state decided, in lieu of a program revision, to exercise its discretion to omit or remove affirmative defense provisions from all future title V operating permits, the state's approved part 70 program would still contain regulations inconsistent with the EPA's part 70 regulations and the CAA. Further, if an emergency provision remained in a state's approved program, a source could potentially attempt to invoke the provision as an affirmative defense during an enforcement proceeding, notwithstanding its absence from the source's individual title V permit. This result could undermine the enforcement of certain permit limitations and would be inconsistent with the enforcement structure of the CAA. Although the EPA expects that most states would elect to remove the emergency affirmative defense provisions from their part 70 program regulations, states could nonetheless choose to retain such affirmative defense provisions within their permitting regulations as state-only requirements in certain circumstances. In that case, states would have to ensure and make clear to the EPA that any remaining affirmative defense provisions are only available for alleged noncompliance with permit requirements arising solely from state law. Ideally, this would involve an amendment to state regulations to explicitly clarify the limited applicability of any remaining affirmative defense provisions; such a clarifying amendment could also effectively serve as an appropriate revision to the state's part 70 program. The EPA solicits comment on whether and to what extent it would be appropriate for states to retain state-only affirmative defense provisions if this proposed rule is finalized. Finally, states may also choose to remove any other provisions that reference 40 CFR 70.6(g) or similar state affirmative defense provisions in order to ensure clarity. These could include, but are not limited to, state regulations that incorporate by reference 40 CFR 70.6(g), as well as any associated definitions, recordkeeping, or reporting requirements relating to the affirmative defense provisions affected by this rulemaking. States may also wish to retain a portion of the emergency provisions, such as the definition of ``emergency'' or certain reporting requirements, for purposes of supporting other regulations that do not involve an affirmative defense. This could be appropriate as long as any remaining provisions could not be interpreted to provide an affirmative defense to federally applicable requirements. c. Procedure, Timing and Content of Program Revisions If this proposed rule is finalized, the EPA expects that it would be necessary for any states with approved part 70 operating permit programs that contain emergency affirmative defense provisions to remove any such provisions and submit program revisions to the EPA within 12 months after the final rule's effective date. For many programs, the EPA does not anticipate that additional state legislative authority will be required to enact these revisions. Therefore, the EPA believes that 12 months will be ample time for many states to make such a straightforward and narrow program revision. However, the EPA is considering whether it may be appropriate to provide individual states up to 24 months to submit program revisions if a state demonstrates that additional legislative authority is necessary to enact the program revisions. If this proposed rule is finalized, the EPA expects that state program revisions submitted to the agency should include a redline version of the specific changes made to the state's part 70 regulations to remove any emergency affirmative defense provisions. States may, but need not, include as part of their program revision submittals any other unrelated revisions to state program regulations.\33\ Each state should also include a brief statement of the legal authority that authorized this removal, which could take various forms depending on the specific circumstances of each state. Finally, to address how the program revisions would be implemented with respect to individual permits, each state should also include a schedule for the planned removal of these provisions from individual title V operating permits, as well as a description of the mechanism(s) that the state plans to use to remove these existing provisions. Further discussion of how these program revisions should be implemented in individual permits is presented in Section V.A.3 of this document. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \33\ The EPA intends that any narrow program revisions that may be necessary if this rule is finalized could be expeditiously processed, whether submitted alone or with other program revisions. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The EPA is specifically requesting comment on these program revision time frames and procedures from permitting authorities whose approved part 70 programs contain affirmative defense provisions. The EPA solicits additional comments from states with title V program provisions that may also be contained within SIPs as to any additional revisions that may be necessary if this rule is finalized. 3. Effect of This Rule on Current and Future State-Issued Operating Permits The eventual finalization of this rule would not have an automatic impact on sources currently operating under a title V permit, and any minimal resource burden to revise permits would likely be spread over many years. After a state makes any necessary revisions to its title V program, the EPA expects that revisions to operating permits to remove emergency affirmative defense provisions would generally occur in the ordinary course of business as the state issues new permits or reviews and revises existing permits. The options presented in the following subsections would afford states with the maximum flexibility to implement these changes while ensuring predictability for sources operating under title V permits. a. Form of Permit Changes In order to implement program revisions that may be necessary if this rule is finalized as proposed, it may be necessary for states to remove title V emergency affirmative defense provisions that are currently included in any state-issued permits.\34\ Alternatively, states may choose to allow sources to retain affirmative defense provisions in their permits as state-only provisions. Any such remaining affirmative defense provisions must be clearly labeled within each permit as not applicable for federal law purposes to ensure that they are not available in enforcement actions for noncompliance with any federally- [[Page 38653]] enforceable emission limitations, as required by 40 CFR 70.6(b)(2). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \34\ It is possible that individual operating permits may contain other provisions establishing affirmative defenses that are derived from other applicable requirements. As previously noted, this proposed rulemaking will not have any effect on affirmative defense provisions promulgated under any CAA requirements other than 40 CFR 70.6(g) and 71.6(g). However, the source of such affirmative defense provisions should be clearly stated in each individual operating permit, to avoid confusion about the scope of such provisions. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- b. Mechanisms and Timing of Permit Changes The EPA anticipates that states would have the flexibility to remove emergency provisions from title V permits through a number of different existing mechanisms, either through changes to individual permits or perhaps to multiple permits through more streamlined processes. As previously noted, if the proposed action is finalized, any necessary program revision submittals should reflect the planned schedule and mechanism for these permit changes. The EPA expects that states will follow the guidelines discussed in this preamble, but will consider other plans for revising title V permits that would not cause undue delay. First, states could require that permit applications address the removal of emergency provisions during the next periodic permit renewal, permit modification, or permit reopening, including those that occur as the result of other rulemakings. States using these mechanisms should ensure that these changes occur at the first possible occasion; in other words, the first situation in which the permitting authority must act on an individual permit after state program revisions are approved by the EPA. Moreover, because states have never been required by federal law to include these provisions in state-issued title V permits, the EPA also encourages states to exercise their discretion to cease including emergency affirmative defense provisions as early as practicable. In many cases, there will be no reason for states to wait for the EPA to take final action on this proposal to begin implementing this suggestion.\35\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \35\ Of course, if currently-approved state program regulations require that this provision be included within individual title V operating permits, a state may not be able to exercise this discretion until program revisions are completed. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Additionally, sources may apply for a permit modification from their permitting authority at any time. The EPA anticipates that the removal of an emergency affirmative defense would not trigger the significant modification procedures under 40 CFR 70.7(e)(4), and-- depending on the regulations in each state's approved title V program-- could be implemented using minor modification procedures. Finally, depending on the unique structure of each state's operating permit program, some states may also be able to remove these provisions from multiple existing permits in a single action, via mechanisms such as general permits or permits-by-rule. The EPA is requesting comment on how states could use existing permitting options to remove emergency affirmative defense provisions from title V permits in a more streamlined and expeditious manner. Overall, the EPA believes that addressing the omission or removal of emergency affirmative defense provisions from permits according to the existing state program mechanisms described in this subsection affords states sufficient flexibility to implement these changes and provides certainty to facilities operating under title V permits. Under the approaches currently being considered, the EPA anticipates that the removal of affirmative defense provisions from permits should generally occur in the ordinary course of business and should require essentially no additional burden on states or sources. The timing for these changes may coincide with similar changes to operating permits based on revised SIP provisions following the SSM SIP Call or changes to other applicable requirements, and it may be convenient and efficient for states to make all necessary changes to title V permits at the same time. B. Implementing These Changes in the Part 71 Federal Operating Permit Program Although the title V operating permit program is typically implemented by state and local permitting authorities through EPA- approved part 70 programs, in certain circumstances the EPA has assumed direct permitting authority over sources through its part 71 program. The EPA administers the part 71 federal program in most areas of Indian country (however, one tribe--the Southern Ute Tribe--has an approved part 70 program, and another--the Navajo Nation--has been delegated part 71 implementation authority),\36\ on the Outer Continental Shelf (where there is no state permitting authority), as well as for specific sources where the EPA has determined that a state has not adequately implemented its part 70 program or satisfied an EPA objection to a permit. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \36\ The EPA has delegated a portion of its part 71 permitting authority to the Navajo Nation EPA (NNEPA) through a delegation agreement, such that NNEPA assumes the responsibility for specific aspects of program administration under the part 71 regulations, including the authority to issue part 71 operating permits to sources. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In some cases where the EPA administers its part 71 program, the EPA has included in its federally-issued operating permits the emergency affirmative defense provision found in 40 CFR 71.6(g). If 40 CFR 71.6(g) is removed, the federal (including delegated) program rules would no longer include regulatory authority for incorporating this emergency affirmative defense in permits. Therefore, in order to ensure that part 71 programs are implemented consistent with the proposed revisions to the part 71 regulations, the EPA or delegated permitting authority should remove emergency affirmative defense provisions that are currently included in title V permits at the next permit action following the effective date of the final rule. Because the EPA has always considered the emergency provisions to be discretionary permit terms, the EPA has omitted emergency affirmative defense provisions from part 71 permits that it has issued since the D.C. Circuit's 2014 NRDC v. EPA decision. The EPA plans to continue to exercise its discretion to not include emergency affirmative defense provisions in future EPA-issued operating permits. C. Effect on Sources Potentially Subject to Enforcement Proceedings The legal rights and obligations of individual sources potentially subject to enforcement proceedings would not be adversely affected by the removal of emergency affirmative defense provisions from their title V permits.\37\ The absence of an affirmative defense provision in a source's title V permit does not mean that all exceedances of emission limitations in a title V permit will automatically be subject to enforcement or automatically be subject to imposition of particular remedies. Pursuant to the CAA, all parties with authority to bring an enforcement action to enforce title V permit provisions (i.e., the state, the EPA, or any parties who qualify under the citizen suit provision of CAA section 304) have enforcement discretion that they may exercise as they deem appropriate in any given circumstances. For example, if the excess emissions caused by an emergency occurred despite proper operation of the facility, and despite the permittee taking all reasonable steps to minimize excess emissions, then these parties may decide that no enforcement action is warranted. In the event that any party decides that an enforcement action is warranted, then it has enforcement discretion with respect to what remedies to seek from the court for the violation (e.g., injunctive relief, [[Page 38654]] compliance order, monetary penalties, or all of the above), as well as the type of injunctive relief and/or amount of monetary penalties sought.\38\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \37\ The removal of these provisions from individual operating permits has similar implications to sources as the removal of the SSM provisions subject to the SSM SIP Call. See SSM SIP Call, 80 FR 33852. \38\ The EPA notes that only the state and the EPA have authority to seek criminal penalties for knowing and intentional violation of CAA requirements. The EPA has this explicit authority under section 113(c). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Further, courts have the discretion under section 113 to decline to impose penalties or injunctive relief in appropriate cases. In the event of an enforcement action for an exceedance of an emission limit in a title V permit, a source can elect to assert any common law or statutory defenses that it determines are supported, based upon the facts and circumstances surrounding the alleged violation. Under sections 304(a) and 113(b), courts have authority to impose injunctive relief, issue compliance orders, assess monetary penalties or fees and award any other appropriate relief. Under section 113(e), courts are required to consider the enumerated factors when assessing monetary penalties, including the source's compliance history, good faith efforts to comply the duration of the violation, and ``such other factors as justice may require.'' If the exceedance of the emission limitation occurs due to an emergency, the source retains the ability to defend itself in an enforcement action and to oppose the imposition of particular remedies or to seek the reduction or elimination of monetary penalties, based on the specific facts and circumstances of the emergency event. Thus, elimination of an emergency affirmative defense provision that purported to take away the statutory jurisdiction of the court to exercise its authority to impose remedies does not disarm sources in potential enforcement actions. Sources would retain all of the equitable arguments they previously could have made; they must simply make such arguments to the reviewing court as envisioned by Congress in section 113(b) and section 113(e). Congress vested the courts with the authority to judge how best to weigh the evidence in an enforcement action and determine appropriate remedies. The eventual removal of such impermissible emergency affirmative defense provisions from state operating permit programs and individual title V permits will likely be necessary to preserve the enforcement structure of the CAA, to preserve the authority of courts to adjudicate questions of liability and remedies in judicial enforcement actions, and to preserve the potential for enforcement by states, the EPA, and other parties under the citizen suit provision as an effective deterrent to violations. In turn, this deterrent encourages sources to be properly designed, maintained, and operated and, in the event of violation of permitted emission limitations, to take appropriate action to mitigate the impacts of the violation. In this way, as intended by the existing enforcement structure of the CAA, sources can mitigate the potential for enforcement actions against them and the remedies that courts may impose upon them in such enforcement actions, based upon the facts and circumstances of the event. VI. Environmental Justice Considerations The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this proposed action would not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations because it would not adversely affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. This action simply proposes to remove emergency affirmative defense provisions from the EPA's operating permit program regulations. If the proposed rule is finalized, it may also be necessary for state, local and tribal permitting authorities to remove similar affirmative defense provisions from program regulations and from individual title V operating permits. None of these changes would alter the obligations of sources to comply with the emission limits and other standards contained within title V operating permits. However, this proposed rulemaking could encourage sources to comply with the terms of their operating permits at all times to the maximum extent practicable. This could potentially result in improved air quality for communities living near sources of air pollution as well as the broader population. Thus, this proposed rulemaking will not adversely affect the level of protection to human health or the environment for any populations. VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB control numbers 2060-0243 (for part 70 state operating permit programs) and 2060-0336 (for part 71 federal operating permit program). In this action, the EPA is proposing to remove certain provisions from the EPA's regulations, which if finalized could result in the removal of similar provisions from state, local, and tribal operating permit programs and individual permits. Consequently, states could eventually be required to submit program revisions to the EPA outlining any necessary changes to their regulations and their plans to remove provisions from individual permits. However, this proposed action will not involve any requests for information, recordkeeping or reporting requirements, or other requirements that would constitute an information collection under the PRA. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This proposed action will not impose any requirements on small entities. Entities potentially affected directly by this proposal include state, local, and tribal governments, and none of these governments would qualify as a small entity. Other types of small entities, including stationary sources of air pollution, are not directly subject to the requirements of this action. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (URMA) This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism This action does not have federalism implications. It will 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. [[Page 38655]] F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This action has tribal implications. However, it will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. One tribal government (the Southern Ute Indian Tribe) currently administers an approved part 70 operating permit program, and one tribal government (the Navajo Nation) currently administers a part 71 operating permit program pursuant to a delegation agreement with the EPA. These tribal governments may be required to take actions if this proposed rule is finalized, including program revisions (for part 70 programs) and eventual permit revisions, but these actions will not require substantial compliance costs. The EPA solicits comment from affected tribal governments on the implications of this proposed rulemaking. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. The results of this evaluation are contained in Section VI of this document titled, ``Environmental Justice Considerations.'' VIII. Statutory Authority The statutory authority for this proposed action is provided in CAA sections 502(b) and 502(d)(3), 42 U.S.C. 7661a(b) & (d)(3), which direct the Administrator of the EPA to promulgate regulations establishing state operating permit programs and give the Administrator the authority to establish a federal operating permit program. Additionally, the Administrator determines that this action is subject to the provisions of CAA section 307(d), which establish procedural requirements specific to rulemaking under the CAA. CAA section 307(d)(1)(V) provides that the provisions of CAA section 307(d) apply to ``such other actions as the Administrator may determine.'' 42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(1)(V). List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 70 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 40 CFR Part 71 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: June 3, 2016. Gina McCarthy, Administrator. For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 70--STATE OPERATING PERMIT PROGRAMS 0 1. The authority citation for part 70 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. Sec. 70.6 [Amended] 0 2. In Sec. 70.6, remove paragraph (g). PART 71--FEDERAL OPERATING PERMIT PROGRAMS 0 3. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. Sec. 71.6 [Amended] 0 4. In Sec. 71.6, remove paragraph (g). [FR Doc. 2016-14104 Filed 6-13-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 38645
action will not have potential the rescission determination in ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
disproportionately high and adverse accordance with one or more of the AGENCY
human health or environmental effects following methods:
on minority, low-income or indigenous (i) The reviewing authority may mail 40 CFR Parts 70 and 71
populations because it does not affect or email a copy of the notice to persons [EPA–HQ–OAR–2016–0186; FRL–9947–56–
the level of protection provided to on a mailing list developed by the OAR]
human health or the environment. reviewing authority consisting of those
persons who have requested to be RIN 2060–AS96
VIII. Statutory Authority placed on such a mailing list.
The statutory authority for this action (ii) The reviewing authority may post Removal of Title V Emergency
is provided by 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. the notice on its Web site. Affirmative Defense Provisions From
(iii) The reviewing authority may State Operating Permit Programs and
List of Subjects publish the notice in a newspaper of Federal Operating Permit Program
40 CFR Part 49 general circulation in the area affected AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Environmental protection, by the source. Where possible, the Agency (EPA).
Administrative practice and procedure, notice may also be published in a Tribal ACTION: Proposed rule.
Air pollution control newspaper or newsletter.
(iv) The reviewing authority may SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
40 CFR Part 52 provide copies of the notice for posting Agency (EPA) is proposing to remove
Environmental protection, Air at one or more locations in the area the affirmative defense provisions for
pollution control, Incorporation by affected by the source, such as Post emergencies found in the regulations for
reference. Offices, trading posts, libraries, Tribal state and federal operating permit
environmental offices, community programs. These provisions establish an
Dated: May 27, 2016.
centers or other gathering places in the affirmative defense that sources can
Gina McCarthy, community. assert in civil enforcement cases when
Administrator. (v) The reviewing authority may noncompliance with certain emission
For the reasons stated in the employ other means of notification as limitations in operating permits occurs
preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code appropriate. because of qualifying ‘‘emergency’’
of Federal Regulations is proposed to be circumstances. These provisions, which
amended as follows: PART 52—APPROVAL AND have never been required elements of
PROMULGATION OF state operating permit programs, are
PART 49—INDIAN COUNTRY: AIR IMPLEMENTATION PLANS being removed because they are
QUALITY PLANNING AND inconsistent with the enforcement
■ 3. The authority citation for part 52
MANAGEMENT structure of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
continues to read as follows:
■ 1. The authority citation for part 49 Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
and recent court decisions from the U.S.
continues to read as follows: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Subpart A—General Provisions The removal of these provisions is
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. consistent with other recent EPA actions
■ 4. Section 52.21 is amended by involving affirmative defenses and
Subpart C—General Federal revising paragraphs (w)(1) through (3) to would harmonize the enforcement and
Implementation Plan Provisions read as follows: implementation of emission limitations
■ 2. Section 49.172 is amended by § 52.21 Prevention of significant across different CAA programs. The
adding paragraph (f) to read as follows: deterioration of air quality. EPA is also taking comment on various
implementation consequences relating
§ 49.172 Final permit issuance and * * * * *
(w) * * * to the proposed removal of the
administrative and judicial review.
(1) Any permit issued under this emergency affirmative defense
* * * * * provisions.
(f) Can my permit be rescinded? section or a prior version of this section
(1) Any permit issued under this shall remain in effect, unless and until DATES:
section or a prior version of this section it expires under paragraph (r) of this Comments. Comments must be
shall remain in effect until it is section or is rescinded under this received on or before August 15, 2016.
rescinded under this paragraph. paragraph. Public Hearing: If anyone contacts the
(2) An owner or operator of a (2) An owner or operator of a EPA requesting a public hearing on or
stationary source or modification who stationary source or modification who before June 29, 2016, the EPA will hold
holds a permit issued under this section holds a permit issued under this section a hearing. Additional information about
for the construction of a new source or for the construction of a new source or the hearing, if requested, will be
modification that meets the requirement modification that meets the requirement published in a subsequent Federal
in paragraph (f)(3) of this section may in § 52.21 paragraph (w)(3) may request Register document.
request that the reviewing authority that the Administrator rescind the ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
rescind the permit or a particular permit or a particular portion of the identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
portion of the permit. permit. OAR–2016–0186, at http://
sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
(3) The reviewing authority may grant (3) The Administrator may grant an www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
an application for rescission if the application for rescission if the instructions for submitting comments.
application shows that this section application shows that this section Once submitted, comments cannot be
would not apply to the source or would not apply to the source or edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
modification. modification. The EPA may publish any comment
(4) If the reviewing authority rescinds * * * * * received to its public docket. Do not
a permit under this paragraph, the [FR Doc. 2016–13303 Filed 6–13–16; 8:45 am] submit electronically any information
public shall be given adequate notice of BILLING CODE 6560–50–P you consider to be Confidential
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:37 Jun 13, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP1.SGM 14JNP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_38759/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 38647
permit program, respectively. These federal operating permit program.3 Both Such emergency affirmative defense
regulations currently contain identical sets of regulations contain identical provisions are not required program
provisions setting forth an affirmative affirmative defense provisions, which elements. States have never been
defense to enforcement actions brought are addressed by this action. obligated to include the § 70.6(g)
for noncompliance with technology- Title V of the CAA does not contain affirmative defense provision in their
based emission limitations under any provisions concerning an part 70 operating permit programs;
specific ‘‘emergency’’ circumstances. affirmative defense mechanism for instead, the provision has always been
See 40 CFR 70.6(g) and 71.6(g). emergencies. When the EPA first discretionary.7 Similarly, although the
In this action, the EPA is proposing to proposed its part 70 regulations in 1991, emergency affirmative defense provision
the agency did not include any such is located within the ‘‘Permit Content’’
remove the emergency affirmative
provisions.4 However, the EPA received section of the part 70 and part 71
defense provisions in 40 CFR 70.6(g)
comments specifically requesting that regulations, the EPA does not consider
and 71.6(g) because they are
the part 70 regulations make some the provision to be a required permit
inconsistent with the EPA’s current
provision for ‘‘emergencies’’ or ‘‘upsets’’ term.8 Thus, the EPA considers the
interpretation of the CAA’s enforcement
caused by the failure of emission control emergency provision to be a
structure and recent court decisions
equipment. In promulgating the final discretionary element of both state
from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
part 70 regulations for state operating permitting programs as well as
D.C. Circuit. These provisions have
permit programs, the EPA included individual operating permits.
never been required elements of state
§ 70.6(g), which contains an affirmative
operating permit programs. The removal defense for ‘‘emergencies.’’ 5 When the B. Subsequent Legal and Regulatory
of these provisions is consistent with EPA promulgated its part 71 regulations History Supporting This Action
other recent EPA actions involving in 1996, it adopted an identical The EPA has considered the most
affirmative defenses and would help provision in § 71.6(g), in order to appropriate ways to account for excess
harmonize the enforcement and maintain consistency between the state emissions during different modes of
implementation of emission limitations and federal operating permit programs.6 source operation, such as startup and
across different CAA programs. The text of sections 70.6(g) and 71.6(g) shutdown, and emissions during
If the EPA takes final action to remove has not changed since initially emergencies, upsets, and malfunctions
these provisions from 40 CFR 70.6(g), it promulgated. for more than 40 years. The EPA’s
may be necessary for any states that The title V emergency provisions policies regarding the emergency
have adopted similar affirmative establish an affirmative defense. A affirmative defense provisions in its part
defense provisions into their part 70 stationary source of air pollution can 70 and 71 regulations have been shaped
operating permit programs to revise assert this affirmative defense in an by a number of factors, including the
their program regulations to remove enforcement case to avoid liability for structure of the CAA, federal court
these provisions. In addition, the EPA noncompliance with technology-based decisions, experience with similar
expects that these states would emission limits contained in the provisions in other EPA programs, and
coordinate revisions of individual source’s title V permit. In order to use recommendations from stakeholders.
operating permits that contain similar this affirmative defense and avoid This section summarizes some of the
provisions. liability, the source must demonstrate more relevant and recent legal,
that any excess emissions occurred as regulatory, and policy considerations
III. Background the result of an ‘‘emergency,’’ as defined informing the EPA’s current policy on
A. Regulatory History of 40 CFR 70.6(g) in the regulations, and make a number affirmative defense provisions,
and 71.6(g) of other demonstrations specified in the including the D.C. Circuit’s opinion in
regulations. See 40 CFR 70.6(g) and NRDC v. EPA and the EPA’s recent
In 1990, Congress amended the CAA 71.6(g). These title V affirmative defense
and established, among other things, provisions apply in addition to, and 7 Operating Permits Program and Federal
title V of the CAA, which contains a independently from, any emergency or Operating Permits Program, Proposed Rule [Title V
Supplemental Proposal], 60 FR 45530, 45558
national operating permit program for upset provisions contained in other (August 31, 1995) (‘‘At the outset, EPA wants to
certain stationary sources of air applicable CAA requirements. make clear that the part 70 rule does not require
pollution. See CAA sections 501–503, Sections 70.6(g) and 70.4(b)(16) form that States adopt the emergency defense. A State
Public Law 101–549 (1990) (codified at the basis for similar affirmative defense may include such a defense in its part 70 program
to the extent it finds appropriate, although it may
42 U.S.C. 7661–7661b). Shortly provisions contained in state operating not adopt an emergency defense less stringent than
thereafter, and pursuant to CAA section permit programs and for similar that set forth at section 70.6(g). . . . [T]he Act in
502(b), the EPA promulgated regulations provisions contained in individual sections 116 and 506(a) authorizes States to
implementing title V of the CAA. The state-issued operating permits. Section establish additional or more stringent air pollution
control or permitting requirements. Consistent with
first set of regulations, finalized in 1992 71.6(g) provides the authority to include that, States may decide to provide an emergency
and codified at 40 CFR part 70 (the part this emergency provision in operating defense that is narrower in scope or more stringent
70 regulations), governs state operating permits issued by the EPA or by states in application than § 70.6(g) or no defense at all.’’).
permit programs and provides for states with delegated authority under part 71. 8 See State Implementation Plans: Response to
Petition for Rulemaking; Restatement and Update of
to develop and submit to the EPA EPA’s SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs; Findings of
programs for issuing operating permits 3 Federal Operating Permits Program, Final Rule,
Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls To Amend
for major and certain other stationary 61 FR 34202 (July 1, 1996). Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During
sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
4 Operating Permit Program, Proposed Rule, 56
sources of air pollution.2 Pursuant to Periods of Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction,
FR 21712 (May 10, 1991). Final Action [SSM SIP Call], 80 FR 33839, 33924
CAA section 502(d)(3), the EPA 5 Operating Permit Program, Final Rule, 57 FR
(June 12, 2015) (‘‘[A]s part of normal permitting
promulgated a second set of regulations 32279. The EPA explained that the provision was process, the EPA encourages permitting authorities
in 1996, found at 40 CFR part 71 (the intended to provide operational flexibility, and was to consider the discretionary nature of the
modeled on a similar National Pollutant Discharge emergency provisions when determining whether to
part 71 regulations), which outlines the Elimination System (NPDES) permit provision in 40 continue to include permit terms modeled on those
CFR 122.41. Id. provisions in operating permits that the permitting
2 Operating Permit Program, Final Rule, 57 FR 6 Federal Operating Permits Program, Final Rule, authorities are issuing in the first instance or
32250 (July 21, 1992). 61 FR 34219 (July 1, 1996). renewing’’).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:37 Jun 13, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP1.SGM 14JNP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_38759/page/3.svg)
![38648 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules
experience with affirmative defenses for to ensure that the EPA’s part 70 and part section 112 to affirmative defense
startup, shutdown, and malfunction 71 regulations are consistent with the provisions contained in SIPs. Therefore,
(SSM) events in State Implementation enforcement structure of the CAA in the EPA clarified and revised its
Plans (SIPs). accordance with the reasoning of the interpretation of CAA requirements
NRDC v. EPA decision.12 with respect to affirmative defense
1. D.C. Circuit Opinion in NRDC v. EPA
provisions for SSM events. The agency
In the 2014 NRDC v. EPA 9 case, the 2. SSM SIP Call
explained that ‘‘the enforcement
United States Court of Appeals for the The EPA has also reconsidered structure of the CAA, embodied in
D.C. Circuit vacated an affirmative affirmative defense provisions similar to section 113 and section 304, precludes
defense provision applicable to those involved in the NRDC v. EPA case any affirmative defense provisions that
malfunction events. In 2010, the EPA in other recent regulatory actions. On would operate to limit a court’s
included an affirmative defense within June 15, 2015, the EPA issued a ‘‘SIP jurisdiction or discretion to determine
its National Emission Standards for Call’’ (the SSM SIP Call) finding that the appropriate remedy in an
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for certain SIP provisions in 36 states are enforcement action. These provisions
Portland cement facilities, promulgated substantially inadequate to meet CAA are not appropriate under the CAA, no
under CAA section 112.10 This requirements.13 Many of the deficient matter what type of event they apply to,
provision created an affirmative defense SIP provisions at issue in the SSM SIP what criteria they contain or what forms
that sources could assert in civil call are affirmative defense type of remedy they purport to limit or
enforcement proceedings when provisions, and some of them are eliminate.’’ 16 The EPA explained that
violations of emission limitations analogous to the emergency affirmative ‘‘[a]ffirmative defense provisions by
occurred because of qualifying defense in part 70 and part 71. Although their nature purport to limit or eliminate
unavoidable malfunctions. The D.C. the agency’s SSM policy for SIP the authority of federal courts to
Circuit held that this affirmative defense provisions is not directly at issue in this determine liability or to impose
provision exceeded the EPA’s statutory proposal, certain aspects of the SSM SIP remedies through factual considerations
authority and that only the courts have Call are especially relevant and are that differ from, or are contrary to, the
the authority to decide whether to discussed in this subsection. explicit grants of authority in section
assess penalties for violations in civil After the EPA initially proposed the 113(b) and section 113(e).’’ 17 The EPA’s
suits. As the court explained: SSM SIP Call,14 the D.C. Circuit issued interpretation of the CAA’s enforcement
By its terms, Section 304(a) clearly vests its opinion in NRDC v. EPA. That structure and the NRDC v. EPA
authority over private suits in the courts, not decision, which concerned the legal decision, as set forth in the final SSM
EPA. As the language of the statute makes basis for an affirmative defense SIP Call, is relevant to the current
clear, the courts determine, on a case-by-case provision in the EPA’s own regulations, rulemaking. Section IV of this document
basis, whether civil penalties are caused the EPA to reconsider the legal
‘‘appropriate.’’ By contrast, EPA’s ability to
further discusses this interpretation in
basis for any affirmative defense the context of the part 70 and part 71
determine whether penalties should be provisions contained in SIPs.15 The EPA
assessed for Clean Air Act violations extends emergency provisions.
concluded that the logic of the court in Following this interpretation, the EPA
only to administrative penalties, not to civil
penalties imposed by a court. . . . [U]nder NRDC v. EPA extends beyond CAA directed states to remove specifically
this statute, deciding whether penalties are identified provisions containing
12 In 2008, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision in
‘‘appropriate’’ in a given private civil suit is affirmative defenses from their SIPs.
a job for the courts, not for EPA.’’ 11 Sierra Club v. Johnson, 551 F.3d 1019, vacating the
EPA’s regulations that exempted sources under Some of these SSM provisions were
The D.C. Circuit therefore concluded certain circumstances from emissions standards similar to the emergency provisions in
that the EPA lacked the authority to during periods of SSM. The EPA maintains that the the EPA’s part 70 and part 71
part 70 and part 71 emergency affirmative defense
create an affirmative defense in private provisions are just that—affirmative defenses to regulations. In the final SSM SIP Call,
civil suits that would purport to alter enforcement actions—not exemptions from the EPA indicated that provisions
the jurisdiction of the court to assess otherwise applicable emissions limitations. Such modeled after the §§ 70.6(g) and 71.6(g)
civil penalties for violations. Although affirmative defense provisions are called into emergency affirmative defense
question by NRDC v. EPA. However, to the extent
this case was based on EPA regulations that the title V emergency affirmative defense could provisions—including provisions that
promulgated under CAA section 112, be considered in some respects to function like an were more narrowly defined—were no
the court’s holding was not based on exemption from otherwise applicable emissions longer consistent with the EPA’s
section 112, but rather on sections limitations, such an exemption would be interpretation of the CAA and could not
304(a) and 113(e)(1). Therefore, and as incompatible with the CAA and Sierra Club v.
Johnson. This is an alternative basis for proposing be included in SIPs.18 For example, the
discussed further in Section IV of this to remove the part 70 and part 71 emergency EPA found that an Arkansas SIP
document, the EPA interprets the affirmative defense provisions, as discussed further provision establishing an affirmative
decision to be relevant to all similar in Section IV.C of this document. defense for emergencies, which may
13 SSM SIP Call, 80 FR 33839 (June 12, 2015).
affirmative defense provisions, such as have been modeled after the EPA’s title
14 State Implementation Plans: Response to
those found in part 70 and part 71, that V regulations, was substantially
Petition for Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial
may interfere with the authority of Inadequacy; and SIP Calls To Amend Provisions inadequate to meet CAA
courts to assess penalties or to impose Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of requirements.19 The EPA also discussed
other remedies authorized in CAA Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction, Proposed the potential conflict between the SSM
section 113(b) in civil enforcement Rule, 78 FR 12459 (February 22, 2013).
15 See State Implementation Plans: Response to
policy applicable to SIP provisions and
sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
suits. This proposed rulemaking seeks the part 70 and part 71 emergency
Petition for Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial
Inadequacy; and SIP Calls To Amend Provisions provisions, but noted that it was not
9 749F.3d 1055 (D.C. Cir. 2014). Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of taking action to revise the title V
10 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction; Supplemental
Pollutants From the Portland Cement Proposal To Address Affirmative Defense 16 SSM SIP Call, 80 FR 33851 (June 12, 2015).
Manufacturing Industry and Standards of Provisions in States Included in the Petition for
17 Id. at 33852.
Performance for Portland Cement Plants, 75 FR Rulemaking and in Additional States, Supplemental
54993 (September 9, 2010). 18 Id. at 33924.
notice of proposed rulemaking [SSM SIP Call
11 NRDC v. EPA, 749 F.3d 1055, 1063 (D.C. Cir. Supplemental Proposal], 79 FR 55919, 55929 19 Id. at 33967; see also SSM SIP Call
2014). (September 17, 2014). Supplemental Proposal, 79 FR 55942 and 55943.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:37 Jun 13, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP1.SGM 14JNP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_38759/page/4.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 38649
regulations in the SSM SIP Call NSPS and NESHAP regulations. The SSM SIP Call, where the agency
rulemaking.20 In the final SSM SIP Call, EPA considers the proposed removal of acknowledged the potential conflict
however, the EPA indicated that it was the emergency affirmative defense between the SSM policy applicable to
considering whether such changes may provisions from the title V regulations SIP provisions and the part 70 and part
be necessary and how best to make such necessary to maintain a consistent 71 emergency provisions, but indicated
changes. interpretation of the CAA throughout that it would potentially make changes
different CAA programs, including to the title V affirmative defense
3. Related Actions in Other CAA
section 110 SIPs, section 111 NSPS and provisions in a subsequent
Program Areas
existing source guidelines, and section rulemaking.24 As contemplated in the
Since 2014, the EPA has removed or 112 NESHAPs. prior title V rulemakings and in the
omitted affirmative defense provisions Finally, this proposed action follows more recent SSM SIP Call, the EPA is
in numerous regulations throughout from the EPA’s stated intentions to now considering the appropriate
other CAA program areas following the revisit the emergency affirmative changes to parts 70 and 71 and
NRDC v. EPA case. Specifically, in defense provisions promulgated in 1992 proposing to remove the title V
newly issued and revised New Source and seeks to provide clarity in response emergency affirmative defenses
Performance Standards (NSPS), to stakeholder concerns.22 The EPA provisions.
emission guidelines for existing sources, initially sought to clarify the scope of
and NESHAP regulations, the EPA has B. Proposed Action: Removal of 40 CFR
the emergency provisions over the 70.6(g) and 71.6(g)
either omitted new affirmative defense course of multiple actions in 1995 and
provisions or removed existing 1996. However, the EPA ultimately The EPA is proposing to remove the
affirmative defense provisions.21 This indicated that it would reevaluate the emergency provisions located at 40 CFR
proposed rulemaking for the part 70 and part 70 and part 71 emergency 70.6(g) and 71.6(g). The agency has not
part 71 regulations is thus consistent affirmative defense provisions— identified any other viable option for
with these related efforts in other CAA including whether these provisions may reconciling these affirmative defense
program areas and ensures that title V need to be eliminated—in a subsequent provisions with the enforcement
operating permits do not contain rulemaking.23 The EPA again discussed structure of the CAA, in accordance
additional affirmative defenses that the title V emergency provisions in the with the reasoning of the NRDC v. EPA
could interfere with the EPA’s efforts to decision. The implications of this
remove these impermissible provisions 22 In addition to comments received on prior proposed removal on the federal
from specific underlying applicable regulatory actions, the EPA has received input from operating permit program, state
requirements. stakeholders as recent as 2006. The Clean Air Act operating permit programs, and on
Advisory Committee (CAAAC), chartered under the individual sources subject to title V
IV. Proposed Changes to Part 70 and Federal Advisory Committee Act, was established
operating permits are discussed in
Part 71 Regulations to advise the EPA on issues related to the 1990 CAA
Amendments. In 2006, a Task Force formed by the Section V of this document.
A. Purpose of This Proposed CAAAC issued its Final Report: Title V
C. Legal Justification for Proposed
Rulemaking Implementation Experience. See Title V Task Force,
Final Report to the Clean Air Act Advisory Action
This proposed rulemaking is Committee: Title V Implementation Experience
This action is proposed pursuant to
responsive to a number of concerns and (April 2006), available at http://www.epa.gov/sites/
production/files/2014-10/documents/title5_ CAA sections 502(b) and 502(d)(3), 42
related actions, including those taskforce_finalreport20060405.pdf. Although the U.S.C. 7661a(b) & (d)(3), which direct
discussed in Section III of this Task Force did not agree on how broadly the title the Administrator of the EPA to
document. The EPA considers this V emergency affirmative defense should be applied,
promulgate regulations establishing
proposed rulemaking important to all eighteen members of the Task Force
unanimously recommended the following: ‘‘Title V state operating permit programs and
ensure that the EPA’s title V regulations permits should be clear as to which limits are give the Administrator authority to
are consistent with the enforcement subject to the part 70 emergency defense (e.g., establish a federal operating permit
structure envisioned by Congress in the under the current rule, technology based limits).’’ program.
1990 CAA amendments. This action is Id. at 144. By way of response, the proposed action
to remove these provisions would essentially moot
The EPA proposes to remove the
intended to respond to the reasoning of these concerns about clarity on the applicability of affirmative defense provisions from the
the D.C. Circuit’s recent opinion in these provisions. part 70 and 71 regulations in order to
NRDC v. EPA, which the EPA interprets 23 See Federal Operating Permits Program,
ensure that the federal and state title V
to extend to the affirmative defense Proposed Rule, 60 FR 20804, 20816 (April 27, 1995) operating permit programs operate
(‘‘The EPA is reevaluating the provisions in parts
provisions in the part 70 and part 71 70 and 71 relating to the emergency defense in light within the bounds established by
regulations. This proposed rule also of concerns identified in legal challenges to the part
follows from similar regulatory actions 70 rule. The EPA may propose revisions to the part 24 See SSM SIP Call, 80 FR 33924 (‘‘Those
in other CAA program areas, including 70 and part 71 sections providing for the emergency regulations [40 CFR 70.6(g) and 71.6(g)], which are
defense before EPA would include such defense in applicable to title V operating permits, may only be
the recent SSM SIP Call and various any part 71 permits.’’); Title V Supplemental changed through appropriate rulemaking to revise
Proposal, 60 FR 45560 (‘‘The EPA is reluctant to parts 70 and 71. Further, any existing permits that
20 SSM SIP Call, 80 FR 33924 (June 12, 2015). retain a generally applicable emergency defense contain such emergency provisions may only be
21 See, e.g., National Emission Standards for without completing further review of the changed through established permitting procedures.
Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Portland Cement appropriateness of such a defense for the different The EPA is considering whether to make changes
Manufacturing Industry and Standards of Federal technology based standards in light of the to 40 CFR part 70 and 40 CFR part 71, and if so,
Performance for Portland Cement Plants; Final concerns with such a defense raised in the CWA how best to make those changes. In any such action,
sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Rule, 80 FR 44771 (July 27, 2015); National cases.’’); Federal Operating Permits Program, Final EPA would also intend to address the timing of any
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Rule, 61 FR 34219 (‘‘As a result of concerns changes to existing title V operating permits. Until
for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and identified in legal challenges to part 70, the Agency, that time, as part of normal permitting process, the
Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters; Final in the August 1995 supplemental proposal, EPA encourages permitting authorities to consider
Rule, 80 FR 72789 (November 20, 2015); Standards solicited comment on the need for, scope and terms the discretionary nature of the emergency
of Performance for New Stationary Sources and of an emergency affirmative defense provision. The provisions when determining whether to continue
Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Agency is reviewing those comments, but has not to include permit terms modeled on those
Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration yet made a decision on whether or not to modify provisions in operating permits that the permitting
Units; Proposed Rule, 80 FR 3018, 3025 (January 21, or remove this additional affirmative defense authorities are issuing in the first instance or
2015). provision from part 70.’’ (emphasis added)). renewing.’’).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:37 Jun 13, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP1.SGM 14JNP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_38759/page/5.svg)
![38650 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Congress in the 1990 CAA The court also noted that ‘‘EPA cannot would operate to limit a court’s
Amendments. Regarding these rely on its gap-filling authority to authority or discretion to determine the
boundaries, the D.C. Circuit’s opinion in supplement the Clean Air Act’s appropriate remedy in an enforcement
NRDC v. EPA is instructive as to the provisions when Congress has not left action. CAA section 304(a) grants the
enforcement structure envisioned by the agency a gap to fill.’’ 26 federal district courts the jurisdiction to
Congress, as well as the role of The D.C. Circuit’s holding in NRDC v. determine liability and to impose
affirmative defense provisions within EPA is especially pertinent here.27 Like penalties in enforcement suits brought
the EPA’s regulations implementing the the Portland cement NESHAP at issue in by citizens. Similarly, section 113(b)
CAA. As discussed in Section III.B.1 of the NRDC v. EPA case, the provisions at provides courts with explicit
this document, the court in NRDC v. issue in this proposal are also jurisdiction to determine liability and to
EPA determined that an affirmative regulations promulgated by the EPA to impose remedies of various kinds,
defense provision promulgated by the implement programs under the CAA. including injunctive relief, compliance
EPA for the Portland cement industry The affirmative defense for orders, and monetary penalties, in
under CAA section 112 exceeded the malfunctions in the Portland cement judicial enforcement proceedings. These
agency’s statutory authority. In doing so, NESHAP and the affirmative defense for grants of jurisdiction come directly from
the D.C. Circuit based its holding on emergencies in the EPA’s part 70 and Congress, and the EPA is not authorized
CAA sections 304(a) and 113(e)(1). part 71 regulations are functionally to alter or eliminate this authority under
CAA section 304(a) grants ‘‘any similar provisions that operate in the CAA or any other law. With respect
person’’ the right to ‘‘commence a civil essentially identical ways to establish to monetary penalties, CAA section
action . . . against any person . . . who affirmative defenses in civil 113(e) explicitly includes the factors
is alleged to have violated (if there is enforcement actions. Moreover, the EPA that courts and the EPA are required to
evidence that the alleged violation has believes that the reasoning of the court’s consider in the event of judicial or
been repeated) or to be in violation of decision in NRDC v. EPA applies more administrative enforcement for
. . . an emission standard or limitation’’ broadly than to the specific facts of the violations of CAA requirements,
under the CAA. 42 U.S.C. 7604(a). case for several reasons. The EPA notes including title V permit provisions.
Section 304(a) also provides that ‘‘[t]he that the court’s decision did not turn Because Congress has already given
[federal] district courts shall have upon the specific provisions of CAA federal courts the authority to determine
jurisdiction, without regard to the section 112. Although the court only what monetary penalties are appropriate
amount in controversy or the evaluated the legal validity of an in the event of judicial enforcement for
citizenship of the parties, to enforce affirmative defense provision created by a violation of a title V permit provision,
such an emission standard or limitation the EPA in conjunction with specific neither the EPA nor states can alter or
. . . and to apply any appropriate civil standards applicable to manufacturers eliminate that authority by
penalties.’’ Id. CAA section 113(e)(1) of Portland cement, the court based its superimposing restrictions on the
establishes a number of factors that decision upon the provisions of sections authority and discretion granted by
courts must consider when determining 113 and 304 that pertain to enforcement Congress to the courts. Affirmative
the amount of any penalties assessed in of CAA requirements more broadly, defense provisions by their nature
civil actions under section 304(a). See including to emission limits in title V purport to limit or eliminate the
42 U.S.C. 7413(e)(1). permits. Sections 113 and 304 pertain to authority of federal courts to determine
The D.C. Circuit indicated that these administrative and judicial enforcement liability or to impose remedies through
statutory provisions precluded the EPA generally and are in no way limited to factual considerations that differ from,
from promulgating affirmative defense enforcement of emission limitations or are contrary to, the explicit grants of
provisions that a source could use in promulgated by the EPA under section authority in section 113(b) and section
civil enforcement suits. The court did 112. Thus, the EPA does not think that 113(e). Therefore, these provisions are
not remand the regulation to the EPA for the mere fact that the court only not appropriate under the CAA, no
better explanation of the legal basis for addressed the legality of an affirmative matter what type of event they apply to,
an affirmative defense; the court instead defense provision in this particular what criteria they contain, or what
vacated the affirmative defense and context means that the court’s forms of remedy they purport to limit or
indicated that there could be no valid interpretation of sections 113 and 304 eliminate. This is true for regulations
legal basis for such a provision because does not also apply more broadly. To promulgated under CAA sections 111
it contradicted fundamental the contrary, the EPA sees no reason and 112, SIP provisions approved by the
requirements of the CAA concerning the why the logic of the court concerning EPA, and regulations promulgated
authority of courts in judicial sections 113 and 304 would not apply under title V of the CAA. Thus, just as
enforcement of CAA requirements. As to the title V emergency affirmative the EPA revisited affirmative defenses
the court explained: defense provisions, as well. in SIP provisions in light of the NRDC
By its terms, Section 304(a) clearly vests In light of the court’s decision, the v. EPA opinion, the EPA is reevaluating
authority over private suits in the courts, not EPA now interprets the enforcement its interpretation of the CAA relative to
EPA. As the language of the statute makes structure of the CAA, embodied in the emergency affirmative defense
clear, the courts determine, on a case-by-case
basis, whether civil penalties are
section 113 and section 304, to preclude provisions contained in its part 70 and
‘‘appropriate.’’ By contrast, EPA’s ability to affirmative defense provisions that part 71 regulations, and is proposing to
determine whether penalties should be remove those provisions because they
sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
assessed for Clean Air Act violations extends 26 Id.at 1064. are not consistent with the CAA’s
27 The EPA’s interpretation of the NRDC v. EPA
only to administrative penalties, not to civil enforcement structure.
penalties imposed by a court. . . . [U]nder case as it affects the affirmative defense provisions
in parts 70 and 71 is similar to the interpretation Since the 2014 NRDC v. EPA
this statute, deciding whether penalties are
‘‘appropriate’’ in a given private civil suit is of the case as articulated in the SSM SIP Call. More decision, and in order to ensure
information on the EPA’s interpretation of the consistency with the CAA’s
a job for the courts, not for EPA.’’ 25 NRDC v. EPA ruling can be found in the Final SSM
SIP Call and the August 2014 Supplemental
enforcement structure, the EPA has been
25 NRDC v. EPA, 749 F.3d 1055, 1063 (D.C. Cir. Proposal. See SSM SIP Call, 80 FR 33851; SSM SIP omitting new affirmative defense
2014). Call Supplemental Proposal, 79 FR 55929. provisions and removing existing
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:37 Jun 13, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP1.SGM 14JNP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_38759/page/6.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 38655
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation significant regulatory action under List of Subjects
and Coordination With Indian Tribal Executive Order 12866.
Governments 40 CFR Part 70
I. National Technology Transfer and
This action has tribal implications. Advancement Act Environmental protection,
However, it will neither impose Administrative practice and procedure,
substantial direct compliance costs on This rulemaking does not involve Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
federally recognized tribal governments, technical standards. relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
nor preempt tribal law. One tribal J. Executive Order 12898: Federal requirements.
government (the Southern Ute Indian Actions To Address Environmental
Tribe) currently administers an 40 CFR Part 71
Justice in Minority Populations and
approved part 70 operating permit
Low-Income Populations Environmental protection,
program, and one tribal government (the
Navajo Nation) currently administers a Administrative practice and procedure,
The EPA believes the human health or Air pollution control, Reporting and
part 71 operating permit program environmental risk addressed by this
pursuant to a delegation agreement with recordkeeping requirements.
action will not have potential
the EPA. These tribal governments may disproportionately high and adverse Dated: June 3, 2016.
be required to take actions if this human health or environmental effects Gina McCarthy,
proposed rule is finalized, including on minority, low-income or indigenous Administrator.
program revisions (for part 70 programs) populations because it does not affect
and eventual permit revisions, but these the level of protection provided to For the reasons stated in the
actions will not require substantial human health or the environment. The preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code
compliance costs. The EPA solicits results of this evaluation are contained of Federal Regulations is proposed to be
comment from affected tribal in Section VI of this document titled, amended as follows:
governments on the implications of this ‘‘Environmental Justice
proposed rulemaking. Considerations.’’ PART 70—STATE OPERATING PERMIT
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of PROGRAMS
VIII. Statutory Authority
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks The statutory authority for this ■ 1. The authority citation for part 70
The EPA interprets Executive Order proposed action is provided in CAA continues to read as follows:
13045 as applying only to those sections 502(b) and 502(d)(3), 42 U.S.C. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
regulatory actions that concern 7661a(b) & (d)(3), which direct the
environmental health or safety risks that Administrator of the EPA to promulgate § 70.6 [Amended]
the EPA has reason to believe may regulations establishing state operating ■ 2. In § 70.6, remove paragraph (g).
disproportionately affect children, per permit programs and give the
the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory Administrator the authority to establish PART 71—FEDERAL OPERATING
action’’ in section 2–202 of the a federal operating permit program. PERMIT PROGRAMS
Executive Order. This action is not Additionally, the Administrator
subject to Executive Order 13045 determines that this action is subject to ■ 3. The authority citation for part 71
because it does not concern an the provisions of CAA section 307(d), continues to read as follows:
environmental health risk or safety risk. which establish procedural
requirements specific to rulemaking Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions under the CAA. CAA section
Concerning Regulations That § 71.6 [Amended]
307(d)(1)(V) provides that the
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, provisions of CAA section 307(d) apply ■ 4. In § 71.6, remove paragraph (g).
Distribution, or Use to ‘‘such other actions as the [FR Doc. 2016–14104 Filed 6–13–16; 8:45 am]
This action is not subject to Executive Administrator may determine.’’ 42 BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
Order 13211 because it is not a U.S.C. 7607(d)(1)(V).
sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:37 Jun 13, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\14JNP1.SGM 14JNP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_38759/page/11.svg)
Document Created: 2016-06-14 02:58:42
Document Modified: 2016-06-14 02:58:42
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Proposed rule. | |
| Dates | Comments. Comments must be received on or before August 15, 2016. | |
| Contact | For general information, please contact Mr. Matthew Spangler, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Planning Division (C504-05), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 38645 | |
| RIN Number | 2060-AS96 | |
| CFR Citation | 40
CFR
70 40 CFR 71 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Administrative Practice and Procedure; Air Pollution Control; Intergovernmental Relations and Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR