FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 6, 2013 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 8- 16 96 1

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Age nc y No. 4 0 C FR PART 5 2 ALABAMA ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL, SIERRA CLUB, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, OUR CHILDREN’S E ARTH FOUNDATION, Pet it io ne rs , ve rs us ADMINISTRATOR, UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, UNITED STAT ES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AG ENCY, Res po nd en ts , ALABAMA POW ER COMPANY, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, In te rv en or s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 11 54 9

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. 4 0 C FR Part 5 2ALABAMA POW ER COMPANY, Peti ti on er,
ve rs us UNITED STAT ES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AG ENCY, ADMINISTRATOR, UNITED STAT ES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AG ENCY, Res po nd en ts , ALABAMA ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL, OUR CHILDREN’S E ARTH FOUNDATION, SIERRA CLUB, In te rv en or s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io ns forRev ie w of Fi na l Act io n of th e Uni te d S ta te s En vi ro nm en ta l Pr ot ect io n Ag en cy

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Ma rch 6, 2 01 3) Befo re TJ OFLAT andBLACK, Cir cu itJu dg es , andMOLLOY, Dis tri ctJu dg e. * BLACK, Ci rcu itJu dg e:

Honora ble Donald W. Molloy , United States District J udg e for the District of Montana , * sitti ngby designation. 2The se co ns ol id at edap pe al s fo cu s o n aCle an Air Act vi si bl e em is si on s 1 reg ul at io n p ro m

ul ga te d b y

th e St at e o f Alaba m a an d s ub m it te d t o t he Uni te d St at es Env iro nm en ta l Pr ot ect io n Ag en cy (EPA) as a rev is io n t o Al ab am a’s St at e Im pl em en ta ti on Pla n (S IP). In 20 08 , th e EPA ap pr ov edth e rev is io n a fte r
co nc lu di ng th e p ro po se d re gu la ti on sat is fie d t he Cle an Air Act ’s requi rem en ts (2 00 8 app ro va l). Th e EPA de ni eda ti m el y reque stin20 09 th atitreco ns id er i ts ap pr ov al , bu t, wh en co nf ro nt edwit h asec on d re co ns id erat io n re qu es t t he fo ll owi ng m on th , th e EPA’s ne w Acti ng Reg io na l Ad m in is tra to r gr an te d t he reque st . In Ap ril of 2 00 9, t he EPA m ov edth is Co urt t o g ran t a l im it edvo lu nt ary
rem an d. We gran te d t he m ot io n, re m an di ng th e cas e “ on a li m it edba si s fo r pu rp os es of r eco ns id eri ng th e fi na l ru le un de r rev ie w.” In 2 01 1, fo ll owi ng su ch
reco ns id erat io n, t he EPA di sapp ro ve d t he rev is io n (2 01 1 d is ap pr ov al ). Pet it io ns forrev ie w of b ot h t he 20 08 ap pr ov al an d t he 20 11 di sapp ro va l ar e be fo re u s. Alaba m a Po wer s up po rts th e 2 00 8 app ro va l an d a sk s u s t o a ffi rm th e ap pr ov al as t he on ly lawfu l ac ti on th e EPA ha s t ak en on th e p ro po se d re gu la ti on . The Alab am a Env iro nm en ta l Co un ci l, Si erraClub, Natur al Res ou rces Defen se Co un ci l, an d Ou r Ch il dr en ’s Earth Fo un da ti on (Ci ti zen s) supp ort the 20 11

42 U.S.C. §§ 7401 et seq. 1 3di sapp ro va l an d a skus to affi rm th atact io n. Th e EPA is de fen di ng th e 2 01 1 di sapp ro va l an d c on te nd s we s ho ul d n otrev ie w th e 2 00 8 app ro va l. Afte r a d is cu ss io n o f th e st atut ory ba ck gr ou ndan d t he factua l an d pr oc edur al hi st ory

of t he two pe ti ti on s, we fi rs t co ns id er wh et he r th e EPA’s 20 11 di sapp ro va l was co nduc te d i n c om pl ia nc e wit h the st atut ory pro cedur es setfor th in th e Cl ean Air Act . W e co nc lu de th e 2 01 1 d is ap pr ov al was u naut ho riz edby the Cl ean Air Actbe cau se th e EPA fai le d t o m ak e th e st atut or il y requi rederro r de te rm in at io n. We nex t re ject the EPA’ s re li an ce o n i ts in he ren t au th or it y an d t hi s Co urt’s re m an d o rd er as au th or iz at io n fo r th e 2 01 1 d is ap pr ov al . Fin al ly, we ad dr es s an d d is m is s ch al le ng es to th e 2 00 8 app ro va l, an d a ffi rm th e v al id it y

of th atact io n. I. St at ut or y Bac kgro un d The Cle an Air Actaim s t o “ pr ot ectan d e nh an ce the qu al it y of t he Nati on ’s ai r res ou rces , ” 42 U.S.C. § 7 40 1( b) (1 ), an d “ se ts ou t a t wo- st ag e p ro ces s fo r ach ie vi ng th is go al ,” Si er ra Clu b v . Ga. Pow er Co

. , 44 3 F .3d13 46 , 13 48 (11 th Ci r. 20 06 ). At th e fi rs t s ta ge , th e EPA id en ti fie s ai r po ll ut an ts th aten da ng er t he publ ic , th en form

ul at es na ti on al am

bi en t ai r qu al it y

st an da rd s (NAAQS) t o reg ul at e th es e p ol lu ta nt s. 4 2 U.S.C. § 74 09 ; Ga. Po wer , 44 3 F .3dat 1 34 8. Atth e
se co ndst ag e, eac h s ta te de ve lo ps a SIP t o e ns ur e it s ai r m eet s t he NAAQS for t he
4va rio us po ll ut an ts . 42 U.S.C. § 7 41 0; Ga. Po wer , 44 3 F .3dat 1 34 8. Th e SIP m us t be subm it te d fo r rev ie w by th e EPA, 42 U.S.C. § 7 41 0( a)(1 ), an d b eco m es fed eral ly enfo rceabl e o nc e itis ap pr ov edan d a do pt edby the EPA, 42 U.S.C. § 7 41 0( k)
. The Cle an Air Actth us pro vi de s a c oo pe rat iv e-fe de ral is m ap pr oa ch to air qu al it y reg ul at io n. Se e Fla . Powe r & Light Co . v. Cos tl e , 65 0 F .2d57 9, 5 81 (5t h Ci r. 19 81 ) (“ Co ng res s ch os e a b al an cedsch em e o f st at e-fe de ral in te ract io n t o im pl em en t t he go al s o f th e [Cl ean Air] Act.”). Und er t hi s ap pr oa ch , st at es ha ve 2

“pr im ary res po ns ib il it y

foren su rin g t ha t t he am

bi en t ai r m eet s t he NAAQS for t he id en ti fie d p ol lu ta nt s,” Ky. Res . Cou nc il , Inc

. v. EPA , 46 7 F .3d98 6, 9 88 (6t h C ir. 20 06 ), an d “ so lo ng as t he ul ti m at e eff ectof aSta te ’s cho ic e o f em is si on li m it at io ns is co m

pl ia nc e with t he na ti on al st an da rd s fo r am bi en t ai r, th e St at e is at li be rty to a do ptwhat ev er m ix of e m is si on li m it at io ns itde em s b es t s ui te d t o i ts pa rti cu la r si tu at io n,” Tr ai n v . NRDC, Inc

. , 42 1 U.S. 6 0, 7 9, 9 5 S . Ct. 1 47 0, 1 48 2 (1 97 5) . “ The gre atfle xi bi li ty accor de d t he st at es un de r th e Cl eanAir Actis
. . . il lu st rat edby the sh arp ly con tra st in g, n arro w rol e to be pl ay edby the EPA.” Fla

. Pow er & Light Co

. , 65 0 F .2dat 5 87 . If th e SIP r ev is io n m eet s t he requi rem en ts in

In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en ba nc), this 2 Court adopted as bindingprec edent a ll decisions of the for mer F ifth Circuit handed down pr ior to close of busine ss on September 30, 1981. 5th e Cl ean Air Act , th e EPA m us t ap pr ov e it
. Se e 42 U.S.C. § 7 41 0( k) (3 ) (“ [T]he Adm in is tra to r sh al l

ap pr ov e [a SI P o r SIP re vi si on ] as a who le if i t m eet s al l o f th e ap pl ic ab le requi rem en ts of t hi s ch ap te r.” (em ph as is ad de d) ). To o bt ai n app ro va l b y

th e EPA, th e SIP m

us t co m pl y wit h t he Cle an Air Act requi rem en ts setfor th at 4 2 U.S.C. § 74 10 (a)( 2) , whi ch m an da te s, in te r a li a , th e in cl us io n o f “ en fo rceabl e em is si on li m it at io ns an d o th er co nt ro l m eas ur es , m ean s,
ortec hn iq ue s . . . as m ay

be ne ces sa ry

or app ro pr ia te to m eetth e ap pl ic ab le [Cl ean Air Act ] requi rem en ts .” 42 U.S.C. § 7 41 0( a)(2 )(A); se e a ls o Ga . Powe r , 44 3 F .3d at13 48 . Once ap pr ov ed , a SIP m ay no t b e u ni la te ral ly m od ifi edby eith er t he st at e
orth e EPA: “ no . . . pl an rev is io n, o r ot he r act io n m od ifyin g a ny requ ire m en t o f
an ap pl ic ab le im

pl em en ta ti on pl an m ay

be tak en wit h re sp ectto an y st at io na ry
so ur ce b y th e St at e o r by the Adm in is tra to r [o f th e EPA]. ” 42 U.S.C. § 7 41 0( i). The Cle an Air Actdo es , ho wev er, p ro vi de co op erat iv e p ro ces se s fo r m od ifyin g a SIP t ha t m ay

be in it ia te d b y

eit he r th e EPA orth e st at e. A “ SIP Ca ll ” is on e m ech an is m by whi ch th e EPA m ay

in it ia te a
m od ifi cat io n t o aSIP. Cl ean Air Act§ 1 10 (k )(5 ); 4 2 U.S.C. § 74 10 (k )(5 ). Sect io n 1 10 (k )(5 ), en ti tl ed“ [c]all s fo r pl anrev is io ns ,” ou tl in es th e “ SIP Ca ll ” pr oc edur e:

6Whe ne ve r th e Adm in is tra to r fi nd s t ha t t he ap pl ic ab le im pl em en ta ti on pl an for an y areais subs ta nt ia ll y

in ad equa te to att ai n o r m ai nt ai n t he rel ev an t n at io na l am

bi en t ai r qu al it y

st an da rd
. . . th e Adm in is tra to r sh al l re qu ire th e St at e to rev is e th e p la n a s n eces sa ry to co rrec t s uc h in ad equa ci es . The Adm in is tra to r sh al l n ot ify the Sta te of t he in ad equa ci es , andm ay

est ab li sh reas on ab le de ad li ne s (n otto ex ceed 18 m on th s af

te r th e d at e o f su ch no ti ce) f orth e subm is si on of s uc h pl an rev is io ns . Suc h fi nd in gs an d n ot ic e sh al l b e p ub li c. 42 U.S.C. § 7 41 0( k) (5 ). Thu s, “ whe ne ve r” t he EPA m ak es a “ subs ta nt ia l in ad equa cy ” d et erm in at io n, the SIP Ca ll pro cedur e req ui res th e EPA to (1) no ti fy th e st at e o f th e subs ta nt ia l i na de qu acy, an d (2 ) gi ve th e st at e th e fi rs t o pp ortu ni ty to rev is e th e SIP t o c on fo rm wit h t he Cle an Air Act
. Id

. Pri orto 19 90 , a SIP Ca ll was t he on ly m ech an is m by whi ch th e EPA co ul d in it ia te a m od ifi cat io n t o aSIP. In19 90 , ho wev er, Co ng res s ad de d asep arat e pr ov is io n p erm it ti ng th e EPA to in it ia te a “ co rrec ti on ” to a SIP o r SIP re vi si on whi chha d b een ap pr ov edor d is ap pr ov ed“ in erro r.” Cl ean Air Act§ 1 10 (k )(6 ); 42 U.S.C. § 7 41 0( k) (6 ). Sect io n 1 10 (k )(6 ), en ti tl ed“ [c]orr ect io ns ,” pr ov id es : Whe ne ve r th e Adm in is tra to r de te rm in es th atth e Adm in is tra to r’s act io n app ro vi ng , di sapp ro vi ng , or p ro m ul ga ti ng an y

pl an or p lan rev is io n (o r pa rt t he reo f) . . . was i n e rro r, th e Adm in is tra to r m ay in th e sa m e m an ne r as th e ap pr ov al , di sapp ro va l, o r pr om ul ga ti on rev is e su ch act io n a s ap pr op ria te wit ho utrequi rin g a ny furt he r subm is si on fro m th e St at e. Su ch de te rm in at io n a ndth e b as is th ereo f sh al l b e pr ov id edto th e St at e an d p ub li c.

742 U.S.C. § 7 41 0( k) (6 ). In c on tra stto th e SIP C al l p ro cedur e, Sect io n 1 10 (k )(6 )

pe rm it s t he EPA, afte r de te rm in in g apri oract io n app ro vi ng or d is ap pr ov in g apl an
rev is io n “ was in erro r,” t o re vi se th e act io n wi th ou t “ requi rin g a ny furthe r
subm is si on fro m

th e St at e.” Id

. Sect io n 1 10 (k )(6 ) pr ov id es a pr oc edur e fo r th e EPA to fol lo w in rev is in g t he pri oract io n: th e act io n m ay be rev is ed“ in th e sa m e
m an ne r as th e ap pr ov al , di sapp ro va l, o r pr om ul ga ti on ,” an d t he “ de te rm in at io n a nd ba si s t he reo f sh al l b e p ro vi de d t o t he Sta te an d p ub li c.” Id

. A st at e m ay

als o v ol un ta ril y

in it ia te a rev is io n t o i ts SIP. 4 2 U.S.C. § 7 41 0( a)(1 ). “ If a s ta te want s t o a dd , del et e, orot he rwis e m od ify any SIP pr ov is io n, i t m

us t s ub m itth e p ro po se d c ha ng e to EPA forap pr ov al .” Si er ra Clu b v. Ten n. Va ll ey Au th

. , 43 0 F .3d13 37 , 13 46 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (ci ti ng 40 C.F.R. § 5 2.1 38 4) . Befo re ad op ti ng an d s ub m it ti ng th e rev is io n t o t he EPA, th e st at e
m us t h ol d p ub li c h eari ng s an d a ccep t p ub li c co m m en ts . 42 U.S.C. § 7 41 0( a); Ten n. Va ll ey Au th ., 43 0 F .3dat 1 34 8 (c it in g 4 0 C .F.R. § 5 1.1 02 ). The EPA “ sh al l
no t” ap pr ov e a SIP rev is io n “ if t he rev is io n wo ul d i nt erfe re wi th an y ap pl ic ab le requi rem en t co nc ern in g a tt ai nm en t an d re as on ab le fur th er p ro gr es s . . . or any ot he r ap pl ic ab le requi rem en t o f [t he Cle anAir Act ]. ” Cl ean Air Act§ 1 10 ( l); 4 2 U.S.C. § 7 41 0( l). II. Fac tu al an d Pr oc ed

ur al Back gr ou nd
8Und er the sch em e se t fo rth in th e Cl ean Air Act , Alab am a—t hr ou gh th e

Alab am a Dep art m en t o f Env iro nm en ta l M an ag em en t (ADEM) , andit s o ve rs ig ht bo dy, the Alab am a Env iro nm en ta l M an ag em en t Co m m is si on (AEMC)— is th e pr im ary reg ul at orof t he st at e in du strie s’ vi si bl e em is si on s. Of rele vanc e h ere, t he 3 vi si bl e em is si on s p orti on of Al ab am a’s SIP re gu la te s o pa ci ty, whi ch is “ on e o f th e
m os t b as ic em is si on li m it at io ns im po se d o n s ou rces of p art ic ul at e ai r po ll ut io n.” Ten n. Va ll ey Au th

. , 43 0 F .3dat 1 34 1. Op aci ty is n ota po ll ut an t; rat he r, it“ is a
m eas ur e o f th e li gh t-b lo ck in g p ro pe rty of a p la nt ’s em is si on s, wh ic h i s i m po rta nt in th e Cl ean Air Actreg ul at ory sch em e as anin di cat orof the am ou ntof v is ib le pa rti cu la te po ll ut io n b ei ng di sc ha rg edby a sou rce.” Id

. Opa ci ty is t hu s re la te d t o pa rti cu la te m atte r (PM ), a reg ul at edpo ll ut an t u nd er t he Cle an Air Act
. Alab am a’s SIP ju dg es co m pl ia nc e wit h o pa ci ty regu la ti on s u si ng th e EPA Met ho d 9 tes t, wh ic h i s a v is ua l o bs erv at io n b y a tr ai ne d h um anob se rv er. Ala
. Adm in . Cod e r. 3 35 -3 -4 -.01 (2 ). As a s up pl em en t t o t he Met ho d 9 tes t, b utno t a rep la cem en t, Al ab am a’s SIP re qu ire s ce rta in faci li ti es to op erat e a co nt in uo us op aci ty m on it or in g s y st em (COMS ), id

. at 3 35 -3 -1 2- .02 , whi ch is anele ct ro ni c

Alabama ’s SI P is codified at 40 C.F.R. § 52.69 and incor porate s by

ref ere nce c erta in 3 provisions of ADEM’s Air Pollut ion Control P rogram re gulations set out at Ala. Admin. Code r. 335-3-1 et seq . ADEM deve lops SI P regulations, which are approve d, disapproved, or modified by the AEMC. See Ala. Code § 22-22A-8. 9de vi ce t ha t re co rd s o pa ci ty m eas ur em en ts ev ery si x- m inut es , as asi x- m in ut e

av erag e. A COMS t hu s p ro du ces up to 24 0 s ep arat e rea di ng s p er d ay , andth es e

“ [m ]ore fre qu en t re ad in gs with C OMS h el p d et erm in e whe th er a s ou rce i s fo ll owi ng go odairpo ll ut io n c on tro l p ract ic es be twee n M et ho d 9
. . . te st s.” Alab am a: Pro po se d Ap pr ov al of R ev is io ns to th e Vis ib le Emis si on s R ul e, 72 Fed
. Reg . 18 ,42 8, 1 8,4 31 (Apr il 12 , 20 07 ). Fo r wel l o ve r a d ecad e, Alab am a’s SIP h as pro hi bi te d s ou rces fro m em it ti ng atlev el s b ey on d 2 0% o pa ci ty, as de te rm in edby a six -m in ut e av erag e. Ala. Adm in . Cod e r. 3 35 -3 -4 -.01 (1 )(a) (1 99 6) . There are ex cep ti on s. On e ex cep ti on pe rm it s up t o 1 00 % op aci ty dur in g “ st artup , sh ut do wn, l oa d c ha ng e, an d ra te ch an ge or o th er s ho rt, i nt erm it te ntpe rio ds of t im e” as ap pr ov edby A DEM. Id

. at 33 5- 3- 4- .01 (1 )(c) . Ano th er ex cep ti on pe rm it s up t o 4 0% o pa ci ty dur in g o ne si xm in ut e p eri odev ery ho ur . Id

. at33 5- 3- 4- .01 (1 )(b ). In 2 00 3, h owe ve r, ADEM
so ug htto bro ad en th e 4 0% e xc ep ti on to all ow s ou rces wit h C OMS t o e m it“ up to 10 0 p erce ntop aci ty for up t o t wo p erce ntof t he qu art erl y op erat in g t im e th atth ey
are o th erwi se subjec t t o the 20 pe rcen t o pa ci ty lim it .” 72 Fed . Reg . at 1 8,4 31
. The EPA’ s h an dl in g o f a s ub se qu en t i te rat io n o f th is pro po se d re vi si on is th e
cen tra l i ss ue on ap pe al
. A. Ala ba ma’

s 2 00 3 Pr op os ed

Revisi on to th e Vis ib le Emis si on s Ru le
10ADEM form al ly ado pt edth e p ro po se d re vi si on—al so kn own as the “ 2% d e

m in im is rul e”— an d s ub m it te d i t t o t he EPA as a S IP rev is io n i n 2 00 3. Ten n. Val le y Auth. , 43 0 F .3dat 1 34 2. Th e ru le pro vi de d asaf e h arb orfro m

th e 2 0% op aci ty lim it at io n i f “ ‘[d]uri ng each cal en dar qu art er . . . th e n on -ex em ptex ces s
em is si on s p eri od s d o n otex ceed2.0 pe rcen t o f th e so ur ce o pe rat in g h ou rs for whi chth e o pa ci ty stan dardis ap pl ic ab le an d fo r whi chth e COMS is in di cat in g
va li d d at a.’” Id

. (quo ti ng Ala. Adm in . Cod e r. 3 35 -3 -4 -.01 (4 )). Pri orto form al ly ad op ti ng th e 2 00 3 p ro po se d re vi si on , ADEM hadfol lo wedth e ru le fory ears in pr act ic e, in fo rm al ly usi ng it“ to ex cu se th ou sa nd s o f op aci ty vio la ti on s.” Id . at 13 42 , 13 48
. Whi le th e EPA was r ev ie win g t he 20 03 pro po se d re vi si on , th is Co urt i ss ue d a d eci si on in a ci ti zen su itbro ug htag ai ns t Ten ne ss ee Val le y Aut ho rit y

(TVA)
us in g C OMS d at a. Ten n. Va ll ey Au th

. , 43 0 F .3dat 1 33 7. We con si de redwhet he r th e “ 2% d e m in im is rul e”—whi ch ha d yet to be ap pr ov edby the EPA andth us was
no t yet pa rt o f Alaba m a’s SIP— ap pl ie d t o a ll eg edop aci ty vio la ti on s b y TVA
oc cu rri ng be twee n 1 99 7 a nd20 02
. Id

. at13 39 . W e n ot edth atth e ru le , fol lo wed
on ly as an in fo rm al pra ct ic e atall ti m es rel ev an t t o t he su it , was “ ta nt am ou ntto an
un ap pr ov edm od ifi cat io n o f th e o pa ci ty lim it at io n c on ta in edin th e Alaba m a SIP.” Id

. at13 46 –4 7. Be cau se ADEM hadatt em pt ed“ to un il at eral ly revi se th e o pa ci ty
11li m it at io n wi th ou t s ub m it ti ng th e rev is io n t o t he rig or s o f th e SIP a m en dm en t

pr oc es s,” id

. at13 48 , we hel d t ha t “ ADEM’s pra ct ic e o f em pl oyin g t he 2% d e
m in im is rul e to de te rm in e v io la ti on s o f th e 2 0% o pa ci ty lim it at io n u si ng COMS da tawas i nv al idun de r Cl eanAir Act§ 1 10 (i) ,” id

. at13 49
. Subs eque ntto ou r de ci si on in Ten ne ss ee Va ll ey Au th or it y , in Apri l 2 00 7, th e EPA co nc lu de d t ha t ADEM’s 2 00 3 p ro po se d re vi si on was “ no t ap pr ov ab le as
subm it te d.” Alab am a: Pro po se d Ap pr ov al of R ev is io ns to th e Vis ib le Em is si on s Ru le , 72 Fed . Reg . 18 ,42 8, 1 8,4 30 (Apr il 12 , 20 07 ). The EPA p ro po se d t o ap pr ov e th e rev is io n i f ADEM supp le m en te d t he reque stto sh ow t ha t o pa ci ty le ve ls , “ av erag ed ” o ve r a qua rte r of a y ear, wo ul d b e atlea stas s tri ng en t as
ex is ti ng law. Id

. at 1 8,4 30 –3 1. Th e EPA no ti fie d a ndpro vi de d t he publ ic wit h a n op po rtu ni ty to co m

m en t o n t he co nd it io na l p ro po sa l t o app ro ve ADEM’ s re qu es t. 72 Fed . Reg . at 1 8,4 34 . Cit iz en s p ro vi de d c omm en ts , urg in g t he ag en cy to di sapp ro ve th e rev is io n. Co m m en ts urg in g app ro va l wer e subm it te d b y ADEM, TVA, andth e Uti li ty A ir R eg ul at ory Group (UAR G). 4 B. Th e EPA’s 2 00 8 Ap pr ov al of Ala ba ma’

s S IP Revisi on

The UA RG moved for le ave to f ile an amicus br ief in support of Ala bama Power

and 4 vacatur of the 2011 disappr oval. The UARG’s motion is hereby denied. 12ADEM m ad e th e rev is io ns reque st edby the EPA, as wel l as ad di ti on al

rev is io ns to ad dr es s p ub li c co m m en ts . Firs t, ADEM cl ari fie d t ha t t he on ce-p erho urall owa nc e o f up to 40 % op aci ty w ou ldno t ap pl y to so ur ces us in g C OMS. Ala. Ad m in . Cod e r. 3 35 -3 -4 -.01 (4 ) (2 00 8)
. Seco nd , forso ur ces us in g C OMS, 5 ADEM ad de d acap on da il y av erag e o pa ci ty of 22 %, whi ch was t he effe ct iv e al lo wab le da il y

av erag e o pa ci ty for t ho se so ur ces un de r th e u nr ev is edrul e. Ala. Adm in . Cod e r. 3 35 -3 -4 -.01 (5 ) (2 00 8)
. ADEM is su edpubl ic no ti ce o f th e 6
rev is io n, t oo k p ub li c co m m en t, an d h el d apubl ic he ari ng . On Aug us t 2 2, 2 00 8, AEMC ad op te d t he rul e, an d ADEM s ub m it te d t he pro po se d re vi si on to th e EPA fo r rev ie w. On Oct ob er 1 5, 2 00 8, t he EPA app ro ve d ADEM’s re vi si on reque st
. Se e Alab am a: App ro va l o f Rev is io ns to th e Vis ib le Em is si on s R ul e, 73 Fed . Reg
. Paragraph f

our desc ribes the e x ception as f ollows: 5 [D] uringeac h cale ndar qua rter, the permittee ma

y discharg e into the atmosphere from any emissions unitqualifying unde r par agraph ( 3) of this rule, pa rticulate with an opac ity

exceeding20% for

not more than twe nty -four (24), six (6) minute periods in any

cale ndar da

y , if such periods do not ex cee d 2.0 perc ent of the source cale ndar qua

rter ope ratinghours for which the opac ity standard is applicable and for

which the COMS is indicating va lid data. Ala. Admin. Code r. 335- 3-4-.01( 4) (2008)
. Specifica lly , para g raph f ive states: “No pe rmittee shall dischar g e into the atmosphere 6 from any source of emission particulate of an opa city g reater than 22% (excluding e x empt periods allowe d under subpa ragraphs ( 1)(c ) and ( 1)(d) of this rule) avera g ed over eac h cale ndar day .” Ala. A dmin. Code r. 335-3-4- .01(5) ( 2008). 1360 ,95 7 (Oc to be r 15 , 20 08 ). The EPA d et erm in edth atADEM hadm ad e “ th e

ne ces sa ry rev is io ns pro po se d b y

EPA” an d t ha t t he ch an ge s wer e co ns is te ntwit h th e EPA’s reco m

m en da ti on s. Id

. at60 ,95 7– 58 . The EPA n ot edth atth e

“ m od el in g p res en te d b y

co m m en te rs sh ow[ ed ] th e p os si bi li ty of an im pa ctonth e NAAQS un de r a wo rs t-c as e sc en ari o.” Id

. at60 ,96 2. Ho wev er, the EPA
co nc lu de d i t l ack ed“ th e d at a n eces sa ry to de te rm in e qua nt it at iv el y whatim pa ct , if
an y , th e rev is io ns . . . wou ldor c ou ldha ve on . . . PM emiss io ns ,” id

. , andth us de te rm in ed“ th e p ro po se d S IP rev is io n s at is fie [d ] th e req ui rem en ts of s ect io n 11 0( l) o f th e [Cl ean Air Act ], ” id

. at60 ,95 9. The EPA’ s ap pr ov al be cam e fi na l an d e ffec ti ve on Nov em be r 14 , 20 08
. Id. at60 ,95 7. Atth atpo in t, t he pro po se d re vi si on be cam e p artof t he fed eral ly ap pr ov edAlab am a SIP. So ur ces op erat in g C OMS were requi redto co m pl y wit h th e rev is io ns “ withi n 6 m on th s o f . . . E PA ap pr ov al .” Ala. Ad m in . Cod e r. 3 35 -3
- 4- .01 (7 ) (2 00 8) . Cit iz en s p et it io ne d t he EPA to reco ns id er i ts ap pr ov al , bu t t he EPA den ie d t he reque ston Jan ua ry 15 , 20 09
. C. Ci ti

ze ns ’ Ju di ci al

Ch al le ng e to th e EPA’s 2 00 8 Ap pr ov al On Dec em

be r 12 , 20 08 , Cit iz en s fi le d ape ti ti on inth is Co urt fo r rev ie w of th e EPA’s ap pr ov al of t he SIP re vi si on . Alab am a Po wer, ADEM, an d TVA in te rv en edin supp ort o f th e EPA’s ap pr ov al . On Feb ru ary 25 , 20 09 , Cit iz en s fi le d
14a se co ndreco ns id erat io n re qu es t wi th th e EPA. The EPA’s n ew Acti ng Reg io na l

Adm in is tra to r gr an te d t he sec on d re co ns id erat io n re qu es t o n Ap ril 3, 2 00 9. 7 On Ap ril 9, 2 00 9, t he EPA m ov edth is Co urt fo r a v ol un ta ry rem an d. Th e
m ot io n n ot edth e Ci ti zen s’ sec on d re co ns id erat io n re qu es t ra is ed“ le ga l, t ech ni cal
an d p ol ic y

is su es th atwarran t ad di ti on al rev ie w,” an d s ta te d t he rem an d wo ul d al lo w th e EPA “ to co nduc t fu rth er ad m in is tra ti ve pro ceed in gs an d p ro vi de an op po rtu ni ty for ad di ti on al publ ic co m m en t o n t he fin al rul e.” Alaba m a Po wer, ADEM, andTVA op po se d t he m ot io n, as se rti ng th atsu ch reco ns id erat io n was
un la wfu l. The EPA res po nd edan d re it erat edth atitin te nd edto reco ns id er t he
rev is io n “ th ro ug h apubl ic rul em ak in g p ro ces s tha t i nc lu de s b ot h n ot ic e an d a n op po rtu ni ty for co m

m en t.” On Sep te m

be r 28 , 20 09 , we grant edth e EPA’s m ot io n
an d re m an de d the cas e to th e EPA “ on a li m it edba si s fo r pu rp os es of
reco ns id eri ng th e fi na l ru le un de r rev ie w.” W e al so st ay edpro ceed in gs in th e Co urt “ pe nd in g c om

pl et io n o f su ch reco ns id erat io n.” D. Th e EPA’s 2 01 1 Disa pp ro va l o f Al ab ama ’s SIP Rev is io n

On April 7, 2009, Alaba

ma Power f

iled a petition for r eview of the EPA’s dec ision 7 g rantingthe sec ond rec onsideration re quest (2009 petition). In our September 28, 2009, order addre ssing the E PA’s motion for voluntary rema nd, we a lso gr anted the E PA’s motion to di smiss the 2009 petition for lac k of jurisdiction. 15Whi le th e p ro ceed in gs were s ta y ed , on rem an d, t he EPA publ is he d ano ti ce

in th e Fed eral Reg is te r on Octo be r 2, 2 00 9, p ro po si ng “ to eit he r affi rm th e pr ev io us rul em ak in g (wh ic h app ro ve d t he rev is io ns ) or , alt ern at iv el y , am en d i ts pr ev io us rul em ak in g (i .e., di sapp ro vi ng th e rev is io ns ).” Alaba m a: Pro po se d App ro va l o f Rev is io ns to th e Vis ib le Em is si on s R ul e an d Al te rn at iv e Pro po se d Dis ap pr ov al of R ev is io ns to th e Vis ib le Em is si on s R ul e, 74 Fed . Reg . 50 ,93 0 (Oct ob er 2 , 20 09 ). The EPA s ou gh t “publ ic co m m en t o n t he na tu re o f th e rel at io ns hi p b et ween op aci ty and[pa rti cu la te m at te r] em is si on s o ve r bo th th e sh ort
an d l on g t erm

an d wh en th e o pa ci ty and[pa rti cu la te m at te r] m as s emiss io ns m ay ha ve a pr ed ic tabl e rel at io ns hi p t o o ne an ot he r (e.g ., when anop aci ty lev el of a cert ai n a m ou ntwou ldpre di cta [p art ic ul at e m atte r] m as s emiss io n o f an ot he r cert ai n a m ou nt ).” 7 4 F ed . Reg . at 5 0,9 34 . The EPA p ro vi de d a75 -d ay op po rtu ni ty for p ub li c co m m en t. Ci ti zen s an d o th er i nt eres te d p ers on s s ub m it te d
co m m en ts urg in g re ve rs al of t he 20 08 ap pr ov al ; ADEM, Alaba m a Po wer, TVA,
an d UARG s ub m it te d c omm en ts in supp ort o f th e 2 00 8 app ro va l. On Ap ril 6, 2 01 1, t he EPA publ is he d a“ Fi na l Ru le ” d is ap pr ov in g ADEM’s reque stto rev is e th e v is ib le em is si on s p orti on of Al ab am a’s SIP. Alaba m a: Fin al Dis ap pr ov al of R ev is io ns to th e Vis ib le Em is si on s R ul e, 76 Fed . Reg . 18 ,87 0 (Ap ril 6, 2 01 1) . The EPA co nc lu de d t he re was “ a su ffi ci en t l ik el ih oo d tha t t he
16SIP re vi si on at i ss ue inth is act io n c ou ldall ow i nc reas edm as s emiss io ns ov er wh at

wou ldha ve be en all owe d u nd er t he pre vi ou sl y ap pr ov edSIP ru le an d t ha t, i n t he ab se nc e o f ad di ti on al in fo rm at io n o r li m it at io ns , th e rev is io n i s n otap pr ov ab le
un de r se ct io n 1 10 (l) .” 76 Fed . Reg
. at18 ,87 6. Th e EPA no te d i t wo ul d “ no t h av e pr ev io us ly pro po se d app ro va l i f th e rec or d c le arl y de m on st rat edth atth e ru le
wou ldha ve res ul te d i n i nc reas ed[pa rti cu la te m at te r] in n on at ta in m en t ar eas .” 76 Fed . Reg
. at18 ,88 4. Al th ou gh th e EPA’s 20 08 ap pr ov al was b as edin part o n t he 22 % av erag e d ai ly opa ci ty cap, fo ll owi ng reco ns id erat io n, t he EPA no lo ng er
acce pt ed“ th atth e av erag e d ai ly opa ci ty lim itis anap pr op ria te or e ffec ti ve to ol for
ev al ua ti ng th e im

pa ct ” o f th e rev is io n o n p art ic ul at e m at te r em is si on s. 7 6 F ed
. Reg
. at18 ,88 4. As a res ul t o f th e EPA’s di sapp ro va l, “ Alab am a’s vi si bl e
em is si on s ru le th atwas i n t he SIP p rio r to th e Oct ob er 1 5, 2 00 8, fi na l ac ti on [b ecame] th e cu rren t SI P-ap pr ov edrul e.” 7 6 F ed . Reg
. at18 ,87 0. E. Co ns ol id

at io n o f the 20 08 an d 2 01 1 Pet it io ns On Ap ril 8, 2 01 1, Al ab am a Po wer fi le d ape ti ti on in th is Co urt fo r rev ie w of th e EPA’s 20 11 di sapp ro va l o f th e SIP r ev is io n. Ci ti zen s i nt erv en edinsupp ort o f th e EPA’s di sapp ro va l. Alaba m a Po wer m ov edto co ns ol id at e Ci ti zen s’ 20 08 pe ti ti on wit h Al ab am a Po wer’s 2 01 1 p et it io n, an d t o s ta y th e EPA’s di sapp ro va l pe nd in g app eal . Cit iz en s m ov edto st ay th ei r 20 08 pe ti ti on pe nd in g re so lu ti on of
17Alab am a Po wer’s 2 01 1 p et it io n. On May 12, 2 01 1, we d en ie d b ot h m ot io ns to

st ay bu t g ran te d Al ab am a Po wer’s m ot io n t o c on so li da te th e 2 00 8 and20 11 pe ti ti on s, t reat in g t he co m pe ti ng pe ti ti on s as cro ss -ap pe al s u nd er Fe de ral Ru le of App el la te Pro cedur e 2 8.1
. III. Stan da rd of Revi ew Bo th pe ti ti on s fo r rev ie w of t he EPA’ s ac ti on s ar e b ro ug htpu rs ua ntto 42 U.S.C. § 7 60 7( b) (1 ). W e ap pl y “ th e d efer en ti al st an da rdof r ev ie w setfor th in th e Adm in is tra ti ve Pro cedur e Act .” Si er ra Clu b v . Joh ns on , 43 6 F .3d12 69 , 12 73 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) . Und er t hi s s ta nd ard , a fin al ag en cy act io n wi ll be setasi de if i t i s

“ arb it rary, capri ci ou s, an ab us e o f di sc ret io n, o r ot he rwis e n otin acco rd an ce wi th la w”; e xc eed s t he ag en cy ’s st atut ory au th or it y ; o r is “ wit ho utob se rv an ce o f pr oc edur e req ui redby law.” 5 U.S.C. § 70 6( 2) (A), (C), & (D). “ Und er t hi s st an da rd , we gi ve de fere nc e to a fi na l ag en cy de ci si on by revi ewin g fo r cl ear e rro r,
an d we c an no t s ub st itut e o urownjud gm en t fo r th atof t he ag en cy .” Jo hn so n , 43 6 F.3 d a t 1 27 3. A cha ll en ge to th e EPA’s in te rp ret at io n o f th e Cl ean Air Actis go ve rn edby th e two -s te p a na lysis in Ch evr on U.S.A., Inc . v. NRDC, Inc

. , 46 7 U.S. 8 37 , 84 2– 45 , 10 4 S . Ct. 2 77 8, 2 78 1– 83 (19 84 ). Fir st , we det erm in e “ whe th er Co ng res s ha s d ire ct ly spo ke n t o the pre ci se qu es ti on at i ss ue .” Ch evr on , 46 7 U.S. at84 2,
1810 4 S . Ct. at27 81 . If Co ng res s’s i nt en t i s cl ear f ro m th e st atut ory

lan gu ag e, we
m us t “ gi ve effe ctto th e u na m bi gu ou sl y ex pr es se d i nt en t o f Co ng res s.” Id

. at 8 43 , 10 4 S . Ct. at27 81 . Seco nd , if Co ng res s h as no t s po ke n a ndth e st atut e is “ si le ntor
am bi gu ou s wi th res pe ctto th e sp eci fic is su e, th e que st io n fo r th e co urt i s wh et he r th e ag en cy ’s ans wer i s b as edon a pe rm is si bl e co ns tru ct io n o f th e st atut e.” Id

. at 84 3, 1 04 S. Ct. at27 82
. IV. Dis cu ss io n W e are pre se nt edwit h c ha ll en ge s t o b ot h t he 20 08 ap pr ov al an d t he 20 11 di sapp ro va l i n t hi s co ns ol id at edap pe al . W e b eg inwit h t he 20 11 di sapp ro va l an d
co ns id er wh ethe r th e EPA co m pl ie d wi th th e st atut ory

pro cedur es setfor th in th e Cl ean Air Act . Becau se th e EPA fai le d t o m ak e th e st atut or il y requi rederro r de te rm in at io n, we co nc lu de th e 2 01 1 d is ap pr ov al was n otau th or iz edby the Cle an Air Act . W e al so co nc lu de th e EPA’s 20 11 di sapp ro va l was no t au th or iz edby ei th er i ts in he ren t au th or it y or b y th is Co urt, an d m

us t t he refo re b e v acat ed . W e th en ad dr es s an d d is m is s ch al le ng es to th e 2 00 8 app ro va l, an d a ffi rm th e v al id it y of th atact io n. A. Th e EPA’s 2 01 1 Disa pp ro va l o f Al ab ama ’s SIP Rev is io n Alab am a Po wer co nt en ds th e EPA’s 20 11 di sapp ro va l was un au th or iz edby la w bec au se th e SIP C al l p ro cedur e o ut li ne d i n S ect io n 1 10 (k )(5 ) of th e Cl ean Air
19Act was th e o nl y pro ces s b y

whi ch th e EPA co ul d re vi se Alab am a’s SIP. Th e EPA cla im s t he 20 11 di sapp ro va l was au th or iz edby Secti on 11 0( k) (6 ) of th e Cl ean Air Actbe cau se th e EPA erro ne ou sl y ap pr ov edth e SIP r ev is io n i n 2 00 8. Add it io na ll y , th e EPA cl ai m s t he 20 11 di sapp ro va l was au th or iz edby its in he ren t
au th or it y an d b y th is Co urt’s Se pt em

be r 28 , 20 09 , rem an d o rd er. 8 1. Whethe r the Cle an Air Act Au th or iz ed

th e EPA’s 2 01 1 Disa

pp ro va l W e fi rs t re

ject Al ab am a Po wer’s co nt en ti on th atth e SIP C al l p ro ces s
ou tl in edin Sect io n 1 10 (k )(5 ) was th e ex cl us iv e p ro cedur e b y whi chth e EPA
co ul d re vi se Alab am a’s SIP. As d is cu ss edpre vi ou sl y , “ [w]hen ev er t he 9
The EPA also c ontends Section 553(e) of the Administrative Proce dure A ct (APA), 8 which g ives “a

n interested pe rson the right to petition for the issuance, a mendment, or re peal of

a rule,” authorized the 2011 disapprova l. 5 U.S.C. § 553(e) . Whil e Section 553(e ) authorized Citi zens to petiti on for r epea l of the 2008 appr oval, that provision does not displace the proce dural re quirements of the Clean Air Ac t for SI P revisions and err or cor rec tions. See 5 U.S.C. § 559 (statingthe APA does “ not limi t or repe al additional re quirements imposed by statute or other

wise re cognized by

law”) . Thus, we must still consider whether the EPA’s 2011 disapproval c omplied with the proce dures se t forth in the Clean Air A ct. For this contention, Alabama Powe r cites languag e fr om this C ourt’s dec ision in 9 Georgia Power , a citizen enfor ceme nt action in which we reje cted Sierr a Club’s argument that a 1999 Guidance Policy

issued by the EPA had the e ffe ct of re vising Ge org ia’s SI P. 443 F.3d at 1354. We stated that “e ven if the EPA ha d intended its 1999 policy to alter the me aningof Geor g ia’s existi ng ” SI P, “the EPA would have been pow erle ss to effe ct such a chang e abse nt formal SI P revision.” Id. Citi ngthe SI P Call provisi on, we noted that “[i] f the EPA believe s that its curre nt interpretation of the Clean Air A ct re quires Ge org ia to modify its [ SI P] , the EPA should require the state to re vise its SI P to conform to EPA policy .” Id. at 1355. Althoug h Alabama Power c ontends Georgia Power established the SI P Call procedureas the e x clusive proce dure by

which the EPA may

reve rse its initial approval, the c ited languag e wa s in the context of analy

zing Sierra

Club’s argument that an EPA policy document ef

fec ted a c hang e to a SI P. Moreover , the EPA itself stated that the Ge org ia SI P remained in e ffe ct re g ardle ss of the 1999 Guidance policy
. Id. at 1354 n.12. 20Adm in is tra to r fi nd s [the SIP] subs ta nt ia ll y in ad equa te ,” Sect io n 1 10 (k )(5 ) requi res th e EPA to no ti fy

th e st at e o f th e subs ta nt ia l i na de qu acy, an d t he n g iv e th e st at e th e fi rs t o pp ortu ni ty to re vi se th e SIP t o c on fo rm with t he Cle an Air Act . 42 U.S.C. § 7 41 0( k) (5 ). Whi le Sect io n 1 10 (k )(5 ) pr ov id es anav en ue forrev is in g a
subs ta nt ia ll y

in ad equa te SIP, Sec ti on 11 0( k) (6 ) pr ov id es anav en ue forco rrec ti ng a SIP r ev is io n app ro ve d i n e rro r. Here, th e EPA do es no t co nt en d Al ab am a’s SIP
was “ subs ta nt ia ll y

in ad equa te ”; rat he r, th e EPA is cla im in g i t m ad e an“ erro r” i n 20 08 when itin it ia ll y

ap pr ov edth e SIP r ev is io n. Th us , forou r pu rp os es , th e la wfu ln es s o f th e 2 01 1 d is ap pr ov al hi ng es on whet he r Sec ti on 11 0( k) (6 )
au th or iz edth e EPA’s act io n. Sect io n 1 10 (k )(6 ) pe rm it s t he EPA to “ rev is e” a SI P p ro vi si on ap pr ov ed“ in
erro r” wi th ou t “ an y

fur th er s ub m is si on fro m

th e St at e.” 4 2 U.S.C. § 74 10 (k )(6 ). Sect io n 1 10 (k )(6 ) “ m ay ” b e in vo ke d “ [w]hen ev er t he Adm in is tra to r de te rm in es th atth e Adm in is tra to r’s act io n app ro vi ng , di sapp ro vi ng , or p ro m ul ga ti ng an y

pl an
orpl an rev is io n (o r pa rt t he reo f) . . . was i n e rro r.” Id

. The s ta tu te pro vi de s t he pr oc edur e fo r co rrec ti ng or “ rev is [in g]” th e err on eo us act io n: “ th e Adm in is tra to r
m ay in th e sa m e m an ne r as th e ap pr ov al , di sapp ro va l, o r pr om ul ga ti on rev is e su ch act io n a s ap pr op ria te wit ho utrequi rin g a ny furt he r subm is si on fro m th e St at e.” Id

.

21The st atut e req ui res th at“ [s ]uch de te rm in at io n a ndth e b as is th ereo f sh al l b e

pr ov id edto th e St at e an d p ub li c.” Id

. As t he pl ai n l an gu ag e sh ows , Sect io n 1 10 (k )(6 ) ha s b ot h d is cret io na ry an d
m an da to ry

featur es . Thro ug h t he us e o f th e te rm s “ whe ne ve r” an d “ m ay ,” Sect io n 11 0( k) (6 ) co nf

ers di sc ret io n o n t he EPA to de ci de if a ndwhen itwil l i nv ok e th e st atut e to rev is e a p rio r act io n . See , e.g. , N.Y . Pub . Int er es t Res ea rc h Gr p. v. W hi tma n , 32 1 F .3d31 6, 3 30 –3 1 (2 d C ir. 2 00 3) (st at in g t ha t t he ph ras e

“ [w]hen ev er t he Adm in is tra to r m ak es a de te rm in at io n” in Sect io n 5 02 (i) (1 ) of th e Cl ean Air Actgra nt s t he EPA “ di sc ret io n wh et he r to m ak e a d et erm in at io n” ). To in vo ke Sect io n 1 10 (k )(6 ), ho wev er, the pl ai n l an gu ag e o f th e st atut e req ui res a de te rm in at io n b y

th e Adm in is tra to r th at“ th e act io n app ro vi ng . . . [th e] pla n
rev is io n . . . was i n e rro r.” 4 2 U.S.C. § 74 10 (k )(6 ); se e a ls o C he vr on , 46 7 U.S. at 84 3, 1 04 S. Ct. at27 81 (no ti ng th e co urt m us t “ gi ve effe ctto th e u na m bi gu ou sl y
ex pr es se d i nt en t o f Co ng res s” ). Ourco nc lu si on th atth e err orde te rm in at io n i s
m an da to ry

to in vo ke Sect io n 1 10 (k )(6 )’s pr oc edur e is ba se d o n t he las t p ro vi si on of th e st atut e, whi ch , us in g m an da to ry “ sh al l” lan gu ag e, requi res th atth e EPA pr ov id e “ th e St at e an d p ub li c” wi th it s erro r “ de te rm in at io n andth e b as is th ereo f.” 42 U.S.C. § 7 41 0( k) (6 ). Thu s, i f th e EPA ch oo se s t o i nv ok e Sec ti on 11 0( k) (6 ) to

22rev is e a p rio r act io n, Co ng res s h as requi redth e EPA to art ic ul at e an “ erro r” an d

pr ov id e “ th e b as is ” o f it s d et erm in at io n t ha t an erro r oc cu rred
. Here, t he EPA has be en un ab le to po in t t o ade te rm in at io n o f th e err or
co m m it te d i n t he 20 08 ap pr ov al . Neit he r th e te xtof the fin al rul e d is ap pr ov in g t he
rev is io n p ub li sh edin th e Fed eral Reg is te r, no r th e rec or d b efo re t hi s C ou rt, re ve al th atth e EPA affi rm at iv el y m ad e th e req ui si te erro r de te rm in at io n. Se e Mo to r Veh ic le Mfr

s. As s’ n o f the U.S., In c. v. St at e Far m Mut . Aut o. In s. Co

. , 46 3 U.S. 29 , 50 , 10 3 S . Ct. 2 85 6, 2 87 0 (1 98 3) (“ [A]n ag en cy ’s act io n m us t b e uph el d, i f at al l, o n t he ba si s ar ti cu la te d b y th e ag en cy

it se lf.” ). Sect io n 1 10 (k )(6 ) is on ly refe rredto in pa ss in g i n the fin al rul e, whe n t he “ EPA no te s tha t t he pro ces s i t h as
us edfor reco ns id eri ng an d d is ap pr ov in g t hi s SI P rev is io n i s en ti rel y co ns is te nt wit h t he pro ces s re qu ire d u nd er [S]ect io n 1 10 (k )(6 ).” 7 6 F ed . Reg . at 1 8,8 78 n.1 8. Nowh ere i n t he fin al rul e d oe s t he EPA cle arl y art ic ul at e th e al le ge d “ erro r”
co m m it te d i n 2 00 8 a t t he ti m e o f th e in it ia l ap pr ov al
. Se e g en eral ly 76 Fed . Reg
. 18 ,87 0. We dec li ne to sp ecu la te as t o the erro r “ de te rm in at io n andth e b as is th ereo f” wh en th e EPA it se lf h as fai le d t o p ro vi de a co gn iz ab le erro r de te rm in at io n. Se e In ves ta co rp , Inc . v. Ara bi an Inv . Ban ki ng Co rp . (In ves tc or

p) E.C. , 93 1 F .2d15 19 , 15 24 (11 th Cir . 19 91 ) (“ Alt ho ug h we wi ll be st ow p ro pe r
res pe ctto th e d et erm in at io ns of t he [ag en cy ], we wil l n otde fer t o a n e th erea l
23de te rm in at io n t ha t i s n otaffi rm at iv el y st at edby the ad m in is tra ti ve ag en cy .”); se e al so Mit ch el l En er

gy Co rp . v. FERC, 65 1 F .2d41 4, 4 18 (5t h C ir. 1 98 1) (“ If t he ad m in is tra ti ve act io n i s t o b e te st edby the ba si s upo n wh ic h i t p ur po rts to res t, t ha t ba si s m us t b e se t fo rth wit h s uc h c la rit y as t o b e u nd ers ta nd ab le . It wil l n otdo for
a co urt t o b e co m

pe ll edto gu es s atth e th eo ry un de rlyin g t he ag en cy ’s act io n; no r
can a co urt b e ex pe ct edto ch is el th atwhi chm us t b e p reci se fro m

whatth e ag en cy ha s l eftva gu e an d i nd eci si ve .” (quo ti ng SEC v. Ch en er

y Co rp . , 33 2 U.S. 1 94 , 19 6– 97 , 67 S. Ct. 1 57 5, 1 57 7 (1 94 7) ). As s uc h, t he EPA has no t co m pl ie d wi th th e p ro cedur al de m an ds Co ng res s ar ti cu la te d i n S ect io n 1 10 (k )(6 ). 1 0 Mo reo ve r, th e EPA ha s fa il edto cla rif y th e am bi gu ity su rro un di ng th e err or
co m m it te d i n t he 20 08 ap pr ov al de sp it e o pp ortu ni ti es to do so . Altho ug h t he 1 1 EPA’ s b rie f rel ie s o n S ect io n 1 10 (k )(6 ) as au th or it y forth e 2 01 1 “ erro r
co rrec ti on ,” th e b rie f fai ls to pro vi de a cl ear s ta te m en t o f th e err orco m m it te d i n th e 2 00 8 app ro va l. In aneffo rt t o u nd ers ta ndth e EPA’s ass ert io n o f erro r, we

Although the dissent concludes the EPA’s 2011 interpre tation of Section 110( l) wa s 1 0 substantively

permissible, we do not re ach this issue bec ause the EPA failed to follow the Clea n Air Ac t’s mandate to pr ovide “the State a nd public” with its error

“dete rmination and the ba sis there of.” 42 U .S.C. § 7410(k)( 6). We note that we a

re r eluctant to ac cept litiga tion posit ions as officia l justi fications for 1 1 ag ency action. See, e .g. , Gonzalez v. Re no , 212 F.3d 1338, 1350 ( 11th Cir. 2000) (“An a fter- thefac t rationalization of ag ency action—an e x planation deve loped for the sole purpose of defe nding in court the a g ency ’s ac ts—is usually entitled to no defe renc e fr om the courts.”)
.

24fo cu se d o n t hi s i ss ue at o ral arg um en t. Ho wev er, wh en qu es ti on edas t o wh ere we

wou ldfin d ast at em en t i n t he reco rdfro m th e EPA reg ard in g t he erro r co m m it te d in th e 2 00 8 app ro va l, co un se l fo r th e EPA st at ed“ [y ]ou a re n otgo in g t o fi nditin th e Fed eral Reg is te r no ti ce.” Ra th er, co un se l d ire ct edus to th e EPA’s 20 09
m ot io n fo r vo lu nt ary rem an d, wh ic h s ta te d “ th e ag en cy ha s d et erm in edth atit s pr io r act io n m ay

ha ve be en in erro r orin ad equa te ly exp la in ed .” A st at em en t i n am ot io n fo r vo lu nt ary rem an d t ha t t he re “ m ay ha ve be en ”
erro r is in su ffi ci en t t o i nv ok e Sec ti on 11 0( k) (6 ) as au th or ity to rev is e a SIP
. Sect io n 1 10 (k )(6 ) requi res th atth e “ de te rm in at io n a ndth e b as is th ereo f sh al l b e pr ov id edto th e St at e an d p ub li c,” s uc h t ha t t he m ere p os si bi li ty of erro r is in ad equa te . Here, we are s im pl y un ab le to lo cat e th e st atut or il y requi rederro r de te rm in at io n i n t he reco rdso th atwe m ay ev al ua te whet he r th e EPA’s ap pl ic at io n of Sect io n 1 10 (k )(6 ) was ap pr op ria te . The EPA it se lf c an no t p oi ntto th e err or
co m m it te d i n t he 20 08 ap pr ov al ; we ar e n otpe rm it te d t o ru m m ag e th ro ug h t he
reco rdan d c ob bl e o ne to ge th er fo r th em . Se e Bow man Tra ns p., In c. v. Arka ns as 1 2 Although the dissent infers e rror from a c ombination of EPA comments, we de cline to 1 2 do so. At most, the EPA’s statements in the rec ord indicate that its 2008 findings we re compar atively

less strongthan its 2011 findings, ba sed on a diff ere nt interpretation of Section 110( 1 ). I f we conclude this combination of EPA recor d statements constitutes an er ror deter mination under Section 110(k) (6), it is hard to imag ine any statement by

the EPA that would not qualify

so long a s the EPA argues, as it did here , that its prior findings c ould have be en better. I f the EPA would like to af firmatively

decla re the 2008 approa ch er

roneous, our

opinion leave s it free to do so, so long as it follows Congress’s statutory proce dures. 25Best

Frei gh t S ys ., Inc

. , 41 9 U.S. 2 81 , 28 5– 86 , 95 S. Ct. 4 38 , 44 2 (1 97 4) (no ti ng th atun de r th e APA st an dardof r ev ie w, cou rts m ay no t s up pl y

“ a rea so ne d b as is fo r th e ag en cy ’s act io n t ha t t he ag en cy it se lf h as no t g iv en ”); se e a ls o C amp v. Pit ts , 41 1 U.S. 1 38 , 14 2, 9 3 S . Ct. 1 24 1, 1 24 4 (1 97 3) (st at in g t ha t u nd er t he APA st an da rdof r ev ie w, “ th e fo cal po in t fo r jud ic ia l re vi ew sh ou ldbe th e ad m in is tra ti ve reco rdalr ead y in ex is te nc e”). The EPA is ful ly capab le of a rti cu la ti ng anerro r whe n p ro ceed in g u nd er Sect io n 1 10 (k )(6 ). Fo r ex am pl e, in a Fed eral Reg is te r no ti ce i ss ue d o ne m on th aft er t he fin al rul e atis su e h ere, t he EPA in vo ke d S ect io n 1 10 (k )(6 ) fo r au th or it y to co rrec t i ts pre vi ou s fu ll ap pr ov al of Tex as ’s Cle an Air ActPrev en ti on of Si gn ifi can t Det eri or at io n (P SD) p ro gr am . Determ in at io ns Co nc ern in g Nee d fo r Erro r Co rrec ti on , Part ia l Ap pr ov al an d P art ia l Di sapp ro va l, an d F ed eral Im pl em en ta ti on Pla n R eg ard in g Tex as ’s Prev en ti on of S ig ni fic an t Det eri or at io n Pro gr am , 76 Fed . Reg . 25 ,17 8 (M ay 3, 2 01 1) . The EPA ex pl ic it ly arti cu la te d t he
erro r co m m it te d a t t he ti m e o f th e p rio r act io n: “ [The ] EPA is de te rm in in g i n t hi s
ru le m ak in g t ha t i t erredin ful ly app ro vi ng Texa s’s PS D pro gr am in 19 92 be cau se atth atti m e, th e p ro gr am

ha d agap, wh ic h re cen t s ta te m en ts by T ex as ha ve m ad e pa rti cu la rly evi de nt .” 76 Fed . Reg . at 2 5,1 79 . The EPA th en to okact io n “ th ro ug h

26th e err or -co rrec ti on m ech an is m pro vi de d u nd er” S ect io n 1 10 (k )(6 ) to co rrec t t he 19 92 erro r, rev is in g i ts pre vi ou s fu ll ap pr ov al to a pa rti al di sapp ro va l. Id

. 1 3 Here, as th e EPA co nc ed edat o ral arg um en t, t he re i s n o s uc h e xp li ci t erro r de te rm in at io n i n t he Fed eral Reg is te r no ti ce fo r th e SIP r ev is io n a t i ss ue . W e are

The EPA’s c lear

invocation of Sec tion 110(k)(6) in the 2011 c orre ction of Texas’s 1 3 PSD progr am is not an outlier. In fac t, articulatingan er ror to invoke Sec tion 110(k)(6) a ppear s to have be en the EPA’s c onsistent prac tice and inter pretation of Congr ess’s proc edura l require ments for at least 15 year s. See L imitation of Approval of Preve ntion of Significa nt Deterioration Provisions C oncer ning Gree nhouse Ga s Emitti ng -Source s in St ate Implementation Plans; Final Rule, 75 Fe d. Reg . 82,536, 82,543–45 (De c. 30, 2010) ( identifying e rror s clea rly and specific ally

invoking the e rror

corr ection method of Sec tion 110(k)(6)) ; Approval a nd Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Kentucky : Approval of Re visions to t he State Implementation Plan, 75 Fed. Re g . 2,440, 2,440–41 (January 15, 2010) (“ EPA has deter mined that [t he state’ s] rule . . . was er roneously incorporated into the SI P becausethe rule is not re lated to the attainment and maintena nce of the national ambient a ir quality standards.” ); see also id. at 2441 (spec ifying c learly

that it was “re moving” a pre viously approve d rule “pursuant to sec tion 110(k)( 6) of the Clea

n Air Ac t” in order

to “cor rec t[ ]” its “error ”); id. at 2443 (e x plaining tha t the rule be ing de leted “w as er roneously incorporated into the SI P because it does not relate to the implementation, maintenance , and enf orce ment of the NAAQS in Kentucky”); De signation of Are as for Air Qua lity

Planning Purposes; Ar izona; C orre ction of B oundary of Phoenix Metropolitan 1-Hour

Ozone Nonattainment Ar ea, 70 F ed. Reg . 68,339, 68,339 (Nove mber 10, 2005) (de clar ing that the “EPA is takingdirec t final ac tion to correc t” its prior deter mination “under the authority

of sec tion 110(k)(6) of

the Clean Air A ct”) ; see also id. at 68,343 (“ Ba sed on the historic ambient monitoringdata a nd preva iling wind patter ns in the are a, we conclude that we c lear ly

err ed in fa iling to consider data madeavailable at the time of our Septe mber 1979 aff irmation . . . .”); id. (conc luding that ba sed on over looked data, the ag ency ’s prior bounda ry deter mination “was e rrone ous”); id. at 68,345 (statingthat the ag ency ’s ac tion was intended to “re mov[ e] unnece ssary

obligations that flow[ ed] from the er roneous inclusion” of

a portion of land in the EPA’s boundar y deter mination); Desig nation of Are as for Air Qua lity

Planning Purposes; Correc tion of Designation of Nonc lassified Ozone Nona ttainment Area s; St ates of Maine a nd New H ampshire, 62 F ed. Reg . 14,641, 14,641 (Mar ch 27, 1997) ( announcingthe EPA’s “de cision to corre ct” its prior ozone designations “pursua nt to section 110(k)(6) of the Clean Air Ac t (the Ac t), which a llows the USEPA to correc t its actions”); see also id. at 14,642 (conc luding that its “e arlier action . . . wa s in error ,” bec ause the “information submi tted by [t he state] did not provide enoug h data” to make the de signation); id. (dec laringitself to be “cor rec ting [an] error ” base d on “cle arly inadequate” “ information ava ilable at the time of the desig nation”). 27no t h ol di ng th at“ m ag ic word s” are re qu ire d t o i nv ok e Sec ti on 11 0( k) (6 ). Bu t,

Co ng res s h as de m an de d, ata m in im um , th atth e EPA affi rm at iv el y art ic ul at e th e
erro r co m m it te d a t t he ti m e o f th e in it ia l ac ti on if i t ch oo se s t o re ly on i ts Sect io n 11 0( k) (6 ) au th or it y

to lat er re vi se th atact io n. 1 4 To re cap , th e Cl ean Air Actco nt ai ns two pro vi si on s t ha t g ran t the EPA
au th or it y to rev is e a SIP : Se ct io ns 11 0( k) (5 ) an d (k )(6 ). 42 U.S.C. §§ 74 10 (k )(5 ) & (6 ). The EPA d oe s n otpu rp ort t o re ly on t he SIP Ca ll pro cedur es setfor th in Sect io n 1 10 (k )(5 ), no r co ul d i t, as th ere was ne ve r a fi nd in g o f subs ta nt ia l in ad equa cy . 42 U.S.C. § 7 41 0( k) (5 ). Alt ho ug h t he EPA do es pu rp ort t o re ly on th e err or -co rrec ti on m ech an is m pro vi de d i n S ect io n 1 10 (k )(6 ), th e EPA di d n ot

“pr ov id e[] . . . th e St at e an d p ub li c” wi th th e err orde te rm in at io n C on gr es s requi res . 42 U.S.C. § 7 41 0( k) (6 ). Thu s, we co nc lu de th e EPA di d n otactin
acco rd an ce wi th th e Cl ean Air Actin th e 2 01 1 d is ap pr ov al of Al ab am a’s vi si bl e
em is si on s SI P rev is io n.

The dissent’s a

pproac h of infer

ringerr or whe re suc h err or has not bee n aff irmatively 1 4 articulated by

the EPA would limitthe EPA’s future ability to chang e policies. As the dissent points out, i t is not “unusual for a c hang e in philosophy within an ag ency

to result in a policy about-fa ce.”Howeve r, a c hang e in policy does not in and of itself indica te that the prior enfor ceme nt policy

was e rrone ous, as there can be multipl e per missibl e ag ency

interpre tations of a statute. Chevron , 467 U.S. at 843 n.11, 104 S. Ct . at 2782 n.11. It is at least fea sible that a chang e in administration would result in the EPA applying a 2008-ty pe appr oach to Sec tion 110( l)’s e nforc ement, and to de clar e this approa ch er roneous, without the EPA havingdone so itself, would limitthe EPA’s futureenfor ceme nt flexi bility
. 282. Whethe r the EPA A ct ed W ithi n i ts Inh er en t Au th or it y in Iss ui ng

th e 2 01 1 Disa pp ro va l As ad di ti on al jus ti fic at io n fo r th e 2 01 1 d is ap pr ov al , th e EPA co nt en ds it
was act in g wi th in it s i nh eren t au th or it y to reco ns id er d eci si on s. 7 6 F ed . Reg . at 18 ,87 7– 78
. The EPA reli es on Gun So uth, In c. v. Bra dy , 87 7 F .2d85 8 (1 1t h C ir. 19 89 ), an d NewJer

se y v. EPA , 51 7 F .3d57 4 (D.C . Cir . 20 08 ), as supp ort fo r it s cl ai m of i nh eren t au th or it y . W e co nc lu de th e EPA can no t re ly on a ny inh eren t
au th or it y he re, wh ere C on gr es s h as pro vi de d s pe ci fic st atut ory pro cedur es for
rev is in g aSIP. Se e 42 U.S.C. § 7 41 0( k) (5 ), (k )(6 ). Gun So uth co ns id eredth e au th or it y of t he Bu reau of Al co ho l, To ba cco , and Fi rearm s (B ur eau ) to tem po rari ly sus pe ndth e im

po rta ti on of a ss au ltrif

le s u nd er th e Gun Co nt ro l Act
. Gun S. , 87 7 F .2dat 8 60 –6 1. Aft er n ot in g n ei th er t he Gun Co nt ro l Actno r it s i m

pl em en ti ng reg ul at io ns ex pr es sl y au th or iz edth e su sp en si on , we co nc lu de d “ th e Bu reau m us t n eces sa ril y

ret ai n t he po wer t o c orrectth e
erro ne ou s ap pr ov al of f

ire arm s i m

po rt app li cat io ns ,” as well as “ th e co ro ll ary po wer t o t em

po rari ly sus pe ndth e im

po rta ti on of f

ire arm s.” Id

. at86 2. As supp ort fo r ou r co nc lu si on th atth e te m po rary sus pe ns io n fe ll wit hi n t he Bu reau ’s im pl ie d
au th or it y , we reco gn iz edth e g en eral rul e th atag en ci es po ss es s i m pl ie d autho rit y

“ to reco ns id er an d re ct ify erro rs ev en th ou gh th e ap pl ic ab le st atut e an d re gu la ti on s

29do no t ex pr es sl y pro vi de forsu ch reco ns id erat io n.” Id

. Thu s, Gun So uth
reco gn iz edth e Bu reau ’s im pl ie d aut ho rit y

to im po se a te m

po rary sus pe ns io n whe re the Gun Co nt ro l Actlac ke d a n e xp res s p ro vi si on au th or iz in g s uc h a ct io n. Id

. 1 5 Inco nt ras t t o t he Bu reau in Gun So uth , her e, th e EPA ha d s ta tu to ry to ol s
av ai labl e to rev is e th e SIP: Sect io ns 11 0( k) (5 ) an d (k )(6 ) of th e Cl ean Air Act
. The EPA cho se to in vo ke Sect io n 1 10 (k )(6 ) of th e Cl ean Air Actto “ rev is e” a SI P
rev is io n app ro ve d “ in erro r,” 4 7 U.S.C. § 74 10 (k )(6 ), bu t fa il edto art ic ul at e wha t
erro r was co m

m it te d i n t he 20 08 ap pr ov al . W e d ecl in e to im pl y an y au th or it y to actbe y on d t he co nf

in es of t he EPA’ s s ta tu to ry au th or it y wher e th e Cl ean Air Act pr ov id es ex pr es s p ro vi si on s fo r rev is in g a ndco rrec ti ng a SIP. Se e, e.g . , Mich . v. EPA , 26 8 F .3d10 75 , 10 81 (D.C. Cir . 20 01 ) (n ot in g t he EPA is “ a cre atur e o f st atut e,” an d m ay

ex erci se “ on ly tho se au th or it ie s co nf erre d upo n i t b y

Co ng res s” ). W e n ot e th atou r co nc lu si on is co ns is te ntwit h NewJer se y , 51 7 F .3dat 5 82 , whe re the D.C. Circ ui t re co gn iz edth at“ [a]n ag en cy can no rm al ly chan ge it s po si ti on an d re ve rs e a d eci si on .” The D.C. Ci rcu itno te d a n i m po rta nt As support for our

findingof implied authority , we a lso relied on the leg islative history 1 5 in the Gun Control Act illustrating “ Congr ess’s intent absolutely to bar the importation of firea rms outside of the nar

row statutory

exceptions.” Gun S. , 877 F.2d at 862

. Additionally , we noted the B urea

u did not interpret the Gun Control Ac t as prohibiting a temporar y ban, and defe rre d to the Bur eau’ s interpre tation beca use the plain languag e of the statute did not compel a differ ent interpre tation. Id. at 863. 30qu al ifi cat io n o n t ha t g en eral pri nc ip le : “ Co ng res s, h owe ve r, un do ub te dl y can li m itanag en cy ’s di sc ret io n t o re ve rs e it se lf.” Id

. at58 3. In NewJer se y , th e co urt he ldCo ng res s d idjus t t ha t b y in cl ud in g e xp res s d el is ti ng requi rem en ts in th e Cl ean Air Act
. Id

. The D.C. Circ ui t co nc lu de d t ho se ex pr es s p ro vi si on s pr ecl ud edth e EPA fro m

cla im in g i t p os se ss edin he ren t au th or it y to de li sta reg ul at edun itwit ho utfol lo win g t he st atut ory pro cedur e. See id

. (n ot in g t ha t

“ whe n C on gr es s h as pro vi de d am ech an is m cap ab le of r ect ifyin g m is ta ke n a ct io ns . . . it i s n otreas on ab le to in fer aut ho rit y to reco ns id er ag en cy

act io n” (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) ). Lik ewis e, th e Cl ean Air Act ’s exp res s s ta tu to ry pr ov is io ns forrev is in g a ndco rrec ti ng a SIP p recl ud e th e EPA’s rel ia nc e o n any cl ai m of i nh eren t au th or it y

he re. 3. Whethe r the 20 11 Dis ap pr ov al wa s C ou rt -Autho ri

ze d As a fi na l s ou rce o f au th or it y , th e EPA pl aces gre atweig hton th is Co urt’s Sep te m be r 28 , 20 09 , ord er g ran ti ng it s m ot io n fo r vo lu nt ary rem an d. Th e EPA rel ie s o n t he “ m em or an dafil edby the pa rti es ” to de fin e “ [t]he sco pe of
au th or iz at io n [t he ] EPA rece iv edfro m th e Co urt,” a ndco nt en ds “ [c]on te xtan d lo gi c u nd ers co re tha t [t he ] EPA ob ta in edau th or iz at io n fr om th is Co urt t o p ro ceed
as itdi d o n re m an d.” W e d is ag ree wi th th is bo ldass ert io n.

31On Ap ril 9, 2 00 9, t he EPA m ov edth is Co urt fo r a v ol un ta ry rem an d. Ou r Sep te m be r 28 , 20 09 , ord er g ran ti ng th e m ot io n p ro vi de d a s fo ll ows : The EPA has fil eda “ Mo ti on forVol un ta ry Rem an d” in App eal No. 08 -1 69 61 , whi ch is a pe ti ti on forrev ie w of the fin al rul e ap pr ov in g rev is io ns to th e Alaba m a St at e Im pl em en ta ti on Plan. Th e “ Mo ti on fo r Vol un ta ry

Rem an d,” co ns tru edas am ot io n fo r li m it edrem an d t o pe rm itth e EPA to co nduc t re co ns id erat io n p ro ceed in gs an d t o s ta y th is Co urt’s p ro ceed in gs pe nd in g re so lu ti on of r eco ns id erat io n, i s GRANTED. App eal Num be r 08 -1 69 61 is he reb y

REMANDED to th e EPA on a li m it edba si s fo r pu rp os es of r eco ns id eri ng th e fi na l ru le un de r rev ie w, andpro ceed in gs inth is Co urt s ha ll rem ai n S TAYED pe nd in g c om

pl et io n o f su ch reco ns id erat io n. Th e EPA is di rect edto pr ov id e th e Co urt wi th rep orts ev ery si xt y (60 ) da y s re ga rd in g t he st atus of t he reco ns id erat io n p ro ceed in gs . Sep te m be r 28 , 20 09 , Orde r Gran ti ng Mo ti on forVol un ta ry Rem an d a t 2 –3
. Not hi ng in th e o rd er ex pl ic it ly autho riz edth e EPA to actou ts id e th e st atut ory pr oc edur es setforth in th e Cl ean Air Act . The o rd er s im pl y pe rm it te d t he EPA to
co nduc t re co ns id erat io n p ro ceed in gs on rem an d, an d s tay edth e ap pe al pe nd in g
co m pl et io n o f su ch reco ns id erat io n. W e d ecl in e th e EPA’s in vi ta ti on to im pl y rul in gs on subs ta nt iv e is su es fro m th is see m in gl y

st rai gh tfo rwardrem an d o rd er. Eve n a ss um in g we c ou lddi vi ne

“ co urt au th or iz at io n” forth e 2 01 1 d is ap pr ov al fro m th is ord er, the ord er h as no pr eced en ti al va lu e. Our ru le s s ta te th at“ [a] rul in g o n am ot io n o r ot he r in te rlo cu to ry

m at te r, whe th er en te redby a sin gl e jud ge or apane l, i s n otbi nd in g

32up on th e p an el to whi ch th e ap pe al is ass ig ne d o n t he m eri ts , andth e m eri ts pa ne l

m ay alt er, am en d, o r va cat e it .” 11 th Cir . R. 27 -1 (g ). Acco rd in gl y , we rejectth e EPA’ s “ co urt au th or iz at io n” arg um en t as m eri tl es s. 4. Th e 2 01 1 Disa

pp ro va l is Va ca te d Insu m , bec au se th e 2 01 1 d is ap pr ov al was n otco nduc te d a cco rd in g t o t he st atut ory pro cedur es setfor th in th e Cl ean Air Act , we m us t s etitasi de
. Se e 5 U.S.C. § 7 06 (2 )(C) ,(D) (s ta ti ng a fi na l ag en cy act io n m us t b e se t as id e if

it
ex ceed s the ag en cy ’s st atut ory au th or it y or i s “ wit ho utob se rv an ce o f pr oc edur e requi redby law”). W e th eref or e g ran t Al ab am a Po wer’s p et it io n c ha ll en gi ng th e 20 11 di sapp ro va l an d v acat e th e EPA’s fin al di sapp ro va l o f rev is io ns to Alab am a’s vi si bl e em is si on s ru le . Becau se th e Apr il 6, 2 01 1, fi na l ru le is va cat ed , th e Oct ob er 1 5, 2 00 8, fi na l ru le ap pr ov in g t he rev is io ns st an ds as t he las t fi na l act io n t ak en on th e p ro po se d re vi si on . Thu s, we m us t n ex t co ns id er Ci ti zen s’ pe ti ti on ch al le ng in g t he Octo be r 15 , 20 08 , fin al rul e. B. Th e EPA’s 2 00 8 Ap pr ov al of Ala ba ma’

s S IP Revisi on Ci ti zen s co nt en d t he 20 08 ap pr ov al vi ol at es Sect io n 1 10 ( l) of th e Cl ean Air Act. Ci ti zen s m ak e n o s pe ci fic arg um en t as to ho w th e EPA’s 20 08 ap pr ov al vi ol at edSect io n 1 10 ( l) of th e Cl ean Air Act ; ra th er, the y rel y on th ei r arg um en ts
as to ho w th e EPA’s 20 11 di sapp ro va l d id no t vi ol at e th e Cl ean Air Act . Cit iz en s
33al so ch al le ng e two lo ng -s ta nd in g p ro vi si on s o f Alaba m a’s SIP t ha t wer e n ota pa rt

of Alab am a’s 20 08 subm is si on s. The EPA d oe s n otde fen d the 20 08 ap pr ov al , 1 6 bu t Al ab am a Po wer, as anin te rv en orin th e 2 00 8 app eal , cla im s t he 20 08 ap pr ov al
was va li d a ndlawf

ul
. 1. W he th er th e 2 00 8 Ap

pr ov al Vio la te s Sect io n 1 10 (l) of th e Cl ea n Ai r Act Sect io n 1 10 ( l) of

th e Cl ean Air Act , ent it le d “ Pl an rev is io ns ,” pr ov id es in pe rti ne ntpa rt tha t “ [t]he Adm in is tra to r sh al l n otap pr ov e a rev is io n o f a p la n i f th e
rev is io n wo ul d i nt erfe re wi th an y ap pl ic ab le requi rem en t co nc ern in g a tt ai nm en t
an d re as on ab le fur th er p ro gr es s . . . or any oth er ap pl ic ab le requi rem en t o f th is Act.” 42 U.S.C. § 7 41 0( l). The que st io n o f whe th er t he 20 08 ap pr ov al vi ol at es th e Cl ean Air Actde pe nd s o n t he m ean in g o f th e p hr as e “ wou ldin te rfer e.” The Si xt h C irc ui t h as co nc lu de d th at“ [a] cou rt s earc hi ng forth e m ean in g o f ‘int erfe re’ [in Sect io n 1 10 ( l)] or fo r a cl earl y pre ferr edm ech an is m

forde te rm in in g t ha t wh ic h in te rfer es wade s i nt o a m

bi gu it y , th e o nl y

so lu ti on to whi ch is th e d efer en ti al Ch evr on st ep two .” Ky. Res . Cou nc il , 46 7 F .3dat 9 95
. W e ag ree, as th e Cl ean Air Act “ do es no t d ire ct ly spe akto ho w a de te rm in at io n o f in te rfer en ce i s t o b e m ad e.”

Citi zens also make a va gue and g ener al asser tion that the proposed re vision leaves 1 6 Alabama incapa ble of de tectingparticulate matter violations. Citiz ens have failed to off er a ny support for this claim, and the re is no indication that the SI P revision rende rs Alabama incapa ble of dete ctingviolations and enfor cingthe visible emissions li mits. 34Id

. (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Thu s, u nd er Ch evr on st ep two , we def er t o th e EPA’s in te rp ret at io n o f Sec ti on 11 0( l) if itis ba se d o n ape rm is si bl e
co ns tru ct io n o f th e st atut e. Ch evr on , 46 7 U.S. at84 2– 43
. Inth e 2 00 8 app ro va l, t he EPA in te rp ret edSect io n 1 10 ( l) to pe rm itap pr ov al of th e SIP r ev is io n “ ‘unl es s t he ag en cy fin ds itwil l m ak e ai r qu al it y wors e.’” 73 Fed . Reg . at 6 0,9 60 (qu ot in g Ky. Res . Cou nc il , 46 7 F .3dat 9 95 ). The EPA t he n
co nc lu de d t he pro po se d S IP rev is io n s at is fie d S ect io n 1 10 ( l)’s requi rem en ts be cau se th e rev is io n wo ul d n otin te rfer e wit h e it he r th e an nu al or 2 4- ho ur pa rti cu la te m atte r NAAQS. 73 Fed . Reg . at 6 0,9 59
. The EPA’ s i nt erp ret at io n i s a p erm is si bl e rea di ng of S ect io n 1 10 ( 1 ), an d t hu s
en ti tl edto de fere nc e. The S ix th Cir cu itreac he d t hi s s am e co nc lu si on in Ken tu cky Reso ur ces Co un ci l , 46 7 F .3dat 9 96 , andwe fin d i ts reas on in g p ers ua si ve . As th e Si xt h C irc ui t n ot ed , th e EPA’s in te rp ret at io n g iv es th e st at es fle xi bi li ty and“ do es
se rv ic e to a fu nd am en ta l p rem is e u nd erl y in g t he Cle an Air Actsch em e, whi ch is th atth e st at es ha ve th e p rimary res po ns ib il it y

foren su rin g t ha t t he NAAQS are
m et .” Id

. W e ag ree tha t wh ere i nt erfe ren ce i s n otde m on st rat ed , app ro va l o f th e st at e’s SIP re vi si on ap pr op ria te ly resp ect s t he st at e’s ch oi ce t o a ch ie ve air qu al it y st an da rd s wi th “ wha te ve r m ix of e m is si on li m it at io ns itde em s b es t s ui te d t o i ts
35pa rti cu la r si tu at io n.” Tr ai n , 42 1 U.S. at79 , 95 S. Ct. at14 82 ; se e a ls o Fl a. Po wer

& Light Co

. , 65 0 F .2dat 5 81 (“ The st at e is ‘ atli be rty’ to de vi se th e p art ic ul ar
co m po ne nt s o f it s p ol lu ti on co nt ro l p lan s o l on g a s t he pl an is ad equa te to m eetth e st an da rd s m an da te d b y

[th e] EPA. ”). Bec au se we fin d t he EPA’ s i nt erp ret at io n
reas on ab le an d e nt it le d t o d efer en ce, t he EPA’ s 2 00 8 app ro va l u ti li zi ng th at in te rp ret at io n d oe s n otvi ol at e Sec ti on 11 0( 1 ) of th e Cl ean Air Act
. Alt ho ug h we c on cl ud e th e EPA’s in te rp ret at io n o f Sec ti on 11 0( 1 ) in th e 20 08 ap pr ov al was p erm is si bl e, we pa ss no jud gm en t o n t he EPA’ s i nt erp ret at io n of Sect io n 1 10 ( 1 ) in th e 2 01 1 d is ap pr ov al . There m ay be m or e th anon e pe rm is si bl e in te rp ret at io n o f a s ta tu te , se e Ch evr on , 46 7 U.S. at84 3 n .11 , 10 4 S
. Ct . at 2 78 2 n .11 , andso lo ng as t he in te rp ret at io n i s p erm is si bl e, itdo es no t m at te r whe th er t he in te rp ret at io n “ is a dr am at ic sh iftin EPA po li cy ,” Fri en ds of Ever gl ades v. S. Fla . W

at er Mgmt . Dis t. , 57 0 F .3d12 10 , 12 19 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). 2. W he th er th e Aut oma ti c Exemp ti on an d Di re ct or ’s Dis cr et io n Pro visi on s Vi ol at e th e Cl ea n Ai r Act Ci ti zen s co nt en d t he rul e p ro vi di ng au to m at ic ex em pt io ns for“ st artup , sh ut do wn, l oa d c ha ng e, an d ra te ch an ge or o th er s ho rt, i nt erm it te ntpe rio ds of ti m e,” se e Ala. Adm in . Cod e r. 3 35 -3 -4 -.01 (1 )(c) , m ay no t b e ap pr ov edas p artof Alab am a’s SIP b ecau se su ch a ru le wou ldpre ve ntth e li m it at io ns of e m is si on s o n a

36co nt in uo us ba si s. Ci ti zen s al so cla im th e SIP’s “ di rect or ’s di sc ret io n” pro vi si on s,
se e Ala. Ad m in . Cod e r. 3 35 -3 -4 -.01 (1 )(d ), are p ro hi bi te d b y th e Cl ean Air Act be cau se su ch pro vi si on s g iv e th e st at e th e p owe r to ch an ge rul es un il at eral ly. Cit iz en s’ att em

ptto ch al le ng e th e EPA’s ap pr ov al of t he au to m at ic
ex em pt io n a nddi rect or ’s di sc ret io n p ro vi si on s i s u nt im el y . Sect io n 7 60 7( b) (1 ) requi res th at“ [a]ny pe ti ti on forrev ie w un de r th is subs ect io n s ha ll be fil edwit hi n si xty da y s fr om

th e d at e n ot ic e o f su ch pro m ul ga ti on , app ro va l, o r act io n app ears in th e Fed eral Reg is te r.” 4 2 U.S.C. § 76 07 (b )(1 ). The au to m at ic ex em pt io n fo r

“ st artup , sh ut do wn, l oa d c ha ng e, an d ra te ch an ge or o th er s ho rt, i nt erm it te nt pe rio ds of t im e,” Ala . Adm in . Cod e r. 3 35 -3 -4 -.01 (1 )(c) , be cam e an ap pr ov edpa rt of Alab am a’s SIP i n 1 97 2. Se e App ro va l an d P ro m ul ga ti on of I m

pl em en ta ti on Pl an s, 3 7 F ed . Reg 10 ,84 2, 1 0,8 47 –4 8 (M ay 31 , 19 72 ). The “ di rect or ’s di sc ret io n” pr ov is io n, Al a. Adm in . Cod e r. 3 35 -3 -4 -.01 (1 )(d ), be cam e an ap pr ov edpa rt o f Alab am a’s SIP i n 1 99 3. Se e Alab am a: App ro va l o f th e Vis ib le Emis si on Reg ul at io ns , 58 Fed . Reg . 25 ,56 6 (Ap ril 27 , 19 93 ). Acco rd in gl y , Cit iz en s’ att em pt to ch al le ng e th es e p ro vi si on s n ow i s u nt im el y . 42 U.S.C. § 7 60 6( b) (1 ). Mo reo ve r, we rejectCit iz en s’ con te nt io n tha t t he EPA reo pe ne d the se pr ov is io ns forrev ie w by co ns id eri ng th e 2 00 8 S IP rev is io n. Th e EPA m ad e cl ear fro m th e o ut se t t ha t “ [t]he di rect or ’s di sc ret io n p ro vi si on s u nd er Al ab am a ru le 33 5-
373- 4.0 1( 1) (c) a nd(d) wou ldbe un ch an ge d b y [th e 2 00 8] SIP re vi si on ,” an d t ha t t he pr ov is io ns were “ no t b ei ng rev is edby A DEM orrev ie wedby [the ] EPA at pr es en t.” 7 3 F ed . Reg . at 6 0,9 58 n.1 . The EPA al so st at edth at“ no th in g i n [t he Fed eral Reg is te r] not ic e sh ou ldbe co ns id eredas app ro vi ng th os e p ro vi si on s.” Id

. The re i s n o s up po rt f

orth e Ci ti zen s’ con te nt io n t ha t t he EPA reo pe ne d t he se is su es . W e al so rejectCit iz en s’ cla im th atth e EPA “ co ns tru ct iv el y ” reo pe ne d t he pr ov is io ns by con si de rin g t he 20 08 SIP re vi si on . Cit iz en s re ly on Si er ra Clu b v

. EPA , 55 1 F .3d10 19 (D.C. Cir . 20 08 ), in whi ch th e D.C. Ci rcu itst at eda

“ co ns tru ct iv e reo pe ni ng oc cu rs if t he rev is io n o f acc om pa nyin g re gu la ti on s ‘sig ni fic an tl y

alt ers th e st ak es of ju di ci al rev ie w.’ ” Id. at10 25 (qu ot in g Ken ne co tt Uta h C op pe r C or p. v. U.S. Dep’ t o

f In te ri or , 88 F.3d11 91 , 12 27 (D.C. Cir . 19 96 )). The D.C. Circ ui t co nc lu de d t he EPA hadco ns tru ct iv el y reo pe ne d ast artup s, sh ut do wns , andm al fu nc ti on s (S SM) ex em pt io n by “ co m

pl et el y ch an g[ in g] th e reg ul at ory

co nt ex t fo r it s SS M ex em pt io n b y st rip pi ng ou t v irtua ll y

all of t he SSM pl an requi rem en ts th atitcrea te d t o c on ta inth e ex em pt io n.” Id

. (in te rn al qu ot at io n
m ark s o m it te d) (em

ph as is om it te d)
. Pri orto th e ru le m ak in gs at i ss ue in Si er ra Clu b , th e EPA ha d l im it edth e SSM ex em

pt io n b y (1) requi rin g s ou rces to co m pl y wit h a n S SM p la n dur in g pe rio ds of S SM, (2 ) requi rin g re vi ew an d app ro va l o f th e SSM pl an , (3) requi rin g
38th atth e SSM pl an s b e m ad e av ai labl e to th e p ub li c, su ch th atth e p ub li c co ul d

pa rti ci pa te in th e p erm itap pr ov al pro ces s, an d (4 ) m ak in g t he SSM p la n d ire ct ly
en fo rceabl e. Id

. at10 25 . In t he rul em ak in gs ch al le ng edby SierraClub, h owe ve r, th e EPA—wh il e n otoff

ic ia ll y reo pe ni ng th e SSM ex em pt io n— el im in at edall of t he afo rem en ti on edsaf

eg ua rd s, m ean in g t he SSM p la ns were n o l on ge r m an da to ry , en fo rceabl e, subjec t t o app ro va l, o r publ ic ly avai labl e. Id

. at10 25 –2 6. W e are no t p res en te d wi th anan al og ou s s itua ti on . Cit iz en s h av e n otpo in te d to an y ch an ge s, m in oror m ajor , to th e au to m at ic ex em pt io n fo r “ st artup , sh ut do wn, lo adch an ge , andrat e ch an ge or o th er s ho rt, i nt erm it te ntpe rio ds of t im e,” o r to th e

“ di rect or ’s di sc ret io n” pro vi si on s. Ci ti zen s h av e al so fai le d t o d em on st rat e th atth e EPA has crea te d ane w reg ul at ory co nt ex t s uf

fic ie ntto co ns tru ct iv el y

reo pe n t he pr ov is io ns —t he re i s s im

pl y no ev id en ce t he pro vi si on s, o r th e en fo rcem en t o f th e pr ov is io ns ha ve ch an ge d i n a ny way . Becau se th e EPA di d n otreo pe n the se pr ov is io ns , con st ru ct iv el y or o th erwi se , we dec li ne to rev ie w th em on ap pe al
. Acco rd in gl y , we den y

Cit iz en s’ pet it io n c ha ll en gi ng th e 2 00 8 app ro va l an d affi rm th e EPA’s fin al rul e ap pr ov in g re vi si on s t o Al ab am a’s vi si bl e em is si on s
ru le . 73 Fed . Reg . at 6 0,9 57 . As a fi na l m at te r, we de cl in e to fol lo w Cit iz en s’ and th e EPA’s su gg es ti on th atwe ig no re t he 20 08 ap pr ov al . If th e EPA wis he s t o

39rev is e o r co rrec t t he 20 08 ap pr ov al , itm ay do so by foll owi ng th e st atut ory pr oc edur es pro vi de d i n t he Cle an Air Act
. Se e 42 U.S.C. §§ 74 10 (k )(5 ), (k )(6 ). V. Co nc lu si on Alab am a Po wer’s p et it io n i s h ereb y GRANTED , andth e EPA’s 20 11 di sapp ro va l i s VACATED
. Cit iz en s’ pet it io n i s h ereb y DENIE D , andth e EPA’s 1 7 20 08 ap pr ov al is AFFIRMED
.

On J une 21, 2011, Alaba ma Power f

iled a motion to direct the EPA to supplement the 1 7 administrative re cord. The motion is denied. 40MOLLOY, Dist ric t J ud ge , con cu rri ng in pa rt a nddi ss en ti ng in pa rt:

I ag ree wit h m

uc h of th e Co urt’s op in io n, in cl ud in g it s de te rm in at io n th at th e EPA was no t requi red to is su e a SIP cal l as th e ex cl us iv e m ean s of rev is in g th e SIP ap pr ov ed in 20 08
. To th at ex te nt , I co nc ur in th e m ajor it y op in io n. Bu t I res pe ct fu ll y di ss en t fro m th e Co urt’s de te rm in at io n th at “ [n ]eith er th e t e x t of th e fin al ru le di sapp ro vi ng rev is io n pu b l i s he d in th e Fed eral Reg is te r, no r th e reco rd be fo re th is Co ur t, re veal th at EPA affi rm at iv el y m ad e th e requi si te erro r de te rm in at io n.” Majori ty Op. at23
. My di sa gr eem en t is ba se d on two sp eci fic di ffer en ces wit h th e Co urt’s op in io n. Fi rs t, th e EPA’ s no ti ces an d de ci si o n s in th e Fed eral Reg is te r qu it e cl earl y de sc rib e ho w th e ag en cy be li ev es it was in erro r in ap pr ov i n g t h e 20 08 pr op os ed rev is io n. Seco nd , th e pr oc es s th at th e EPA fo ll owe d was m or e acco m m od at in g to th e St at e an d to th e a f f ect ed in du st rie s th an wha t wil l in ev it ab ly fo ll ow fro m Co urt’s de ci si on , as ap pl ie d in f

u t u r e c a s e s . I be li ev e we sh ou ld di sm is s th e 20 08 act io n fo r la ck of juri sd ic ti on an d a ffi rm

th e EPA’s 20 11 di sapp ro va l.

I. Whe n t h e EP A p u b li sh ed no ti ce th at it was pr op os in g ei th er to affi rm it s ap pr ov al or d is ap pr ov e Alaba m a’s pr op os edrev is io n, i t s ai d:

41EPA’ s pr io r ap pr ov al no ti ce pr ov id es ex te ns iv e di sc us si on of th e reas on s

why EPA co nc lu de d in th at no ti ce th at se ct io n 11 0( l) ha d be en sa ti sf ie d. In pa rti cu la r, EPA st at ed as gr ou nd s f o r th is co nc lu si on th at : “ (1 ) The rev is io n wou ld no t in crea se th e al lo wab le av erag e op aci ty le ve ls ; an d (2 ) th e rel at io ns hi p be twee n ch an ge s in op aci ty an d in crea se s or de crea se s 2
. 5 in am bi en t PM le ve ls can no t be qu an ti fie d read il y f or th e so ur ces subjec t to th is SIP rev is io n, an d is pa rti cu la rly un cert ai n fo r sh ort-t erm an al y se s.”
74 Fed
. Reg
. 50 93 0, 50 93 2– 33 (Oct
. 2, 20 09 ) (quo ti ng 73 Fed
. Reg
. at 60 95 9 (Oct
. 15 , 20 08 )) (i nt ern al cit at io ns an d fo ot no te om it te d)
. Giv en th os e two reas on s fo r ap pr ov in g th e 20 08 pr op os ed rev is io n, th e erro r th atth e EPA be li ev es it co m m it te d is id en ti fie d in th e th or ou gh de sc rip ti on se t fort h in th e Fed eral Reg is te r: Bas ed on th e in fo rm at io n rece iv ed to da te , EPA be li ev es th at i n c reas es 2
. 5 or de crea se s in PM em is si on s ba se d on sh ort-t erm in crea se s in op aci ty can no t be qu an ti fie d read il y fo r th e so ur ces subjec t to th is SIP revi si on . The r e a r e se ve ral co nt rib ut or s to th e un cert ai nt ie s as so ci at ed with rel at in g m as s em is si on s to in crea se s in op aci ty, i nc lu di ng : (1 ) Diff eren ces be twee n c om

bu st io n te ch no lo gy ch arac te ris ti cs an d fu el co m po ne nt s, (2 ) di ffer en ces in co nt ro l te ch no lo gy types , te m pe ratur es at whi ch th ey op erat e, an d lo ad ch arac te ris ti cs , (3 ) th e reco gn it io n th at bo th op aci ty an d m as s em is si on s are subjec t to si gn ifi can t va r i ab i l i ty ov er sh o r t pe rio ds of ti m e an d flu ctua ti on s su ch th at on e m ay act in de pe nd en tl y of th e othe r , an d (4 ) di ffer en ces be twee n th e m as s of pa rti cl es th at ex is ts at th e po in t of op aci ty m eas ur em en t by th e COMS 2
. 5 (e.g ., in th e st ack ) an d th e di rect PM th at fo rm s imm ed ia t e l y up on ex it in g th e st ack (th at are rel at ed to fu el co m po ne nt s m or e th an to co ntro l te ch no lo gy).

42Id

. at 50 93 3. In th is pa ss ag e, th e a g e n c y m ak es cl ear th at be ca us e “ th e rel at io ns hi p

2
. 5 be twee n ch an ge s in op aci ty an d in crea se s or de crea se s in am bi en t PM le ve ls can no t be qu an ti fie d read il y fo r th e so ur ces subjec t to th is SIP rev is io n” an d be cau se th ere are
a t l e a st fo ur di st in ct reas on s th at li tt le or no ch an ge in op aci ty m ig ht y et b e
a c c o m pa ni ed by a si gn ifi can t in crea se in actua l em is si on of pa rti cu la te m at te r, th e EPA can no t say whe th er t he pro po se d re vi si on “ wou ld in te rfer e wit h any ap pl ic ab le requi rem en t co nc ern in g at ta in m en t.” Bec au se § 11 0( l) of th e Cl ean Air Act requi res th e EPA to en su re th at th e pr op os ed rev is io n wil l no t in te rfer e with an y ap p l i c ab le requi rem en t co nc ern in g at ta in m en t, th e EPA’ s ap pr ov al di d no t co m pl y wit h th e Act. Tha t i s t he id en ti fie d e rro r orm is ta ke th e ag en cy m ad e. The EPA al so de sc rib ed a se co nd err o r , an ex te ns io n of th e fir st , whe n it
an no un ced it s di sapp ro va l of th e 20 08 pr op os ed rev is io n. It sa id th at in it s pr io r ap pr ov al of t he rev is io n: [W] e es tabl is he d a ne w metr ic of “ av erag e da il y op aci ty” (an d “ av erag e qu ar te rl y op aci ty”) an d co nc lu de d th at se ct io n 11 0( l) di d no t pr oh ib it ap pr ov al of a SIP rev is io n th at al lo wed si gn ifi can t l y in crea se d op aci ty le ve ls fo r lo ng er co ns ecu ti ve pe rio ds of ti m e be cau se th e rev is io n wou ld no t in crea se th e al lo wab le av era g e o pa ci ty le ve ls (o n ei th er a qu art erl y or da il y ba si s)
. Th is an al ys is wa s fo cu se d on op ac it y an d op er at io na l co nd it io ns reg ardi ng

op ac it y a s op po se d to a fo cu s on th e re la ti on sh ip be tw een op ac it

y a nd PM mas s emiss io ns . . . .

4376 Fed
. Reg
. 18 87 0, 18 87 4 (Ap r. 6, 20 11 ) (em ph a s e s a d d e d ). In sh ort, th e pr io r
an al y si s lo ok ed at nu m

be rs , no t at wha t th e n u mb e r s were supp os ed to in de x or si gn ify. The m is ta ke n pr io r an a l ys i s w a s in co ns is te nt wit h th e requi rem en ts of th e Act. Whe n i t an no un cedit s fi na l d eci si on to di sapp ro ve th e pr op os ed rev is io n, th e EPA refe rred ba ck to th e two id en ti fie d reas on s in supp ort of ap pr ov al th at were st at ed in it s No ti ce o f Oct ob er 2 , 20 09 . It s ai d: [B]ot h of th e fin di ng s th at pr ov i d e d t h e fo un da ti on fo r [EPA’s] in it ia l ap pr ov al of th e SIP rev is io n were no t st ro ng en ou gh to supp ort ap pr ov al un de r th e [Cl ean Air Act]. EPA co nc lu de s th at , as it was de sc rib ed in th e Subm it ta ls , th e co nc ep t of “ av erag e da il y op aci ty” is no t a us efu l to ol fo r ev al ua ti ng whe th er th e Subm it ta ls are li ke ly to m ai nt ai n cu rren t a ir qu al ity , pa rti cu la rly gi ve n th e la ck of ot he r li m it at io ns on op ac i ty ex ceed an ces in th e Subm it ta ls
. . . . 76 Fed . Reg . 18 87 0, 1 88 74 –7 5 (Ap r. 6, 2 01 1) (em ph as es ad de d)
. All of th es e st at em en ts de sc rib e erro rs of jud gm en t. The EPA do es no t us e th e sp eci fic wor ds “ erro r” or “ co rrec ti on .” Nor do es it id en ti fy a m athe m at ic al m is ta ke or li ng ui st ic sl ip
. And it do es no t pr ov id e an eas y de sc rip to r of th e erro r o r e xp res sl y in vo ke § 1 1 0 ( k ) ( 6 )
. Bu t, jus t as th e m ajor it y do es no t requi re th e EPA to in to ne

“ m ag ic wor ds ,” M a

jori ty Op. at 28 , th ere is no reas on why su ch om is si on s sh ou ld do om th e ag en cy ’s act io n.

44The m ajor it y st at es , “ Co ng res s ha s requi red th e EPA to art ic ul at e an ‘er ro r’ an d

pr ov id e ‘the ba si s’ of it s de te rm in a t i o n t h a t a n erro r oc cu rred .” Id

. at 23 (em

ph as is ad de d) . B utth atis no t ex act ly wh at th e Act sa y s. The Act sa y s th e EPA may rev is e it s pr io r ap pr ov al , di sapp ro va l, or pr om ul ga ti on whe ne ve r it de te rm in es th at it s act io n

“ was in erro r.” Sect io n 11 0 ( k ) ( 6 ) ( e mp h as is ad de d)
. Whe n erro r is sp ok en of as a pl ace, th e in te nt is of

te n to in cl ud e m is

jud gm en t rat he r th an m ere m is ta ke or om is si on . Bec au se th e EPA de sc rib ed th e erro rs of jud gm en t th at it so ug ht to co rrec t, §1 10 (k )(6 ) au th or iz ed it s reco ns id erat io n of it s ap pr ov al of Alab am a’s pr op os ed SIP
rev is io n. Tha t be in g so , th e ag en cy ha d no t “ co m pl et ed it s de ci si on m ak in g pr oc es s”
as to th e 20 08 ap pr ov al , Fra nkli n v. Mas sa ch us et ts , 50 5 U.S. 78 8, 79 7 (1 99 2) , an d th e
ers twh il e ap pr ov al be cam e “ in te rlo cu to ry in na tu re , ” Na ti on al Parks Co ns er va ti on Ass ’ n v. No rt on , 32 4 F.3 d 12 29 , 12 36 –3 7 (quo ti ng Ben ne tt v. Sp ea r , 52 0 U.S. 15 4, 17 7- 78 (1 99 7) ). Se e al

so W hi tma n v. Am. Tr uc ki ng Ass ’n s, In c. , 53 1 U.S. 45 7, 47 9 (2 00 1) . There fo re, I wo ul d d is m is s the 20 08 act io n fo r la ckof ju ris di ct io n. II. I wou ld al so up ho ld th e EPA’ s a ct io n in 20 11 di sapp ro vi ng th e pr op os ed
rev is io n. The pr op os al , aft er al l, wou ld ap pl y no t on ly to th e co a l -fi red ut il it ie s rep res en te d in th is act io n bu t al so to cem en t m an uf actur in g faci li ti es , as well as pu lp
an d pape r faci li ti es , en ti ti es whi ch m ig ht ge ne rat e di ffer en t ki nd s of pa rti cu la te m at te r
45in di ffer en t way s wit h di ffer en t co ns eque nc es . Se e 76 Fed
. Reg
. 18 87 3 & n.8 ; 74 Fed
.

Reg
. at 50 93 3. The EPA fo un d th at , whi le “ [o ]ne of th e pr im ary pu rp os es of op aci ty li m it s i s t o e ns ur e th atPM co nt ro l d ev ic es are o pe rat in g with in no rm al param et ers ,” th e p ro po se d rev is io n m ig ht res ul t in fai lu re to al ert an op erat or or th e St at e orEPA to an equi pm en t m al fu nc ti on th at is no t on ly cau si ng in crea se d op aci ty bu t fail in g to
co nt ro l types of PM em is si on s th at th e o p e r a t o r m is ta ke nl y be li ev es to be un de r
co nt ro l. 76 Fed
. Reg
. at 18 87 4. “ [A] ru le th at al lo ws no m or e th an on e 6- m in ut e
ex ceed an ce pe r ho ur an d op aci ty read in gs no gr eat er th an 40 pe rcen t cl earl y requi res
m or e effe ct iv e co nt ro l equi pm en t an d/ or op erat in g pr oc edur es th an . . . a ru le th at al lo ws lo ng er co ns ecu ti ve pe rio ds of ex em pt op aci ty ex cu rs io ns an d at hi gh er op aci ty le ve ls .” Id

. at 1 88 76
. Fu rth er, the EPA fou nd : [E]lem en ts th at are m is si ng fro m th e subm it te d m od el in g in cl ud e: da ta fro m al l th e so ur ce s an d so ur ce cat eg or ie s affe ct ed by th e Alab am a Subm it ta ls ; a de m on strat io n of th e rel at io ns hi p be twee n PM em is si on s

[ 1 ] an d op aci ty at a pa rti cu la r faci li ty an d so ur ce-c at eg ory ; co ns id erat io n of em is si on s fro m ot he r so ur ces in th e m od el ed area ; co nd en sabl e PM da ta ; ex pl an at io n fo r ba ck gr o u nd PM le ve ls us ed in th e ev al ua ti on ; an d an 1 0 2
. 5 ex pl an at i o n o f th e us e of PM as a su rro ga te fo r PM ; am on g ot he r co nc ern s.

For instance, while Alabama Power Company

submitt ed models, ce ment manufa cture rs 1 and pulp and pa

per f acilities, whose ope rations would also be a ffe cted by the proposed r evision, appar ently

did not. 74 Fed. Reg . at 50933; 76 Fe d. Reg . at 18873. 46Id

. at 18 87 5. The EPA co nc lu de d th at “ it is reas on ab ly fo res eeab le th at ap pr ov in g th e

Alab am a Subm it ta ls wou ld al lo w in crea se d m as s em is si on s, fo r at le as t so m e so ur ces
an d un de r at le as t so m e co nd it io ns , ov er th e PM em is si on le ve ls th at wou ld ha ve be en al lo wed ” un de r th e pr ev io us ru le
. Co ns eque nt ly, “ [S]ecti on 11 0( l) requi res di sapp ro va l
. . . ab se nt ad di ti on al li m it at io ns whi ch wou ld si gn ifi can tl y di m in is h th e li ke li ho odth atm as s emiss io ns in crea se s wi ll oc cu r.” Id

. at 1 88 76
. In it s 20 11 di sapp ro va l, in m y vi ew, th e EPA pe rm is si bl y co ns tru ed § 11 0( l) an d act ed ne it he r arb it rari ly no r cap ric io us ly whe n it de te rm in ed th at an in crea se in op aci ty

2
. 5 li m it s wil l “ in te rfer e” wit h th e PM st an da rd fo r at ta in m en t b y mak i n g it m or e di ffi cu lt fo r op erat or s to sp ot m al func ti on s an d by ex em pt in g mo r e em is si on s of p a rt i c u l a te m at te r. Alt ho ug h op aci ty is no t at ta in m en t an d is no t an ai r-qua li ty st an da rd , it is ap tl y de sc rib ed as an “ ap pl ic ab le requi rem en t co nc ern in g at ta in m en t.” The se de te rm in at i o n s are sq ua rel y wit hi n th e he art la nd of EPA ex pe rti se an d th e sp he re of jud ic ia l de fere nc e t o it un de r Ch evr on . Tha t be in g so , t he la w r equi res us to de fer to th e ag en cy de te rm in at io n in th is cas e whe re th e m ean in g of wor ds or ph ras es in a st atut e or reg ul at io n is ev id en t f r o m c o n te xt
. Se e Na t’l Ass ’n of Home Bui lder s vs Defe nder

s o f Wildli fe , 55 1 U.S. 6 44 , 66 6 (2 00 7)
. Of gr eat er co nc ern is wha t I pe rcei ve wil l be th e co ns eque nc e of th e m ajor it y ’s
reas on in g. The EPA’ s Not ic e of Octo be r 2, 20 09 , so li ci te d in pu t on whe th er it s 20 08
47ap pr ov al was , in fact , “ in erro r.” I be li ev e th at th e EPA co m pl ie d wit h § 11 0( k) (6 ) in
m ak in g th is reque st fo r in pu t be cau se th e st atut e requi res it to un de rta ke an y rev is io n of it s pr io r act io n “ in th e sa m e man n er as th e ap pr ov al ” bu t “ wit ho ut requi rin g an y fu rth er subm is si on fro m th e St at e.” Whe n it ga ve no ti ce of it s in te nt to reco ns id er, th e EPA sai d: Thi s ru le m ak in g is pa rt of EPA’ s reco ns id erat io n pr oc es s on ou r Octo be r 15 , 20 08 , fin al act io n ap pr ov in g Alab am a’s vi s i bl e em is si on s SIP rev is io ns . EPA is se ek in g publ ic co m m en t on pr op os al s to affi rm ou r pr io r act io n, whi ch ap pr ov ed th e SIP rev is io ns , or am en d an d di sapp ro ve th e rev is io ns to Alab am a SIP ru le 33 5- 3- 4- .01 (“ Vis ib le Em is si on s” ), subm it te d in it ia ll y in 20 03 an d si gn ifi can tl y rev is ed an d re-s ub m it te d on Aug us t 2 2, 2 00 8. 74 Fed . Reg . at 5 09 34
. The EPA co ul d ha ve si m

pl y de cree d in 20 09 th at it m ad e an erro r of jud gm en t in ap pr ov in g Alab am a’s pr op os ed rev is io n be cau se th e ev id en ce was no t su ffi ci en t to
en su re th at al lo w i n g o pa ci ty gr eat er th an 20 % fo r m or e ex te nd ed pe rio ds of ti m e
wou ld no t res ul t in em is si on of m or e pa rti cu la te m at te r. H a d i t d o n e s o, un de r th e
m ajor it ie s’ reas on in g we co ul d no t no w co nc lu de th at th e EPA’ s reco ns id erat io n was fa u l ty. It is no t pa rti cu la rly u nu su al fo r a ch an ge in ph il os op hy wi th in an ag en cy to
res ul t in a po li cy ab ou t-f

ace or to pe rcei ve erro r in earl ie r de ci si on s. Se e, e.g . , FCC
v. Fox Tel evisi on Stat io ns , In c. , 55 6 U.S. 50 2, 51 4– 15 (2 00 9) ; N a t ’ l Ass ’n of Home Bui lde r s v . EPA , 6 82 F.3 d 10 32 , 1 03 4– 39 (D.C. Ci r. 20 12 ); Ch amb er of Co mmerc e
48v. EPA , 64 2 F.3 d 19 2, 19 6– 66 ( D
. C
. C i r . 20 11 ); se e al so Si erra Cl ub v. Ga. Pow er Co

. , 44 3 F.3 d 13 46 , 13 53 –5 4 & n.1 1 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 06 ) (d es cri bi ng th e EPA’ s cl ari fic at io n in 20 01 of gu id an ce th at it pr ov id ed in 19 99 ). Wha t on e pe rs on cal ls “ a
reev al ua ti on of whi ch po li cy wou ld be be tt er in li gh t of th e fact s,” Home Bui lder s , 68 2 F.3 d at 10 38 , an ot he r pe rs on m ay reas on ab ly cal l a de te rm in at io n th at pr io r po li cy was

“ in erro r,” § 11 0( k) (6 ). Bu t, he re, in st ead of ta ki ng w h o l l y on it se lf th e de te rm in at io n th at an erro r
oc cu rred , EPA in vi te d th e in t eres te d pa rti es to pr ov id e in pu t on th e qu es ti on of whe th er it erre d. It s p e c i f i c a l ly as ke d fo r pl an t- or in du st ry -s pe ci fic da ta ab ou t th e rel at io ns hi p be twee n op aci ty an d real am ou nt s of parti cu la te emi s s i on s in to th e
am bi en t ai r. As a res ul t of th e EPA’ s wil li ng ne ss to li st en to th es e res po ns es an d
co ns id er ad di ti on al da ta fro m in te res te d pa rti es be fo re it m ad e a fin al de ci si on whe th er to ch an ge co ur se , th e m ajor it y co nc lu de s th at th e EPA ex ceed ed it s au th or ity . If th is
reas on in g is co rrec t, an d I do no t th in k it is , th e le ss on fo r th e EPA is —d ecl are erro rs fir st , an d in ve s t i g a t e whe th er th ey ex is t la te r. It ha s a “ ve rd ic t fir st , ev id en ce la te r” feel to it
. N o o n e a ffec te d by EPA’ s de ci si on in th is cas e cl ai m s th ey were un ab le to
un de rs ta nd why th e ag en cy was co nc ern ed ab ou t it s pr io r a c t i o n . O n th e co nt rary, bo th th e St at e an d th e ut il it y in du st rie s av oi d m ak in g an y su ch cl ai m , as se rti ng in st ead
49th at EPA fai le d to id en ti fy a “ te ch ni cal or cl eri cal erro r”—wor ds th at can no t be fo un d

in § 11 0( k) (6 )’s ph ras e “ in erro r.” No on e ha s ev en at te m pt ed to refu te th e EPA’ s
co nc ern ab o u t t he rel at io ns hi p be twee n op aci ty an d pa rti cu la te m atte r or th at
co ns id erat io n of th e rel at i o n s hi p is an is su e who ll y wit hi n th e m ai ns tre am of th e ag en cy ’s res po ns ib il it ie s. Inm y vi ew, th e p ro ces s fu nc ti on edjus t as it is supp os ed to
. The EPA di d n ot hi de th e ba ll , it di d no t do an yth in g th at was irr at io na l, arb it rary, or cap ric io us , it ga ve
a mple op po rtu ni ty to in te res te d gr oups to ex pl ai n th ei r own po si ti on s an d a l l a y t h e EPA’ s co nc ern s, an d, at le as t in m y op in io n, it cl earl y ex pl ai ne d it s own co nc ern s an d fin al de ci si on . I be li ev e th e reco rd fai ls to supp ort th e ap pe ll an t’s po si ti on an d, un de r ap pl ic ab le law, s up po rts th e EPA’s act io ns an d d eci si on . The m ajor it y ’s c on cl us io n th at th e EPA “ fai le d to art ic ul a t e a n e rr or ” refl ect s
a de te rm in at io n of wha t th e m ajor it y ex pe ct s th e art ic ul at io n of erro r to so un d li ke an d le ss to do wit h th e EPA’ s pr oc es s or it s fin di ng s ab ou t ai r q ua li ty an d pa rti cu la te
m at te r. Whe n th e qu es ti on is whe th er t h e EP A h a d au th or it y to reco ns id er un de r § 11 0( k ) ( 6 ) , we sh ou ld read wha t th e ag en cy sa id in th e Fed eral Reg is te r in th e pa rti cu la r cas e atha ndan d a skwhet he r th e ag en cy says th atitwas wro ng on a pr io r
oc cas i o n . D o i n g so rem ai ns th e be st way to av oi d as ki ng fo r “ m ag ic wor ds ” an d is
50th e be st way to de te rm in e whe th er th e ag en cy ’s act io ns —re ga rd le ss of it s br ie f or or al

arg um en t, se e Majo rit y Op. at 25 –2 6 & n.1 1—were co ns is te nt wit h th e la w e na ct ed by Con gr es s. Fo r th es e rea so ns , I res pe ct fu ll y di ss en t.

51