Source: https://bswenviroblog.com/2016/06/15/epa-proposes-to-strip-affirmative-defenses-for-emergencies/
Timestamp: 2019-12-05 23:07:01
Document Index: 116829780

Matched Legal Cases: ['§63', 'art 70', 'art 71', 'art 70', 'art 71', '§70', '§71', 'art 70']

EPA Proposes To Strip Affirmative Defenses For Emergencies – BSW Environmental Blog
EPA mainly relies on the D.C. Circuit’s decision in NRDC v. EPA, 749 F.3d 1055 (D.C. Cir. 2014). The case dealt with the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Portland cement facilities, promulgated under CAA Section 112, which contained an affirmative defense for violations of emissions limits caused by malfunctions which sources could assert in civil enforcement proceedings. The affirmative defense in the Portland cement rule (formerly at 40 CFR §63.1344) specifically applied to malfunctions and stated that the defense could be asserted “in an action to enforce the standards” as a defense “to a claim for civil penalties.” 78 Fed. Reg. 10039 (Feb. 12, 2013). The court held that the affirmative defense provision exceeded EPA’s statutory authority because only the courts have the authority under the CAA to decide whether to assess penalties for violations in civil suits.
EPA “interprets the decision to be relevant to all similar affirmative defense provisions, such as those found in part 70 and part 71, that may interfere with the authority of courts to assess penalties or to impose other remedies authorized in CAA section 113(b) in civil enforcement suits.” 81 FR at p. 38648. The proposed rule, then, “seeks to ensure that the EPA’s part 70 and part 71 regulations are consistent with the enforcement structure of the CAA in accordance with the reasoning of the NRDC v. EPA decision.” Id.
EPA envisions that the states will revise their operating programs to remove provisions similar to §70.6(g) and §71.6(g). EPA does not feel it is “appropriate for states to retain affirmative defense provisions within their approved part 70 programs.” 81 Fed. Reg. at p. 38652. The provisions should be removed and the program revisions submitted to EPA “within 12 months after the final rule’s effective date.” Id. Permits containing similar provisions should be revised “in the ordinary course of business as the state issues new permits or reviews and revises existing permits.” Id.
Posted on June 15, 2016 August 9, 2016 by BSWPosted in EPA, NESHAPSTagged Luminant Generation Co. LLC v. EPA, NRDC v. EPA, State Implementation Plans.
Previous Previous post: SCOTUS Levels the Playing Field
Next Next post: EPA To Consider Emission Reductions At Ports