Document Byd2kLopzKd06QDk6aEY61EaJ

OSCA Case #14-1138 Document #1570184 FiSed: 08/28/2015 Page 1 of 71 NOT YET SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT No. 14-1138 INFOTRHTEHUENDITISETDRISCTTATOEFSCCOOLUURMTBOIAF CAIPRPCEUAILTS AMSIBEIRERNATEC,LMUBADDREEPSUDEERTNOECGERRRICOOOAD, CREIEUACDRIBEAOCD,IABNOO, ASNEDN CDOEMFEITNSABADSEULRA Petitioners, V. U.S. EINNVHIERROONEFMFNEIVCNIITRAAOLLNCMPARPEOANTCTEIATCYLTPIAORSNOATADEGMCEITNNIIOCSNYTRAAANGTDEONRGCIOYNF,ATMHCECUA.SR.THY Respondents, ENERGY ANSWERS ARECIBO, LLC, PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A FINAL RULE OF THE EPA RESPONSE BRIEF FOR THE EPA RESPONDENTS BDEOLRAfOWCLIVAfoafIiuIOscNDnhesTineoDCTlgf:tOGOoZneSU,nETeDRNrEaSCIRlECCNKounsel, EPA JONSOEeffwiPceHYoofSrRkIe,EgNiGonYEaLlCounsel, EPA Region 2 JOAHsNsistCa.nGtARttUorDneEyNGeneral ANAEPaW(U2nDtn.t.Oda0SvoRrs2i..rehr)nwEoBDine5n.Wogeyd1mptxo4oaeyJn-7lrn.4e,6tt@m4D1Da21eunO.7nCsdtdY.NoojLfa.2gjuEt0ous0vtri4ac4el Resources Div. Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00001 OSCA Case #14-1138 Document #1570184 Fied: 08/28/2015 Page 2 of 71 NOT YET SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT No. 14-1138 INFOTRHTEHUENDITISETDRISCTTATOEFSCCOOLUURMTBOIAF CAIPRPCEUAILTS AMSIBEIRERNATEC,LMUBADDREEPSUDEERTNOECGERRRICOOOAD, RCEEIUACDRIBEAOCD,IABNOO, ASNEDN CDOEMFEITNSABADSEULRA Petitioners, U.S. EINNVHIERROONEFMFNEIVCNIITRAAOLLNCPMARPEOANTCTEIATCYLTPAIORSNOATDAEMGCEITNNIIOCSNYTRAAANGTEDONRGCIOYNF,ATMHCECUA.SR.THY Respondents, ENERGY ANSWERS ARECIBO, EEC, Intervenor-Respondents. CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS, AND RELATED CASES Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 28(a)(1), undersigned counsel for Respondents U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Gina McCarthy submits this certificate as to parties, rulings, and related cases: A. Parties and Amici. All parties, intervenors, and amici appearing in this Court are listed in the Brief for Petitioners. i Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00002 USCA Case #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 3 of 71 B. Rulings Under Review. Petitioners seek review of, and a remedy regarding, a nationally applicable final rule promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency over 35 years ago, RequirementsforPreparation, Adoption, and SubmittalofSIPS;ApprovalandPromulgation ofState Implementation Plans, 45 Fed. Reg. 31,307, 31,312 (May 13, 1980) (Joint Appendix ("JA") 19, 23). Since 1986, this rule has been codified at 40 C.F.R. 51.165(a)(2)(i); it is reproduced in this Briefs Statutory and Regulatory Addendum. C. Related Cases. There are no related cases. Dated: August 28, 2015 C/osu/nAsnedl rfeowr RJ.esDpooynldeents Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA n Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00003 USCA Case #14-1138 Document #1570184 Fiied: 08/28/2015 Page 4 of 71 TABLE OF CONTENTS Certificate as to Parties, Rulings, and Related Cases........................................................i Table of Contents............................................................................................................iii Table of Authorities.........................................................................................................v Glossary.........................................................................................................................xiii Statement ofJurisdiction..................................................................................................1 Statement of the Issues.....................................................................................................1 Statutory and Regulatory Provisions................................................................................2 Statement of the Case...................................................................................................... 3 I. NPleawnsS..o..u..r..c.e...R...e..v..i.e..w...u..n...d..e..r..t.h..e...A...c..t..a..n..d...S..t..a.t.e...I..m...p..l.e..m...e..n..t.a..t.i.o...n..................3 II. Promulgation of 40 C.F.R. 51.165(a)(2)(i)................................................6 III. New Source Review in Puerto Rico..........................................................13 IV. Energy Answers'Air QualityControl Permits......................................... 14 A. RPreegvioennt2io.n...o..f...S..i.g..n..i.f.i.c..a..n..t..D...e..t.e..r.i.o...r.a..t.i.o..n...P...e.r..m...i.t...f.r.o..m.....E..P...A............ 14 B. MPeirnmoritN...e..w....S..o..u..r..c.e...R...e..v..i.e..w....C..o..n..d..i.t..i.o..n..s...i.n...P..u..e..r.t..o...R...i.c..o..'.s..............19 V. Proceedings in this Court......................................................................... 19 Summary of Argument.................................................................................................. 20 Standard of Review........................................................................................................22 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA ill Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00004 USCA Case #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 5 of 71 Argument....................................................................................................................... 23 I. SCioenrrsatiCtulutibonL.a..c..k..s...S..t.a..n..d..i.n..g...u..n..d..e..r..A...r..t.i.c..l.e...I.I.I...o...f..t.h..e...U.....S.......................... 24 II. Sierra Club's Petition is Statutorily Time-Barred.................................... 27 A. pCroonmgurelsgsatiendteunnddeedrtthhaet Ajucdticbiealsroeuvgiehwt porformegputllya.t.i.o..n..s.................. 28 B. wThinisdoCwoufrotrhpaestirteiopneaintegdflyorernefvoirecwedotfhreegAuclat'tsionnasr.r.o..w.................... 30 C. pUrnedceedreanct,oSrrieecrrtareCalduibn'gs poefttihtieonAicst tainmde-thbearCreodu..r..t.'.s..................... 33 D. pErveecneduenndt,erSiaebrrraoCadluebr'rsecahdainllgenogfethiseuAntcitmaenldy.t.h...e...C..o...u..r.t.'.s........... 34 III. RIAfeutahthseoonCriatobyul.e.r.t.a.R.n..ed..a.Fc..ha..le.l.ss...wt.h..ie.t.h.M.i.n.e..rt.h.i.t.es.,.B.t..ho..eu..n.C.d.h.s.a..lo.l.e.f.n.E.g.P.e..Ad...R'.s..eS.g..tu.a.l.t.au.t.ti.o.o.r.ny...i.s.............. 40 A. TpohleluStaunptr"emmeusCtobuertinhtaesrpmreatdeedcinleaitrstrheagtutlhaetopryhrcaosent"eaxnt.y...a.i.r........ 41 B. TdehfeercehnacleleunngedderreCghuelvarotinonsteisprtewasoo..n..a.b..l..e...a.n..d....e.n..t..i.t.l.e..d...t.o................ 44 1. EPA reasonably construed Congress'intent..................... 45 2. EPA reasonably explained its interpretation..................... 49 Conclusion..................................................................................................................... 54 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA iv Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00005 USCA Case #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 8 of 71 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES U.S. Constitution Article III.......................................................................................................................24 Statutes 42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(1)(A)................................................................................................4 42 U.S.C. 7409.............................................................................................................. 3 42 U.S.C. 7410.............................................................................................................. 3 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(C)...............................................................................................13 *42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(I) (1982).........................................................7, 8, 11, 45, 46, 48 42 U.S.C. 7410(c)(1)....................................................................................................13 42 U.S.C. 7412............................................................................................................ 15 42 U.S.C. 7475.............................................................................................................. 4 42 U.S.C. 7475(a)......................................................................................12, 26, 50, 51 42 U.S.C. 7475(a)(1)................................................................................................... 26 *42 U.S.C. 7475(a)(4)..............................................................................................5, 51 *42 U.S.C. 7475(a)(4) (1982)...................................................................................... 51 42 U.S.C. 7479(1).................................................................................................... 4, 41 42 U.S.C. 7479(2)(C).................................................................................................. 26 42 U.S.C. 7501-15................................................................................................. 4, 25 * Authorities chiefly relied upon are marked with an asterisk. v Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00006 USCA Case #14-1138 Document #1570184 Fiied: 08/28/2015 Page 7 of 71 *42 U.S.C. 7501(1)............... *42 U.S.C. 7501(2) (1982).... 42 U.S.C. 7502..................... 42 U.S.C. 7502(a)(1) (1982).. 42 U.S.C. 7502(b) (1982)..... 42 U.S.C. 7502(b)(4) (1982).. 42 U.S.C. 7502(b)(5) (1982).. *42 U.S.C. 7502(b)(6) (1982) 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)................. 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(2)............ 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(3)............ 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(4)............ *42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(5).......... 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(6)............ *42 U.S.C. 7503................... *42 U.S.C. 7503 (1982)........ 42 U.S.C. 7503(1)(A) (1982). 42 U.S.C. 7503(a)(1)(A)........ 42 U.S.C. 7503(a)(1)(B)........ 42 U.S.C. 7503(a)(2)............ ..............................5, 52 ............................48, 51 ....................................5 ..............................8, 45 ................................. 48 ................................. 48 ..................................49 ..................... 10, 25, 48 ..................................25 ..............................5, 52 ..................................48 ..................................48 2,19, 25, 42, 44, 51, 52 ..................................51 ...5, 7,10,12,19 44, 52 ..................................45 12 .................................. ..................................52 ..................... 25, 48, 49 ..............................5, 26 * Authorities chiefly relied upon are marked with an asterisk. Yf Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00007 USCA Case #14-1138 Document #1570184 FiSed: 08/28/2015 Page 8 of 71 42 U.S.C. 7503(c)(1).... 42 U.S.C. 7601(a)(1).... 42 U.S.C. 7602(d)........ *42 U.S.C. 76020........ 42 U.S.C. 7607............ *42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(1)... 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(2).... 42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(7)(B) ............................................... 5, 26 ............................................... 6, 39 ..................................................... 3 ............................ 2, 15, 41, 42, 44 ................................................... 29 2, 21, 22, 23, 27, 29, 30, 33, 35, 38 ................................................... 30 .............................................29, 30 Case law Ala6b3a6mFa.2Pdow3e2r3C(oD. .vC. .CoCsitrle.,1979)............................................................................... 6, 50 Ala5s4k0aUD.Se.p'4t6o1fE(n2v0t0l4C).o..n.s..e.r.v..a..ti.o..n...v....E...P...A..,........................................................................4 *A7m0.5RFo.a3dde4h53Tr(aDns.pC..BCuiirl.de2r0s1A3s)s.'.n...v.....E..P...A...,.......................................................28, 31, 39 Ar6ke1m8 aF.I3ndc. 1v.(EDP.CA.,Gr. 2010).......................................................................................32 Arl1in3g3toSn. Cv.t.FC18C6,3 (2013)..........................................................................................41,45 *C4h6ev7roUn.SU..S8.3A7,(1In9c8.4v.).N...R..D....C...,..........................23,, 31, 33, 34, 40, 41, 43 44, 45, 47, 53 * Authorities chiefly relied upon are marked with an asterisk. vii Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00008 USCA Case #14-1138 Document #1570184 FiSed: 08/28/2015 Page 9 of 71 Coalitionfor Responsible Regulation, Inc. v. EPA, 6R8eg4uFla.t3ordy1G0r2p.(1v.3.ECP. ACi,r.123041S2.),Cot.ff2d42in7pa(2r0t a1n4d).r..e.v..'.d..i.n...p..a..r.t..s.u..b...n..o.m. 6.,U31ti,lit3y2A, 3ir3, 34, 36 Co6a0li4tioFn.3odfB6a1tt3ery(DR.eCc.ycGlerrs.A2s0s'1'n0)v....E..P...A...,.......................................................................... 3 Co6n7n2ectFic.2utdF9u9n8df(o2rdthGerE. n1v9't8v2.)E...P...A..,................................................................................. 8 Ctr7.2fo2rFB.i3odlog4i0c1alD(Li3v.eCr.siGtyrv.. 2E0P1A3,)................................................................................... 18 De7fe1n4deFrs.3odfW13il1d7life(Dv..CPerGciars.ep2e0,13)................................................................................. 22 De7lt8a3CFo.n3sdt. 1C2o9.1v.(EDP.CA,Gr. 2015)............................................................................22, 25 En4vi6r7onFm.3ednta1l3D2e9fe(n1s3e.Cv..EGPrA. 2, 006)................................................................................. 23 Ge4n9e6raUlM.So.to5r3s0Co(1rp9.9v0. )U...n.i.t.e..d...S.t.a..t.e.s..,............................................................................ 3, 27 Flo7n0e5ywFe.l3lIdnf4l7, 0Inc(.Dv..CEPGAr., 2013)................................................................................... 32 In r7e8M8uFr.r3ady E3n3e0rg(yDC.Co.rpG., r. 2015).................................................................................. 38 Eu5ja0n4vU. .DSe.fe5n5d5er(s1o9f9W2i)l.d.l.i.f.e..,............................................................................................ 27 Ma5s4sa9chUu.sSe.tt4s9v.7E(P20A0,7)..............................................................................................42, 43 Me6d4.5WFa.s3tedI4n2st0. <(D&.ECn.erGgyr.R2e0co1v1er)y...C..o..u..n.c..i.l.v.....E..P...A...,......................................................... 28 * Authorities chiefly relied upon are marked with an asterisk. viii Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00009 USCA Case #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 10 of 71 Mic8h0i5gaFn.2v.dT1h7o6ma(6s,th Gr. 1986).......................................................................................8 *N7a0t'FlM.3idni1n3g4A5ss('Dn.vC. DGerp.'t1o9f9In5te)r..i.o.r..,..................................................................30, 31, 33 Ne4w75EnFg.laSnudppT.eg4a2l5Fo(Dun.dCatoionnnv..1C9o7s9tle).,............................................................................45 NR466D875CUFv..2.Sd.G8o7r31s78uc(h(1D,9.8C4.)C..i.r.....1..9..8..2..).,..r..e.v..'d...s.u..b...n.o..m......C..h..e.v..r.o..n...U....S...A...,..I..n.c.....v....N...R...D...C...,............... 9 Pa9n5AFm.e3rdica1n01G(r1asint CMifrg..1C9o9.6v)..H...P...A...,..............................................................................13 San3d7e3rsUv..SU. n1it(e1d9S6ta3t)e.s.,......................................................................................................32 Sa3n1taFB.a3rdba1r1a7C9o(uDnt.yCA. CirirP.o1ll9u9tio4n)..C..o..n..t.r.o..l.D...i.s.t.....v....E...P...A..,..................................................... 5 Sie6rr4a8CFl.u3bdv.8J4a8ck(s1o9n.C, . Cir. 2011)....................................................................................26 Sm5il1e7y vU. .CS.iti7b3a5nk(1(9So9u6t)h..D...a..k.o..t.a..).,..N....A....,............................................................................ 23 Tet7o8n5HFis.3todric71A9vi(aDtio.Cn.FCoiur.nd2a0ti1o5n)v.....U.....S.....D...e.p..t.,..o..f.D..e!.fe..n..s.e.,................................................ 24 Ut7a5h0exF.r3eld. U11ta8h2D(1e0pt'thoCfEirn.v2ir0o1n4m)e..n.t.a..l.Q...u..a..li.t'.y..,..D...i.v....o...f.A...i.r..Q...u..a..l.i.t.y..v.....E..P...A...,................... 32 ^U1ti3l4itySA. Cirt.R2eg4u2l7ato(r2)!0G14rp)....v....E...P..A...,................................ 2, 3, 22, 26, 34, 41, 42, 43, 44, 47 Authorities chiefly relied upon are marked with an asterisk. IX Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00010 USCA Ca.se #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 11 of 71 Ve5r2m9onUt.ASg.e7n6c5y o(2fN0a0t0u)r..a..l.R...e.s.o..u..r.c.e.s...v....U.....S.....e..x...r.e.l...S..t.e.v..e.n..s.,................................................. 24 Regulations 40 C.F.R. 1.25(e)(2)....................................................................................................39 40 C.F.R. part 51 (Appendix S).......................................................................................9 *40 C.F.R. 51.180 (1980).....................................................................................10,11 *40 C.F.R. 51.180(2) (1980)................................................................................ 13, 42 40 C.F.R. 51.180(3)...................................................................................................... 7 40 C.F.R. 51.160-64..................................................................................................... 6 40 C.F.R. 51.165(a)(2)..................................................................................................42 *40 C.F.R. 51.165(a)(2)(i).......2, 6,13,18,19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 33, 34, 40, 41, 44, 52 40 C.F.R. 52.21(a)(1)...................................................................................................13 40 C.F.R. 52.210(2)....................................................................................................51 40 C.F.R. 52.2722....................................................................................................... 13 40 C.F.R. 52.2723....................................................................................................... 13 40 C.F.R. 52.2729....................................................................................................... 13 40 C.F.R. 81.355......................................................................................................... 13 40 C.F.R. part 124, subpart A ........................................................................................ 18 * Authorities chiefly relied upon are marked with an asterisk. x Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00011 USCA Case #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 12 of 71 Federal Register Publications *41 Fed. Reg. 55,524 (Dec. 21, 1976)............................................................. 8, 9, 45, 47 *44 Fed. Reg. 51,924 (Sept. 5, 1979).................................................................7, 45, 49 *45 Fed. Reg. 31,307 (May 13, 1980)................................................................10, 11, 50 *45 Fed. Reg. 52,676 (Aug. 7,1980)............................................. 5, 6,11, 12, 42, 50, 52 51 Fed. Reg. 40,656 (Nov. 7,1986)................................................................................13 57 Fed. Reg. 5,320 (Feb. 13,1992)................................................................................ 39 62 Fed. Reg. 3,211 (Jan. 22,1997)..................................................................................13 73 Fed. Reg. 28,321 (May 16, 2008).................................................................................3 76 Fed. Reg. 38,748 (July 1, 2011)................................................................................... 5 76 Fed. Reg. 72,097 (Nov. 22, 2011)................................................................. 13, 36, 53 79 Fed. Reg. 28,710 (May 19, 2014)........................................................................18, 34 Legislative Materials Act ofDec. 31, 1970, Pub. L. No. 91-604, 12(a), 84 Stat. 1708............................... 28 Pub. L. No. 95-95, 91 Stat. 745 (Aug. 7,1977)...................................................... 9, 45 S. Rep. No. 1196, 91st Gong., 2d Sess. 41(1970)....................................................28, 29 H.R. Rep. No. 294, 95 Gong., Ist Sess. 322 (1977)......................................................29 S. Rep. 127, 95th Gong., Ist Sess. (1977)........................................................................8 * Authorities chiefly relied upon are marked with an asterisk. xi Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00012 USCA Case #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 13 of 71 Other Authorities www.epa.gov/nsr/live/pr.htm l.................................................................................... 13 Clean Air Act Handbook (D.R. Wooley & E.M. Morss eds., 24th ed., 2014).. .4,15, 35 In re Tondu Energy Co., 9 E.A.D. 710 (2001).................................................................. 39 * Authorities chiefly relied upon are marked with an asterisk. xii Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00013 USCA Case #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 14 of 71 Act Chevron Coalition Energy Answers EPA Handbook JA Sierra Club Sierra Club Br. SIP UARG GLOSSARY Clean Air Act Chevron U S A , Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984) Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc. v. ERA, 684 F.3d 102 (D.C. Cir. 2012), offd inpart and rev d inpart sub nom. UtilityAir Regulatory Gtp. v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427 (2014) Intervenor-Respondent Energy Answers Arecibo, EEC Respondents EOS. Environmental Protection Agency and its Administrator Clean Air Act Handbook (D.R. Wooley & E.M. Morss eds., 24th ed., 2014) joint Appendix Petitioners Sierra Club de Puerto Rico, Ciudadanos en Defensa del Ambiente, Madrs de Negro de Arecibo, and Comit Basura Cero Arecibo Opening Brief of Petitioners (Aug. 2015) State Implementation Plan UtilityA ir Regulatory Grp. v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427 (2014) Sierra C lub v. EPA 18cv3472 ND CA xiii Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00014 USCA Ca.se #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 15 of 71 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION Petitioners Sierra Club de Puerto Rico, Ciudadanos en Defensa del Ambiente, Madrs de Negro de Arecibo, and Comit Basura Cero Arecibo (collectively "Sierra Club") fail to properly invoke the Court's jurisdiction to review a nationally applicable regulation promulgated in 1980 by Respondents U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and its Administrator (collectively "EPA") under the Clean Air Act ("Act"). Jurisdiction is lacking on two grounds: standing, see infra pp. 24-27, and timing, see infra pp. 27-40. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES 1. A petitioner lacks standing if its requested reliefwill not redress the claimed injury. Sierra Club alleges injury from lead emissions from an incinerator proposed by Intervenor-Respondent E-nergy Answers Arecibo, EEC's ("Energy Answers"), but Sierra Club merely seeks vacatur of a regulation that does not require Energy Answers to do, or refrain from doing, anything regarding emissions. Such reliefwill not result in more lead emissions controls unless Energy Answers modifies the incinerator at a speculative and unforeseen point in the future. Does Sierra Club lack standing to challenge the regulation? 2. To ensure that challenges to EPA's regulations are raised promptly, the Act limits the Court's jurisdiction to petitions filed "within sixty days from the date notice of such promulgation . . . appears in the Federal Register" or, "if Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00015 USCA Case #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 16 of 71 such petition is based solely on grounds arising after such sixtieth day, then any petition for review . . . filed within sixty days after such grounds arise." 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(1). Sierra Club, which did not file its petition in 1980, alleges that grounds for its claim arose, for the first time, when Energy Answers obtained a permit under a program that does not apply to the incinerator's lead emissions and is separate from the program to which the challenged regulation applies. Is Sierra Club's petition time-barred? 3. Under the Act, with respect to areas that have not attained an air quality standard, states and territories must require permits for the construction or operation of a source with the potential to emit 100 tons per year of "any air pollutant." 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(5), 76020. Under UtilityA ir Regulatory Grp. v. ERA, 134 S. Ct. 2427 (2014) ("UARG"), EPA must interpret that specific statutory phrase in light of its context. The challenged regulation, 40 C.F.R. 51.165(a)(2)(i), reflects EPA's longstanding interpretation of "any air pollutant" in the context of permitting in nonattainment areas as referring only to a pollutant for which the area is designated nonattainment. Does that regulation fall within the bounds of EPA's statutory authority? STATUTORY AND REGULATORY PROVISIONS Pertinent statutory provisions and the challenged regulation are reproduced in this Briefs Statutory and Regulatory Addendum.2 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA 2 Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00016 USCA Case #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 17 of 71 STATEMENT OF TH E CASE I. New Source Review under the Act and State Implementation Plans Under the Act, "the States and the Federal Government [are] partners in the struggle against air pollution." GeneralMotors Corp. v. UnitedStates, 496 U.S. 530, 532 (1990). EPA establishes national ambient air quality standards for criteria pollutants. 42 U.S.C. 7409.12"To date, EPA has issued [standards] for six pollutants: sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone, and lead." UARG, 134 S. Ct. at 2435 (citation omitted). The standard for lead, the pollutant Sierra Club focuses on here, was last updated in 2008. Coalition ofBattery RecyclersAss'n v. EPA, 604 F.3d 613 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (upholding that standard). "States [and territories2] have the primary responsibility for implementing the NAAQS by developing 'State [I]implementation [P]lans.'" UARG, 134 S. Ct. at 2435 (citing 42 U.S.C. 7410). State Implementation Plans ("SIPs") approved under the Act must regulate, interalia, the construction and modification of stationary sources of air pollution. Such regulation includes a preconstruction permit program known as "New Source Review," which has three parts. See 73 Fed. Reg. 28,321, 28,323-34 (May 16, 2008). 2U1.TUS.hnetleeArsrsictototrdhieeefsri.wnei4ss2e"UsSp.tSaect.Ceifs.i"edto,76wi0ne2c(lqduu)do.etethferoCmomthme ocnuwrreeanltthU.oSf. PCuoedret.o Rico and other Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA 3 Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00017 USCA Case #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 18 of 71 The first part of New Source Review generally requires that any new or modified major stationr}- source obtain and comply with a "Prevention of Significant Deterioration" permit addressing: (a) in the case of new construction, pollutants for which the source has the potential to emit in significant amounts; and (b) in the case of a modification, each pollutant that is projected to increase (or in fact increases) by a significant amount. See 42 U.S.C. 7475, 7479(1); Alaska D eft ofEnvtl Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461, 471 (2004). The applicability of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration permit program depends on, interalia, the pollutant in question; i.e., it could apply only if the source is located in an area that has been designated as "attainment" or "unclassifiable" with respect to such pollutant. Attainment areas meet national ambient air quality standards for a given pollutant; unclassifiable areas lack sufficient data to determine attainment. 42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(1)(A). The second --and separate --part of New Source Review is the "Nonattainment New Source Review" program. 42 U.S.C. 7501-15; Clean Air Act Handbook 4:1 (D.R. Wooley & E.M. Morss eds., 24th ed., 2014) ("Handbook"). This program has relevance where the source in question is located in a "nonattainment" area. EPA designates an area nonattainment when it fails to meet standards for a particular pollutant. 42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(1)(A). Unlike the Act's Prevention of Significant Deterioration program, which directly prohibits the construction of new or modified sources without a permit and is a required part of State (or Federal) Implementation Plans, the Act's Nonattainment New Source 4 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00018 USCA Case #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 19 of 71 Review program relies entirely on State (or Federal) Implementation Plans to regulate covered sources. See 42 U.S.C. 7502, 7503. Air quality controls set forth in Nonattainment New Source Review permits are generally more stringent than those associated with Prevention of Significant Deterioration permits. Sources subject to Prevention of Significant Deterioration permits, for example, may only emit consistent with the "best available control technology" "for each pollutant subject to regulation under" the Act. 42 U.S.C. 7475(a)(4). But state Nonattainment New Source Review programs must require permits that subject sources to, for example, the "lowest achievable emission rate" without regard to cost, 42 U.S.C. 7503(a)(2), and "offsets," id. 7503(c)(1).3 In addition, nonattainment programs within SIPs may require other (i.e., extra-permit) emission-reduction measures as part of states' and territories'obligation to make "reasonable further progress" toward attainment. 42 U.S.C. 7501(1), 7502(c)(2). The third part of new source review, known as the "Minor New Source Review" program, may apply to the extent that a stationary source would emit a pollutant below specified levels. 76 Fed. Reg. 38,748, 38,752 (July 1, 2011); 45 Fed. Reg. 52,676, 52,712 (Aug. 7,1980) (JA 51, 54). Under this program, states and 3nppa(DuoeoOwtll.hllCuufof.ettsreecGierrottsyrnsi[.so..]r1a"m.eb9p.i9lSwrce4eai)atsnl.olcetatpnisvteBeric"atmyur[abri].eat.krta.ahe.nyeCUomocfurnfeensdt~atehyettiroAtoidtnnihrgifosoPrfroesaltdclruuoanttcineeottwgniroyoCns,llootiihunnntregrceoreamleiDroliesipfvssoteia.omlnlvnut.isstaEisfioiPrronopAnmwos,lilo3ptu1hnrteoliyFoeuxn.it3ifsidcmttohi1nnpe1gte7nrdo9eil,wng1181 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA 5 Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00019 USCA Case #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 20 of 71 territories assess the air quality implications of source construction or modification and evaluate whether that event would interfere with attainment or maintenance of standards. See 40 C.F.R. 51.160-64. Because the requirements of these programs are pollutant-specific, a major source may be required to obtain both a Prevention of Significant Deterioration permit and a Nonattainment New Source Review permit where it proposes to construct and operate in an area that is designated attainment or unclassifiable for some pollutants and non-attainment for others. See Coalitionfor Responsible Regulation, Inc. v. EPA, 684 F.3d 102,132 (13.C. Cir. 2012) ("Coalition"), offd inpart and rev d in part on othergrounds sub nom. UtilityA ir Regulatory Grp. v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427 (2014); Alabama PowerCo. v. Costle, 636 F.2d 323, 350 (D.C. Gr. 1979); 45 Fed. Reg. at 52,711 12 (JA 53-54). In such an area, the source may also be required to obtain a Minor New Source Review permit if its emissions of a particular pollutant are low or only increase by an insignificant amount. II. Promulgation of 40 C.F.R. 51.165(a)(2)(i) Under the Act, the EPA Administrator "is authorized to prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out [her] functions under [the Act]." 42 U.S.C. 7601(a)(1). The regulation sought to be challenged by Sierra Club here, 40 C.F.R. 51.165(a)(2)(i), regards the Nonattainment New Source Review permit program. In September 1979, EPA issued a proposal for public comment: a subsection would be added to EPA's existing regulations that set forth the required contents for 6 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00020 USCA Case #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 21 of 71 "state plans for nonattainment areas." 44 Fed. Reg. 51,924, 51,958 (Sept. 5, 1979) (proposing to codify 40 C.F.R. 51.180(3)) (JA 45, 49). Under the proposal, SIPs would be required to include "[a] preconstruction review program . . . for any area designated as nonattainment for any national ambient air quality standard," and to apply that program "to any new or modified major stationary source that is majorfor the pollutant for which the area is designated nonattainment[.]" 44 Fed. Reg. at 51,959 (emphasis added) (JA 50). As EPA explained, the application of Nonattainment New Source Review permit requirements to "major sources everywhere in the designated nonattainment area" was an expansion of the policy at the time, which offered exemptions to any source demonstrating that, for example, because of its location, "it would not significantly impact the specific point(s) of violation." 44 Fed. Reg. at 51,939 (JA 46). Moreover, EPA's proposal addressed both new and modified major stationary sources. As to modifications, EPA explained: wnUas1emo1hnc0niodtc(aiueaoht)rntn(awtt2iso1n)o7d((muI3ia).leyedc.['n,4osrt21enpp0ssUru0otor.llSutpolu.ciroCnttsmai.oaanonlts.r7wier.g5e.hn0tstoii3thcfrn]iihe,cscattt[hpihnNoeetenernoswsyeofwetfuSasiororenc)utuc.elrrrdceuaeallairsnpeRegpaed,ilvnyyoierotewhnmteh]lyieartsemtsoqieonucauitmrimnoetamnojodoefirnfttihsceaotifon 44 Fed. Reg. at 51,941 (JA 48). Similarly, as to entirely new sources in nonattainment areas, EPA stated: "[njonattainment review applicability again requires that the nonattainment pollutant be potentially emitted in major amounts." Id. Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA 7 Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00021 USCA Case #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 22 of 71 Among the sources of authority EPA referenced in its September 1979 proposal was then-section 110(a)(2)0 of the Act, which Congress added to the Act in 1977 (and repealed in 1990). That provision, known as the "construction moratorium" or "construction ban," see, e.g., Michigan v. Thomas, 805 F.2d 176 (6th Cir. 1986), generally had the effect of prohibiting, after a date certain (targeted to the submission and review of SIPs), the construction or modification of any "major stationary source . . . in any nonattainment area" "if the emissions from such facility" will cause or contribute to concentrations of any pollutant for which a national ambient air quality standard is exceeded in such area" unless and until the state or territory submits and obtains EPA's approval of a SIP with a compliant Nonattainment New Source Review permit program. See former section 172(a)(1), 42 U.S.C. 7502(a)(1) (1982), and former section 110(a)(2)0, 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)0 (1982). Although the legislative history does not directly address the moratorium's purposes,4an appellate court at the time concluded that Congress sought both to limit pollution from new sources and to prompt state planning efforts. See ConnecticutFund for the Enr't v. EPA, 672 F.2d 998,1008 (2d Gr. 1982). Also referenced in the September 1979 proposal was EPA's "offset ruling," 41 Fed. Reg. 55,524 (Dec. 21,1976) (JA 26), an action in which "EPA endeavored to clarify . . . the circumstances in which new sources of pollution would be permitted in 41sTt hSeescs.on(1s9tr7u7c).tion moratorium originated in the Senate bill. S. Rep. 127, 95th Cong., Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA 8 Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00022 USCA Case #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 23 of 71 areas where an ambient standard had not been achieved." NRDC v. Gorsuch, 685 F.2d 718, 721 (D.C. Cir. 1982), rev'd on othergrounds sub nom. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984). Under the offset ruling, permit authorities were directed to "perform an air quality analysis to determine if the [new] source will cause or exacerbate a violation of [national ambient air quality standards]" --but "only for those pollutants causing the proposed source to be defined as a 'major' source[.]" 41 Fed. Reg. at 55,528 & n.2 (JA 28). EPA explained that such interpretation was appropriate because federal, state, and territorial permit authorities "have limited resources and . . . smaller air pollution sources may individually have an insignificant impact on air quality." Id. at 55,525 (JA 27). As part of the 1977 Amendments to the Act, Congress codified the offset ruling. See 91 Stat. 745 (offset ruling "shall apply" in nonattainment areas until July 1,1979).5 Interested persons submitted comments to EPA about the September 1979 proposal. Some comments supported additional regulation. For example, Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund urged that "major emitting facilities in a nonattainment area should undergo [Prevention of Significant Deterioration] review on all pollutants -- not only for major pollutants for which the area is nonattainment.'' A-79-35, III-B, Comment 298 at cover, 4 (JA 10,14). And in a comment similar to Sierra Club's t5Fo.2FtdhueratthCe7lr2e,1atnhnAe.1io3rfAf(scceitttaartuinoldinncgoomd"wiifttiaeesddl)a.atseAr apmpeennddiexdStotoco40nfCor.Fm.Rt.oPtahret 15917."7 ANmRDenCd,m6e8n5ts Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA 9 Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00023 USCA Case #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 24 of 71 challenge here, the Connecticut Chapter of the Sierra Club disagreed with the limitation that Nonattainment New Source Review permits be required "only [for] the pollutant for which [the source] is a major source[.]" A-79-35, III-B, Comment 84 at 1, 2 (JA 1-2). That chapter of Sierra Club regarded EPA's proposal as "not in agreement with the intentions of Congress." Id. at 2 (JA 2). EPA also received comments to the effect that its proposal was over-inclusive. The Regional Air Pollution Control Agency of Dayton, Ohio, for example, urged ETA to "reconsider this position and not impose the restrictions on sources which have no significant impact on the nonattainment situation." A-79-35, III-B, Comment 38 at cover, 3 (JA 3, 6). In May 1980, upon consideration of those and other comments, EPA finalized its proposal and codified what was then 40 C.F.R. 51.180. 45 Fed. Reg. 31,307, 31,312 (May 13,1980) (JA 19, 23).6 Although EPA did not elaborate on its interpretation, it noted that "[a] source may emit many different pollutants" and that "an area may be designated attainment for certain criteria pollutants and 6 40 C.F.R. 51.180 at that time provided: Emrdd.eee.aaqssScjuiiohuggircrnnpehaamlmttaaeeoneddpdnsirnntfhosiooagcnonlarlaaaftaitmtsotdtaeanocisinptnthihmtaomalnaletesnpainstpr1tep.mf7co.l2yo.ar0.njtao)osnrt(y6rafu)noncyaratnittnoihdoenenw1apr7elm3ovalaiolmeujfwotbatrhinpesetrntaoAfttgoiacorritarnwmfaqohruyritacoalshinotsyytauhtrsaiecstrafeeaynarodetrhaaerids . . Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA 10 Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00024 USCA Ca.se #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 25 of 71 nonattainment for other criteria pollutants." 45 Fed. Reg. at 31,309 n.3 (JA 21). "For simplicity," EPA stated that its preamble employed a shorthand phrase, "sources locating in a nonattainment area," to refer to "sources locating in an area designated nonattainment for a pollutant for which the source is major." Id. Shortly thereafter, in August 1980, EPA amended 40 C.F.R. 51.180 by moving the relevant text to subsection (2). 45 Fed. Reg. 52,676, 52,745 (Aug. 7,1980) (JA 51, 56). EPA explained that "[t]he current regulations concerning pollutant applicability in nonattainment areas have not been changed" because the August 1980 rulemaking largely regarded the separate Prevention of Significant Deterioration program. 45 Fed. Reg. at 52,711 (JA 53). But EPA at that point further explained whythe Nonattainment New Source Review permit program has a pollutant applicability scheme distinct from the Prevention of Significant Deterioration permit program: wTDmnmmnrseuoohhevoaobnnetijidrjeceoaasaeirhwettrftcittoiotaaactrurhriiuntainnaonelutdetmmidimosraofeeneeronarvennorr]iaitenttnehwplicpwreysdehoroieqdilOioflclaflufeuruhseftsitefhtrtriaashtesegehnenmennyeettttamsecaRetafnoepmwrirutsndopeslhsisaimltinniitaocciriogpsnanuht,nphbscdmalsteityehleotiias.toect[faijyPntgoiaisnronrromepumnauavlotoermeee1lcrsnlnd7a.eoutt3t.inutoe,oMaonrmnnaIintannutsiaojtdmfosttafohtrdt.aiSrehndsiiwenSoigpmtmuinhiocmoraiiloecfcnlijniunleoh,caststraroattlndrhnaanyutormtel,e(cyostos)sintouohulufnnyobortsjcrsieefecaatirseto 45 Fed. Reg. at 52,711 (JA 53). EPA emphasized: Twhheicbhacsoicntraaitniosntahlee cfoorntshtreuscetiroenstrmicotiroantosriisumth,artessetcritciotsnth1e10c(oa)n(s2t)r(uI)c,tion Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA 11 Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00025 USCA Case #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 26 of 71 mtprrsheeirmgesoetucriraalloiaractnerottaesertdtodiirusupitmnhdcoteeltitlshoouoiengtnpanesronaaeltitmvlsneuideeitstawenmnecomtutasninnoiatfdnnstoteearo1rriwn6ntach5mshe(eiatech)iOnhtettifh.stfchasoseSteunitssbnsuRotjcberueuucjrlecttcihcntetiteogsoirsnearaenmmisvsdoaioenujsrwooeracrcterftoaeoirnotqriodnuuomirf1nreoe7.evrm3ipweeiowshnllitfucohtarnatl,l Id. Similarly, EPA addressed comments "perceiving] an inconsistency in requiring broader pollutant applicability for [Prevention of Significant Deterioration] review than for nonattainment review . . . ." 45 Fed. Reg. at 52,713 ([A 55). EPA explained that "[t]he scope of [Prevention of Significant Deterioration] review applicability and the nonattainment definition of source are separate issues[,]" and that "there is no basis for requiring that they be resolved in such a way as to in some manner equalize their effects." Id. EPA also emphasized that other measures, such as "reasonable further progress," are available to states and territories and do not depend on a source's "major" status: aaSdas[SoldmeIlPu]domeoSriwctcuo,itaeonniaonsntsnsnct,edremaas1trpot7heiiur3toeotrsnicv[nuis4emibgs2sojipneoUefaconmrc.tnsSettiasa.tooCttsoitfo.tnafhntighnesae7utbmgh5clSeeee0hnIn3Pnfes]tu.oorpar.nutol.hralc.[telNetugrastoeipanvwanrmeroter(Sgnesaro)nsecutistcrnshpcoeoemualnnsRlaudptjeeteovwadcrinieiffattwoishmcr]iinornicenutovmnhniteeistnwa.goirnroIoenfwdtihn 45 Fed. Reg. at 52,713 (JA 55). See also 42 U.S.C. 7503(1)(A) (1982) (offsets may take the form of reductions in allowable emissions "from new . . . sources which are not major emitting facilities"). Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA 12 Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00026 USCA Case #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 27 of 71 In 1986, 40 C.F.R. 51.18(2) was re-codified as 40 C.F.R. 51.165(a)(2). See 51 Fed. Reg. 40,656, 40,672 (Nov. 7,1986) (JA 63, 67). III. New Source Review in Puerto Rico As noted supra p. 3, the Act contemplates that states and territories will have the primary role in implementing the New Source Review permit programs. But EPA may administer the Prevention of Significant Deterioration permit program where a state or territory lacks an EPA-approved program. 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(C), (c)(1); 40 C.F.R. 52.21(a)(1). That is the scenario in Puerto Rico, where an EPA regional office, EPA Region 2, issues Prevention of Significant Deterioration permits while the Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board conducts review and issues permits under the Commonwealth's EPA-approved Nonattainment New Source Review and Minor New Source Review programs. See 40 C.F.R. 52.2722, 52.2723, and 52.2729; 62 Fed. Reg. 3,211 (Jan. 22,1997); www.epa.gov/nsr/live/pr.html (last visited May 26, 2015). Nonattainment areas have existed in Puerto Rico since at least 1991. See Pan American Grain Mfg. Co. v. EPA, 95 F.3d 101,103 (1st Cir. 1996) (involving nonattainment in Guaynabo). In late 2011, EPA designated the following portion of Arecibo as a nonattainment area for lead: the "JaJrea bounded by 4 km from the boundaries of the Battery Recycling Company facility." 40 C.F.R. 81.355; 76 Fed. Reg. 72,097, 72,119 (Nov. 22, 2011) (JA 117, 119). Following that designation, Puerto Rico proposed an update to its SIP. EPA Region 2, which is reviewing the proposal, 13 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00027 USCA Case #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 28 of 71 recently indicated that "the primary source responsible for the nonattainment designation in Arecibo is the Battery Recycling Facility," and that "other facilities in Arecibo are very small contributors of lead." EPA Region 2 Letter of Apr. 24, 2015 to Petitioner Madres de Negro de Arecibo at 1 (JA 359). IY. Energy Answers'Air Quality Control Permits A. Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit from EPA Region 2 In February 2011, Energy Answers submitted an application for a Prevention of Significant Deterioration permit to EPA Region 2. See Application excerpts (JA 123-162). Energy Answers described its proposed facility as an incinerator that would generate renewable energy from fuel derived from waste. Application at xi-xii (JA 123-124). The incinerator's location would be an 80-acre site, zoned as "heavy industrial," which was located more than a mile from Arecibo's "largest residential and commercial areas." Id. at 2-1, 2-2 (JA 125,126). The application addressed, in detail, the facility's potential to emit pollutants. See id. at 3-1 through 4-25 (JA 127-155). Pollutants to be emitted in "major" amounts (i.e., more than 100 tons/year) included, for example, sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide. Id. at xi and Table 3-1 (JA 123, 130). Lead was also addressed in Energy Answers' application. At that time, the area surrounding the Battery Recycling Company --which encompasses the Energy Answers site, seeApplication at Appendix D (JA 158) --had not yet been designated nonattainment for lead. Thus, E-nergy Answers' application addressed lead since it 14 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00028 USCA Case #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 29 of 71 was then an attainment pollutant. As Sierra Club correctly notes, Energy Answers' Prevention of Significant Deterioration permit application "lists potential lead emissions as 0.31 tons/year[.]" Sierra Club Br. 3 (citing Application at 3-4, Table 3-1 (JA 130)). That amount of emissions is well under the significance threshold of 0.6 tons/year, seeApplication at Table 3-1 (JA 130),7and nowhere close to the "major source" threshold of 100 tons per year. 42 U.S.C. 76020.8 Energy Answers also explained its view that it would operate with the "best available control technology" for lead. See Application at 5-37 (JA 156); supra p. 5. In May 2012, EPA Region 2 announced, through a public notice, its "preliminary determination to approve" Energy Answers' Prevention of Significant Deterioration permit application because it "meets all PSD requirements." Public Notice at 2 (JA 166). The public notice listed over 12 pollutants that would be subject to the best available control technology; because of the intervening nonattainment designation, lead was not listed. See id. The agency solicited comment on the application and draft permit, and it also scheduled public informational lHHU7oa8feasf.acaaBSsSmdinnoil.ug'Cicddsottniybb.das"iooftiii[esgifoolci7djnc"kkae4imanawf1tidcai2cieot4j4a.ihosn:.nt16rh,cat,1'hretlneshae.(ots7ne"hhm,dArrooweeoswtlgshddhwhunasiiolfceitaithlhrchtdtaehao)hvdnet.raieooasconrsnhpaeaaaleitmsentrhvagasaaaietijnzognoaimnrcsrreimdefnsinoofcououutatsrrnst[scNmtpdae."eieeor)tcwt;dheipfirsrofiSeemcielsocalahiauulnllotstryeiaoclodneeiindftxsRo.ctuhfelonuve1fd4di0e.eeee6wmxrtdoi&]Tisn,fstirsisatTonliseomapgsnbeuIsslrImtoeIhyiuien4oenrc.acfgd1rreeet.sth(fah.liesSienseeite[tiAin4ogc2nt]," Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA 15 Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00029 USCA Ca.se #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 30 of 71 sessions and hearings. Id. at 2-3 (JA 166-167). In addition, EPA provided a street address and Web link where interested persons may access the administrative record. Id. at 3 (JA 167). More detail about the project was provided in a "fact sheet" that accompanied the public notice. See Fact Sheet (JA 176-199). EPA Region 2 explained, in pertinent part: "Currently, the area in which Energy Answers' facility is designated as meeting all National Ambient Air Quality Standards [] promulgated to protect public health, except for lead (Pb)." Fact Sheet at 3 (JA 178). "Pb . . . is not included in this permit because the applicant proposes to locate the source in a nonattainment area." Id. at 13 n.l (JA 188). "[A]11air pollutants that are not subject to [Prevention of Significant Deterioration], including P b,. . . will be addressed in the State permit issued by [the Puerto Rico F/nvironmental Quality Board]." Id. at 18 (JA 193). Further, in May 2012, EPA Region 2 transmitted English and Spanish versions of the public notice and fact sheet directly to a number of interested persons, including Sierra Club. See EPA Region 2 Letter to Petitioner Sierra Club de Puerto Rico (JA 170-171); EPA Region 2 Letter to Petitioner Ciudadanos en Defensa del Ambiente (JA 172-173); EPA Region 2 Letter to Javier Biaggi of Petitioner Comit Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA 16 Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00030 USCA Ca.se #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 31 of 71 Basura Cero Arecibo (and of Comit Amplio de Arecibo Contra el Incinerador, which shares the same address) (JA 174-175); see also Energy Answers Arecibo, LLC Interested Parties List at 4 (EPA emailed public notice and fact sheet to Petitioner Madrs de Negro de Arecibo) (JA 169). "During the public comment period, EPA received 1,100 written comments," EPA Region 2 Response to Comments at 5 of 124 (JA 204), including comments from Sierra Club or its members. In April 2013, when responding to comments about lead emissions, EPA Region 2 repeated what it had previously explained in the public notice and fact sheet: that the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program does not regulate that nonattainment pollutant. See, e.g., EPA Region 2 Response to Comments at 75 ("[F]or information related to the [Energy Answers'] project Pb emissions requirements, the commenters should consult with the [Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board] Air Quality Department.") (JA 206); id. at 99 ("The [Prevention of Significant Deterioration] program does not apply in nonattainment areas. Therefore, lead is not a pollutant regulated in [the] permit.") (JA 207); id. ("Energy Answers is not subject to the nonattainment permit regulations since it would have to emit 100 tons per year of lead. Since the facility will emit less than this major source threshold it is also not subject to nonattainment permit requirements."); id. at 108 ("Energy Answers is not subject to the lead nonattainment permit requirements.") (JA 209). Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA 17 Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00031 USCA Case #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 32 of 71 At the initiation of several interested persons, including Sierra Club or its members, EPA's Environmental Appeals Board reviewed the initial Prevention of Significant Deterioration permit that EPA Region 2 had issued in June 2013. See 40 C.F.R. part 124, subpart A (procedures applicable to administrative appeals of PSD permits). In March 2014, the Environmental Appeals Board issued a lengthy decision upholding the permit in all relevant respects. See Board Opinion (JA 243-340).9 In response to arguments from Sierra Club that 40 C.F.R. 51.165(a)(2)(i) is "unlawful," Sierra Club Br. 6, the Environmental Appeals Board stated: "the Region properly excluded lead [] from the [Prevention of Significant Deterioration] permitting process because the municipality of Arecibo has been designated as a nonattainment area for lead. Additionally,. . . [Sierra Club's] arguments concerning [Nonattainment New Source Review] applicability lie outside the Board's authority to decide." Board Opinion at 22 (]A 265). See also id. at 22-28 (JA 265-271). EPA Region 2 issued the final Prevention of Significant Deterioration permit in April 2014, and a notice was published a month later. See 79 Fed. Reg. 28,710 (May 19, 2014) (JA. 120-122). E9rePgEuAPl,Aat7inR2g2egbFii.oo3ngde24n0irc1eqg(urDees.eCtne.hdCo, uiarsn.ed2g0wa1sa3s)e.mgrTiashnsatieotdnis,ssaiunerelhimgahastnndooffboCertartrhfioenrglbiiomonliotgethidciaspluDcarispveeo.rsseityovf. Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA 18 Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00032 USCA Case #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 33 of 71 B. Minor New Source Review Conditions in Puerto Rico's Permit As EPA Region 2 noted in its public notice regarding Energy Answers' Prevention of Significant Deterioration permit application, "[a] separate permit is being issued by Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board, to address the other pollutants emitted by this project." Public Notice at 2 (JA 166). In December 2014, the Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board issued that permit. Regarding lead, it functions as a Minor New Source permit and restricts the incinerator's emissions to 0.31 tons/year, consistent with Energy Answers' previous assertion that its operations would reflect the best available control technology. See Construction Permit PFE-070811-0468-I-II-III-C at Table of Annual Emission limits (in Spanish) (JA 210). V. Proceedings in this Court On July 14, 2014, Sierra Club filed a petition with this Court, seeking review of 40 C.F.R. 51.165(a)(2)(i) based on an argument that it "unlawfully limits the preconstruction review program for nonattainment areas under Sections 172(c)(5) and 173 of the Clean Air Act [42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(5), 7503] to a new major stationary source `that is major for the pollutant for which the area is designated nonattainm ent.Petition for Rev., Doc. #1503791, at 2 (citation omitted).10 Pt1fh0oreTrevRhdeeeencvpti.iseoaitonittni1oo.ofnfBSatiuhlgstenoSiEfpiiencurvarrnapirtooCDrnltuemebdteehrtnoiatoasrslaesAteiinkopcnpreeepavaebilesrawmnBdiootoaftnroEdedPEdAnaaenterRygdeysgMuAicoahnnrscc2whl'asei2mr5"sd,.Ae2c0rie1sc4iio.b"nog,PrEeaTtniCttiion, nganad Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA 19 Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00033 USCA Case #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 34 of 71 EPA moved to dismiss the petition on jurisdictional grounds. Doc. #1512121. Following Sierra Club's opposition, the Court issued an Order carrying the motion with the case and directing the parties "to address [in their briefs] the issues presented in the motion to dismiss rather than incorporate those arguments by reference." Order ofjan. 16, 2015, Doc. #1532690. Sierra Club's opening brief followed. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Sierra Club lacks standing because its alleged injuries from Energy Answers' facility are not redressable by the Court. Vacatur of the challenged regulation, 40 C.F.R. 51.165(a)(2)(i), would have no effect on F/nergy Answers' ability to construct and operate its facility because that regulation does not govern Energy Answers' emissions of any pollutant, including lead. That regulation and, indeed, the Act's Nonattainment New Source Review program only govern the required contents of Puerto Rico's State Implementation Plan. Only Puerto Rico's State Implementation Plan governs Energy Answers' emissions of lead. At most, vacatur of the challenged regulation could eventually result in Puerto Rico having to revise its State Implementation Plan to cover a broader category of stationary sources after EPA amends the challenged regulation to conform to the judicial opinion Sierra Club seeks. But those changes would only have prospective effect; Energy Answers would need to modify its facility in the future --a speculative future event --before its emissions Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA 20 Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00034 USCA Case #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 35 of 71 would be subject to the Nonattainment New Source Review permit requirements in any such revised State Implementation Plan. In addition, Sierra Club's petition for review of 40 C.F.R. 51.165(a)(2)(i) is untimely and should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Act provides explicit deadlines for challenging EPA rulemakings. A petition for review must be filed within 60 days of publication in the Federal Register, or if the petition is "based solely on grounds arising after such sixtieth day," within 60 days of the alleged after-arising grounds. 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(1) (emphasis added). Sierra Club's argument that the Court has jurisdiction based on after-arising grounds is seriously flawed. Evident on its face, the after-arising grounds exception is much narrower than Sierra Club contends. After-arising grounds may appropriately be found to exist where the petition is based on substantive legal arguments that were unavailable during the initial review period. The arguments in support of the claim Sierra Club seeks to adjudicate here were capable of being raised --and, in fact, were raised --in 1980. Moreover, EPA Region 2's issuance of a permit to Energy Answers under the Act's Prevention of Significant Deterioration program cannot, as a matter of law, provide grounds to challenge 40 C.F.R. 51.165(a)(2)(i), which has no bearing on any term or condition in that permit. Any potentially cognizable after-arising ground arose much earlier --i.e.,years before Sierra Club filed its petition --when Sierra Club learned that Energy Answers'potential to emit lead would not, in the words of the Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA 21 Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00035 USCA Case #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 36 of 71 challenged regulation, be "major for the pollutant for which the [Arecibo] area is designated nonattainment[.]" 40 C.F.R. 51.165(a)(2)(i). If the Court were to consider the merits of Sierra Club's challenge to 40 C.F.R. 51.165(a)(2)(i), despite its petition's jurisdictional flaws, that 35-year old regulation is reasonable and entitled to deference. Under UtilityA ir Regulatory Grp. v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427 (2014), the Act-wide definition of "major stationary source," including its reference to "any air pollutant," must be construed in a manner appropriate to its regulatory context. Here, the applicable context is the Nonattainment New Source Review permit program, and pertinent provisions of the Act, old and new, reflect an association between that permit program and the pollutant or pollutants for which the area is nonattainment. In addition, EPA explained its interpretation, distinguishing that permit program from the Act's Prevention of Significant Deterioration permit program, and pointing to Nonattainment New Source Review programs that can target problematic sources without regard to their "major" status. Thus, because EPA's interpretation of the Act is supported by the Act and reasonably explained, Sierra Club's petition lacks merit. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court conducts a de novo review of standing, Defenders ofWildlife v. Perciasepe, 714 F.3d 1317, 1323 (D.C. Cir. 2013), which Sierra Club bears the burden of demonstrating. See Delta Const. Co. v. EPA, 783 F.3d 1291, 1295 (D.C. Cir. 2015). Another de novo question is the Court's jurisdiction under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, 22 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00036 USCA Case #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 37 of 71 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(1), which Sierra Club must similarly establish. See, e.g., EnvironmentalDefense v. EPA, 467 F.3d 1329,1333-34 (D.C. Cir. 2006). If Sierra Club has standing and properly invokes the Court's jurisdiction, EPA is entitled, on the merits, to a high degree of deference. Under the familiar two-step framework set forth in Chevron U.S.A , Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984), the Court and EPA must adhere to Congress' clearly-stated intent (step one); however, if the Act is silent or ambiguous as to "the precise question at issue," id. at 842, then EPA's interpretation should be upheld so long as it is a reasonable interpretation of the statute (step two). Id. at 843-44. EPA's interpretation need not "represent!] the best interpretation of the statute," only a "reasonable one." Smiley v. Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., 517 U.S. 735, 744-45 (1996). ARGUMENT The Court lacks jurisdiction over Sierra Club's challenge for two reasons. Section I explains that Sierra Club lacks standing because the relief it seeks, vacatur of 40 C.F.R. 51.165(a)(2)(i), would not redress its alleged injury. See infra pp. 24 to 27. Section II explains that Sierra Club filed its petition too late under the mandatory deadlines set forth in 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(1). See infra pp. 27 to 40. And Section III explains that even if jurisdiction exists, Sierra Club's attempt to invalidate a decadesold regulation is without merit. See infra pp. 40 to 53. Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA 23 Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00037 USCA Case #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 38 of 71 I. Sierra Club Lacks Standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. Article III of the U.S. Constitution limits the Court's jurisdiction to cases and controversies, and "[t]his limitation requires a plaintiff to show that it has standing to sue[.]" Teton HistoricAviation Foundation v. U.S. Dept, ofDefense, 785 F.3d 719, 724 (D.C. Cir. 2015). The element of standing lacking here is redressability, defined as "a "substantial likelihood' that the requested relief will remedy the alleged injury in fact." Id. (quoting VermontAgency ofNaturalResources v. U.S. ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765, 771 (2000)). Sierra Club links its alleged injury with Energy Answers' current plan to construct and operate a lead-emitting facility. See Sierra Club Br. 18 ("`Each of the standing declarants has set forth particularized facts demonstrating that the construction of the incinerator affects them personally."). But even if the Court granted the only relief Sierra Club seeks --vacatur of 40 C.F.R. 51.165(a)(2)(i) --it would have no effect on that facility. By its terms, the challenged regulation applies to states and territories regarding the required contents of their SIPs. It does not govern the conduct of Energy Answers or any other source. Sierra Club is therefore mistaken when it assumes that it is the challenged regulation, rather than the Puerto Rico SIP that EPA long ago approved as conforming to that regulation, that Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA 24 Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00038 USCA Case #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 39 of 71 "exempts" the incinerator. Sierra Club Br. 22.11 Because the challenged regulation sets forth no requirements for Energy Answers itself, vacating it would not redress Sierra Club's alleged injury. See Delta Const., 783 F.3d at 1297 (redressability lacking where "a separate action . . . independently causes the same alleged harm as the challenged action"). The challenged regulation mirrors the framework of the Act. The Nonattainment New Source Review provisions of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7501-15, enumerate requirements only for SIPs. For example, section 172(c), 42 U.S.C. 7502(c), begins by stating that "[t]heplanprovisions. . . required to be submitted under this part shall comply with each of the following:. . ." (Emphasis added.) Likewise, section 173(a)(1)(B), 42 U.S.C. 7503(a)(1)(B), provides that "[t]hepermit program required by section [172(c)(5)12] shall provide that permits to construct and operate may be issued if. . . ." (Emphasis added.) In turn, section 172(c)(5), 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(5), states that "[sjuchplanprovisions shall require permits for the construction and operation of new or modified major stationary sources anywhere in the nonattainment area." (Emphasis added.) E11PSAie'rsraapCplruobvadlooesf tnhoetS(IaPn.d cannot here) challenge either the Puerto Rico SIP or t11h27eT2(Ahci)cs(t5.p)r.UoAvnicdsceioorrndthaSecietAurracaltlyCaslrueabfmeBreernn.dc9eedsn.s7ine. c1ti9o9n0,1t7h2e(bc)o(6rr)efcrtocmrotshserepfreer-e1n9c9e0ivs esresciotinono f Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA 25 Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00039 USCA Case #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 40 of 71 In this regard, Nonattainment New Source Review differs from the Prevention of Significant Deterioration permit program. The latter program itself prohibits the construction or modification of a non-conforming source. See, e.g., UARG, 134 S. Ct. at 2435 ("It is unlawful to construct or modify a 'major emitting facility' in 'any area to which [the PSD program] applies'without first obtaining a permit.") (citing 42 U.S.C. 7475(a)(1), 7479(2)(C)); Sierra Club v.Jackson, 648 F.3d 848, 851-52 (D.C. Gr. 2011) (explaining that under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program, a permit applicant may not rely on a SIP that had not yet been amended to conform with the Act's requirements because 42 U.S.C. 7475(a) "forbids the construction of such facilities absent a PSD permit meeting the requirements of the Clean Air Act"). No comparable direct regulation of sources exists under the Act's Nonattainment New Source Review program. Instead, as explained above, stringent air quality controls such as "lowest achievable emission rate," 42 U.S.C. 7503(a)(2), and "offsets," id. 7503(c)(1), are applicable to and enforceable against sources only through SIPs that have been approved by EPA. Thus, even if Sierra Club prevailed and obtained an order directing EPA to replace the challenged regulation with a regulation requiring SIPs to cover more sources, nothing would change with respect to permits issued before the amendment of the SIP, including the permit that Energy Answers has already received from the Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board. See supra p. 19. Although vacating EPA's regulation could eventually lead to a revision in the Puerto Rico SIP to broaden its 26 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00040 USCA Case #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 41 of 71 coverage in the manner preferred by Sierra Club --i.e., to apply lowest achievable emissions rate, offsets, and other requirements associated with Nonattainment New Source Review permits to emissions of any pollutant, whether major or minor, from a new or modified major stationary source --any such revision would have only prospective effect. So long as Energy Answers does not, going forward, alter its plans and trigger Nonattainment New Source review anew --a speculative future event13-- the company is entitled to rely on the permit issued by the Puerto Rico P/nvironmental Quality Board and the determination reflected therein, i.e., that Energy Answers' lead emissions do not require a Nonattainment New Source Review permit under the EPA-approved Puerto Rico SIP then in effect. See GeneralMotors, 496 U.S. at 540-41 ("[T]he approved SIP is the applicable implementation plan during the time a SIP revision proposal is pending.") (citations omitted). Accordingly, because even a decision in Sierra Club's favor would not redress its claimed injury, Sierra Club lacks standing. II. Sierra Club's Petition is Statutorily Time-Barred. Sierra Club fails to establish jurisdiction not only under Article III but also under the Act. "Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act sets a 60-day period for challenges to EPA regulations, with a renewed 60-day period available based on the ao513cm0t4uSitapUtlee.dSoc)u.r.l5iam5ti5vm,ei5nf6ue0ntut(,r1en99oh2ta)rcmo("nidjneojcuetrsuyrnaionltoferaschtatyb.pl.oi.sthihses(ttaiac)nacdlo.i"nn)gc(.rceitSteeaetaiLonnudsjapananrvtd.icDquuelfaoerntiadzteeirdosnoanfmWdair(lkbd)slife, Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA 27 Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00041 USCA Case #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 42 of 71 occurrence of after-arising grounds." Am. 'Road eT Transp. BuildersAss'n v. EPA, 705 F.3d 453, 456 (D.C. Cir. 2013). Outside of those 60-day periods, the Court is "powerless" to address the petition. SeeMed. Waste Inst. <&Energy Recovery Councilv. EPA, 645 F.3d 420, 427 (D.C. Cir. 2011) ("The filing period in the Clean Air Act "is jurisdictional in nature'; if the petitioners have failed to comply with it, [the courts] are powerless to address their claim.") (citation omitted). Here, the flaws in Sierra Club's jurisdictional arguments are many. A. uCnodnegrrethsse iAnctetnbdeesdotuhgahttjpurdoicmiapltlrye.view of regulations promulgated In contrast to Sierra Club's casual treatment of the jurisdictional deadlines set forth in the Act, Congress has made clear --repeatedly --the importance it places on quickly resolving challenges to EPA regulations implementing the Act. As amended in 1970, the Act's judicial review provisions required petitions for review to be brought within 30 days. The purpose of the 30-day limit was "to maintain the integrity of the time sequences provided throughout the Act." S. Rep. No. 1196, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. 41 (1970) ("1970 Senate Report"). The 1970 amendments also provided that a petition for review could be brought after the initial review period if "`based solely on grounds arising after such 30th day." Act of Dec. 31,1970, Pub. L. No. 91-604, 12(a), 84 Stat. 1708. The legislative history indicates that Congress enacted this provision to account for the possibility- that new factual Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA 28 Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00042 USCA Case #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 43 of 71 information would arise suggesting either further regulation is needed or that existing regulations are unnecessary. 1970 Senate Report 41-42. In 1977, Congress amended this provision to its present form. At that time, Congress extended the review period to 60 days and provided that any petition based "solely" on grounds arising after the initial review period must be filed within 60 days of those grounds arising. 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(1). The legislative history emphasized that Congress continued to view this provision as "strictly limit[ing] section 307 challenges to those which are actually filed within that time." I I.R. Rep. No. 294, 95 Cong., 1st Sess. 322 (1977). The House Report further explained: wTgmttshohrhiaeootbeyhuwpeonobuuadntebhntsllyeatijiacnutciratnrtiietihpssisreetoadtaatnisnbeciondcaotliseeefobidlsniytenhbfftaeoowyofrrtpehtechhrirootciehsntmhhecsceuitohdehlua6xgeerl0praltcetitaohroenadpmfgtdeeiaarmotpuyidntpl.iieitedoot.Teanfnelhs6ofui0iatnlsret,edeedxauntyilnhdsasltost,eeossttrehsrhteawahintacaplnowseauttnh6iertio0rticotochdnrhafeteayhaarlspeslecopananefngtaaeelbrsslyis Id, In addition to addressing after-arising grounds while strictly limiting the time to file judicial challenges to regulations and other final agency action, Congress addressed the subject in the context of presenting new information to EPA. Section 307(d)(7)(B), 42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(7)(B), sets forth an exhaustion requirement, i.e., a rule that only reasonably specific objections noted during the public comment period may be raised on judicial review. But with respect to raising alleged after-arising grounds to EPA, Congress provided an exception to that rule: 29 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00043 USCA Ca.se #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 44 of 71 gwttrfItihhruofmooelarteueuhtrnolsweiedduptcsaeptwfohcscoenaiaorfrpvisssmersieodioduemnfcbpeohrooerprajeoasrfutbaienidtsjcodheiiatccnn.eitficgiafooraolnuabfrrlnealedtevhr,eooieettdsbwhoejr)eheauraacflaAtedntieisddrotaehmtnnheisfdeiuicpnnsacpfueionhsrrcrotihmordovadebaoitfdmtjoboieoerrjconepttsncihubhostebeaitneolrlnilsacnwatcaecmivoiostanthemioolviampnfebtrenhclsoneeeeutcnac(eAtatbrhdautpduhlttrmirreowmealciiletnteeivhrmiaeiisonngdtecrrhiteanhtithtstefgootehares 42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(7)(B) (emphasis added). That exception further demonstrates that Congress regarded after-arising grounds as narrow and linked with consequential new information. Also in 1977, Congress amended the Act to establish another consequence for failing to promptly challenge EPA action. Section 307(b)(2) provides that any issue that could have been raised in a petition for review cannot be used as a defense to a civil or criminal enforcement action. 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(2). B. TpehtiistiConoiunrgt hfoarsrreevpieewateodflryeegnufloarticoends.the Act's narrow window for Although the Act does not expressly define "grounds after arising," this Court construes the phrase far more narrowly than Sierra Club does here. In N atlMining Ass'n v. Dep't ofInterior, 70 F.3d 1345 (D.C. Cir. 1995), the Court rejected a claimant's attempt to challenge the validity of an old regulation promulgated under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. Addressing that Act's after-arising grounds provision --which the Court noted is "similar" to section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act --the Court stressed the importance of giving effect to Congress' "careful balance between the need for administrative finality and the need to provide for subsequent 30 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00044 USCA Case #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 45 of 71 review in the event of unexpected difficulties." 70 F.3d at 1350 & 1350 n.2. Moreover, in dismissing the challenge as time-barred, the Court held that "[permitting review of [the] petition based on grounds clearly available within 60 days of the rule's promulgation would thwart Congress'well-laid plan." 70 F.3d at 1350. Because the claimant's argument that the regulation was ultra vires or impermissible under Chevronwas available at the time of promulgation, no after-arising grounds existed. Similarly, in Am. Road, the Court dismissed a belated challenge to an old regulation promulgated under the Clean Air Act. 705 F.3d at 456-58. The Court rejected the petitioner's contention that EPA's recent application of that regulation constituted after-arising grounds, reasoning: "There would be no pressure to challenge regulations within the 60-day period after their promulgation if any petitioner could simply wait to test the substance of those regulations once EPA applies them, for example, in an approval of a state SIP revision --as [the petitioner] has attempted to do here." 705 F.3d at 458. The Court's reasoning encompasses other examples, such as the application of a regulation to a permit proceeding. Any such application would not provide grounds to "test the substance" of that regulation. See infra p. 39 n.18. This Court's decision in Coalition involved the application of the principle, also noted in Am. Road, that "the occurrence of an event that ripens a claim constitutes an after-arising ground." 705 F.3d at 457 (citation omitted); Coalition, 684 F.3d at 129-30 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA 31 Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00045 USCA Case #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 46 of 71 (same). In Coalition, this Court allowed two industrial organizations to challenge old regulations promulgated under the Act's Prevention of Significant Deterioration program where a new regulation --the asserted after-arising ground --had the effect of subjecting those organizations' members, for the first time, to the old regulations' requirements. See 684 F.3d at 130. Before the new regulation existed, the Court reasoned, any alleged injury to those organizations' members from the old regulations was speculative and therefore the new regulation ripened the organizations' claim.14 Here, by contrast, there is no new regulation or other consequential event to ripen any claim (as discussed infra pp. 33 to 34). In a cogent decision issued after Coalition, the Tenth Circuit generally defined an after-arising ground as "a sufficient legalbasis for granting the relief sought." Utah ex rel Utah Dep't ofEnvironmentalQuality, Div. ofAirQuality v. EPA, 750 F.3d 1182, 1184 (10th Cir. 2014) (quoting Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1,16 (1963)) (emphasis EtiitrccasCt1rsnhre4apooaasPogamApnnutdnuuthArcseseenorlettldf,athiouvepa'tt7cesdartuaipr]hoa0sloetpp.dp5ndeedgwree-dreoriFatctecanviehnia.rtimsx3asiefadlioaltiidot-eog"nmstdAnrnhrp4oe-e,aprt7earucidAkl0rrnoigeieeimsrnshfAmik(oioptDaaHenrfanrnnrmkg.oo.ecCeehnagvaglmn.aeaRfirrtyIiedtaCoa,nmeeww"m.ucrij""erea.-nac.laocnlvadhr2Htt.t"fniiesas0csEnoEdrn1ioenfgmnPgP3ouesegeE)ytAArfla.owddfPsp,be'feisTtcanAlg6lhailtraoh,n1sir'tevphsi8itet7cfepirl0phuinieFelcr5pyaongg,oa.avs3adnvFacjnieldeutltea.ttil3rrrlsrdeao1itdatrnoesanihiend(vids,faeDdneiestpAtcdc.lhppt4toCorhairea7iklopp.oetlr3esnupmetgCm.ti"trmrectiaeoaaorriIanne.mpgmnshtrtacr2i.seatihtni0thtrslsmat1oadTasaHl0anfltphttei)rsoEhopnic,gnfsnoaleiuPgiacentrnCeemAnhysvdtcwoaeaoee'Aalsuxntenlrlfovetctrltatal,oteintlppuninAlrigncpdanngterta'rrlthpk,optHtiEiiheloIv-scnomaaPl[aicnlntCptlA.uahe,dayotev'na-a.wsunntersdtltl 32 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00046 USCA Case #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 47 of 71 added). That understanding squares with congressional intent and this Court's precedent, which disfavor a tardy attack on an old regulation based on nothing more than a contention that the old regulation is ultra vires, impermissible under Chevron, or a similar argument available at the time of promulgation. C. USinerdrearCalcuobr'rsepcettriteiaodninisgtoimf teh-ebaArcrteda.nd the Court's precedent, Under a faithful reading of the Act, congressional intent, and precedent, Sierra Club may not raise a facial challenge to 40 C.F.R. 51.165(a)(2)(i) decades after its promulgation based on a statutory construction argument that was available in 1980 and, in fact, is similar to an argument raised by a commenter during the rulemaking process. See supra pp. 9-10. Moreover, it is irrelevant under 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(1) whether every single one of the petitioning organizations existed at the time of the old regulation's promulgation or whether any of the petitioning organizations has acquired new members since the old regulation's promulgation. Rather, it is the general availability of the current argument at the time of the old regulation that matters in determining whether an alleged after-arising ground is cognizable. As in Nat'lMining, "[permitting review of [the] petition based on grounds clearly available within 60 days of the rule's promulgation would thwart Congress'well-laid plan." 70 F.3d at 1350. Coalition, at bottom, involved suigeneris after-arising grounds that are not present here. Those petitioners challenged old regulations that, for the first time, had far broader effect due to a new regulation. Indeed, Sierra Club acknowledges that the Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA 33 Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00047 USCA Case #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 48 of 71 new regulation at issue in Coalition (i.e., the after-arising ground there) brought about a "transformation of [the Prevention of Significant Deterioration] programf.]" Sierra Club Br. 43.15 Here, in contrast to the petitioners in Coalition, Sierra Club does not point to any new action by EPA that changed anything about, or had any bearing on, the scope of 40 C.F.R. 51.165(a)(2)(i). The only new action Sierra Club cites, the Prevention of Significant Deterioration permit, had no impact --much less a transformative effect --on the challenged regulation (as discussed further in the section below). D. pErveecneduenndte,rSaierbrraoaCdleurbr'seacdhianlglenogf ethies Auncttiamnedlyt.he Court's Even under a broader reading of the Act and Coalition, Sierra Club's attempt to establish jurisdiction fails. Sierra Club concedes, as it must, that it did not file a petition for review of the challenged regulation promptly after notice of its promulgation appeared in the Federal Register in 1980. See Sierra Club Br. 19. But Sierra Club argues that "the grounds for [its] challenge arose on May 19, 2014[,]" when "EPA published the notice of the final permit in the Federal Register, for the construction and operation of an incinerator by Energy Answers under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program." Sierra Club Br. 19 (citing 79 Fed. Reg. 28,710, 28,712 (May 19, 2014) (JA 120,122)). See also, e.g., Sierra Club Br. 25 Ar15eisrpBReuectgtuStloaietorsrrt}aa!tCGutrlouorubypisc(toihnnecsotcrraurpcettciiotontnhoaaftndtshueCchhceatvsrraeonnw.sfhSoeernemiinatftrriaeoanpcphd.eis4dc1ot-h4ue4n.tSsutphreemimepCorotuortf) Uwtiitlhity Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA 34 Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00048 USCA Case #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 49 of 71 (Sierra Club's assertion that its "legal challenge became ripe when EPA granted Energy Answers a permit to construct and operate an incinerator"). Sierra Club is wrong. That alleged after-arising ground, as a matter of law, bears no relation to Sierra Club's merits claim. Sierra Club does not challenge, and seeks no reliefwhatsoever regarding, Energy Answers'Prevention of Significant Deterioration permit. See, e.g, Sierra Club Br. 25 ("The issue in this case is the validity of an EPA rule . . . ."); id. at 60 ("The Court should vacate the rule."). Nor could Sierra Club challenge that permit here; any such challenge can only be heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which encompasses Puerto Rico. See supra 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(1) (providing that petitions for review of "locally or regionally applicable" final EPA actions "may be filed onlyin the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit") (emphasis added).16 Moreover, the permit was issued under the Act's Prevention of Significant Deterioration program, whereas the regulation Sierra Club seeks to invalidate governs SIP requirements under the "separate" Nonattainment New Source Review program. Handbook 4:1. The challenged regulation does not inform any term or condition of tSooc1w6hnvieaoleSryl)rrliaeeaPpnraCulrgoraeletcursCatbtohloluhemfRbaSPasimcitretsoeeriiv.snrr"acecthnehCSataiailroetuabrnbbcart'aenesoldroCfpionzelSnuegtiibesgstdinEBioinafnPri.ntcAhfy2aoe'8ncsr.thCmrDaeTilrvoelhceittueaineowitrgtniae,oCrwtrtgooaohuutdiimtrochitshneeomndppftioeseAaserrpmmpsap,psiileotti..heanadlSsvietoihsennasfglvuayicpanterroagg, upptjhue.uderr1ips9tfdhoirniarsc.ttt1tti0"(ooot.nhfis is Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA 35 Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00049 USCA Case #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 50 of 71 the Prevention of Significant Deterioration permit, and the permit is not governed by the challenged regulation. Further, the pollutant of concern to Sierra Club here, lead, is not regulated by the Prevention of Significant Deterioration permit because Energy Answers'incinerator is located in a lead nonattainment area. See supra pp. 14-19. Notwithstanding the separate nature of the Nonattainment New Source Review program and the challenged regulation (on the one hand) and the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program and permit (on the other), Sierra Club, armed with declarations from its members, argues that their challenge to the regulation has factually "ripened because the permit creates a 'substantial probability' of injury to them." Sierra Club Br. 21 (quoting Coalition, 684 F.3d at 131). But the record shows that any substantial probability of injury to Sierra Club's members from "lead emissions from the incinerator" occurred well before the Prevention of Significant Deterioration permit. Sierra Club Br. 17.17 By late 2011, the relevant portion of Arecibo had been designated a lead nonattainment area. See 76 Fed. Reg. 72,097 (Nov. 22, 2011) (JA 117). A ll declarants admit that, by that time, they had learned of E-nergy Answers'plans and permit applications to construct and operate a pollutant-emitting facility. See Decl. of Luisa Margarita Aguila Nieves at 5-6; Decl. of Rafael Bey Nazario at 5-6; Decl. of Dac17lhleaetTlgeloaeritnoitgohrenaesttiehoaxarnteteppnireetrrretmmhleaiivttt.arSneigteutrorlaaitteCsslcuplbaoilamllul.etagEnetsnseinrogjtuhyreyAr fntrhsowamnerlpseo'aldPl,ureatavnnedtnsStioioetnrhreaorfCtShluiagbnndilfeoiacedas,nntthootse Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA 36 Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00050 USCA Ca.se #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 51 of 71 Wilfredo Vlez Hernandez at 115-6; Decl. ofJessica Seiglie Quiones at 5-6; and Decl. ofJavier Biaggi Caballero at 6-7. Further, by at least May 2012, Sierra Club had learned that the facility would emit lead and that such pollutant would notbe addressed in any Prevention of Significant Deterioration permit. By then, not only had there been a nonattainment area designation impacting the location of Energy Answers'incinerator, but EPA Region 2 had transmitted key information to Sierra Club, including a fact sheet and public notice. See EPA Region 2 Letter to Sierra Club de Puerto Rico and enclosed public notice and fact sheet (JA 170-171, 165-167,176-199); supra pp. 16-17. The fact sheet explained, in no uncertain terms, that lead ("Pb") would not be addressed in the Prevention of Significant Deterioration permit. Fact Sheet at 3,13 n.l, 18 (JA 178,188,193). The public notice provided similar information; it listed the pollutants subject to Prevention of Significant Deterioration review, omitted lead from that list, and stated that "[a] separate permit is being issued by the Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board, to address the other pollutants emitted by this project." Public Notice at 2 (JA 166). EPA Region 2's public notice also noted the availability of the administrative record. See Public Notice at 3 (JA 167). That record included Energy Answers' permit application --the same application from which Sierra Club cites and quotes in its brief. See Sierra Club Br. 3 ("Energy Answers lists potential lead emissions as 0.31 tons/year[.]") (citing Application at 3-4, Table 3-1 (JA 130)). Thus, by May 37 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00051 USCA Case #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 52 of 71 2012, Sierra Club had access to even more detailed information about projected emissions of lead (and other pollutants) from the incinerator. That EPA later (i.e., long after May 2012) issued a final Prevention of Significant Deterioration permit is of no moment. As previously explained, the challenged regulation and the permit are independent of one another; with or without the challenged regulation, not a single term or condition of that permit would be different. Furthermore, Sierra Club confuses after-arising grounds with final agency action. See Sierra Club Br. 24 ("If EPA is suggesting that a simple notice of public comment period can trigger the 60-day time period, such a change in the law would increase litigation by forcing petitioners to bring pre-emptive legal actions, just to be safe."). Under the Act, EPA action must be "final" to be reviewable. 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(1); In re: Murray Energy Corp., 788 F.3d 330, 334 (D.C. Cir. 2015) ("We may review final agency rules . . . . But we do not have the authority to review proposed rules.") (citations omitted). But the Act does not provide that only final agency action may constitute an after-arising ground. See 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(1). After-arising grounds may, but need not, be final agency action. In addition, after May 2012, nothing new that was pertinent to the challenged regulation surfaced. After that date, Sierra Club or its members raised comments to EPA Region 2 about lead and also argued to the Environmental Appeals Board that the regulation was inconsistent with the Act. See supra pp. 17-18. Those comments 38 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00052 USCA Case #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 53 of 71 and arguments were as irrelevant as they were out of place. Neither EPA Region 2 nor any other regional office has a delegation from the Administrator to revise a regulation of nationwide applicability. 42 U.S.C. 7601(a)(1). Likewise, the Environmental Appeals Board may exercise only the authority expressly delegated to it by regulation or provide assistance specifically requested by the Administrator. 40 C.F.R. 1.25(e)(2). No regulation grants the Environmental Appeals Board the authority to promulgate or revise regulations promulgated under the Nonattainment New Source Review program. See 57 Fed. Reg. 5,320, 5,320-21 (Feb. 13, 1992) (listing matters the Board was empowered to consider at its inception). Further, "[a]s [the Environmental Appeals Board] ha[s] repeatedly stated, permit appeals are not appropriate fora for challenging Agency regulations." In re Tondu Energy Co., 9 E.A.D. 710,715-16 (2001).18 tpprcrs1h8eetoreaglaornatNutivestoliwimtaoodditthnneeiuooisentlthfneethosi.jep"aufffadSsrtbtneihooeceerolmiate-aawsgallebsreEeorianeesePscsivnviAnuyseipgetnmhrfwRtagoesae,rrp"yogcm.rhuiteroh3aaneo1nteledptl.exes2emrnansbomgeiernerficeodgntahr,e"ur"epresieg7tueEss0urpntp5rlhoaevoetgnFisiyrusoe.o3elsndnadottomaoiaonfntenadaon4sfpttE5taeae7anlrntl.-eitAdtaeriUrgrpotihypstnnhieeednAerarege'lnrsssbgsctycwBrohoopieoemnueraisnstrmao'iddamrfsetar.eneeectfgiAarsfleaiemntcarcyedast.woidnonRnongfoi6onnat0tthghdo-a,dethtaeyld iESa(salinls)euvrrBEeariaPrlnueoctACvneealmvuRnoebtefen'ngrasetiinaposfplenianetAni2ictytpt'iissoapo.lnAefPapwtlrhsreoiovlBuse2leodn0ate1risv3odtien'lrsnletobMssefpacSotroinicmugshlneedi2-ftb0mioca1aarc4nrtoettdemdDer.cmfeioItseetirnorwptinsoua;rusrap(pnbtohi)oosoEtenlsdfPpiilAoneerfgdmRawtfeihttigee;tihrooi-inarnnirt(i2i6csa')0ilsntJpdghuaeegnyrrmseooiu2tfn0:i1dn3s, Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA 39 Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00053 USCA Case #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 54 of 71 The bottom line is that the record does not support Sierra Club's assertion that "[t]he problem with the EPA rule in the specific context of the Arecibo nonattainment area did not come to light until recently." Sierra Club Br. 25 (emphasis added). The record instead establishes that, by May 2012, Sierra Club was aware that Energy Answers' potential to emit lead would not make it, in the words of the challenged regulation, "major for the pollutant for which the area [encompassing Energy Answers' facility] is designated nonattainment.'' 40 C.F.R. 51.165(a)(2)(i). Instead of petitioning this Court inJuly 2012 --i.e., within 60 days of when Sierra Club faced any substantial probability of injury from 40 C.F.R. 51.165(a)(2)(i) -- Sierra Club waited to do so until July 2014. Although this filing date fell within 60 days of the Federal Register notice of the final Prevention of Significant Deterioration permit, it was more than twoyears after pertinent facts and any alleged injury "c[a]me to light" regarding the facility's potential to emit lead. Thus, even under a broad interpretation of what may plausibly constitute an after-arising ground under the Act and precedent, Sierra Club's petition is time-barred. III. IRf tehaesoCnoaubrlet RaneadcFhaelslsthweitMhienritthse, tBheouCnhdaslloefnEgePdAR'seSgtualtauttioornyiAs uthority. The challenged 35-year old regulation reflects EPA's interpretation of the Act in the context of the Nonattainment New Source Review permit program. That longstanding regulation is reasonable and entitled to deference under Chevron --even if Sierra Club properly invokes the Court's jurisdiction to review it. The principal Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA 40 Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00054 USCA Case #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 55 of 71 question is whether EPA acted reasonably and thus "stayed within the bounds of its statutory authority." Arlington v. FCC, 133 S. Ct. 1863, 1868 (2013). The challenged regulation falls well within those bounds. A. TpohleluStaunptr"emmeusCtobuertinhtaesrpmraetdeedcilneaitrstrheagtutlhaetoprhyrcaosnet"exant.y air As an initial matter, the Supreme Court's recent decision in UARG is highly pertinent to the Chevron question presented here. There, the Court examined EPA's interpretation of the phrase "any air pollutant" in the context of preconstruction permitting of greenhouse gas emissions under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program. See 42 U.S.C. 7479(1) (defining, for purposes of that program, "major emitting facility" to include "stationary sources of air pollutants which emit, or have the potential to emit, one hundred tons per year or more of any airpollutant'} (emphasis added). The challenged regulation here similarly involves EPA's interpretation of the phrase "any air pollutant" in the context of preconstruction permitting of pollutants for which an area is designated nonattainment. See 42 U.S.C. 76020 (defining, for purposes of the entire Act, "major stationary source" to include "any stationary . . . source of air pollutants which directly emits, or has the potential to emit, one hundred tons per year or more of any airpollutanf) (emphasis added). In UARG, the Court acknowledged the very regulation at issue here, 40 C.F.R. 51.165(a)(2)(i), explaining: "The Act requires a permit for the construction or Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA 41 Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00055 USCA Case #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 56 of 71 operation in a nonattainment area of a source with the potential to emit 100 tons per year of 'any air pollutant.' [42 U.S.C.] 7502(c)(5), 76020. EPA interprets that provision as limited to pollutantsfor which the area is designatednonattainment. 45 Fed. Reg. 52745 (1980) [([A 56)], promulgating 40 C.F.R. 51.180(2), as amended, 51.165(a)(2)." 134 S. Ct. at 2440 (emphasis by the Court). The Court then characterized that regulation as a "longstanding" example of EPA's ordinary practice of "inferring] from statutory context that a generic reference to air pollutants does not encompass every substance falling within the Act-wide definition." UARG, 134 S. Ct. at 2440 & 2442 n.6. Moreover, in light of EPA's ordinary practice as reflected in the challenged regulation (and elsewhere), UARG rejected the argument --very similar to that advanced by Sierra Club here --that the statutory phrase "any air pollutant" means the same thing each time it appears in the Act. The specific question presented in UARG was whether emissions of greenhouse gases, by themselves, can trigger the need for either a Prevention of Significant Deterioration permit or an operating permit under Title V of the Act. EPA had concluded that they can, an argument that the Court summarized as follows: "Under Massachusetts \v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007)], the general, Act-wide definition of 'air pollutant' includes greenhouse gases; the Act requires permits for major emitters of 'any air pollutant'; therefore, the Act requires permits for major emitters of greenhouse gases." UARG, 134 S. Ct. at 2439. The Supreme Court rejected that argument as too categorical --and instead concluded that EPA should have followed 42 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00056 USCA Case #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 57 of 71 its ordinary practice of construing "any air pollutant" in a manner appropriate to its specific statutory context. Id. at 2439-40. The Court acknowledged that "[i]n Massachusetts, [it] held that the Act-wide definition includes greenhouse gases because it is all-encompassing; it "embraces all airborne compounds of whatever stripe.'" UARG, 134 S. Ct. at 2439 (quoting Massachusetts, 549 U.S. at 529). The Court also noted that "`Congress's profligate use of "air pollutant'where what is meant is obviously narrower than the Act-wide definition is not conducive to clarity." UARG, 134 S. Ct. at 2441. But the Court held that, consistent with Massachusetts, EPA must "use . . . statutory context to infer that certain of the Act's provisions use "air pollutant' to denote not every conceivable airborne substance, but only those that may sensibly be encompassed within the particular regulatory program." UARG, 134 S. Ct at 2441. The Court found controlling the "fundamental canon of statutory construction that the words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme." Id. (citations omitted). In short, UARG establishes that the meaning of "any air pollutant," as that phrase appears within the Clean Air Act, depends upon its regulatory context. Sierra Club, by contrast, urges this Court to hold that the Act requires EPA notto consider context. Thus, the premise of Sierra Club's Chevron step one argument --that the Act leaves EPA without authority to apply anything but the broadest construction of that statutory phrase --is without merit. See UARG, 134 S. Ct. at 2439 ("Under Chevron, 43 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00057 USCA Case #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 58 of 71 we presume that when an agency-administered statute is ambiguous with respect to what it prescribes, Congress has empowered the agency to resolve the ambiguity."). B. TunhdeecrhCalhleevnrgoendsrteegputlwatoi.on is reasonable and entitled to deference EPA's interpretation of sections 172(c)(5) and 3020 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(5) and 76020, as reflected in the longstanding challenged regulation, 40 C.F.R. 51.165(a)(2)(i), is reasonable and must be upheld under Chevron step two. The Act-wide definition of "major stationary source" includes "any stationary facility or source of air pollutants which directly emits, or has the potential to emit, one hundred tons per year or more of any air pollutantf.]" 42 U.S.C. 76020. Under UARG, that definition must be given a meaning appropriate to the particular regulatory context in which it is used. See supra pp. 41-43. The context of the challenged regulation is the Nonattainment New Source Review program and, more specifically, its requirement that SIPs "require permits for the construction and operation of new or modified major stationary sources anywhere in the nonattainment area[.]" 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(5). See also 42 U.S.C. 7503 (setting forth the requirements for Nonattainment New Source Review permit programs). EPA gave effect to that context in interpreting the scope of the Nonattainment New Source Review permit program, i.e., that it applies to "any new major stationary source or major modification that is major for the pollutant for which the area is designated nonattainment.'' 40 C.F.R. 51.165(a)(2)(i). Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA 44 Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00058 USCA Case #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 59 of 71 1. EPA reasonably construed Congress' intent. In promulgating the challenged regulation, EPA construed and sought to effectuate Congress' intent as gleaned from: "the [New Source Review] requirements of section 173," 42 U.S.C. 7503 (1982); the "offset ruling," 41 Fed. Reg. 55,524 (Dec. 21,1976) (JA 26), which Congress endorsed and codified, 91 Stat. 745; and the so-called "construction moratorium," 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(I), 7502(a)(1) (1982). 44 Fed. Reg. at 51,940-41 (JA 47-48). In doing so, EPA "stayed within the bounds of its statutory authority." Arlington, 133 S. Ct. at 1868. In the late 1970s, many areas of the country were not attaining national ambient air quality standards, and Congress took sweeping measures to halt pollution increases until states and territories assumed their primary responsibility for controlling air pollution by adopting implementation plans to provide for attainment. See Chevron, 467 U.S. at 848-49; New EnglandLegalFoundation v. Costle, 475 F. Supp. 425, 428 (D. Conn. 1979). Those measures included the "construction moratorium," which provided that "no majorstationary source shall be constructed or modified in any nonattainment area . . . if the emissions from suchfacility will cause or contribute to concentrations of anypollutantfor which a nationalambient airquality standardis exceededin such area," unless states and territories produce compliant Nonattainment New Source Review permit programs "as ofthe time ofapplicationforapermitfor such construction or modification^" 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(I) (1982) (emphasis added). As is evident, Congress associated the construction moratorium with new or modified major 45 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00059 USCA Case #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 80 of 71 stationary sources, their permitting, and the particular pollutant or pollutants whose standards were not being met in their location (i.e., the basis for designation of the area as nonattainment). The plain text of the construction moratorium links the phase "major stationr}- source" (referenced at the beginning of the provision) with the phrase "concentrations of any pollutant for which a national ambient air quality standard is exceeded" (referenced toward the end of the provision) with a connecting clause: "if the emissions from suchfacilitywill. . . contribute to." 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(I) (1982) (emphasis added). By using the phrase "such facility," Congress intended to qualify "major stationary source" for purposes of the construction moratorium. In addition, the plain text shows that Congress associated the construction moratorium with the Nonattainment New Source Review permit program. The construction moratorium expressly states, at its ending, that the ban applies "unless, as of the time of application for a permit for such construction or modification, such plan meets the requirements of part D (relating to nonattainment areas)[.]" 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(I) (1982). Thus, EPA reasonably interpreted the Act to require Nonattainment New Source Review permit programs to carry the same "major Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA 46 Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00060 USCA Case #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 81 of 71 stationary source" coverage and the same focus on pollutants for which the area is nonattainment as EPA reasonably interpreted the construction moratorium to carry.19 The challenged regulation is also supported by EPA's "offset ruling," 41 Fed. Reg. 55,524 (Dec. 21, 1976) (JA 26); supra pp. 8-9, a key action that aligned with Congress' intent that "major" refer to a pollutant for which a national ambient air quality standard is exceeded. In that action, taken just before the 1977 amendments to the Act --which codified the offset ruling and included the construction moratorium --E-PA stated that air quality analyses and action were required "if the [new] source will cause or exacerbate a violation of [national ambient air quality standards]" and, moreover, "only for those pollutants causing the proposed source to be defined as a 'major' source[.]" 41 Fed. Reg. at 55,528 & n.2 (]A 28). Given the widespread air pollution at the time, E-PA explained that it would not be effective to focus limited resources on "smaller air pollution sources [that] may individually have an insignificant impact on air quality." Id. at 55,525 (JA 27). gmmpdacs1s9utgioeeaveocefrntSeaemrnhucsnaricteeeitifeynntnoranrocgtrpictarsioi;reauleoCia,itmtfrnigmywfleouer"sSnbahibcosiomsiit,legcavrtraou.hsoerttsofaoreFlttuneehhCruisoqtateeslrssunwuttacthiat,bhrimeoette'atxahsnrmabtt,csviuirottnbgSieahreuuimiuslegweripcartuteeycsrtsioniaco.tso"tuttonoaCnspctspolUoit"mapuarplnlwbutAloiirdu'ceoeRhrstdtnasaaaiGcutomnttwooomn,tirnesti1ietmn"t[uph3e.aa]mtrn"4onbhettrhyl'saSiaseScoet.tsriqnotwoCeNioubrruithiaroes.rEualescnaicmPn,feCatoysACt2alnit"untn4aot'chbsgri3nlanaae9cgBcrgatmo.yrlreracen[.enuTtlsosyon5cssnth]e7try"tpheu.-rN"raaciccibesBdtenaoimuwmrcoeunrtimniteisipseSn.dtsslpdrioeuiusootsuctaocwnerhotcdrsieefeorirfdefnCerRfaodehdermeivtevnhringeoetnw Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA 47 Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00061 USCA Case #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 82 of 71 Other provisions of the Nonattainment New Source Review program, both then and now, share a common thread: the Act's programs for nonattainment areas focus on reducing emissions of the pollutant or pollutants for which the area is designated nonattainment. In the 1977 Amendments, Congress specified that SIPs, with respect to nonattainment areas, were to "require permits for the construction and operation of new or modified major stationary sources[.]" 42 U.S.C. 7502(b)(6) (1982). Congress defined a nonattainment area "for any air pollutant" as "an area which is shown by monitored data or which is calculated by air quality modeling . . . to exceed any national ambient air quality standard for such pollutant[.]" 42 U.S.C. 7501(2) (1982). The construction moratorium used similar language when referring to nonattainment areas as places where "a national ambient air quality standard is exceeded." 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(I) (1982). Current section 172(c)(3), similar to former section 172(b), requires states and territories to provide an inventor}- of emissions from "sources of the relevantpollutant or pollutants" in nonattainment areas. 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(3) (emphasis added); see also 42 U.S.C. 7502(b)(4) (1982) (requiring "plan provisions" to include an inventory of "sources . . . of each such pollutant for each such area"). In addition, section 172(c)(4) of the Act requires states and territories to "quantify the emissions, if any, of any such pollutant or pollutants which will be allowed, in accordance with section 7503(a)(1)(B) [], from the construction and operation of major new or modified stationr}- sources in each such area." 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(4). 48 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00062 USCA Case #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 83 of 71 Section 173(a)(1)(B), 42 U.S.C. 7503(a)(1)(B), in turn, requires states and territories to have a Nonattainment New Source Review permit program that provides that, if a new or modified major stationary source proposes to locate in an economic development zone within a nonattainment area, any permit must assure that "emissions of suchpollutant resulting from the proposed new or modified major stationr}- source will not cause or contribute to emissions levels which exceed the allowance permitted for such pollutant for such areaj.]" (Emphasis added.) Similarly, former section 172(b)(5), required the quantification of emissions "of any such pollutant which will be allowed to result from the construction and operation of major new or modified stationary sources for each such area." 42 U.S.C. 7502(b)(5) (1982) (emphasis added). The challenged regulation reflects this common thread by focusing on the pollutant for which the area is designated nonattainment and is thus tethered to the Act. 2. EPA reasonably explained its interpretation. EPA offered a reasonable explanation in support of the challenged regulation. As explained supra pp. 7-9, EPA's September 1979 proposal specifically invoked the Nonattainment New Source Review program, the offset ruling, and the construction moratorium as pertinent to interpreting the Act-wide definition of "major stationary source" in nonattainment areas. See 44 Fed. Reg. 51,940-41 (JA 47-48). Although commenters attempted to convince EPA that the proposal either regulated too much 49 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00063 USCA Case #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 84 of 71 or too little, EPA finalized its proposal in May 1980. See supra pp. 9-10 (discussing comments at JA 1-18). "Simplicity" was not the rationale for EPA's interpretation, as Sierra Club asserts (Sierra Club Br. 52). In finalizing its proposal in May 1980, EPA explained that "[a] source may emit many different pollutants" and that "an area may be designated attainment for certain criteria pollutants and nonattainment for other criteria pollutants." 45 Fed. Reg. at 31,309 n.3 (JA 21).20 EPA elaborated on its reasoning shortly thereafter, in August 1980. See 45 Fed. Reg. at 52,711 (JA 53). EPA explained that the construction moratorium is unique to the Nonattainment New Source Review provisions of the Act, and that no similar statutory text could be found in the Prevention of Significant Deterioration provisions of the Act. Id. (JA 53). EPA emphasized that the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program specifically provides for broader pollutant applicability. "Section 165(a)," EPA explained, "subjects a source to review for all regulated pollutants it emits once it is subject to review for one pollutant[.]" 45 Fed. Reg. at 52,711 (JA 53).21 22EPprSa(10ertrooPetgowauTjACugeierhlnrcrcoaahetmeCntimiantoooRerdg..nnanevruslEtvA.yysoiPpCeenrtrrAdwooedou.sf'mteSnpnslerScirou,peeeotln6errahggric3soiairades6nart.iC;egmftFiiodsnlai.uu2btniup"benldrnser'tasihptdm3haarpce2reept.ore3tlandmia1tcs(hett1iDieatc.eotynnoi.n-sCAtn"iir.eoooceErnntCfa'P,usciPsrrhAEuP.SgpPrDc1emepeAd9vro7aate'br9sdasnty)iesar,ntaiSpwreotsepiixneohoglpryuinaroacirarannhfcdlgCdeeeSrsidlbeidnugsieigbannody.iltsofnvnhhinSoeceooedadnterNna,ttrcthhteeohtD.aleagnayn.ile,abnldotteiomdetnnpar.rgdeiihAanoenertlsmrarat3assbta6teeoairo8noemtftanhasNa)t;Ce4wo0nt. 50 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00064 USCA Case #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 85 of 71 That distinction was as correct then as it is today. Section 165(a)(4) of the Act provides that "[n]o major emitting facility . . . may be constructed in any area to which this part [i.e., part C, the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program] applies unless . . . the proposed facility is subject to the best available control technology for each pollutant subject to regulation under this chapter emitted from, or which results from, such facility." 42 U.S.C. 7475(a)(4). See also 42 U.S.C. 7475(a)(4) (1982) (same). No similar scheme exists within the Nonattainment New Source Review provisions of the Act. The Prevention of Significant Deterioration requirement for best available control technology applies "in any area to which this part [PSD] applies," 42 U.S.C. 7475(a), but the requirement for lowest achievable emissions rate applies only in "an area which is designated 'nonattainment'with respect to that pollutant." Id. 7501(2). Further, a covered source in an attainment or uncassifiable area must have the best available control technology for any "pollutant subject to regulation under this chapter," 42 U.S.C. 7475(a), whereas the Nonattainment New Source Review provisions of the Act provide that an EPA-approved SIP "shall require permits for the construction and operation of new or modified major stationary sources anywhere in the nonattainment area." Id. 7502(c)(5). See also id. uCn.Fc.Ras.sifi5a2b.l2e1a(ri)e(a2s)).(EPA's current interpretation of PSD as applying to attainment or Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA 51 Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00065 USCA Case #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 86 of 71 7502(c)(6) (requiring additional control measures as necessary to provide for "attainment of such standard in such area"). Moreover, EPA addressed the suggestion of under-regulation of minor sources in nonattainment areas. Specifically, EPA noted: "sources emitting the nonattainment pollutants in minor amounts are subject to the general [New Source Review] contained in SIPs, and the impacts of such sources are accounted for in demonstrations of reasonable further progress and within the growth allowance provisions of the SIP." 45 Fed. Reg. at 52,713 (JA 55). In other words, EPA's interpretation, embodied at 40 C.F.R. 51.165(a)(2)(i), implements only "sections 172(c)(5) and 173 of the Act," 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(5), 7503, which, in turn, reference the "permit requirement" of the Nonattainment New Source Review program. To alleviate pollution, states and territories may well have to propose and seek EPA's approval to control emissions from minor sources as part of their obligation to make "reasonable further progress" toward attainment. 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(2); see also id. at 7501(1) (defining "reasonable further progress" as "such annual incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required by this part or may reasonably be required by the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable national ambient air quality standard by the applicable date"); id. at 7503(a)(1)(A)(addressing reductions in allowable emissions "from new or modified sources which are not major emitting facilities" by allowing their use to meet offset requirements). Indeed, here, following the designation of an area within Arecibo as 52 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00066 USCA Case #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 87 of 71 nonattainment for lead, 76 Fed. Reg. 72,097 (Nov. 22, 2011) (JA 117), Puerto Rico has proposed, for EPA Region 2's review and approval, extra-permit measures targeted at the real cause of the nonattainment problem: the Battery Recycling Facility. SeeEPA Region 2 Fitter of Apr. 24, 2015 to Petitioner Madres de Negro de Arecibo (JA 359); supra pp. 13-14. Accordingly, the challenged regulation is supported by the Act and reasonably explained. As such, it is valid and permissible under Chevron step two. Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA 53 Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00067 USCA Case #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 88 of 71 CONCLUSION The motion to dismiss should be granted and the petition for review should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In the alternative, the petition should be denied on the merits. Respectfully submitted, EDBOLRAfOWCLIVAfoafIiuIOscNDnhesTineoDCTlgf:tOGOoZneSU,nETeDRNrEaSCIRlECCNoKunsel, EPA JONSOEeffwiPceHYoofSrRkIe,EgNiGonYEaLlCounsel, EPA Region 2 JOAHsNsistCa.nGt ARttUorDneEyNGeneral / SAAEPa/UW(2nntn.t.AOda0Sdvors2i..rrNehr)enwoBDinwDe5n.ogeyd1mJRptxo4o.aeyEn-7lDrn4e,6tWt@mo41Day21eunl.J7neCsd.td.NooDjfa.2OgJt0uouY0svrt4iaLc4leEResources Div. A90u-5g-u2s-t3-2280,1290415 / Response Brief Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA 54 Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00068 USCA Case #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 89 of 71 FEDERCAELRRTUIFLIECAOTFEAOPFPECLOLMAPTLEIAPRNOCECEWDIUTRHE 32(A) I hereby certify that this brief complies with the requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5) and (6) because it has been prepared in 14-point Garamond, a proportionally spaced font. I further certify that this brief complies with the type-volume limitation of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B) because it contains 13,510 words, excluding the parts of the brief exempted under Rule 32(a)(7)(B)(iii), according to the count of Microsoft Word. / s/Andrew J. Doyle Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA l Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00069 USCA Case #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 70 of 71 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on August 28, 2015,1electronically filed the foregoing brief and statutory and regulator}- addendum with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF system. The participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and service will be accomplished by the appellate CM/ECF system. In addition, on the same date, pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 31, two copies of the foregoing brief and statutory and regulatory addendum were served via first class U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on each of the following counsel of record for Petitioners and Intervenor, respectively: WC8(71h1i6lr6l3ii)satOm6o3aps6vkh-ie4lLlr8ee3,Da0Nf. LYAahnl1ee4r2s21 BBP1(27har13eil5lln5aa)ddrMd6ae6nlaSp5rphK-k8aie.ah5t,C0rSP0oLtAlrLleinPe1st,95110s3t-7F5lo99or / s/Andrew J. Doyle Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA n Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00070 USCA Ca.se #14-1138 Document #1570184 Filed: 08/28/2015 Page 71 of 71 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY ADDENDUM (separately filed and bound due to its length) Table of Contents Clean Air Act provisions (current or 1982 U.S. Code as noted) Subchapter I - Programs and Activities Part A. - Air Quality and Emissions Limitations Section 107, 42 U.S.C. 7407 A1 Section 110(a)(2)(I), 42 U.S. 7410(a)(2)(I) (1982) A9 Part C - Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality Section 165, 42 U.S.C. 7475 Al 1 Section 169, 42 U.S.C. 7479 A19 Part D - Plan Requirements for Nonattainment Areas Sections 171-73, 42 U.S.C. 7501-03 A24 Subchapter III - General Provisions Section 301, 42 U.S.C. 7601 A33 Section 302, 42 U.S.C. 7602 A37 Section 307, 42 U.S.C. 7607 A41 Challenged Regulation 40 C.F.R. 51.165(a)(2)(i) (2013) A50 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA ill Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00162550-00071